Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

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

The source is simply the Legislation.Gov site and the link is below:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/change...-number&page=3

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Ok, ok, we'll look at it from your view. Even if reg 45 has been completely replaced, there is still nothing that says the council must pass on any fees to the bailiff.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

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.

No this is what you are banging on about, the section you quoted is about the enforcement process being halted on full payment to the authority. I could care less how the council distributes its payments TBH.
As said section 45 2 and 3 remain the reference to the fees in the TCE is replaced as is some of the nomenclature but the rest remains as in original form', incidentally in this context the "authority also means the EA.

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Ok, ok, we'll look at it from your view. Even if reg 45 has been completely replaced, there is still nothing that says the council must pass on any fees to the bailiff.

Regulation 45 has been subsituted to state that enforcement must be in accordance with Schedule 12 of TCE.

The regulations supporting Schedule 12 specify that if a payment is made that is less than the 'amount due' (ie: the amount of the debt and bailiffs fees) then the Compliance fee of £75 is to be deducted first and the balance of the payment split on a pro rata basis.

Fees can be avoided by debtors avoiding answering the door and making sure that any cars belonging to the debtor (or jointly owned by another family member) or other items of value outside of the house are removed or hidden away. This is difficult at the best of times.

By far the best way to keep bailiff fees to a mimimum is simply to address the matter when the Notice of Enforcement is received. This will at least keep the fees to just £75. That is the responsible way to deal with the matter.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Regulation 45 has been subsituted to state that enforcement must be in accordance with Schedule 12 of TCE.

The regulations supporting Schedule 12 specify that if a payment is made that is less than the 'amount due' (ie: the amount of the debt and bailiffs fees) then the Compliance fee of £75 is to be deducted first and the balance of the payment split on a pro rata basis.

I assume you mean reg 13 which says, and I quote:

when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

Direct payments are not proceeds, but that is another argument that would easily run amok - my focus was on showing that there is no law that says the council are legally obliged to pass on fees.

My other advice was, if nothing outside is at risk, to let the bailiff play his game, wait for the warrant to be returned then deal with the council.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I assume you mean reg 13 which says, and I quote:

when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

Direct payments are not proceeds,

I must remind you of the accredited FOI request in post 35 which states

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.

Direct payments certainly are "proceeds" why on earth would they not be ?

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=andy58;496677]

I assume you mean reg 13 which says, and I quote:

when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

Direct payments are not proceeds, /QUOTE]

I must remind you of the accredited FOI request in post 35 which states

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.

Direct payments certainly are "proceeds" why on earth would they not be ?

This thread does not need to get carried into that argument, but that FoI reply is just an interpretation that obviously not all councils agree with.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=G-Man;496679]

This thread does not need to get carried into that argument, but that FoI reply is just an interpretation that obviously not all councils agree with.

No all authorities(small a and capital A) agree on this particular point.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=andy58;496681]

No all authorities(small a and capital A) agree on this particular point.

Slough and E Northants don't. I wonder how many others don't?

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=G-Man;496683]

Slough and E Northants don't. I wonder how many others don't?

I donty see anything in there response which would indicate they have an alternative interpretation of proceeds under the act.

a ssaid oprecedds are sums which are the result of an enforcement action, an enforcement action commences when the accounts passed to the EA it really is quite simple, everyone else seems to be able to understand this fully.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=andy58;496686]

I donty see anything in there response which would indicate they have an alternative interpretation of proceeds under the act.

a ssaid oprecedds are sums which are the result of an enforcement action, an enforcement action commences when the accounts passed to the EA it really is quite simple, everyone else seems to be able to understand this fully.

They have said that payments made direct are theirs and it's up to the bailiff to then chase the debtor for his fees.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=G-Man;496689]

They have said that payments made direct are theirs and it's up to the bailiff to then chase the debtor for his fees.

Her is what your FOI actually says

If, however, a payment is made directly to the Council without payment of the Enforcement Agent fees, the Council will notify the Enforcement Agent of the receipt of the direct payment and the revised balance with the Council. The Enforcement Agent will then arrange for payment of any remaining balance and their fees directly with the customer.

Nw if you were right and the payment of the order was just debited , then the lat part of the sentence would just read"arrangement to repay fees", but it does not it says the remainder of the balance and fees, it is a case of reading what is written. They do not say anything about apportionment of the proceeds, or indeed if they do or do not regard them as such.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Anyway been down this road before, night all

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[QUOTE=andy58;496692]

Her is what your FOI actually says

If, however, a payment is made directly to the Council without payment of the Enforcement Agent fees, the Council will notify the Enforcement Agent of the receipt of the direct payment and the revised balance with the Council. The Enforcement Agent will then arrange for payment of any remaining balance and their fees directly with the customer.

Nw if you were right and the payment of the order was just debited , then the lat part of the sentence would just read"arrangement to repay fees", but it does not it says the remainder of the balance and fees, it is a case of reading what is written. They do not say anything about apportionment of the proceeds, or indeed if they do or do not regard them as such.

And if it's a payment that has no balance of the original debt leaving just the fees.....?

The pertinent point is that the council will not pass on any fees.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Shall I post the E Northants reply?