EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

[Big Al]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Surely, and sorry if this causes more tiff's, it is good to find out which councils are following the regs and doing the pro rata fees/payments thing and which ones you can pay direct and they'll ditch the EA for you ? The primary aim is to get the debtor out of the clutches of the EA's and if some councils will take payment of the debt and call off the hounds without the debtor being made to pay the EA fees then make the most of it while we still can until the councils catch up... so long as help is given to individuals with a disclaimer that it SHOULD be pro rata as per regs, BUT this council do this as far as we know at the moment..... etc ??????????? Just a thought.

Also nb for anyone posting FOI responses, I always prefer a scan of the original letter or upload of the word doc or PDF if it was sent via email - or a link to the WhatdoTheyKnow postings rather than summarised posts on forums.

But the regs do not allow pro-rata splits from payments paid directly to the council - the pro-rata split only comes in when dealing with the proceeds of the sale of goods or money taken into control by the EA.

Surely the position is that the councils that are passing on funds are the ones not following the regulations?

[Guest]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Surely, and sorry if this causes more tiff's, it is good to find out which councils are following the regs and doing the pro rata fees/payments thing and which ones you can pay direct and they'll ditch the EA for you ? The primary aim is to get the debtor out of the clutches of the EA's and if some councils will take payment of the debt and call off the hounds without the debtor being made to pay the EA fees then make the most of it while we still can until the councils catch up... so long as help is given to individuals with a disclaimer that it SHOULD be pro rata as per regs, BUT this council do this as far as we know at the moment..... etc ??????????? Just a thought.

Also nb for anyone posting FOI responses, I always prefer a scan of the original letter or upload of the word doc or PDF if it was sent via email - or a link to the WhatdoTheyKnow postings rather than summarised posts on forums.

Hi Amethyst, there are no authorities which ditch the EA on payment never have been. I have posted the originals of these case on here before,

[EXC]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

And anyway this really shouldn't be on the OP's thread

I think we can be sure about that.

[Guest]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

But the regs do not allow pro-rata splits from payments paid directly to the council - the pro-rata split only comes in when dealing with the proceeds of the sale of goods or money taken into control by the EA.

Surely the position is that the councils that are passing on funds are the ones not following the regulations?

There you are, so now we will have to go through all this again post all the proof and have it ignored by this one poster and perhaps his mate dependent on what mood he is in.

[Amethyst]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

Well either way around, put ALL of the evidences together in one place - original source / evidenced for referral to each time this comes up ?? unless that is already done somewhere - may be better here as a middle ground ? I don't know really just trying to think how to help bring this discussion round to something more definitive.

[Guest]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

How about Big Al, and Andy58 - we have one thread of JUST the FOI responses - without chat - so people can easily find the council they are dealing with and how they are likley to handle it ?

Because the FOI s provided have to be interpreted correctly, none of the FOI shown indicate that fees are written off, they cannot be under the legislation. I you want to ring a few of Potes authorities and ask them the direct question i am sure you will see.

[Amethyst]

Re: Help with Newlyn please

I agree they don't say the fees are written off, I'm just saying put all the evidences in one place then it will be a lot clearer than bits here there and everywhere in different formats/contexts and slightly different worded questions.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I never said the fees are written off - that only happens when the warrant is returned. This is about what happens when the debtor pays all or some of the LO direct to the council. Nothing more.

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Ok
To illustrate what is meant by incorrect interpretation look at this FOI to Southampton MBC.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...1080R.pdf.html

Ref No: FOI/1415/1080


Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force, has
Southampton City Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly to
the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement agent?
If so, how much and in how many cases?
Response
Southampton City Council has not handed any monies, which a debtor has paid
directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement
agent.

This is widely quoted to mean that fees are not passed to the EA. In fact it says no such thing. it is the way the request is worded. What the response says is that no money in respect of the council tax is paid, it does not say anything about the amount which is due in fees.

A differently worded FOI also to Southampton prompted this more comprehensive response, which revealed the real position.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...utgoing-400434

1. You would correctly conclude from the extract of the SSP contract supplied to you that there are, to use your own words, no "agreements / contracts in place detailing that the Enforcement Agent would be entitled to fees, only in a sum equal to the amount collected over and above the outstanding debt, i.e. to protect the council's/taxpayer's interest".

2. Indeed, any such provision would not be enforceable in the light of regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Under that regulation, the enforcement agent has priority entitlement out of the proceeds they raise to cover the initial statutory "compliance fee". After that, there is pro rata allocation of the proceeds between (a) the outstanding debt and (b) the enforcement agents disbursements and the further two statutory fee entitlements (enforcement stage and sale or disposal stage).

3. Your FOI request seems to suggest that the Council can displace the impact of the 2014 Regulations in the contractual provisions of its appointment of bailiffs.

I am hoping that this information now sent in clarification suitably concludes this request.

Regards,

The directions given in the explanatory notes to regulation 13 in The Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 are explicit as to how any proceeds (I.e. payments) are to be divided where the amount received is less than the overall debt and fees due - as below.

