EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Pote. If the account is in the hands of the EA it is under an enforcment power, any payment made will be a result of that power.

Do you think that the debtor can, after contact by the bailiff, go to the authority and say. I am going to pay this money now, but it is not the result of the bailiff action this is a voluntary payment so please do not charge any fees, and they will take any notice.
Sometimes I worry about you.

And do you think a debtor who genuinely had no idea that the bailiffs were involved paid the debt through an enforcement power?

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Really it is clear that all these FOIs show is that various authorities handle the apportionment of fees on direct payments in different ways, apart from the ones who have not updated there systems yet from the old regime.
The real point is that the legislation(yes i am afraid so ) is clear that the payments, less than the total amount outstanding are apportioned, there is clear legislative instruction, so how anyone can expect any other action to be taken, frankly is absurd.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Legislation deals only with proceeds of enforcement, not voluntary payments.

Pote. If the account is in the hands of the EA it is under an enforcment power, any payment made will be a result of that power.

Do you think that the debtor can, after contact by the bailiff, go to the authority and say. I am going to pay this money now, but it is not the result of the bailiff action this is a voluntary payment so please do not charge any fees, and they will take any notice.
Sometimes I worry about you.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

You have no idea of the way it works as there are no precedents to rely on. Given your recent track record of getting things wrong, you are the last person that I would listen to. You might think you're coming across as clever by continually claiming that legislation is easy to follow, but all you are doing is showing how stupid you really are. How many solicitors do you know that come out with such craas statements? Very few if any I would guess.

'Money taken in the exercise of power' could have a multitude of meanings, including that it should refer to money taken exclusively by the person exercising the power. It is reasonable to argue that money paid voluntary the creditor is not done so in the exercise of power.

Can't be bothered arguing with you any longer, whatever is said, you just disagree with for the sake of it. I too have a saying that I use:

If you climb to into the pig sty and wrestle with the pigs, the pigs love it and you get dirty.

Again I have no Idea what it is you are talking about, if you are accusing me of some great error I wish you would just say what it is and get it off your chest rather than making oblique references to it.
Money taken the exercise of a power is well defined within the legislation. the fact that you cannot see it is not really important in the scheme of things as everyone else can.
To others it is not an issue worth even discussing. Yes solicitors have commented on this, only because of the multitude of FOI have made , the results are on this thread, the reason more do not is because it is so bloody obvious, to be frank. This like so many other silly ideas,started off as a perceived loophole and you carried it on for so long that even now when it is absolutely plan that you are incorrect your pride will not let it go.

The qoute was Churchill i take it, or perhaps the bard, just gores to prove, anyone can have an off day.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

You cleaned that one up.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

You have no idea of the way it works as there are no precedents to rely on. Given your recent track record of getting things wrong, you are the last person that I would listen to. You might think you're coming across as clever by continually claiming that legislation is easy to follow, but all you are doing is showing how stupid you really are. How many solicitors do you know that come out with such craas statements? Very few if any I would guess.

'Money taken in the exercise of power' could have a multitude of meanings, including that it should refer to money taken exclusively by the person exercising the power. It is reasonable to argue that money paid voluntary the creditor is not done so in the exercise of power.

Can't be bothered arguing with you any longer, whatever is said, you just disagree with for the sake of it. I too have a saying that I use:

If you climb to into the pig sty and wrestle with the pigs, the pigs love it and you get dirty.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It is not a case of "challenging" it is just the way it works, pointless stamping your feet, putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it is in the legislature and all councils must abide by the legislation.

Legislation deals only with proceeds of enforcement, not voluntary payments.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

SLA's are only really relevant post April 2014. Prior to this, if the debt was paid directly before a levy on goods was made, the bailiff could not enforce for his fees.

Post April, it is clear from FOI's that some councils do not pass fees on if money is paid directly. This can only be good news for the debtor. Why anyone, other than a bailiff would be so determined for this to change is beyond me.

It is not a case of "challenging" it is just the way it works, pointless stamping your feet, putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it is in the legislature and all councils must abide by the legislation.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

SLA's are only really relevant post April 2014. Prior to this, if the debt was paid directly before a levy on goods was made, the bailiff could not enforce for his fees.

Post April, it is clear from FOI's that some councils do not pass fees on if money is paid directly. This can only be good news for the debtor. Why anyone, other than a bailiff would be so determined for this to change is beyond me.

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Like I said interesting but the allocation of fees is prescribed in the legislation it is not contractual.

But the agreements between councils and EAs limit the curcs that the baillifs will/can apply them. In a round about way, council do usually pay the EAs for some of the returned accounts, by minimum payment levels. I stumbled accross this when researching the court fees, and how they go through the accounts, some councils ( 2007 ) was using the exsess proffits made from court applications ( costs ), to pay for mistakes/corrections to EAs.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Like I said interesting but the allocation of fees is prescribed in the legislation it is not contractual.

Allocation of fees from proceeds of enforcement is prescribed. Direct payments are not.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It really would be relevant, a lot of what you discussing is detailed in these in some form ( some timers takes some interpretation ).

There is more involved than standard when the debts owed to the local authority. Localism legislation locked in responsibility for actions to CEO, 151 Officer and Monitoring officer. You have to account for that when your study actions of EAs acting for councils..

For instance, incorrect LEGAL application or administration of a LO, by an EA ( sorry LE ), the monitoring officer hold final responcability
Incorect finacial application around LOs or there application, is the responsibility of the 151 officer ( head of finance )

The SLA documents and agreements, allow both roles to delegate responsibility for collecting the debt ( thats always owed to and in control of teh LO ) to the EA . But final responcability lies with the LO

I will go get my popcorn

Like I said interesting but the allocation of fees is prescribed in the legislation it is not contractual.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Let's clarify some abbreviations:

EA= Enforcement Agent (formerly bailiff)

LA= Local Authority or council

LO= Liability Order

SLA= Service Level Agreement

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It really would be relevant, a lot of what you discussing is detailed in these in some form ( some timers takes some interpretation ).

There is more involved than standard when the debts owed to the local authority. Localism legislation locked in responsibility for actions to CEO, 151 Officer and Monitoring officer. You have to account for that when your study actions of EAs acting for councils..

For instance, incorrect LEGAL application or administration of a LO, by an EA ( sorry LE ), the monitoring officer hold final responcability
Incorect finacial application around LOs or there application, is the responsibility of the 151 officer ( head of finance )

The SLA documents and agreements, allow both roles to delegate responsibility for collecting the debt ( thats always owed to and in control of teh LO ) to the EA . But final responcability lies with the LO

I will go get my popcorn

[leclerc]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

ooo errrrr

filthy mare