Discussion thread no. 78

[Amethyst]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Site Management team wish they could just bang your heads together

Guess I best go edit some posts, again.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

So it wasn't "repeatedly" and you just added that in for effect.

Yes, I am sure the site management team are aware and hopefully they will have seen that it is Milo who cannot resist posting to me.

Not at all you did it on another thread also..

Amethyst did I use the wrong term is there no management here ?

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

As stated previously, if you actually bothered to read the posts, you would see that it was Milo who was getting personal.

Anyway-I thought you were bleating about taking the thread off topic? You seem to be more guilty of doing so than anyone.

Lets leave it for the OP now eh?

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

You believe wrong

Any requirement to return a personal statement is only enforceable AFTER the LO has been issued.
Ww
Furthermore, as previously stated, the OP moved address. To spell it out, this means that she did not receive any paperwork prior to Rundles involvement.

Duties of debtors subject to liability order

36.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the debtor against whom it was made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the billing authority on whose application it was made.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), relevant information is such information as fulfils the following conditions—

(a)

it is in the debtor’s possession or control;

(b)

the billing authority requests him by notice given in writing to supply it; and

(c)

it falls within paragraph (3). ?

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

As stated previously, if you actually bothered to read the posts, you would see that it was Milo who was getting personal.

Anyway-I thought you were bleating about taking the thread off topic? You seem to be more guilty of doing so than anyone.

Lets leave it for the OP now eh?

Excellent idea,well done.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

This is what you said:

"I believe it is also required that the debtor returns a personal statement of means to the authority before a warrant is issued."

This is what the first 7 words of the regulation you quoted states:

"Where a liability order has been made......"

This means that the power under Regulation 36 applies AFTER the LO has been issued, as I said previously, NOT before the warrant is issued (which is before the LO is issued) as you stated.

It is the LO that gives the authority the power to require information-They do not have it until a LO has been issued.

In this case, the LO was issued prior to the OP having knowledge of it as all correspondence was sent to her last known address. The council have not considered an attachment, so must do so before committal proceedings are instigated.

[Amethyst]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Posts moved off the OP's thread - sort things out here. Don't be personal else I'll have to just ditch the thread.

[Milo]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

Thank you Ameythyst.

There is actually nothing more than needs to be said. The young lady is meeeting with the CAB in the morning and most CAB advisors are able to arrange for suitable cases to be referred to the Welfare Dept. If they are unable to do so, I have offered to provide assistance to her.

Each enforcement company have hundreds if not thousands of cases under the control of a Welfare Dept and contrary to some reports, most companies will look favourably at removing the enforcement fee and leaving just the Compliance Fee of £75 intact (which to my mind is very fair).

I have been very fortunate in visiting some Welfare Departments and honestly....I cannot fault them.

[lgfa92]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

It would simply be a waste of the courts time to bring an application for committal, only for the court to make exactly the same order (attachment) to be made that could have been made without the need to trouble the court.

It would but of course it doesn't mean they can't go to a committal application without having done so (and I've known it tried, eventually common sense took over and it was not proceeded with)

That being said, any magistrate in a committal case who didn't raise a failure on those points with the local authority as part of the hearing needs to be questioned as to why.

Craig

[lgfa92]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Most local authorities will try and issue a Regulation 36 notice but it's not a requirement- if it's been issued then it can be a fineable offence not to provide the information (if the local authority pursue it - mine never used to). The notice can only be issued under a Liability Order.

If a person doesn't provide the information demanded on a Regulation 36 notice and the local authority don't get the info from some other means then an AOE won't be a viable option. Usually the cases that end up looking for committal action are those who wouldn't bother returning the Regulation 36 notice.

Craig / lgfa92

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

Thank you Ameythyst.

There is actually nothing more than needs to be said. The young lady is meeeting with the CAB in the morning and most CAB advisors are able to arrange for suitable cases to be referred to the Welfare Dept. If they are unable to do so, I have offered to provide assistance to her.

Each enforcement company have hundreds if not thousands of cases under the control of a Welfare Dept and contrary to some reports, most companies will look favourably at removing the enforcement fee and leaving just the Compliance Fee of £75 intact (which to my mind is very fair).

I have been very fortunate in visiting some Welfare Departments and honestly....I cannot fault them.

In this particular case, the OP does not ask anyone to look favourably at her case. She simply asks for legislation to be adhered to and that she is afforded her statutory right of 7 clear days notice before enforcement is begun.

[lgfa92]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

From reading the LGFA it seems that the committal is the next step after bailiff action , which would seem to indicate AOEs should be the first. If this has been considered and passed over before the bailiffs were involved then it would have to be committal afterwards. This is certainly what the LGFA and also the magistrates court suggest.

I also wonder what percentage off hearings result in actual committal hearings end up incarcerated, I will be willing to bet it was quite low.

The action in the LGFA doesn't have to happen in order - action can jump back and forwards between different remedies. The only exception would a committal order (has to happen after an enforcement agent has been used first), and obviously a charging order or bankruptcy would be the final solution (unless they failed).

A local authority could (and I've seen similar) - issue a reg 36 notice, consider issuing an AOE, use an enforcement agent, issue another reg 36 notice, try and fail at an AOE, apply for committal.

Craig / lgfa92

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Most local authorities will try and issue a Regulation 36 notice but it's not a requirement- if it's been issued then it can be a fineable offence not to provide the information (if the local authority pursue it - mine never used to). The notice can only be issued under a Liability Order.

If a person doesn't provide the information demanded on a Regulation 36 notice and the local authority don't get the info from some other means then an AOE won't be a viable option. Usually the cases that end up looking for committal action are those who wouldn't bother returning the Regulation 36 notice.

Craig / lgfa92

Yes that was what I had in mind.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

It would but of course it doesn't mean they can't go to a committal application without having done so (and I've known it tried, eventually common sense took over and it was not proceeded with)

That being said, any magistrate in a committal case who didn't raise a failure on those points with the local authority as part of the hearing needs to be questioned as to why.

Craig

Actually, it does. The Newcastle Under Lyme case has confirmed so. Were a council to go ahead with a committal hearing before attempting an attachment, they would expose themselves to at least the costs of the court hearing and possibly the debtors legal costs if (s)he was represented.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that an LGO finding would be in conflict of anything that was written in the practice notes.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

This is what you said:

"I believe it is also required that the debtor returns a personal statement of means to the authority before a warrant is issued."

This is what the first 7 words of the regulation you quoted states:

"Where a liability order has been made......"

This means that the power under Regulation 36 applies AFTER the LO has been issued, as I said previously, NOT before the warrant is issued (which is before the LO is issued) as you stated.

It is the LO that gives the authority the power to require information-They do not have it until a LO has been issued.

In this case, the LO was issued prior to the OP having knowledge of it as all correspondence was sent to her last known address. The council have not considered an attachment, so must do so before committal proceedings are instigated.

I was I think correct, the authority decides which enforcement power to use after the liability order is issued and before any "warrant" is sent to the bailiff.
I should say that I say warrant for convenience it is really, an enforcement order.

The notice is issued by the authority in the intervening period. As our we!l informed friend says, it is also enforceable by the authority.