'Any fees and expenses owed to an auctioneer, and the compliance stage fee, are prioritised, with the remaining proceeds being divided pro rata between payment of the debt and payment of the remaining fees and disbursements due to the enforcement agent.'

No distinction is made as to whether the payment is received by the enforcement agent or the creditor, so the direction should be applied in the same manner irrespective.

I am hoping that this additional information now suitably concludes your request.

Regards,

You can get any result you want if you ask the question the right way and interpret it in the way you want to hear.

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I do not post "assumptions", I post facts. The facts are, that despite claims to the contrary, councils do not pass fees on to bailiffs if just the debt total has been paid. We have seen this time and time again in posts on forums. This does not mean that they kill the enforcement power, because they don't (some do as big Al has discovered) One debtor recently paid his debt off directly to the council and shortly afterwards, paid the bailiff fees (£310). Some time later, he checked his account and he was £310 in credit, so the council hadn't even passed the fees on when they were paid. (this was Swindon, if that's not on your list Al)

What is telling here is that magistrates do appear to be passing fees on, which indicates an intention by the MOJ to allow for this facility. It may well be that this will indeed be clarified in April but what a shambles, when a few regulars on an internet forum have to point out flaws on behalf of the MOJ.

Andy's recent brainwave is that if a bailiff doesn't collect, then he doesn't get paid. I think this is fair enough but would point out that paying a creditor directly does not constitute a bailiff collecting. the term "proceeds" is also not the best terminology as proceeds are the result of an act or action. ie selling a debtors goods OR obtaining money from them. If the fees die when the debt is returned then the Government are merely creating an avoidable delay in money reaching councils if they start insisting that fees get passed on. I believe this would be counter productive.

With regards to the fees, we are now discovering that they are being implemented in a punitive manner. If a debtor fails to reach an agreement within the very short time scale allocated (around 7 days) then bailiff companies will simply hand deliver a letter and charge £235 for doing so. No effort or attempt is being made to collect the debt. This is wrong and clearly not in the spirit of Schedule 12 surely? Is it so bad to wish to avoid paying this punitive fee that appears to be just a perk for bailiff companies to rake up fees?

It's all very well stating that a debtor should communicate asap-This is stating the obvious. Most debtors come on here for advice once the punitive £235 fee has been added. £235 for hand delivering a letter is ridiculous and it is no wonder that people wish to challenge it.

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I havent had chance to read the full thread on here but i have lots of knowledge about the systems and contracts your talking about.

1. Each council negotiates separate contract with the EA, these include what happens if payments are made direct to council ( usualy, depends on curcs if the council pay the fees to the baillifs ) . These have varied from horrendous to now more reasonable

What is telling here is that magistrates do appear to be passing fees on, which indicates an intention by the MOJ to allow for this facility. It may well be that this will indeed be clarified in April but what a shambles, when a few regulars on an internet forum have to point out flaws on behalf of the MOJ.

majistrates are blind to the data/accounts in there judgements, they accept statements from the legal dept at the council. A council officer, with delegated legal responcability from the council monitoring officer ( legal ) , swares the pack of LOs to the court clerk, confirming that they are legaland correct in law. This meens that the majistrates do not have to look through all the cases before judgement, and that the majistratse can acsept as fact, the statments provided by the council.

It's all very well stating that a debtor should communicate asap-This is stating the obvious. Most debtors come on here for advice once the punitive £235 fee has been added. £235 for hand delivering a letter is ridiculous and it is no wonder that people wish to challenge it.

I agree with you fully on this, and think ( i may be wrong ) the council still hold the overall responcability for ensuring the charge is appropreate, regardless of what the regs say the EA CAN charge, the CEO,151 officer and Monitoring officer, still hold responcablilty for the appropreateness of applying this


2.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

What about this one. Apologies that this one is just a copy from an email, but you are free to check it via the reference number.

Dear *** ***


Ref Ipswich Borough Council FOI 201501060

Thank you for your email dated 26 January 2015 requesting information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You have requested the following information:

1) What happens at your Local Authority should a Council Tax account that has been passed to an Enforcement Agent receive a payment, either a full or part payment, direct from the debtor?

2) If you pass no money on to the Enforcement Agent, do you inform the agent of any payments made? Do you advise that they need to make their own arrangemnets to collect their fees?

3) If you pass all or any money onto the Enforcement Agent, please can you show the exact legislation that compels you to do so, directing me to the specific part?

4) If there is no such legislation, can you direct me to any policy, contract or service level agreement you have in place that compels you to pass on direct payments?

5) If a policy, contract or service level agreement is in place, what legislation or regulation makes that document legally binding on a defaulter when they have not agreed to its terms?

6) Should a defaulter make a direct payment to clear the arrears stated on the account and receive a receipt, does your Local Authority consider this proof that the original account has been paid?

7) From where does (or did) your Council Tax collection staff take their training or advice on the practice of taking direct payments in the circumstances outlined in this correspondence?

In response to your request,

1) The payment will be received and credited to the Council Tax account in the normal way.

2) Yes and Yes

3) N/a

4) N/a

5) N/a

6) Yes

7) None considered necessary as these payments are treated no differently to any other normal payment.

