Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Hi St

You have to also account that the councils have there own internal regulations in relation to accounts administration. Part of the 151 officers regs.

here is CIPFA versiopn, then each council adjust to fit there organisational setup

http://www.cipfa.org/-/media/Files/P...LG_2010_WR.pdf

here is an example of a monitoring officers one

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/profile/monitoringofficer#1

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'm not really interested in each individual councils internal regulations, I'm only interested in legislation. The link that you posted appears to refer to legislation in any case.

As from April 6th this year, all enforcement action was unified. There are no added requirements placed on agents recovering CT. The statutory requirement is 7 clear days notice before a bailiff may visit. This doesn't mean I agree with this, the fact that councils are requiring at least 14 days, suggests that they accept there is an issue here.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'm not really interested in each individual councils internal regulations, I'm only interested in legislation. The link that you posted appears to refer to legislation in any case.

As from April 6th this year, all enforcement action was unified. There are no added requirements placed on agents recovering CT. The statutory requirement is 7 clear days notice before a bailiff may visit. This doesn't mean I agree with this, the fact that councils are requiring at least 14 days, suggests that they accept there is an issue here.

True but only the process after the issuance of the LO to the bailiff, as far as I know. The seven days requirement is the compliance stage which takes place after this. I was interested in the procedure prior to this, once the LO was issued and returned to the authority.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Now we're back onto that wonderful word "may" aren't we?

As soon as the LO is issued, a council "may" apply for an AOE (which would involve a request for information as per Reg36), or it "may" enforce under Schedule 12.

Anything else is entirely down to an individual councils discretion. Good practice would be (as I suspect you are thinking) to write, advising the debtor, after the LO has been obtained. Within this letter, there could be a request for information, as per reg36.

As it stands, the debtor is now potentially hit with a double whammy-The cost of a LO and the cost of the compliance fee.

One small saving grace in all of this that hasn't been picked up on, could help debtors who have moved address and are being pursued for tax from a previous property. Council tax regs permit notices to be deemed served at the debtors last known place of abode. The NOE must be sent to the debtors usual abode. No doubt Rossendales will ignore this but it is certainly something we should all be on the lookout for.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I don't believe I have dismissed any arguments as I really don't know what you are arguing about.

The fees are legally enforceable as set out, the bailiffs/creditors have discretion not to charge or enforce them, the key is to talk to creditors/bailiffs asap, and I really don't give a flying feck how/if the bailiff gets paid.

Just what is a Feck?
I've seen a horse fly,
I've seen a dragon fly,
I've even seen a house fly,
But I I think I've seen, just about everything,
If I see a Feck fly.......... xx

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Just what is a Feck?
I've seen a horse fly,
I've seen a dragon fly,
I've even seen a house fly,
But I I think I've seen, just about everything,
If I see a Feck fly.......... xx

[Johnboy007]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Thank you Miss FM.........

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

See 45A here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/295/made

As I have told you, this regulation has now been repealed and the debtor now has (officially) 7 clear days via the NOE. As I have also told you, councils are generally requesting that their agents allow a minimum of 14 days.

The only real impact is that debtors are now charged £75 for the NOE whereas the 14 day letter was not chargeable.

Do you have a link to the legislation repealing this facility(section) ?

I fins it better to show authority with statements like this, rather than just told you.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

See post #253

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

See post #253

there you are it wasn't difficult was it

General consequential, transitional and saving provision

3. (1) Subject to any specific amendments or revocations made by this Order—

(a)

any reference (however expressed) in relevant subordinate legislation that is or is deemed to be to the use of a power to distrain or to levy distress is to be read, so far as necessary for continuing its effect, as a reference to the use of a power to use the Schedule 12 procedure;

(b)

any reference (however expressed) in relevant subordinate legislation to—

(i)

a writ of fieri facias (other than a writ of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis);

(ii)

a warrant of execution; or

(iii)

a warrant of distress (other than one which confers a power exercisable only against specific goods),
is to be read, so far as necessary for continuing its effect, as a reference to a writ or warrant of control;

(c)

any form of writ or warrant which describes the writ or warrant as—

(i)

a writ of fieri facias (other than a writ of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis);

(ii)

a warrant of execution; or

(iii)

a warrant of distress (other than one which confers a power exercisable only against specific goods),
is to be read, so far as necessary for its validity, as describing the writ or warrant as a writ or warrant of control; and

(d)

any reference (however expressed) in any form or notice (whether or not prescribed by virtue of any enactment) or other document—

(i)

to a bailiff, is to be read as a reference to an enforcement agent; or

(ii)

to the use of a power to distrain or to levy distress, is to be read as a reference to the use of a power to use the Schedule 12 procedure,
so far as necessary for the validity of the form, notice or other document or any action pursuant to it.(2) Where, by virtue of section 66 of the 2007 Act, Part 3 of the 2007 Act does not affect the continuing exercise of a power in relation to goods, the amendments and revocations made by this Order do not apply for the purposes of the continuing exercise of that power in relation to those goods.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Are you on a wind up?

You claim that legislation is "simple to understand" and then need to be led by the hand through Reg 36 of the CTA&E, you fail to understand the significance of the judges comments in the Quinlan case, you continually mis-read and mis understand other peoples posts, sometimes missing them completely and finally, when pointed in the right direction, with bright shining lights, making it fool proof for you not to arrive at the relevant piece of legislation, you still manage to get it wrong. For good measure, you then proudly claim "it wasn't difficult was it"?

