EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I forwarded you one Wombats didn't I, so you had the original from the 'horse's mouth'.

I hardly ever do FOI's through Whatdotheyknow, as I think it does affect the responses you get as it is known immediately it will be public, and often I go back and forth a few times clarifying what it is I need. Most FOI's are published within a month or so of them being sent out on the relevant authorities websites so that's a useful back up. I can't imagine why anyone would want to 'doctor' a response on something that is so easily checkable ( I just sent the pasted FOI response to the authority and asked them to confirm it was genuine and they came back to me within a couple of days )

From: FreedomofInformation@slough.gov.uk
To: admin@legalbeagles.info
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:03:14 +0000
Subject: RE: FAO Carolyn Szadura FOI request response confirmation

Ms Coleman



Please find below the requested information, Regards, SBC FOI Officer.





Question

Dear sir/madam,



This is a Freedom of Information request regarding Council Tax arrears and Enforcement Agent Fees.



I have seen information that should a liability order be made against a debtor and the account has been passed to an Enforcement Agent; and should the debtor then pay the amount stated on the Liability Order only (not EA fees) direct to the council, whether in person or online, then your council will deduct from this payment any EA fees incurred to that point and pass them on to the EA, thus leaving the account still in arrears.



Please can you direct me to the relevant legislation that compels your council to do this, specifying the exact passage of legislation that you follow?



Yours sincerely,





Response

I refer to your emailed request under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Enforcement Agent Fees.

I can confirm that once an outstanding Council Tax charge (where a liability order has been issued by the Magistrates Court) has been sent to an Enforcement Agent, the Enforcement Agent will add their fees to the debt in accordance with the regulations that govern their actions and fees.

It is normal practice that cases that have been passed to the Enforcement Agent will be directed to them to make payment or to discuss payment of the outstanding balance.

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.

Occasionally, the Council has received direct payment from customers for the total of their outstanding Council Tax debt plus the fees of the Enforcement Agent. In these circumstances, the Council Tax account would be in credit to the value of the Enforcement Agent fees, and so the Council would send payment of the fees to the Enforcement Agent. This is a rare occurrence.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request you can ask for a review of your reply. To request a review please contact the Freedom of Information Officer at Slough Borough Council, St Martin’s Place, 51 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 3UF, telephone 01753 875070, email foi@slough.gov.uk

For further information you can also contact the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF,
Telephone: 0303 123 1113, or www.ico.gov.uk.

Regards

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Another reason why I think I am correct in this is because of partial payments to the EA.
Once the EA commences enforcement the liability order becomes the "Amount due"(including fees), if the debtor makes a partial payment, the first 75 will go to the bailiff the balance will be divided pro rata. So the amount due under the order will be an odd amount, it will certainly not be the sum due under the order, nor will it be that sum due under the order minus payments.

The lgfa says"amount outstanding" to say it would just be the amount on the order would work against the debtor in the above circumstances

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I forwarded you one Wombats didn't I, so you had the original from the 'horse's mouth'.

I hardly ever do FOI's through Whatdotheyknow, as I think it does affect the responses you get as it is known immediately it will be public, and often I go back and forth a few times clarifying what it is I need. Most FOI's are published within a month or so of them being sent out on the relevant authorities websites so that's a useful back up. I can't imagine why anyone would want to 'doctor' a response on something that is so easily checkable ( I just sent the pasted FOI response to the authority and asked them to confirm it was genuine and they came back to me within a couple of days )

Yes but there are some funny people out there, I have written for confirmation on a couple myself so I should be expecting a reply any time now hopefully.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I should add that should the responses be confirmed I will of course seek permission to include them on here as they are relevant to this debate.

[Wombats]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I forwarded you one Wombats didn't I, so you had the original from the 'horse's mouth'.

