bailiff discussion ... meaning of proceeds?

[Guest]

Not according to you, no. You seem to think that a bailiff may "keep levying on goods"

To the rest of us though, the answer is yes. The thing being that the debt won't have gone away. By paying the creditor directly though, the debt will have been settled. All that will remain after that is for the EA to decide how much time and money he/she wants to waste on futile visits to a debtor who is intent on not paying.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Not according to you, no. You seem to think that a bailiff may "keep levying on goods"

To the rest of us though, the answer is yes. The thing being that the debt won't have gone away. By paying the creditor directly though, the debt will have been settled. All that will remain after that is for the EA to decide how much time and money he/she wants to waste on futile visits to a debtor who is intent on not paying.

Not according to the regulations, the debt an the fee are part and parcel of the proceeds the fees being the costs , the enforcement will not cease until all are paid sadly.

It is all perfectly clear.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Not according to the regulations, the debt an the fee are part and parcel of the proceeds the fees being the costs , the enforcement will not cease until all are paid sadly.

It is all perfectly clear.

Sorry by the rest of us you mean you and Jason I take it.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Its all so perfectly clear that you don't even seem able to comprehend the meaning of the word proceeds.

You might want to advise HMCTS how perfectly clear it is. They obviously don't share your opinion of distributing proceeds of money that wasn't acquired through an act of enforcement.

I'm not arguing whether enforcement will cease or not. You are getting yourself all confused & ahead of yourself again. The topic of discussion is what constitutes "proceeds"

In the "perfectly clear" regulations that you keep referring to, proceeds are acquired by an act of enforcement. Paying a creditor directly is not as a result of an act of enforcement.

In laymans terms, just for you, if Billy the big bad bailiff obtains some money from a debtor, he/his company are entiled to a percentage of the proceeds. The creditor will not even see this money as it stays in the bailiffs hands. If Donna the delicate debtor pays the creditor directly, there are no proceeds for Billy the big bad bailiff to get his grubby hands on and everyone lives happily ever after.

Comprehendo?

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Its all so perfectly clear that you don't even seem able to comprehend the meaning of the word proceeds.

You might want to advise HMCTS how perfectly clear it is. They obviously don't share your opinion of distributing proceeds of money that wasn't acquired through an act of enforcement.

I'm not arguing whether enforcement will cease or not. You are getting yourself all confused & ahead of yourself again. The topic of discussion is what constitutes "proceeds"

In the "perfectly clear" regulations that you keep referring to, proceeds are acquired by an act of enforcement. Paying a creditor directly is not as a result of an act of enforcement.

In laymans terms, just for you, if Billy the big bad bailiff obtains some money from a debtor, he/his company are entiled to a percentage of the proceeds. The creditor will not even see this money as it stays in the bailiffs hands. If Donna the delicate debtor pays the creditor directly, there are no proceeds for Billy the big bad bailiff to get his grubby hands on and everyone lives happily ever after.

Comprehendo?

Clear to anyone that can read really, the regulations state that the fees re due when the enforcement stage commences they then form part of the sum due and the debt will not be cleared until the full amount is paid. No matter how you try and twist the meaning it will always come out the same unfortunately.

If part of this is p[aid directly to the creditor it will just come of the sum due, and the bailiff will pursue the balance simple really

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Can anyone please try to explain to this stalker of mine that the topic of conversation is regarding proceeds. It is not about whether a bailiff will continue to enforce or not-It is about whether the creditor will pass on any monies paid directly, by-passing the EA.

I'm not sure how I can possibly put it any clearer.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons

I am not sure whether to join in with this discussion or not as it looks likely that I may be disagreeing. Plucking up courage......

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Can anyone please try to explain to this stalker of mine that the topic of conversation is regarding proceeds. It is not about whether a bailiff will continue to enforce or not-It is about whether the creditor will pass on any monies paid directly, by-passing the EA.

I'm not sure how I can possibly put it any clearer.

Don't flatter yourself, i was posting on the bailiff forum on here long before you appeared and ipn fact, on this very subject the last time it reared its head by an earlier ill informed member.

As for "proceeds " the term is explained within the regulations and it includes costs which in turn include the fees. Not going to pit them up again for you you will have to find them yourself.##Incidentally it matters not to me that you fail to understand this simple matter,, it does concern me however that you may mislead others.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

I am not sure whether to join in with this discussion or not as it looks likely that I may be disagreeing. Plucking up courage......

Please do-It will make a refreshing change to discuss this topic with someone who actually has an opinion of their own & an understanding of what the actual debate is.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Please do-It will make a refreshing change to discuss this topic with someone who actually has an opinion of their own & an understanding of what the actual debate is.

It would be more helpful if remarks like this were left out of the debate.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

It would actually be helpful if you were able to grasp a basic understanding of the debate rather than just attempt to pick a fight for the sake of it.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

It would actually be helpful if you were able to grasp a basic understanding of the debate rather than just attempt to pick a fight for the sake of it.

It would be helpful if you had a basic understanding.

[Amethyst]

Re: Marstons

Do we really have to have this on every damn bailiff thread? The primary aim is to help the OP, if you want to rattle sabres then go do it in lamppost and come back once you have reached a consensus of opinion as to the way forwards.... ie. If you disagree, politely ''shall we discuss this in lamppost as I fear we may disagree'....' sure thing, see you down there' ......... you get the idea.... never going to happen I know, but one can dream.

So, I'll be moving the pointless sniping posts to the lamppost and please don't make more on this thread.

[Amethyst]

Re: bailiff discussion ... meaning of proceeds?

Moved from 'Marstons' thread.

[MissFM]

Re: bailiff discussion ... meaning of proceeds?

Paying a creditor directly is not as a result of an act of enforcement.

Actually, if done as a result of the threat of bailiff action following referral by the creditor, then it is - isn't it? :confused2: