EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Not necessarily Andy. Big Al has found 15 councils that do not extend the warrants life once the debt is returned.

My argument centres around the fact that the debtor doesn't know how an individual council will react to fees being paid directly. Once the council have their money, they won't care either way if the bailiffs continue to enforce. For this reason, I would urge debtors not to pay, if they wanted to try to avoid fees. A debtor is in a much stronger position if he holds all the money than he would be in if he paid the council what they were owed, minus the bailiff fees.

An interesting point regarding this is that magistrates courts appear to be handing any payments made directly, straight to the bailiffs so they can deduct their fees. It is worth noting that councils do not do this, although they don't cancel the warrant, thus giving the bailiffs a chance to continue to enforce. Another point worth mentioning is that bailiffs may force entry for court fines but not for council tax. Could this be the reason why one Government body appears to be handing funds over, but another one doesn't? Me being me, I believe it is because with the added cushion of forced entry, the fees are guaranteed one way or another whereas with council tax, there is still a possibility that the balance won't ever be collected.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Thread closed. PM me please.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Yes it is not exactly a lifestyle choice, but you can still lead a productive life

[Amethyst]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

thanks despite our differences I do appreciate your values are beyond reproach.

On a lighter note I have been considering for some time starting a thread about life in dialysis,there are 5000plus of us now waiting for a donor, I have been on the list myself for 20years,it is not all doom and gloom, brought up to our kids and held down a full time job when I first had renal failure.
Wonder if anyone would be interessted

I would be. My Gt Aunty spent the last couple of years of her life attending hospital for dialysis. She did very well on it. I attended her funeral on Monday but she passed away from a Stroke, not Kidney failure, aged 97.

[EXC]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

It does indeed and he is no longer welcome on this site.

Personal abuse and attacks simply because of a differing opinion on a technical or legal matter is simply unacceptable.

I challenge anyone not to be disturbed by the level of unrestrained obsession demonstrated here and elsewhere over a single issue that apparently doesn't even directly effect any of the participants . If I had a relative or friend exhibiting this kind of behavior I'd be genuinely concerned for their welfare.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

thanks despite our differences I do appreciate your values are beyond reproach.

On a lighter note I have been considering for some time starting a thread about life in dialysis,there are 5000plus of us now waiting for a donor, I have been on the list myself for 20years,it is not all doom and gloom, brought up to our kids and held down a full time job when I first had renal failure.
Wonder if anyone would be interessted

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Hi Big all

Issue i am persuing through the proper legal channels.

1. What does the law expect in relation to the accuracy of the accounts presented to the court, pror applications
2. What does the law expect as minimum standards of operation of said accounting systems

Does it have any bearing on the issue of making direct payments regarding council tax? Genuinely interested to know. :okay:

yes

especially any liability orders gained before 9 months into the financial year

More than just questions, i have dissected the relevent accounts from NELC, and followed there movements through the accounting systems. over a 4 year period.

at nelc [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] found over 6000 LOs for under £ 100, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ranted_for_les that had costs imposed of approx £ 100, some of these were for 1p. I found a number of other accounting fudges, and have been able to do some statisical annalasys, that leads me to belive, between 22000 and 40000 accounts, we purposfully falsey presented at the court by NELC. ( 2005-2011 ).

Its not to do with the money they recive from the false ones, its how having an account on a Liability order, affects another figure ( BVPI indicators ) that they have to publish and are mesured on every 13 weeks ( sucsefull collection rate )

here are some fo the figures put in a way were you can see there transit accros there accounting systems ( not updated ) http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/council-tax

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Firstly, with the greatest respect, it is clear that you know nothing about the enforcement of council tax debt. You are in no position to comment on what should or shouldn't be advised.

:lalala:

mmmmm, interesting opinion, thankfully the audit commission's, Cipfa, judges ( not magistrates ) considered i did, and quashed 200k in costs ( real ). I had more than just freash are to fight over, i had substantial assets. the type of assits people WILL LOOSE, if they follow the wrong directions.

And, instead of just arguing it out on a forum, i have pushed these issue through the court at the proper level, i just wont publish until i have fully done it.

Thirdly, it is not for you, Andy, me or whoever to play God

I played god in a play at school once. and am sure i have a toga somewhere ( dont ask ), if i were to play god, it would be the old testament type god. Infact, to my childeren, am already like that. they mention boyfriends and problems... i rain down fire and brimstones on said BF.. ( am a tad unreasonable like that )

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Wine does it for me...



No, i suspect, and would agree, that its about not misguiding people, when people are in debt, and under pressure, there willing to believe and grasp onto any hope offered.

truth is, if someone owes a debt, and wants to challange the fees, the last think they should do is not pay it ( as suggested early ). .

Sometimes, theses threads on EAs, raise some interesting point/debates, the problems start when people get stuck in there corner and blindly give general advice, without fully understanding the process of the systems they are referring to.

Crazy Council-Please allow me to clarify a few points.

Firstly, with the greatest respect, it is clear that you know nothing about the enforcement of council tax debt. You are in no position to comment on what should or shouldn't be advised.

Secondly, almost everything posted on this thread is a repeat of an identical thread last year. I tried to point you in the right direction back then-I obviously wasted my time.
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...cussion-thread

Thirdly, it is not for you, Andy, me or whoever to play God by being selective on what options a debtor should be advised. Andy & his two sidekicks will want to get the debtor to pay and the only advice they give is to pay the debt at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, for many, this is not an option. Council tax debt is spiralling out of control amidst broken promises from the Government and rising costs across the board. A debtor can legally avoid paying bailiff fees if the debt gets returned to the council. This would represent a saving of £310 for the debtor. Why should the debtor not be told of this option? If the debtor knows all options available, (s)he can then make an informed decision on how to proceed. £310 could be the difference between a young child getting a Xmas present or not.

Andy has stated that my advice is wrong and that many people have come back asking for help because my advice failed. This is a blatant lie. Nobody has failed by sitting it out. The only way to fail is if the bailiff manages to seize goods/vehicle and provided the debtor is made aware of this, it should be quite easy to avoid this happening. I do this stuff away from the internet regularly-I know what I am doing and what I am talking about. I do not make this stuff up as I go along and would not ask anyone to do something that I wouldn't be prepared to do myself. If you want to do your homework, ask Outlaw about me, we've been in regular contact for a good 2 years-He will tell you what I'm about and if what I am saying is wrong.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Personally I don't believe anyone would read this thread and have the foggiest idea whether to pay the council direct or not. I was hoping you'd all put things together in a logical order rather than just squabble.

So far it's established that 22 councils do not pass on fees and 5 do. Andy58 cannot accept this and asserts the 22 are in the wrong. He insists that replies such as "we do not pass any money on to the enforcement agent" mean they do pass on money. He continues to state he has not seen one answer that changes his belief, and, tbh, it's quite childish.

So if you live in one of these councils, it seems safe to pay the council direct. However the catch-all advice would still remain that if you have nothing of value outside then wait for the EA to return the warrant then deal with the LA direct.

[Crazy council]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

God give me strength.

Wine does it for me...

It's obviously getting a little uncomfortable knowing he's losing the battle, so he wants to take his ball home.

No, i suspect, and would agree, that its about not misguiding people, when people are in debt, and under pressure, there willing to believe and grasp onto any hope offered.

truth is, if someone owes a debt, and wants to challange the fees, the last think they should do is not pay it ( as suggested early ). .

Sometimes, theses threads on EAs, raise some interesting point/debates, the problems start when people get stuck in there corner and blindly give general advice, without fully understanding the process of the systems they are referring to.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Personally I don't believe anyone would read this thread and have the foggiest idea whether to pay the council direct or not. I was hoping you'd all put things together in a logical order rather than just squabble.

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Really this thread needs closing IMO. If just to protect the innocent menmber who may think they can avoid fees and end up owing more.
The truth of all this was established beyond any doubt months ago,it is just being trailed up again by the same two people for the same self serving reason

It's obviously getting a little uncomfortable knowing he's losing the battle, so he wants to take his ball home.

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Just wrong. Once it has got to the stage of allowing the fees to be applied, Agents choice if he applies or not, there is no legal way i know ( am an idiot, dont reliy on me ), to avoid them.

Although, there are ways to challenge the appropreatness of them, within the council systems, as explained earlier.

God give me strength.

Ask Andy to explain it to you and please, , please try to understand the significance of the new regs. Everything you have posted on this thread is worthless post April 2014

[Big Al]

Re: EA fees and Councils and FOI's discussion

Just wrong. Once it has got to the stage of allowing the fees to be applied, Agents choice if he applies or not, there is no legal way i know ( am an idiot, dont reliy on me ), to avoid them.

Although, there are ways to challenge the appropreatness of them, within the council systems, as explained earlier.

If the EA returns the warrant as nulla bona, he has stopped his enforcement power and his fees are removed.

Now I don't doubt that some LA's have a SLA on compensating the EA depending on how the warrant was returned, and some have stated that if they (the LA) request the warrant's return they may pay the EA themselves, but if the EA returns it voluntarily then he has foregone his fees. That has been long established.