Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

There you go


Application of proceeds

50(1)Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.

(2)Proceeds are any of these—

(a)proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;

(b)money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to it.

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt 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).

(4)If the proceeds are less than the amount outstanding, which amounts in sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) must be paid, and how much of any amount, is to be determined in accordance with regulations.

(5)If the proceeds are more than the amount outstanding, the surplus must be paid to the debtor.

(6)If there is a co-owner of any of the goods, the enforcement agent must—

(a)first pay the co-owner a share of the proceeds of those goods proportionate to his interest;

(b)then deal with the rest of the proceeds under sub-paragraphs (1) to (5).

(7)Regulations may make provision for resolving disputes about what share is due under sub-paragraph (6)(a).

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

and for ref

62 referred to in 50 is

Costs

62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

(3)The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

(4)The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Andy, in legislation, the word 'may' does not mean 'disrection'. It means that, in this case, the bailiff is entitled in law to make the charge, that any charge he makes is lawful as prescribed. It does not mean 'may or may not' so your analogy is irrelevant.

.

BY the way you are a hundred percent correct here,(the first part anyway) it does mean that he is entitled to charge, just not that he must charge.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh, I know, but don't assume the casual viewer knows what you mean.

That section is quite clear - the amount is outstanding is (a) the debt, plus (b) recovery of costs from proceeds.

So that is 2 completely separate things - it has been made abundantly clear that the debt is separate from the fees, ie the fees are not part of the debt.

The fees become payable once the bailiff has proceeds, and he can take his fees from them. Proceeds are monies gained through an action. If you don't give the bailiff any money or goods to sell, he has performed no action.

The fees may well be outstanding, but the bailiff cannot use the warrant to get his fees only, he can only use the warrant to take control if the debt is outstanding.

Say what you want about the pro-rata split - it isn't happening; there has been much talk from a bailiff on the CAG that this is not happening.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh, I know, but don't assume the casual viewer knows what you mean
If you knew why mention it ?

The fees become payable once the bailiff has proceeds,
No as the act says the fees become payable at the commencement of the stage of the enforcement( have I said this before ?

The fees may well be outstanding, but the bailiff cannot use the warrant to get his fees only, he can only use the warrant to take control if the debt is outstanding.
Not with you here either , you said yourself that the bailiff is entitled by the legislation to collect his fees ?



0

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oops sorry missed one

Had a look on CAG this was all I could find if you can find a discussion on there on the subject please link, it would be interesting

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ta#post4567930

UB
It is my understanding that at present if a payment is made to the court (either on line to HMCS or by way of the ATM 'drop box') that the court are forwarding the payments to one of the 4 enforcement companies who have the contract to enforce court fines. In this way, the enforcement company are able to deduct their Compliance fee and to do the accounting exercise under the prorata basis for the balance. The current computer systems in the courts are unable to deal with the accounting.

In the next few months there will be significant changes in the magistrates courts regarding court fines and each of the four contracts will also be expiring. As I say...significant changes.

There will always some people who are intent on debt avoidance and will try to find 'loopholes' or angles to defeat payment (or worse still....to gets debtors to pay for wrong advice). However, despite boastful claims of hundreds of 'redress' cases being settled by enforcement companies or even the Ministry of Justice, the fact of the matter is that such 'redress' settlements are nowhere to be seen.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The fees become payable once the bailiff has proceeds,
No as the act says the fees become payable at the commencement of the stage of the enforcement( have I said this before ?

Ok, I'll try a clearer explanation - the fees can only be taken from proceeds. Yes, they become due at the commencement, but can only physically be paid from proceeds.

The fees may well be outstanding, but the bailiff cannot use the warrant to get his fees only, he can only use the warrant to take control if the debt is outstanding.
Not with you here either , you said yourself that the bailiff is entitled by the legislation to collect his fees ?

No I said he is entitled to charge or apply his fees. He is entitled to collect his fees from any proceeds he recovers. If the bailiff has not managed to recover any proceeds, he cannot recover any fees.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh, and the CAG forum - read all the posts by 'Talks Sense'. Tons of it.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Must learn how to do the thing with the little boxes, perhaps someone would show me how ?

Anyway, the bailiff does not need to be entitled d=to charge his fee under the warrant he can do so under the legislature.

The debt includes the fees(secion 62) until the total is paid it will be outstanding ?

The fees are include within the amount outstanding and are subject to be taken as proceeds see sec ion 50 above. ?

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh, and the CAG forum - read all the posts by 'Talks Sense'. Tons of it.

Yes I have sen those, could you link to the particular post you refer to., cant recall him broaching this particular subject.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No, the debt is just the debt, nothing more - the debt is what is owed to the creditor, not the bailiff. The legislation is clear in separating the debt and the amount outstanding (including fees).

The warrant is to enforce the debt - once enforced and the bailiff takes control or gains proceeds, he is entitled to recover his fees from those proceeds.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Incidentally that particular poster"talk sense" was dubbed "talks nonsense" by the resident HCEO rather unkindly over there.

Still don't recall sing him comment on the pro rta thing as you say though, are you sure there is "tons of it"

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No, the debt is just the debt, nothing more - the debt is what is owed to the creditor, not the bailiff. The legislation is clear in separating the debt and the amount outstanding (including fees).

The warrant is to enforce the debt - once enforced and the bailiff takes control or gains proceeds, he is entitled to recover his fees from those proceeds.

Going around in circles here you only have to read the legislation.
The the debt(as you call it) and the fees become the amount outstanding, see section 62 and both are taken form the proceeds, until the amount outstanding is repaid they are still due. Simple really

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ah, yes... HCEOs, the resident bailiff who only sees it from a typical bailiff's view. Seems to be a view you take, always arguing the case for the bailiff, always interpretating things that benefit only the bailiff.

If you expect me to trawl through 100+ posts from talks sense, then you obviously feel I have enough free time as yourself. Be careful you don't get a callus on your bum.

Accept that a bailiff can only get paid if he actually recovers anything, not for just knocking on your door.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Going around in circles here you only have to read the legislation.
The the debt(as you call it) and the fees become the amount outstanding, see section 62 and both are taken form the proceeds, until the amount outstanding is repaid they are still due. Simple really

Yes, they remain due, but if the debt has been paid, then a bailiif cannot use the warrant of enforcement to recover just his fees only.

All it means is that they remain legally due, and if you don't pay after you have paid the debt, he can take you to court to recover them. His fees will then become an enforceable debt in their own right.

Let me give an example - a debtor receives notice from the bailiff, just a letter, outlining the debt, saying they will call on the 20th. The letter arrives early on the 20th (not an unusual tactic), and the debtor pays the creditor online the debt that is owed including any court costs the creditor had incurred.

2 hours later, the bailiff knocks, and has now charged his £235 fee. Would you pay it?