EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

JK rarely gets involved in AOE's etc. He will focus on EA's.

You are correct. We must live in the real world. It appears that LA's are all adopting various methods. Just like you and I, they are interpreting things differently. When councils are prepared to waive bailiff fees in real life, why would we want to change their stance? If a council have stated in writing that bailiff fees will not be added to an AOE, why on earth would anyone want them to revise this?

I believe that currently, it would be fairly simple for a debtor to dig their heels in and refuse to pay bailiff fees. The council don't care once they have their funds and the bailiff would then have little option other than to write the debt off.

Where this scenario will be of concern in the future is when more and more greedy councils go in-house. The only motive for doing so will be to maximise profit. They will certainly look to add fees to AOE's when it is their own money involved. I just wonder whether there would be an opportunity to challenge the compliance fee if the debt is passed internally from one department to another?

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

There have been many cock ups. We all know this. The regulations have clearly been rushed through 12 months early as almost everyone has said. I believe there are some issues with magistrates courts fines and, in fact, John kruse has touched on this since April 6th.

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.

We can only interpret things as they are, and the fact we interpret things differently almost certainly means others (courts) will interpret things differently.

To me, the main thing here is to live in the real world and look what is actually happening with these issues out there, in real life. Where the law seems to contradict itself, look what happens to debtors who are in those situations, as it is what really happens to them that will best guide our ability to help them. If we are blind to what is happening to them, we are impotent to offer help.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Please keep to the topic. I have edited a couple of posts. Thank you.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes indeed the regulations in particular were rushed, for various reasons, and there were problems with the criminal procedure rules, or more so advertising the fact that they have not been law since April last. These are probably subjects for another thread(or two) as is the fact that if the total amount outstanding, including fees is paid there can be no further action under the new regime.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

There have been many cock ups. We all know this. The regulations have clearly been rushed through 12 months early as almost everyone has said. I believe there are some issues with magistrates courts fines and, in fact, John kruse has touched on this since April 6th.

Regarding the AOE's, you may be interested to know that pre-April, the courts had determined that if the balance of the LO was paid, prior to a levy being made, then the liable person would no longer qualify as "the debtor" (as per Reg45 CT Enforcement regs)

I don't believe that this is the case post April 6th but it is something to consider when trying to understand the current situation regarding AOE's.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

It seems to me that there has been a giant cock up wombats, first the council tax regs were amended so that fees could be added, then the amendment was removed when it was found that it was in contradiction with other regulations brought in this year.
The question now is whether the amendment to the statute in schedule 13 has remedied the mistake or if there are other measures which will have to be taken in the future.
One thing that I think is certain, there was no intention of fees being lost in this way, not by the authorities and especially not by the EAs.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I have read the various pieces of legislation over and over since yesterday afternoon, and I have to say that to me it seems fees can still be added to AOE's. I would love someone to prove me wrong, but I remain to be convinced.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Totally agree - the legislation still appears to me to say differently. The answer to your latest FOI request will prove interesting.

In the meantime, the current position of accepting fees cannot be charged would be excellent. Let's hope that is, indeed, the case.

Yes indeed, although I cannot see that this would be an intentional consequence of the legislation, and if not I cannot see it persisting.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The thread has now been split so that the important parts stay here and discussions can take place elsewhere on the forum.

Yes I would like to think the discussion on this issue could continue on here, and anything else can be shared on the other thread.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Totally agree - the legislation still appears to me to say differently. The answer to your latest FOI request will prove interesting.

In the meantime, the current position of accepting fees cannot be charged would be excellent. Let's hope that is, indeed, the case.

[Milo]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes it would seem so.

There are a couple of points I would like to clear up though, firstly, if LAs cannot currently add fees to AOEs, what about the 137 arrangements which have been made by the EA, surely they are not going to do the work involved here without some kind of payment, and secondly what about the amendment in schedule 13, is this completely ineffective ?

I am sure all this will become clear but it does seem a bit of a mess to me.

The thread has now been split so that the important parts stay here and discussions can take place elsewhere on the forum.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes it would seem so.

There are a couple of points I would like to clear up though, firstly, if LAs cannot currently add fees to AOEs, what about the 137 arrangements which have been made by the EA, surely they are not going to do the work involved here without some kind of payment, and secondly what about the amendment in schedule 13, is this completely ineffective ?

I am sure all this will become clear but it does seem a bit of a mess to me.

[Milo]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I received this on the FOI what do they now site in answer to my further query, it seems to amend(correct) their earlier answer somewhat.

Thank you for your further communication dated 18 December 2014 which the Council received by
email, I believe this further communication to be as follows:

Many thanks for your prompt response to my query, I have a few points which I would like
to raise in reference to your reply.

In point 1 you state that the regulations permit the contracting out of the issuance of
attachment of earnings orders, would it be possible for you to supply the number of orders
imitated by EAs this year (from April 2014 to date)

In point 2 you state that the ability to add fees to the order is contained within section 37 of
the of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement regulations 1992 (as amended), the
section you refer to (subsection b) was withdrawn when the TCE was in introduced In April
this year.( by the consequential amendment regulations) I am aware that there is some
amendment to the Local government finance act via section 107 of schedule 13 of the TCE,
however I would like some confirmation of the current regulatory situation regarding this.

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.

---

If you have any queries about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I have just read the response to your further request and the local authority are correct in what they are saying and there is nothing further to add.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

What I can say is that any information that I obtain on this matter is indeed from authoritative sources and from various different departments. As I stated a short while ago most AOE's are set up pretty late in the year and in fact, Liability Orders only started going through the courts in late August/September so all local authorities are very much behind their normal 'timetable'.

With the exception of some very knowledgeable LA's (of which there are very few) most have only recently started to wake up to the way in which the new regulations affects payments that are made by the debtor to the LA after a Liability Order has been obtained and passed to an EA.

Most councils were very confused by the 'pro rata' allocation. Not any longer though.

What has been happening to 'open their eyes' is the constant stream of Freedom of Information requests being made to local authorities seeking clarification as to whether they pass payments received from debtors to the enforcement agent. So far a quarter of all local authorities have received these requests and what is of very serious concern is that whenever yet another LA confirms that they do indeed pass payments to the enforcement agent.....the person making the request then accuses the LA of criminal behavior and asks for an 'internal review' !!!

As I have said.....a quarter of all local authorities have now received the same FOI requests.

It would seem that many LA's are also now receiving FOI enquiries about Attachment of Earnings and 'bailiff fees' and once more, the legal departments are now having to look very closely indeed at this subject as well.

Clearly these endless FOI requests are assisting the LA's and almost certainly...the enforcement companies.

Yes I think most of the "issues" were really none issues, IMO, the subject of proceeds, and the pro rata payments were quite clear from the regulations themselves quite early on. Whilst I am sure that many were seeking honest clarification, I am equally sure that many were hoping to find a loophole and being frustrated in finding none existed refused to let the matter drop.

However regarding the matter of fees and attachment of earnings, I think there is genuine confusion and not only from debtors it seems.
The contradictory responses from various LAs (and even the same LA) illustrate that.

In the end all most of us want is clarification of the situation, I do not see why there should be any ill feeling, A complete mystery to me.

[wales01man]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

AOEs must be one of the better ways to collect a debt such as CT it suits the council and means the Debtor pays the debt without the worry of some rogue Bailiff making life hell .
As a CT debt is pursued actively it stands to reason that any way to recover the debt without outside interference is best.

The rights or wrongs of using Bailiffs to obtain an AEO should be the debate IMO notb the use of AEOs