EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It is such an easy concept Pote the sums are due to the EA not the authority, if you pay the authority they will credit the EA, they may retain what they are owed under the calculation of fees due, but his is only a matter of accountancy procedure, the fees are still credited to the bailiff.

As said they have no option is in the legsation

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Better still lets see the full request please

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Jesus wept...

How many more do you want me post? You do realise, that others will read you saying 'I have not seen one reply that says they do not pass over fees', whilst also reading the FoI replies posted that say the exact opposite, and consider you a lunatic? Eg Broadland council saying:

We do not pass on payments to the Enforcement Contractor - they will collect fees direct from the debtor.

How much clearer does that need to be?

Copy and paste the full response and the question as put please.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I mean the common sense aspect of this argument is all you need to appreciate.
The authority agrees to get the EA to collect the arrears for them for a fee. Then because the debtor chooses to short circuit the system and pay the authority direct , you think the authority is justified in depriving the bailiff of there money, even without the legislation it makes no sense.

That is the nature of the job. Bit like an artist wouldn't expect to be paid for his work if no-one bought it.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

TBH I have not sen one of the replies that says they do not pass over fees in any case. Although I admit that this is how you are choosing ti interpret the less clear responses.

Jesus wept...

How many more do you want me post? You do realise, that others will read you saying 'I have not seen one reply that says they do not pass over fees', whilst also reading the FoI replies posted that say the exact opposite, and consider you a lunatic? Eg Broadland council saying:

We do not pass on payments to the Enforcement Contractor - they will collect fees direct from the debtor.

How much clearer does that need to be?

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

And has been said time and time again, why is it apparently awaiting clarification?

This is because he is beginning to realize the flaws in his argument and see the regulatory path that many of us have been illustrating on here and elsewhere for the last six months or so.

It really is quite c;ear Pote

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I mean the common sense aspect of this argument is all you need to appreciate.
The authority agrees to get the EA to collect the arrears for them for a fee. Then because the debtor chooses to short circuit the system and pay the authority direct , you think the authority is justified in depriving the bailiff of there money, even without the legislation it makes no sense.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Nope - 80% of the replies say they don't pass on fees. Why do you continue with this ludicrous stubbornness? Why are you so upset that so many LA's are saving the debtor's on fees?

Not stubbornness Pote, really do not know why I waste my time TBH, this is a facility of the TCE, it is not a matter of opinion, but I have told you all this before..

TBH I have not sen one of the replies that says they do not pass over fees in any case. Although I admit that this is how you are choosing ti interpret the less clear responses.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

The proceeds/money taken in the exercise of power is a hugely debateable argument and only a complete moron would claim it is clear and easy to understand.

And has been said time and time again, why is it apparently awaiting clarification?

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Nicely swerved.

I don't have problems with it-As I keep on telling you, I never advise to pay the creditor minus fees.

I do however think that there is scope for challenge on this point. Unlike you, I don't believe legislation is easy to read-That is why we have solicitors, barristers and judges to trawl through it with a fine comb. The proceeds/money taken in the exercise of power is a hugely debateable argument and only a complete moron would claim it is clear and easy to understand.

No swervve just trying to keep on topic.

Yes I find this legislation far easier to understand than much I have come across, it is however quite new so much of it is to be clarified through case law, this particular subject though needs no such clarification..

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

As far as this thread is concerned the apportionment of funds due to the ea is quite clearly identified within the act and the authorities the ea and the MOJ all seem to agree.

Nope - 80% of the replies say they don't pass on fees. Why do you continue with this ludicrous stubbornness? Why are you so upset that so many LA's are saving the debtor's on fees?

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Well I would rather discuss h french revolution, if you are interested in ancient history. It is a bit off topic though.

As far as this thread is concerned the apportionment of funds due to the ea is quite clearly identified within the act and the authorities the ea and the MOJ all seem to agree.
Just seems to be you two who have problems with it. In the scheme of things, that it is not going to influence the way things are working thank goodness. Because on the whole it is all working rather well.

Nicely swerved.

I don't have problems with it-As I keep on telling you, I never advise to pay the creditor minus fees.

I do however think that there is scope for challenge on this point. Unlike you, I don't believe legislation is easy to read-That is why we have solicitors, barristers and judges to trawl through it with a fine comb. The proceeds/money taken in the exercise of power is a hugely debateable argument and only a complete moron would claim it is clear and easy to understand.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I am always right-You should know this by now, after all, I've pointed you in the right direction more times than I care to recall since last April.

Whilst it may well upset you, you have to accept that a debtor is not lawfully obliged to deal with a bailiff. It is perfectly within a debtors right to await for the debt to be returned to the council.

As for how long this will take, that really depends on the council doesn't it? After all, there is nothing stopping them recalling the debt once made aware that the debtor will only deal directly with themselves.

Again no idea what it is you are talking b out.

Going back to basics, no the debtor does not have to deal with the bailiff, however the bailiff has the right to seize his goods, this is the way it works.

Incidentally no one has to "deal with" anyone, but there are consequences for not doing. Sometimes it is better to address your problems(like your debts) before you get stuffed for further costs.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

"authorities have to abide by the law"?

Priceless.

Come on then-Lets hear your opinion on why Head H was permitted to be charged by 99% of councils when no goods were removed. As the "informed" poster who finds legislation easy to read (who need barristers & solicitors when we have Andy58?), I look forward to your response.

Well I would rather discuss h french revolution, if you are interested in ancient history. It is a bit off topic though.

As far as this thread is concerned the apportionment of funds due to the ea is quite clearly identified within the act and the authorities the ea and the MOJ all seem to agree.
Just seems to be you two who have problems with it. In the scheme of things, that it is not going to influence the way things are working thank goodness. Because on the whole it is all working rather well.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

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.

I am always right-You should know this by now, after all, I've pointed you in the right direction more times than I care to recall since last April.

Whilst it may well upset you, you have to accept that a debtor is not lawfully obliged to deal with a bailiff. It is perfectly within a debtors right to await for the debt to be returned to the council.

As for how long this will take, that really depends on the council doesn't it? After all, there is nothing stopping them recalling the debt once made aware that the debtor will only deal directly with themselves.