EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

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.

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?

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

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

[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.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

I dare say that fees will be able to be added to debts paid directly, after all, we've been stitched up on every other point. As it stands, I see no reason not to challenge this but would point out that I always advise to sit it out and NOT to pay the creditor directly.

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.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

No - the fees are due and can be charged. That is never in dispute. However, legislation states that fees are only recoverable from proceeds, no other way. All this tosh about 'paid under an enforcement power' is pointless.

What if the debtor paid the amount on the LO before even receiving a compliance stage letter, before he even knew the EA was involved? How would that be money paid under an enforcement power?

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

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

The answer is contained he regulations, fees are due when a EA is retained to collect a debt.

The situation now is different then it used to be before April . Then the authority was responsible for issuing distress and employed the bailiff on their behalf to collect, they then paid the bailiff thier fees.


Now the responsibility for the debt is passed to the EA, the procedure for collecting it is contained within the TCE 2007, the fees which become due at the commencement of each stage of enforcment are the bailiffs by right of the legislation, if these are paid to the authority they must pass them on(as prescribed by the regulation), it is not a matter of choice.

No - the fees are due and can be charged. That is never in dispute. However, legislation states that fees are only recoverable from proceeds, no other way. All this tosh about 'paid under an enforcement power' is pointless.

What if the debtor paid the amount on the LO before even receiving a compliance stage letter, before he even knew the EA was involved? How would that be money paid under an enforcement power?

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

We're not ignoring this reply but simply showing that other councils do not agree with this stance. It is you who is ignoring or dismissing the counter-argument.

Ya big Jessie (now that's name-calling).

The point is that this response states clearly what the situation is, there is no room for misinterpretation, it states the legal position.

Now this is relatively new legislation as said many authorities are not upto speed on it or are still using their old individual procedure, but this will change and within the next twelve months or so all authorities will have to abide by the common legislative framework, they have no choice.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

A FoI with one simple question is, in this case, not sufficient. My FoI's ask the pertinent question, then anticipate the 2 replies that can given. It then asks for clarification on those 2 replies as to why they happen.

If no fees are passed on, why is that? If fees are not passed on, why is that?

It is an attempt to get the answers in one go without needing to request further info, as happens with the 'What do they know' FoI's.

The answer is contained he regulations, fees are due when a EA is retained to collect a debt.

The situation now is different then it used to be before April . Then the authority was responsible for issuing distress and employed the bailiff on their behalf to collect, they then paid the bailiff thier fees.


Now the responsibility for the debt is passed to the EA, the procedure for collecting it is contained within the TCE 2007, the fees which become due at the commencement of each stage of enforcment are the bailiffs by right of the legislation, if these are paid to the authority they must pass them on(as prescribed by the regulation), it is not a matter of choice.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

This is the answer posted on this thread form Southampton council and of course roundly ignored

If a taxpayer makes payment direct to the local authority in response to a
bill in good time then there will be no enforcement procedure. However, if
the taxpayer does not pay in good time and the local authority obtains a
liability order and passes that to a bailiff for collection then the
enforcement process has begun. Once the enforcement procedure has begun
the enforcement agent is entitled to its fees in accordance with the
Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.



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 the
outstanding amount.

We're not ignoring this reply but simply showing that other councils do not agree with this stance. It is you who is ignoring or dismissing the counter-argument.

Ya big Jessie (now that's name-calling).

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

And your reply is the perfect example of immaturity.

You really must learn to stick to the subject and not engage in name calling, it does you credibility no good.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

A FoI with one simple question is, in this case, not sufficient. My FoI's ask the pertinent question, then anticipate the 2 replies that can given. It then asks for clarification on those 2 replies as to why they happen.

If no fees are passed on, why is that? If fees are not passed on, why is that?

It is an attempt to get the answers in one go without needing to request further info, as happens with the 'What do they know' FoI's.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

And the definition in this case is very vague. It would take a court to decide it, , not some loon on the Internet who thinks that he's Michael Mansfield.
As previously stated, by both you and myself, it is likely that this will be clarified at some point. If it is as clear as you are making out then why the need to?

I dare say that fees will be able to be added to debts paid directly, after all, we've been stitched up on every other point. As it stands, I see no reason not to challenge this but would point out that I always advise to sit it out and NOT to pay the creditor directly.

The definition of "proceeds" is perfectly clear and gone over many times on here and elsewhere most understand , certainly the authorities and bailiffs and the MOJ do .
I have no idea who it is you are seeking to abuse with your other comment, to be honest I loose track.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Again you demonstrate your inability to understand an argument and resort to abuse.

And your reply is the perfect example of immaturity.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Again, you are looking foolish.

Q1 asks what happens when a direct payment is received. Qs 2 & 3 then ask for an expansion on the 2 possible replies that would reveive: Q2 IF you don't pass money... Q3 IF you do pass money....

Qs 2 & 3 ask for explanations as to why they follow that particular procedure (if they do).

Again you demonstrate your inability to understand an argument and resort to abuse.