I hardly ever do FOI's through Whatdotheyknow, as I think it does affect the responses you get as it is known immediately it will be public, and often I go back and forth a few times clarifying what it is I need. Most FOI's are published within a month or so of them being sent out on the relevant authorities websites so that's a useful back up. I can't imagine why anyone would want to 'doctor' a response on something that is so easily checkable ( I just sent the pasted FOI response to the authority and asked them to confirm it was genuine and they came back to me within a couple of days )

Indeed you did. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing anyone of doctoring the response, I'm just saying until it has real providence it should not be considered. One thing for which I admire you is your refusal to accept something as fact until you have seen it personally with your own eyes. I think on forums/fora this is very wise, especially when you own it! mashappy:

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes and I personally would not post something on a public forum unless I had authenticated it for myself either

[Milo]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

As said the various authorities have been bombarded with FOI requests since the commencement of the act, many are on the "what do they know " site. Personally these are the only one I consider as evidence, unless the undoctored response is forwarded..
Incidentally I noticed one authority getting rather short tempered when an applicant , on failing to get the response he wanted, persisted in asking and re-asking the same question.

It is becoming so silly because nearly a quarter of all local authorities are receiving FOI requests mainly on two subjects. One whether Attachment of Earnings Order include bailiff fees and two (which is the main enquiry ) is to do with how local authorities deal with payments from debtors after a bailiff has visited (ie: whether or not the LA deduct the Compliance Fee and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis. What these requests are telling the councils and government agencies is that debtors are looking at ways to avoid paying a bailiff (dealing the the council as soon as a Liability Order is obtained will guarantee this).

Accordingly, if a debtor is employed the local authority opinion is that the simplest, most cost efficient and speedy way of getting the debt paid is normally by way of an Attachment of Earnings Order.

[Wombats]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

It is becoming so silly because nearly a quarter of all local authorities are receiving FOI requests mainly on two subjects. One whether Attachment of Earnings Order include bailiff fees and two (which is the main enquiry ) is to do with how local authorities deal with payments from debtors after a bailiff has visited (ie: whether or not the LA deduct the Compliance Fee and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis. What these requests are telling the councils and government agencies is that debtors are looking at ways to avoid paying a bailiff (dealing the the council as soon as a Liability Order is obtained will guarantee this).

Accordingly, if a debtor is employed the local authority opinion is that the simplest, most cost efficient and speedy way of getting the debt paid is normally by way of an Attachment of Earnings Order.

In theory yes, but in reality I'm not sure this happens. An AOE costs the council money. Using bailiffs passes the financial risk to the enforcement company, who can themselves issue an AOE should they wish to. Ultimately the bailiff company can return the debt to the council, the fees die and the council can still apply for an AOE if for some reason the EA has not already done so. It's a win win situation for the council as any financial risk is passed over to another company.

In practice therefore, councils tend to use bailiffs as a first line of enforcement when an AOE would often be more appropriate for the debtor and taxpayer. Am I missing something?

[wales01man]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

In the same way LOs are gained in court for pennies AOEs should be possible for a small fee to the Councils in the same way, these fees added to the debt instead of a Bailiff company .
A better way all round gets the Bailiffs out of the equation and the Council get paid .
If the debtor is on benefits AOB if not paid then Bailiffs.

We must move to a method of collection that sees third parties involved collecting a debt owed to a Council or the Government

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Interesting to see the relatively small number(i would have thought) of AOEs issue b y the contractors, I presume that fees would be included in these arrangements, however it seems (according to this) that accounts passed back to the council do not add these fees to the AOE if action-ed by the authority.

There is some further clarification which i would like and i have sent this , in order to fully understand the situation.

Dear Freedom Of Information Requests,
Many thanks again for you answer to my request.
I apologize for having to seek further clarification and ask for
your patience in the matter.

As stated i understand that fees cannot now be recovered under the
council tax administration amendment regulations.

My second point however refers to the introduction of the similar
feature to the source legislation (the local government fiance act)
which was also introduced via the tribunals courts and enforcement
act schedule 13 section 107, this seemingly re introduces the
ability for these fees to be added, would you confirm that this is
the case, or otherwise.

Also it would be the case that fees would be added if the agent set
up the attachment, could you confirm this also.

Yours sincerely,




we will see if they change their minds again or if there is some other reason for the amendment in the TCE.

[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

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[Guest]

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.