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Please contact me at the above address if you wish to re-use the information for commercial purposes so that the appropriate licence can be issued, in some instances a fee will be payable.

Information you receive continues to be protected by the copyright of the person, or organisation, from which the information originated. You must ensure that you gain their permission before reproducing any third party (non Ipswich Borough Council Copyright) information

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request an review of our decision, you should write to the Head of Corporate Services, Grafton House 15-17 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2DE.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner's Office cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Ipswich Borough Council. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

John Booty
Performance & Relationship Manager
Shared Revenues Partnership
Providing Revenues and Benefits Services to Babergh, Ipswich and Mid-Suffolk Councils
01473 432651

[Guest]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

lbizzy is still laboring under the idea that proceeds has something to do with whom the debt is paid to, this is not a recent brainwave but a long held error.

I have not had a "brainwave", this has always been the case, it is a fact acknowledged by anyone who understand how the legislation works
Proceeds as defined in the act and as illustrated on here many many times, is the name of sums produced by the action of an enforcement power, nothing more. You buy a can of beans from Tesco it remains a can of beans no matter what you do with it.
The definition of an enforcment power is contained in the act and means anything to do with enforcment, not just the sale of goods, or whatever other rubbish spouted.

I think the point is also made in the last FOI request posted on here.

The point which I was trying to make as regards this thread which seems to have been missed or ignored, for some reason. Is that all these FOI issued by various people are more or less useless because the do not ask the right questions. If they did they would all get the same answer, as it is they do anyway but sometimes the way they are worded is open to misinterpretation, a specialty of some on here.

The fact is that authorities do always pass on bailiff fees, as the response above says , not to do so would be breaking the law. It is not an option for them.
The mechanics of passing on the cash may differ from authority to authority, but that is all.
Trying to read something else into this is just another case of loophole hunting. Which in most case is an exercise in futility as here.

To be honest I am disappointing to see this forums seemingly supporting the practice.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

The point which I was trying to make as regards this thread which seems to have been missed or ignored, for some reason. Is that all these FOI issued by various people are more or less useless because the do not ask the right questions. If they did they would all get the same answer, as it is they do anyway but sometimes the way they are worded is open to misinterpretation, a specialty of some on here.

So what do you feel the right questions are?

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

The fact is that authorities do always pass on bailiff fees, as the response above says , not to do so would be breaking the law. It is not an option for them.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Here's another one:

Dear Mr

Re: Request for Information

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request which we received on Thursday 5^th February 2015.

I can confirm that Eastleigh Borough Council does hold the information requested.

The information you requested is as follows:

1. What happens at your Local Authority should a Council Tax account that has been passed
to an Enforcement Agent receive a payment, either a full or part payment, direct from the
debtor?

If a payment is received in relation to a debt that is with the Civil Enforcement Agents for collection they are informed of the change in balance.

2. If you pass no money on to the Enforcement Agent, do you inform the agent of any
payments made? Do you advise that they need to make their own arrangements to collect
their fees?

Civil Enforcement Agents are fully aware of the fees that they can charge Council Tax Payers which are set under legislation and are enforceable.

3. If you pass all or any money onto the Enforcement Agent, please can you show the exact
legislation that compels you to do so, directing me to the specific part?

As advised in question 1, the Civil Enforcements Agents are informed of any changes to balances of any cases in their possession.

4. If there is no such legislation, can you direct me to any policy, contract or service level
agreement you have in place that compels you to pass on direct payments?

We do not pass money over to the Civil Enforcement Agents where there is a balance still due to the Council.

5. If a policy, contract or service level agreement is in place, what legislation or regulation
makes that document legally binding on a defaulter when they have not agreed to its
terms?

Our procedures have been put in place with guidance from the ‘code of conduct and good practice guide for the national standard for enforcement agents’ issued by CIVEA (Civil Enforcement Association) in 2002.

6. Should a defaulter make a direct payment to clear the arrears stated on the account and
receive a receipt, does your Local Authority consider this proof that the original account has
been paid?

We issue receipt’s to Council Tax Payers at their request and this is considered proof of payment which they have made direct to the Council. Where payment is made direct to the Civil Enforcement Agents and there is dispute about payment then we would request a copy of any receipt issued by the Civil Enforcement Agents and take the matter up with them.

7. From where does (or did) your Council Tax collection staff take their training or advice on
the practice of taking direct payments in the circumstances outlined in this
correspondence?

Revenue Staff are in-house trained which includes taking payments from debtors even when the case is with the Civil Enforcement Agents.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further enquiries regarding your request.

If you wish to make a formal complaint with regards to your information request please contact:

Mr Richard Ward
Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Eastleigh House
Upper Market Street
Hampshire
SO50 9YN
Fax: 023 8068 8122
Email: Richard.ward@eastleigh.gov.uk

If you are unhappy with the way in which your complaint is dealt with then you may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The contact details for the Information Commissioner are:

The Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Nakatiwa Silunyange


Nakatiwa Silunyange
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal and Democratic Services
Eastleigh Borough Council | Eastleigh House | Upper Market Street | Eastleigh | SO50 9YN
023 8068 8285

eastleigh.gov.uk

@EastleighBC

/eastleighbc