EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

[Big Al]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Of the replies I've had (22), 16 don't pass on fees, 5 do and 1 refused to say. Of those that do pass on fees, 1 wasn't able to tell why they do so.

EDIT - just checked my emails, it is now 17 that don't pass on fees. So of the one's who have replied so far, 77% don't pass on fees.

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Not necessarily Andy. Big Al has found 15 councils that do not extend the warrants life once the debt is returned.

.

Lbizzy I wrote

Lbizzy us correct in this.

The warrant will continue in force until the total amount outshining on the account is paid, this is defined in section 50(3)Schedule 12 of the regulations and includes fees.

Or the warrant is returned of course.

This is always the case and has nothing to do with extending warrants, the warrant dies when it is handed back to the authority, or when it is paid in full. ?


Incidentally I would have been more impressed with all the foi request if the odd one had disagreed with your and Potes analysis, seems to me that a grater number have been sent and only the ones which agree have been posted.

I have sent one request and received two varying replies form the same source, i post both the ones which agreed with me and the ones which did not, I have no axe to grind I merely only wish to find the truth in the mater.

As it stands many authorities are not sure themselves how to apply the new regs, but time will make everything clear.

However my stance on dealing with bailiffs will always be, that the best course of action is to address the debt early, avoid bailiffs altogether, if that is not possible then make sure the debt is addressed at the compliance stage and avoid the 235 which will certainly follow if you do not.

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Not necessarily Andy. Big Al has found 15 councils that do not extend the warrants life once the debt is returned.

My argument centres around the fact that the debtor doesn't know how an individual council will react to fees being paid directly. Once the council have their money, they won't care either way if the bailiffs continue to enforce. For this reason, I would urge debtors not to pay, if they wanted to try to avoid fees. A debtor is in a much stronger position if he holds all the money than he would be in if he paid the council what they were owed, minus the bailiff fees.

An interesting point regarding this is that magistrates courts appear to be handing any payments made directly, straight to the bailiffs so they can deduct their fees. It is worth noting that councils do not do this, although they don't cancel the warrant, thus giving the bailiffs a chance to continue to enforce. Another point worth mentioning is that bailiffs may force entry for court fines but not for council tax. Could this be the reason why one Government body appears to be handing funds over, but another one doesn't? Me being me, I believe it is because with the added cushion of forced entry, the fees are guaranteed one way or another whereas with council tax, there is still a possibility that the balance won't ever be collected.

I think you make many assumptions here , many of which are untrue.

However entirely off topic and not helping the OP in any way.

The advise as always should be to address the bailiff and negotiate a payment plan, as early as possible
in order to avoid additional fees.