EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

The response to the following question has just been posted on the what do they know website

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...FOI%203463.pdf

Do your appointed enforcement agencies (bailiffs) have the authority to initiate attachment
of earning procedures on accounts passed to them for enforcement, or do they have to
pass them back to the authority in order for them to take this alternative enforcement
method.

If the EA do have this facility is it true that the amount of the order will include the sum
remaining on the order plus any fees due to them when the AOE is applied (the amount
outstanding)

If the bailiff passes the account back to the authority because the enforcement was
unsuccessful and subsequently the authority issues an attachment of earnings, will the sum
applied to the AOE include the bailiff fees, or will it just be for the amount due on the
original order

The response is

1. The Local Authorities (contracting out of billing, collection and Enforcement Functions
Order) enables Authorities to authorise a contractor to exercise certain functions in
connection with the collection and enforcement of Council Tax. Included among these
functions are those of making an attachment of earnings order with a view to securing
payment of Council Tax and serving it on a person who appears to have a debtor in his
employment.

2. Regulation 37 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement regulations 1992 (as
amended) permits the recovery of the balance outstanding under any liability order plus
accrued bailiff charges under schedule 5 and any accrued costs of committal proceedings.
The Enforcement Agents therefore have the statutory powers to recover fees accrued
through an attachment of earnings order

3. If Enforcement Agent fees remain outstanding then the Authority may recover any fees due
under the legislation detailed at point 2.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Well that seems to have got us nowhere, anyone fancy helping http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...tes-court-fine here ?

instead

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

OK this is my last post on the subject, after that we'll just have to agree to disagree. "May" is normally used in the context of giving permission ie:

"a bailiff may enforce anywhere in England or Wales"

Where the term has been abused in the past is by bailiff companies who state that the word "may" gives them an option ie in the case of PCN's ,when the debtor moves address:

"the council may approach the TEC if it wants a new warrant"

Bailiff companies argue that it is an option and not mandatory which we all know was not the authors intention.

In the case of the LGF Act, the quoted paragraph is not giving the authority the option of making an order. It is providing for regulations to include for the option. To put is simply, it says:

REGULATIONS may provide........

This is the bit above what you are referring to. It over rides it, which is irrelevant in any case, if the regulations haven't provided for it:

"the authority concerned may make an order"

Sorry but as you have illustrated here in every case the word may does in fact give the party the option.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Well that seems to have got us nowhere, anyone fancy helping http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...tes-court-fine here ?

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

he
I really don't get that. What is 'something else'? What loopholes? The FoI's have even quoted the legislation that says fees are not added. It is clear - the 1992 act didn't allow them, the 2004 amendments changed that, the 2014 amendments changed it again. The present situation has been confirmed that fees cannot be added - no loopholes, just the position.

You seem not to read what anyone else writes, this was an error, there was always an intention to add fees to AOEs.

If there was a failure for authorities to add fees it would not be an intention of the legislation or parliament that it was there, therefore a loophole.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I thought i would address this because it is the cause of much of your misunderstanding.
You are correct in believing that the word"may" means that it is not mandatory, but it means that the authority has the option to create an order, they do not have to.
The word may is used in much legislation instead of must, because if must was used then they would have to issue orders on all occasions , this would not always be appropriate.

OK this is my last post on the subject, after that we'll just have to agree to disagree. "May" is normally used in the context of giving permission ie:

"a bailiff may enforce anywhere in England or Wales"

Where the term has been abused in the past is by bailiff companies who state that the word "may" gives them an option ie in the case of PCN's ,when the debtor moves address:

"the council may approach the TEC if it wants a new warrant"

Bailiff companies argue that it is an option and not mandatory which we all know was not the authors intention.

In the case of the LGF Act, the quoted paragraph is not giving the authority the option of making an order. It is providing for regulations to include for the option. To put is simply, it says:

REGULATIONS may provide........

This is the bit above what you are referring to. It over rides it, which is irrelevant in any case, if the regulations haven't provided for it:

"the authority concerned may make an order"

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

no it hasn't.
Nothing has been confirmed

Oh for God's sake, it has been confirmed about 2 dozen times from an individual source each time.

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes and this is something else. We are straying into looking for loopholes here, loopholes do no good, because they are easily closed.

he
I really don't get that. What is 'something else'? What loopholes? The FoI's have even quoted the legislation that says fees are not added. It is clear - the 1992 act didn't allow them, the 2004 amendments changed that, the 2014 amendments changed it again. The present situation has been confirmed that fees cannot be added - no loopholes, just the position.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

But this information has been confirmed time and time again, from LA's all over the country with no deviation. The info is clearly correct.

no it hasn't.
Nothing has been confirmed

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes and this is something else. We are straying into looking for loopholes here, loopholes do no good, because they are easily closed.

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Being able to provide the debtor with accurate information which will help their situation makes me happy

But this information has been confirmed time and time again, from LA's all over the country with no deviation. The info is clearly correct.

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Andy58, why do you persist against all evidence? The swathe of FoI's are quite clear and unanimous - fees cannot be, and are not being added to any AOE's by any LA that has replied. Why on earth can you not accept that, and be happy for the poor debtor?

Being able to provide the debtor with accurate information which will help their situation makes me happy

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

If you read the opening line, you should hopefully realise where you are going wrong. Everything that follows the opening line is not mandatory. It is not even permitting the inclusion of fees.

I thought i would address this because it is the cause of much of your misunderstanding.
You are correct in believing that the word"may" means that it is not mandatory, but it means that the authority has the option to create an order, they do not have to.
The word may is used in much legislation instead of must, because if must was used then they would have to issue orders on all occasions , this would not always be appropriate.

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes I think it is pretty safe to say that they do, otherwise all the money they got would go back to the authorities and they would not get paid. I cant see an EA going to the trouble if they were not going to see any fees.

The issue is really in what happens to accounts which are passed back to the authority after an unsuccessful enforcement action.

Andy58, why do you persist against all evidence? The swathe of FoI's are quite clear and unanimous - fees cannot be, and are not being added to any AOE's by any LA that has replied. Why on earth can you not accept that, and be happy for the poor debtor?

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

If you read the opening line, you should hopefully realise where you are going wrong. Everything that follows the opening line is not mandatory. It is not even permitting the inclusion of fees.

All that is being done, is the providing of the facility to include fees by introducing it into regulations. It does not say that authorities MAY include fees, it is saying that regulations May allow for them to be included.

The amendment to reg 37 back in 2004 made this inclusion possible but it was repealed last year, so we are back in a position where fees may not be included.

I feel like I am repeating myself here, so this is the last time I will say this.

The amendment was made to source legislation when it was removed from the council tax regs, the council tax regs were not affected they have always been there the only amendment was to the definition of the outstanding amount, which now includes fees as prescribed in the primary legislation.