Another bailiff discussion thread.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Still not getting it are you Andy?

Scenario: Debtor owes £300. Account sent to bailiff. Bailiff sends out a letter charging £75. Debtor pays £300 direct to creditor. Creditor doesn't pass on £75 to bailiff.

Who now owes the bailiff?

It is not an issue, as far as the debtor is concerned he still owes the £75, because it is part of the amount outstanding, how the creditor and bailiff apportion the proceeds is down to them, it makes no odds to what the debtor owes.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

To Amethyst:

We've covered it earlier on this thread (I think).

The critical wording is from Reg 17 of the fees regs:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/17/made
17. (1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply where the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable because the debtor has paid the amount outstanding or that amount has been recovered from proceeds or otherwise.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The thing is that the regulations have gone to great pains to simplify and remove the problems which were prevalent in the collection of warrants and the allocations of fees.
One of the problems was the repeat fees for numerous visits, so they said there will be stages and one fee will only be applicable in that particular stage.

In the first part of section 50 they say that the income generated by any stage will be deemed the proceeds., the latter part says that this pot of money will be used to pay the amount due, it goes on to define the amount due as containing the amount owed to the creditor and the fees.

This is why i say it is straight forward, it was designed to be, and to my mind should work very well.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

HI

Just for info.

All council have contracts with baillfs for collection of CT and other debts. Although years ago, some councils did pay baillifs fees for accounts that were returned, most now have terms within there contracts with the bailiffs that the bailli agrees not to enforce charge the debt on returned accounts.

And just my opinion.

Whatever the legislation says, the baillifs always have the right to not enforce the charge. Ie, i doubt any baillif firm currently would even attemtp to recover charges not paid by the debitor from the council ( dont bit the hand that feeds ), But, like i mentioned earlyer, within the FY, the appointed council officer, is still responcable for the porppreate administration of the collections system.

IE.
Fees Are part of the outstanding, 14 days after the LO has been granted ( not depended on baillifs further actions )
The fee part may be questionable in court separately if required, by separate action by the debtor
Within the FY, for CT, The 151 and Monitoring officer, hold the overall decision/responsibility to decide if the extra charges are appropriate to apply to the debtor's account.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Yes doubleslap, that is exactly what I am doing, I've spent my life trying to ensure consumers can be screwed over financially in as many ways as possible.

I'll take that as the sarcasm I believe was intended. However, Amethyst, why are you continuing to interpret the legislation only in a way that benefits the bailiff? Why do you dismiss any other argument?

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

31. Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.

When does the enforcement power cease to be exercisable?

Maybe that's an area worth looking at ??

Regulation 17 ???

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It is abundantly clear that these posters are wanting to assist the bailiff in any way possible to ensure that they can try to extract every last penny from those who can least afford it, profiteering out of misery. Disgusting.

Yes doubleslap, that is exactly what I am doing, I've spent my life trying to ensure consumers can be screwed over financially in as many ways as possible.

The fees are legally enforceable, but the bailiffs have the ability to waiver the fees if they wish/the circumstances warrant it. Communication with original creditors and bailiffs at as early a stage as possible is the key.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Still not getting it are you Andy?

Scenario: Debtor owes £300. Account sent to bailiff. Bailiff sends out a letter charging £75. Debtor pays £300 direct to creditor. Creditor doesn't pass on £75 to bailiff.

Who now owes the bailiff?

Perhaps the creditor is a FMOTL?

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The point is that they are due and are added to the amount payable

Still not getting it are you Andy?

Scenario: Debtor owes £300. Account sent to bailiff. Bailiff sends out a letter charging £75. Debtor pays £300 direct to creditor. Creditor doesn't pass on £75 to bailiff.

Who now owes the bailiff?

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The point I was trying to make is...........
If the fee/sum due are not paid before completion of that stage by the debtor, then how can he claim his fee/sum due.
Well he can claim them, but how the hell can he get them?:tinysmile_twink_t2::tinysmile_twink_t2:

The point is that they are due and are added to the amount payable

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

If 'debt' means the sum recoverable, then s50 (3) must read:


The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the sum recoverable which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).


The amounts are still separate.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No, they are the amount outstanding, but, as Andy has said, the fees are subject to being waived at random. The amount that is sanctioned by the court is the absolute meaning in the first instance of the amount recoverable.

I find it so disturbing that these few posters are doing their absolute utmost to interpret and re-interpret every little word that makes the interpretation to the benefit of the bailiff. Absolutely concerning and it betrays the poster's true loyalties.

It is abundantly clear that these posters are wanting to assist the bailiff in any way possible to ensure that they can try to extract every last penny from those who can least afford it, profiteering out of misery. Disgusting.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Not sure of your point here, are you concerned that the bailiff is not going to get his fee ? The fee and the sum due under the order are one of the same, once it has been passed for enforcement, it makes no difference to whom the sum is paid it will be apportioned among the creditor and the baiif as per their individual entitlement, or it will be refused and sent back with a note saying please pay the bailiff, or it will be sent in one piece to the bailiff for them to take their fee out and hold until the enforcement action is completed then sent back, the details have yet to be worked out but whatever way around it really makes no difference for the debtor.

The point I was trying to make is...........
If the fee/sum due are not paid before completion of that stage by the debtor, then how can he claim his fee/sum due.
Well he can claim them, but how the hell can he get them?:tinysmile_twink_t2::tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Therefore the debt and fees are separate however together make the amount recoverable.

IMO xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

“amount outstanding” has the meaning given by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12;

“proceeds” has the meaning given by paragraph 50(2) of Schedule 12;

“sum to be recovered” means the amount of the debt which remains unpaid, or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt.

(4)“Debt” means the sum recoverable.



CPR

Disputes about the amount of fees or disbursements recoverable under the Fees Regulations

84.16
(1) This rule applies where—

(a)there is a dispute about the amount of fees or disbursements, other than exceptional disbursements, recoverable under the Fees Regulations; and

(b)a party wishes the court to assess the amounts recoverable under regulation 16 of the Fees Regulations.

(2) A party may make an application to the court to assess the amounts.

(3) The application must be accompanied by—

(a) evidence of the amount of fees or disbursements in dispute;

(b) evidence that the fees or disbursements in dispute were not applicable, as the debt had been settled before the stage where it would have been necessary to incur those fees or expenses;

(c) evidence that, because the enforcement agent was instructed to use the TCG procedure in relation to the same debtor but in respect of more than one enforcement power where the enforcement powers could reasonably be exercised at the same time, regulation 11 of the Fees Regulations should have been applied;

(d) evidence that the fee due and any disbursements for the enforcement stage, first enforcement stage, or first and second enforcement stage, as appropriate, are not recoverable under regulation 12 of the Fees Regulations; or

(e) where the dispute concerns the amount of the percentage fee, calculated in accordance with regulation 7 of the Fees Regulations, evidence of the amount of the sum to be recovered.



Disputes about the amount of fees and disbursements recoverable under regulations
16. Upon application in accordance with rules of court, any dispute regarding the amount recoverable under these Regulations is to be determined by the court.