Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[Amethyst]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Anyway - what has Part 45 been substituted with ? ( I did look it up last time you guys had this discussion but have forgotten )

[Wombats]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Y'know, rather than trying to disprove that any suggestion that someone can lawfully avoid bailiff fees (lawfully avoid, not evade), something that clearly benefits hard-pressed debtors, you should be pleased that perhaps fees can be reduced or removed. What benefit do you gain from constructing arguments that benefit the bailiff.

I'm here for the debtor, showing them that fees can be reduced or removed.

See my post 52. You seem to be pretty much agreeing with the part of that which states they can be avoided as long as you keep your external belongings (car) out of the way until such time as the debt is returned to the council. It is when the debt is returned by the bailiffs that the fees are extinguished. As you know it is usually written into the contracts with the LA's that this is after 6 months, but may be longer. The bailiffs can return it earlier of course, should they choose to do so.

I fail to see where the argument is here really. We know what most councils are doing in practice; we know the practice is changing all the time at present, but is now settling down much more. We know fees can be avoided if people are willing to wait it out and hope the bailiffs don't find their car. Usually though, fees are payable, and the earlier people act, the lower the fees will be.

None of us want the bailiffs to have one penny more than they have to, but there's no escaping that often it is easier just to pay it with a £75 Compliance Stage fee and get it out of the way.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Anyway - what has Part 45 been substituted with ? ( I did look it up last time you guys had this discussion but have forgotten )

The reference to schedule 5 was the old fees regime eo this has been altered to the schedule 12 stuff, the mention of distress is know taking control of goods etc, the main point of course is that it says that the council has to accept payment but only if the payment is made in full.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

See my post 52. You seem to be pretty much agreeing with the part of that which states they can be avoided as long as you keep your external belongings (car) out of the way until such time as the debt is returned to the council. It is when the debt is returned by the bailiffs that the fees are extinguished. As you know it is usually written into the contracts with the LA's that this is after 6 months, but may be longer. The bailiffs can return it earlier of course, should they choose to do so.

I fail to see where the argument is here really. We know what most councils are doing in practice; we know the practice is changing all the time at present, but is now settling down much more. We know fees can be avoided if people are willing to wait it out and hope the bailiffs don't find their car. Usually though, fees are payable, and the earlier people act, the lower the fees will be.

None of us want the bailiffs to have one penny more than they have to, but there's no escaping that often it is easier just to pay it with a £75 Compliance Stage fee and get it out of the way.

That's always assuming that the bailiff companies actually send out the compliance stage letter, something they seem to have a reputation of 'neglecting'. Then the fees suddenly become £310, or even £420 if the bailiff also insists that he's called a van to remove items.

My FoI, plus my friend's one was simply showing that despite continued insistence that the fees must lawfully be passed on, this is not the case. However, as some councils are following this procedure, my other advice is, as long as it's safe to do so, to pay nothing until the warrant is returned thus ensuring the fees are removed.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

If it had been 'subsituated' as you say, it would have been repealed. It has not, therefore it is still active.

Y'know, rather than trying to disprove that any suggestion that someone can lawfully avoid bailiff fees (lawfully avoid, not evade), something that clearly benefits hard-pressed debtors, you should be pleased that perhaps fees can be reduced or removed. What benefit do you gain from constructing arguments that benefit the bailiff.

I'm here for the debtor, showing them that fees can be reduced or removed. I wonder when I'm going to get my 2 lovely emails from the site team thanking me?

But your not, if the debtor takes your advice after the notice of enforcement and and does mange to pay the authority just the sum under the order, they will incur an additional enforcement fee when the bailiff calls to collect the balance.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

The reference to schedule 5 was the old fees regime eo this has been altered to the schedule 12 stuff, the mention of distress is know taking control of goods etc, the main point of course is that it says that the council has to accept payment but only if the payment is made in full.

What? So you are now saying if you pay, say 10% of the debt they can refuse it?

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

But your not, if the debtor takes your advice after the notice of enforcement and and does mange to pay the authority just the sum under the order, they will incur an additional enforcement fee when the bailiff calls to collect the balance.

But I've not advised that.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

What? So you are now saying if you pay, say 10% of the debt they can refuse it?

I am not saying anything, this is what the legislation says.
Distress

45. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)

an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)

a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.
(3) If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.
The section states that if you want the enforcement action to cease you have to pay the FULL amount outstanding including any fees. The section is not about the council being liable to accept payment it is about the condition which must be fulfilled for the enforcement to cease.
It ids another case of legislation being mess read in order to find a loophole which does not exist.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I am not saying anything, this is what the legislation says.
Distress

This is what you said:

the main point of course is that it says that the council has to accept payment but only if the payment is made in full.

That implies that you are saying the council can refuse any payment a debtor made that is not the full amount.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I am not saying anything, this is what the legislation says.
Distress

45. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)

an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)

a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.
(3) If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.
The section states that if you want the enforcement action to cease you have to pay the FULL amount outstanding including any fees. The section is not about the council being liable to accept payment it is about the condition which must be fulfilled for the enforcement to cease.
It ids another case of legislation being mess read in order to find a loophole which does not exist.

Andy, this discussion, until you arrived, was about the assertions being made that money paid directly to the council must lawfully be split pro-rata with the bailiff, not about stopping enforcement. Please try to understand what is being said.

[Wombats]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

It's not implying anything unless you choose to put an inference onto it. It says what it says.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

It's not implying anything unless you choose to put an inference onto it. It says what it says.

What do you think is says Wombats? Do you feel it says that a council can refuse any payment from the debtor if it less than the amount owed?

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

If it had been 'subsituated' as you say, it would have been repealed. It has not, therefore it is still active.

Have a good look at the regulations for yourself and you will see that:

Regulation 45 has been 'substituted'

Regulation 45a has ben 'omitted'

Regulation 45a has been 'revoked'

Regulation 46 has been 'omitted'

PS: The above words are not mine....the words in brackets are those stated in the actual legislation.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Have a good look at the regulations for yourself and you will see that:

Regulation 45 has been 'substituted'

Regulation 45a has ben 'omitted'

Regulation 45a has been 'revoked'

Regulation 46 has been 'omitted'

PS: The above words are not mine....the words in brackets are those stated in the actual legislation.

For the sake of everyone's clarity, can you provide a link to this?

[Wombats]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

What do you think is says Wombats? Do you feel it says that a council can refuse any payment from the debtor if it less than the amount owed?

I'm happy with this:

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/.../Page-03.aspx#

However, the issue of avoiding fees is set out in my post 52 and my general outlook is in post 62.

What is most important to take into account when trying to help debtors in my opinion is being well grounded in the real world -ie- know what the majority of LA's are doing re enforcement, and know the potential effects of any support you give. There is no one size fits all as every case has to be assessed on its own merits. As I said earlier, often it's best just to pay the £75 Compliance Stage fee and be done with it. There are factors which can't be considered in a very general discussion such as vulnerability, the fairness of clamping or otherwise, etc....

Councils should accept monies proffered to them in answer to your question. How / if these are distributed is another issue altogether.