EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Fees are due on the commencement of the enforcment power (fees regulations section 4)

Fees are in fact on the commencement of the enforcment power, it is not "tosh it is in the regulation above.

Procees are defined in section 50(2) of the act :

(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.

So again not "tosh

An enforcement power is defined in the TCE as http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

(2)

In this Schedule a power to use the procedure to recover a particular sum is called an “enforcement power”.

This is off topic and really is fundamental stuff Pote

Peter, peter.... no-one, absolutely no-one is disputing that these fees become due, or that the EA is entitled to charge them. That is not is dispute in any way. The argument is about how he collects them.

There are just 2 ways legislation states how he can collect his fees - from the proceeds of the sale of goods taken into control, or money that has been taken control of.

Only an EA has the power to exercise the power of enforcement, so money paid direct to the creditor has not been taken control of.

Think of it like a bounty hunter - if he catches the crook and hands him to the authorities, he can collect his bounty money. If the crook hands himself in, the bounty hunter collects nothing.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Just had another one arrive; Guildford - no fees are passed on.

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed to see a sentiment like this sanctioned on this forum.

I like to think that what we do here is help debtors when they have gotten into trouble for whatever reason. Personally I am not her to help people avoid or delay paying there legal obligations.

If the debtor can afford to pay his council tax he should pay it, if he can afford to enter into a repayment plan he should do so sith the EA or with the authority.
Council tax is not a one off bill, if you do not pay, the next one will soon become due and then you have two liability orders. But this is not really the point, really we all have to pay our bills.

Yet again you have displayed the difficulty that you have in understanding basic comments. Nobody is saying debtors should avoid their bills, only that by sitting it out, a debtor may avoid paying £310 for the privilege of relieving 2 letters from an EA.

The fee structure is such that it makes those who pay straight away subsidise the recovery from the more awkward debtors. I would not wish to do this, would you?

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Peter, peter.... no-one, absolutely no-one is disputing that these fees become due, or that the EA is entitled to charge them. That is not is dispute in any way. The argument is about how he collects them.

There are just 2 ways legislation states how he can collect his fees - from the proceeds of the sale of goods taken into control, or money that has been taken control of.

Only an EA has the power to exercise the power of enforcement, so money paid direct to the creditor has not been taken control of.

Think of it like a bounty hunter - if he catches the crook and hands him to the authorities, he can collect his bounty money. If the crook hands himself in, the bounty hunter collects nothing.

Pote money is not "taken control of" proceeds are paid, goods are taken control of.

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Yet again you have displayed the difficulty that you have in understanding basic comments. Nobody is saying debtors should avoid their bills, only that by sitting it out, a debtor may avoid paying £310 for the privilege of relieving 2 letters from an EA.

The fee structure is such that it makes those who pay straight away subsidise the recovery from the more awkward debtors. I would not wish to do this, would you?

Obviously you are right, to me sitting it out and not paying is the same as delaying payment.

When you say that paying straight away is silly because it subsides the "awkward debtors" i suppose this means that we should all delay paying our bills when being chased by bailiffs and debt collectors irrespective of whether we can pay them or not. This may make sense to you.

So it weem that you are happy for awkward debtors to be subsided by those who pay their bills ?

Anyway how long should we"sit it out for" exacttly.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Pote money is not "taken control of" proceeds are paid, goods are taken control of.

Peter, when the EA takes cash, he has taken control of those goods - the funds are in his control. He then apportions the funds as appropriate.

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Just had another one arrive; Guildford - no fees are passed on.

Pote there are 400 odd authorities in GB, for the last time the law says that fees must be passed on.

Look n last attempt to explain the situation to you.
Since April last year the EAs have been in charge of collecting sums due under a court order, via the TCE.
All sums due are due to them whilst they have the power to enforce the court order.

It matters not if you put the sums due(proceeds) in a rabbit hole in your bank or pay it to the authority, it is due to the EA, this is the law as prescribed by parliament and the TCE. As the legal department at Southampton county council put it:

As stated in the Council’s previous response a payment made after the
enforcement process has begun is governed by these Regulations. It
therefore does not matter who receives the payment. It amounts to
“proceeds” under the enforcement process. The Regulations are quite
explicit on what should happen when the payment is less than theoutstanding amount.

N(w I am not going to take the time to explain this to you again, as there only seems to be you no t able to understand this relatively simple process

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Peter, when the EA takes cash, he has taken control of those goods - the funds are in his control. He then apportions the funds as appropriate.

Pote taking control of goods is the method the EA uses to enforce the account and recover the proceeds. You really do have problems with comprehension don't you

Any way,class is over for the day children, please put your chairs on the table and safe journey home.

Im out

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It's strange that you keep bringing up Southampton's response. Perhaps I should post the pdf reply I got from them?

[Amethyst]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

That one?

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It matters not if you put the sums due(proceeds) in a rabbit hole in your bank or pay it to the authority, it is due to the EA, this is the law as prescribed by parliament and the TCE.

Once again, Peter, no-one is disputing that there are fees due to the EA. They are perfectly entitled to charge the sums as prescribed and the debtor is the one liable for them. No arguments there.

However, it is not for the Local Authority to be collecting these fees on behalf of the EA. They have no remit to pass money that is clearly for the amount on the LO to offset EA fees, none whatsoever.

Perhaps it's time to bring out R v Miskin again?

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

That one?

Nope, not that one.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

There's just so many

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

This one...

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

"I am concerned that at present your Local Authority is acting under the advice ofEnforcement Companies who are giving their own interpretation of the law toguarantee their revenue stream and independent interpretation has not been sought". ????

TBH, I can see why they did not refer this to there legal team, It would have been answered by one of the secretaries I should think.

The contents of this does nothing to support your argument. the position is made clear regarding this authority in the other unambiguous reply, obviously from the legal team there.