EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I thought Tameside were relying on repealed legislation, and when this was brought to their attention, they rectified their mistake and agreed fee's couldn't be added?

Yes-Sorry, that was my point, clearly not very well put.

When the rubbish spouted by Thameside was published on the WWW, it was picked up immediately and corrected.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The word "May" in legislation means that the party has the option to, so of course they can choose not to add fees if they wish.

The £75 thing probably needs another thread.

You are still failing to understand. The primary legislation (the Act) is stating what MAY be included in regulations. As it stands, there is no inclusion to add bailiff fees to AOE's. Councils have no choice in the matter-They can not add fees to an AOE, even if they wanted to. They do not "choose" not to add fees, there is no provision at present allowing them to. The primary legislation is NOT stating that councils may add fees to AOE's, it is stating that regulations may allow for the provision to add them.

To simplify, have a look at the TC&E Act (Sch12 procedure). Paragraph 7 covers the NOE. It states what regulations MUST state, regarding what is covered in the notice. Regulations 6,7 & 8 of the TCG Regs then go on to state exactly what is asked for in the primary legislation. Where the Act states that regulations "may" include specific items, this means that it is not compulsory to do so, only that it is permissible to. Whether intentionally or otherwise, there is no provision in legislation to add fees to AOE's. The word "may" does not have a different meaning in legislation than anywhere else in the English language.

This thread has been put to bed-Fees cannot be added to AOE's. Councils do have legal experts who advise on procedures. They haven't just asked the girl on the front desk to determine the ins & outs of the Schedule 12 procedure. Surely you accept that they can't all be wrong? The only one that was, has now done a 180 degree turn and accepted that fees cannot be added.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Thanking you xx

Here

Please see below my response to your further request:

Regulation 37 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 was
amended by Statutory Instrument 2014 number 600 as a consequence of the new taking control of
goods legislation.

As a result of this amendment Enforcement Agent charges can no longer be recovered under an
Attachment of Earnings Order. I can confirm that our existing Contractors are aware of this
regulation change.

Since 1 April 2014 Enforcement Agents have issued 137 Attachment of Earnings Orders on behalf
of the Council.

Please accept my apologies for the confusion caused by my earlier reply.

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Was any of this in writing from Tameside?

Post #40 on this thread

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Was any of this in writing from Tameside?

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Of all the councils contacted thus far, only one (Thameside) failed to understand the regulations. To date 100% of these councils are stating that fees may not be added.

I thought Tameside were relying on repealed legislation, and when this was brought to their attention, they rectified their mistake and agreed fee's couldn't be added?

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The word "May" in legislation means that the party has the option to, so of course they can choose not to add fees if they wish.

The £75 thing probably needs another thread.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The primary legislation "permits" in as much that it states that regulations MAY, not that regulations MUST. The fact that regulations do not (currently) is sufficient for the fees not to be added. Of all the councils contacted thus far, only one (Thameside) failed to understand the regulations. To date 100% of these councils are stating that fees may not be added.

As I have previously stated, it is of no concern currently. Where it will be of concern is when existing contracts expire and councils are free to convert to in house operations. The Dorset group of councils have recently gone down this road.

Do you have any thoughts on LA's charging a £75 compliance fee for passing an account from 1 department to another? This is surely not within the spirit of Schedule 12?

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Also it must be mentioned that if the error still exists which prevents fees being added it will not exist for long, personally I do not think there is any at least now, and the statute does permit the adding of these fees without any modification.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

If primary legislation permits something, there is no need for it to be permited in secondary legislation, and even if it was the statute would over ride it, secondary legislation has no power of its own, as I am sure you know.

As said this is your opinion, many of us think differently and it is yet to be resolved thoroughly. This can only done when further data is received.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The situation is that an AOE may not include bailiff fees. This has been resolved.

People are expressing opinions on why this is the case, NOT opinions on whether fees may be added.

Primary legislation states that regulations may include fees. The regulations do not currently allow for fees to be included. This is not opinion, it is fact. Why fees cannot be added is irrelevant and should not really be of any concern to us.

There is a possibility that amendments may be made in order to enable these fees to be included, but that is for the future and we should cross that bridge when we come to it.

Currently, I believe that a debtor has the right to be made aware of every option available to him/her. Amongst these options, is the choice of refusing bailiff s entry (which everyone agrees is the best policy) and ensuring that a vehicle cannot be seized. If the debt is ultimately returned to the council, then fees may not be added to any subsequent AOE. We should also ensure that councils are adhering to legislation as we've already discovered at least one council who got it wrong.

I believe that if a debtor seeks advice upon receipt of a NOE, it would be wise to point the debtor towards paying the extra £75, to avoid all the hassle. If a debtor has multiple debts (and consequently multiple compliance fees), it may well be worth ensuring the debts are returned but for one single case, I would always advise to pay and agree a payment plan at the earliest opportunity. We can then help and advise, to ensure that this plan is reasonable and not punitive.

For the debtor who has incurred the enforcement fee, there is little to lose by continuing to refuse entry provided any vehicle is safe. For the single mum, with no car who is prepared to not deal with the bailiff then it is a no-brainer to avoid the £310 in fees if legally possible.

I agree that this is tough on the bailiff companies but on the whole they are "quids in" with the new regs. The fees have taken into account that in a small number of cases, these fees will not be collected.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I see this issue seems to have been resolved -
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk........An-update

Not really, it wont be resolved until everyone understands the situation, at the moment all we have is opinion

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I see this issue seems to have been resolved -
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk........An-update

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

yes what we are dealing with is the situation which has been created due to the way the regulations have been implemented.
Really it is because the authorities are as confused as we are. And I am talking about the subject of the thread now not magistrates court fees.

However eventually all this will be sorted out, in my opinion(and several others) the reason that some LAs do not add these fees is due to a mistake made in drafting and implementation of the regulations.
This has been recognized and will be rectified, this will happen no matter what we do or say on here or elsewhere, it is nice to think that we can alter these events but in practice we cannot.

The interesting part to me is exactly how the error will be remedied, and if in fact there is an error and not just a misunderstanding of the way the act has been drefted. I am still unsure of the function of the amendments in schedule 13 for instance

[Milo]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

John Kruse has not only touched on it, he has written exensively about the issues. I have not yet read any of his writings about AOE's unfortunately, as he is known for nearly always getting things spot on.

Can I just make a point here so that there is no confusion. The 'issues' that John Kruse has about Magistrate Court fines is not ( I repeat NOT) about whether or not the new regulations (and with it the fee scale) apply to Magistrate court fines. He is very clear in that they do and that this has always been Parliament's intention.

JK's criticism of MOJ is exactly the same as mine and concerns an error to the Criminal Procedure Rules (not the Magistrate Courts Act 1980) and the severe delay in correcting it. MOJ are very much aware of my own complaints in this same matter as well.

In a perverse way, the complaint is the same as we are now experiencing with Attachment of Earnings.