EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

No, sorry for the confusion. I responding to the post above yours

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Ahhhh

so am I right?

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I think so (imo lol)

The one thing that I think we all agree on is that it is a shambles. Especially given how long they had to prepare it all.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Again, this is your opinion only. With regards the foi request, this is how the sequence of events went:

1. You posted the foi response and pointed all and sundry to the amendment to reg37 that Thameside had quoted.
2. You then followed this up by posting that you saw no reason why the fees could npt be applied universally and not just to Thameside residents.
3. I then posted you a link to the legislation that repealed the aforementioned amendment.
4. You then submitted the foi request that you quoted above.

I trust you do now accept that fees cannot be applied universally?

No not at all, my opinion is that the facility to apply fees exists in the LGFA and applies now.
However many authorities are not up to speed, as illustrated by the Tameside response.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

(1)

This is from the LGFA sched 4 , I have added the amendments from sched 13 TCE and highlighted the parts which should illustrate the answer to any questions raised so far.

Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order against a person (“the debtor”) and the debtor is an individual—

(a)

the authority concerned may make an order (an “attachment of earnings order”) to secure the payment of [F1the appropriate amount]F1 ;

(b)

such an order shall be expressed to be directed to a person who has the debtor in his employment, and shall operate as an instruction to such a person to make deductions from the debtor’s earnings and to pay the amounts deducted to the authority;

(c)

the authority may serve a copy of the order on a person who appears to the authority to have the debtor in his employment; and

(d)

a person who has the debtor in his employment shall comply with the order if a copy of it is served on him.

[F2(1A)

For the purposes of this paragraph the appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

(a)

any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made; and

(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

and”;

“(In this paragraph “the amount outstanding” has the meaning given by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007(ii)

if the authority has applied for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison under provision included by virtue of paragraph 8 below, a sum (of a prescribed amount or an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs of the application.]

This is the situation as it applies now amethyst, similar to your post

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Thanks andy however that's not particularly clear ( to me anyway)

Maybe someone can put the relevant amendments in place in the LGFA and post it here because as far as I can see now, we have a definitive view that costs can be added to the AOE's and Tameside council saying they can't ?

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

But Andy. On 17th December, you were basing your opinion directly on Thamesides response. You have since discovered that the response was wrong and are now basing your opinion on an entirely different reason. Who is to say that in a months time, your opinion will not have changed again?

Surely you must accept that it doesn't inspire confidence when opinions keep on changing?

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The next step of course is figuring why they have quoted the position pre April this year.

The reason is that the situation remains the same. although the consequential amendment regulation repeals subsection b of the amendments.

Because the same facility is added to the source legislation, the Local government and finance act.
Schedule 13 of the tce amends this ACT to give the same facility

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13

107(1)Schedule 4 (enforcement: England and Wales) is amended as follows.
(2)In paragraph 1(1) and (2) after “recovery” insert “ , otherwise than under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods), ”.
(3)In paragraph 5 (attachment of earnings etc)—
(a)in sub-paragraph (1A)(a) for “; and” substitute “ (unless paragraph (b) applies); ”;
(b)in sub-paragraph (1A)(b) for sub-paragraph (i) and the words before it substitute—
“(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—
(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and”;

This of course is now even more binding as it is legislation rather than a SI

If you look here you have that the amendment yo legislation was raised by me way back at the beginning

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I think it is a good thing that opinion's change as evidence is looked and and research undertaken, it's a sign of moving forward in an 'argument' surely. The legislation is so screwed it takes a billion pages of argument, discussion and digging, following a billion schedules, comencement orders, repeals, statutes and reguations, sending FOI's and the like to come to a vague consensus, how are we meant to have faith in the legislation being correctly applied by the councils and EA's.

So now everyone is in the same ballpark area - what is to be done about it ? What is the overall issue ? What should Tameside be doing ? Is there anything you can do to make the actual situation clearer to people across the board ? - you see what I mean.... now you are (vaguely) in agreement - use that to make things better - don't argue over who was right first etc.

Just my thoughts anyways xxxx

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Of course, another possibility may be that Parliment felt that in order to justify a fee of £310, the EA should collect the debt. There is hardly an incentive to do so if they can simply sit on it for several months, hand it back and then await the council to collect money fot THEM.

I have read arguments that bailiffs can add fees IF they set up the aoe. This of cojrse complicates things further as 2 sets of regs would be rdquired. 1 for if fhe council collect and 1 for if the bailiff collects.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Of course, another possibility may be that Parliment felt that in order to justify a fee of £310, the EA should collect the debt. There is hardly an incentive to do so if they can simply sit on it for several months, hand it back and then await the council to collect money fot THEM.

I think that this bit - '' the person making the distress has reported that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor on which to levy the amount—'' they should get rid of the ''for whatever reason'' and add in a requirement for some sort of declaration that they have made all reasonable attempts ? but then of course that would put more pressure on the debtor ?

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

There is an argument that under the sch12 procedure, that fees die if the debt is returned to the council.

Andy and others are stating that fees can only be applied if the bailiff carries out the collection under an aoe. This doesn't make any sense to me.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The Tameside response stated that 137 AOEs had been applied by the EA's.

Maybe find out how many debts were returned to the Council by EA's and the Council applied AOE's itself ? and what happened to the bailiff fees in those instances ( I'd ask the second question after you have response for the first question tho)

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

There is an argument that under the sch12 procedure, that fees die if the debt is returned to the council.

Andy and others are stating that fees can only be applied if the bailiff carries out the collection under an aoe. This doesn't make any sense to me.

Yes indeed it is true that fees do die under the regulations(once the enforcement power ends), however as stated (once or twice) the statue amendment overrides this in the case of AOEs

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I would appreciate sight of what regulation you are relying on that states fees die. I donot believe that reg 17 of the fees regs covers this unless I am missing something?