EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

[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 ?

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

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

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

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?

[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 ?

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

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.

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.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Ahhhh

so am I right?

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

lol, so the amendment I was figuring out was repealed anyway? These people really want to make their minds up. Where was it repealed ?

This is it coming into force
Sch. 13 para. 105 coming into force by S.I. 2014/768 art. 2(1)(b)
Sch. 13 para. 106 coming into force by S.I. 2014/768 art. 2(1)(b)
Sch. 13 para. 107 coming into force by S.I. 2014/768 art. 2(1)(b)

Provisions coming into force on 6th April 2014

2.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (6), the following provisions of the 2007 Act, so far as not already in force, come into force on 6th April 2014—

(a)sections 62 to 89(1);

(b)Schedules 12 to 14(2) and Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 23.

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?

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Well I tried to figure it out and apply the amendments and remembered why I leave it to you guys to work out the intricacies.... xx

LGFA sch. 4
Para 5 (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 the authority concerned has sought to levy an amount by distress and sale of the debtor’s goods under provision included by virtue of paragraph 7 below and 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—

(i)such sum as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) of that paragraph, and

(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

(9)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.”


LGFA sch. 4
Para 7
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph the appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

(a)an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made; and

(b)a sum (of a prescribed amount or an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the charges connected with the distress.



TCEA
Para 50
(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs)

TCEA
Para 62
Costs

62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

(3)The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

(4)The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Okay, and if you have concluded, and Tameside have come to the same conclusion,( 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.) ie. that fees may not be added to the AOE, and fees have been added, is action going to be taken to have those fees removed from the AOEs ? That is probably the question I'd be asking them.

This whole issue is a mess, as said there was an error which created this. It was never intended for fees not to added to AOEs and the various amendments have been attempts to remedy the situation.