Clearly for you, it was difficult. This really is the last time I help you and after this you really are on your own:

The beginning of post #253 states: FOR CT IT IS PART1 3(D)

So if we go to Part 1. 3, we see the title of the section is:

Amendment of Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

3(d)then states:

(d) omit regulations 45A (Information preliminary to distress) and 46 (Appeals in connection with distress);

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No what i said was the the new regulations are easy to understand, which they are.

I also said that i did not know a lot about the council procedures which I didn't.
I merely thought that instead of the belligerent attitude presented in response to CC it would have been helpful to show the authority. Which you now have(better late than never) many thanks for that , although I see the belligerence remains.

As for a judges comments in a case, I am sure you know(or maybe you don't) that judges comments or even case law does not ever ride statute, even it were relevant to this matter(which it is not).

Incidentally it was the transitory provisions i was interested in which was the section I copied

[Milo]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Until an hour ago I had no idea that this thread existed (or for that matter...this part of the forum either). I would like to make a few points if I may to clarify certain points discussed in this thread.

Point one:

I have spoken with ST about a dozen times and have provided him with many documents of interest regarding the new regulations. In fact, on 1st July I provided him with a copy of the TCE Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014 and the relevant section which confirms that regulations 45a AND 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement)Regulations 1992 had been revoked on 6th April. I am pleased that he has provided details of this serious revocation for all to see on this thread. I wrote an article for CCR Public Sector on this very subject last month. I will see whether a copy can be posted on LB. I also sent a copy to ST.

This particular revocation is one that barely anyone had noticed (including many local authorities) in the 'run up' to the new regulations. My personal opinion is that revoking regulation 45a is a huge mistake and I am not persuaded either that it is legal and I am in correspondence with various government agencies and supporting evidence has been submitted.

ST...Regulation 45a has NOT been replaced by a '7 day' Compliance stage letter. The correct position is that the requirement for a local authority to send a '14 day' letter has been revoked. That's it. When the debt is passed to the enforcement company they will send a Notice of Enforcement (in the same way as they must do with all other debt types).

Point 2

Sadly I have not had any contact with ST for the last few weeks. My opinion differs from his on some issues regarding the new regulations and that is fine by me. It is not something that I wish to argue about. The application of 'proceeds' is one subject that we do not seem to agree upon and possibly the 'pro rata' split is another. I have no hesitation in saying that he is extremely knowledgeable. In my last email to him I stated that I do know 'andy 58' and have done so for a long time. I also stated to him the following:

"It is fair to say that he (Andy 58) knows an awful lot more that I will ever know about the regulations (both past and present)". I stand by every word.

Point 3:

ST....in this thread you have mentioned a 'CIVEA' notice board on a number of occasions. You do know that no such 'notice board' exists. I have told you this on numerous occasions

[Milo]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Sorry, I realise that there is another matter that I would like to clarify.

I genuinely believed last year that ST had been a FMoTL supporter. I no longer think that this is the case. We have disagreed about NOROIRA's (I even hate typing the silly word!!). My personal opinion is that they are a complete and utter waste of time (and money) and in particular, with the new regulations. That is whey they are universally ignored.

Prior to 6th April the notices appear to have worked on two cases that ST had been involved in.

Once again, he has his views but I would NOT recommend that anyone should purchase such a notice from the internet...and even more so.....should steer well away from the 'post 6th April version' !!

I am pleased to have read the following comment from ST on another forum 2 weeks ago:

"To now hear that you are putting up a NOROIRA notice on your property is demonstrating even more your level of misunderstanding. JasonDWB knows perfectly well that under the new regulations a bailiff can no longer be committing trespass.

Take the notice away and start waking up to the fact that you have been mislead"

I am totally in agreement with ST's comment. Excellent post of his.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I would now like to make a few point, to clarify the points that Milo has clarified:

1. Milo has indeed provided me with several useful documents. I would hope that she hasn't forgotten that I have also sent several useful documents her way as well.

2. The email of 1st July had nothing to do with council tax or the repealing of 45A & 46. It was in connection with Magistrates court fines and the section provided was Part 1 (1)

3. The first time the Consequential & Savings Provisional Order was mentioned on the net was by Jason. This was in direct response to an email that I had sent him regarding whether CT recovery was included under the new regime. Jason was mocked regarding his statements that CT was not included but until this order was made public (a few weeks before) he was actually making a very valid point. CAG & LB were certainly left behind in the announcement of the C&SP Order.

4. If 45A has not been "replaced" by the 7 day NOE then why was it repealed? The NOE gives the debtor 7 clear days to agree to make a payment arrangement. The situation now is that instead of 14 days notice, the debtor is given 7. If that is not replacing 1 time frame with another then what is it?

5. From what I have read on the net and heard in conversations with her, I would say that Milo is being extremely modest in stating that Andy has a better knowledge than her of regulations (past & present). Some of the rubbish Andy has spouted on this thread beggars belief & has actually made me laugh.

6. It is healthy to disagree on the internet-That is the idea of message boards. The truth is none of us really know for sure how certain issues will pan out concerning the Schedule 12 procedure. Andy just seems to have arrogantly attempted to pick a cyber spat with me for no other reason than my previous disagreements with Milo. I actually enjoy being called a FMOTL because I know that is all the other person has left and that I am winning the argument.

7. The notices worked for me on 3 occasions. Once with Equita & twice with B&S. I am not convinced a notice will work post April 6th. Ironically, only last night, I considered using another notice for a debtor who has received compliance & enforcement stages for a PCN. Unfortunately for the EA, the address on the warrant does not match the address he is enforcing at & the debtor has not received a NTO, charge certificate etc. This invalidates the warrant and the bailiff would not be acting in the execution of his duty by returning under that warrant. A notice would be a good shout in this instance & you don't need to be a FMOTL to try everything you can to legally stop goods or vehicles being removed