Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

[Milo]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Okay good stuff. Thank you.

It may assist you further to read the following:

A few months ago (April 2016) the Labour part MP; Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) raised a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines.

His questions were answered by Shaliest Vara: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of instances in which enforcement agent fees paid by a defendant were transferred directly by HM Courts and Tribunal Services to enforcement agents in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts transferred in that period.


Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

If an offender makes a payment on a financial imposition after a warrant of control has been issued and referred to the EAE, HMCTS transfers the full payment to the AEA to enable them to reconcile their accounts and take the fee owed to them and they then return any balance owed to HMCTS.

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...l%22#g34637.r0

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

The message from the councils was clear in that unless the enforcement agents were compensated for the Compliance fee of £75 (as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum) and any other fees due, we will quickly have a return to aggressive behaviour. That must be avoided at all costs.

Unfortunately that is not what the legislation says. I asked you five days ago to provide your interpretation of the first line of schedule 12.

The legislation is clear that the £75 fee and the pro-rata distribution comes from the proceeds of using the schedule 12 procedure. Do you agree this is what the legislation says?

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

It may assist you further to read the following:

A few months ago (April 2016) the Labour part MP; Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) raised a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines.

His questions were answered by Shaliest Vara: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice:




A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...l%22#g34637.r0

Indeed, that makes sense. I think we were talking about Councils as opposed to HMCTS. I'm not sure why the situation should differ though.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

What you fail to explain is that the TCE says no such thing. Shailesh Vara is mistaken - if you can show us where in the TCE it states that I'd be grateful. It's interesting to note that since he provided that response he has been relieved of the post.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

What you fail to explain is that the TCE says no such thing. Shailesh Vara is mistaken - if you can show us where in the TCE it states that I'd be grateful. It's interesting to note that since he provided that response he has been relieved of the post.

lol, just noticed that the TCE was signed off by Shailesh Vara.

Signed by the authority of the Lord Chancellor

Shailesh Vara

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Ministry of Justice

4th January 2014

so guestimating he should have some idea what he's talking about ... although that isn't guaranteed lol.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

so guestimating he should have some idea what he's talking about ... although that isn't guaranteed lol.

Like most ministers, he relies upon what his civil service staff tell him - generally just a figurehead. The fact still remains that the TCE does not say what he believes.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Well we've gotten nowhere then. You have opposing views.... I think what happens in practice on the ground is the important thing and until/unless someone ends up in court arguing the point you have to just go with what the general consensus and reality is - which seems to be that if you pay the council direct the EA's don't come after you for just their fees even though they are entitled to ? ( that's not a pronouncement btw just the impression I get from my limited reading about the place )

It's the same with court claims - we know most of them are enforceable but we also know the DCAs can't be arsed arguing the point and discontinue generally after a witness statement is submitted.

[Milo]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Sorry, not sure I understand that. The FOI responses do seem to say that Councils don't pass on the money paid direct to them to EAs for pro-rata extraction of fees or anything - they don't mention this is due to having a pants computer system. lol.

So people who pay council direct could be chased aggressively by the EA's for the £75 as the council don't pass it on?

It would be very rare for a council to write a check. It needs to be made clear here that the letter from the enforcement agent clearly states where their payment should be made (to the enforcement company). Debtors wanting to avoid paying bailiff fees are ignoring the payment instructions and instead are paying the council direct in the mistaken belief that the warrant will cease (which it does not).

Most local authorities (and this was reinforced from meetings that I have had (or conferences attended) stress that they no longer have a problem with 'direct' payments and that in the vast majority of cases, the payment is for less than the amount outstanding and that they merely advise the enforcement company of the payment and the amount stated as due is reduced accordingly. The enforcement agent naturally will continue with enforcement for the balance. All local authorities are able to remotely access the enforcement companies computer system so that payments can be monitored.

[Milo]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Indeed, that makes sense. I think we were talking about Councils as opposed to HMCTS. I'm not sure why the situation should differ though.

In fact, the situation does not differ at all and is exactly as outlined by the Minister.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

With local authorities the position is slightly different:

With HMCTS, you are only having to deal with one computer system so referring the payment back to the enforcement company is quite simple. With the 300 odd local authorities, the position is not the same at all as each council have their own computer system. .

I was only going of what you said here.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Most local authorities (and this was reinforced from meetings that I have had (or conferences attended) stress that they no longer have a problem with 'direct' payments and that in the vast majority of cases, the payment is for less than the amount outstanding and that they merely advise the enforcement company of the payment and the amount stated as due is reduced accordingly. The enforcement agent naturally will continue with enforcement for the balance. All local authorities are able to remotely access the enforcement companies computer system so that payments can be monitored.

That shows that payments are therefore not passed onto the EA.

It needs to be made clear here that the letter from the enforcement agent clearly states where their payment should be made (to the enforcement company).

Of course - why would it say anything different? This is becuase the EA knows that unless you pay him direct, he gets nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, the situation does not differ at all and is exactly as outlined by the Minister.

Once again, please show us where the TCE states what Shailesh believes.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

In fact, the situation does not differ at all and is exactly as outlined by the Minister.

Once again, please show us where the TCE states what Shailesh believes.

[Milo]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Indeed, that makes sense. I think we were talking about Councils as opposed to HMCTS. I'm not sure why the situation should differ though.

The position is EXACTLY the same. The only difference is because with HMCTS, when a direct payment is made, is it received into one central HMCTS payment office. With local authorities, each council have their own computer an payment system. This can lead to some councils managing these 'direct payments' is a slightly different way to other councils.

That said, it would seem that there is a move to ensure that all councils adopt the correct procedure. Hopefully, this will be completed very soon.

Well we've gotten nowhere then. You have opposing views.... I think what happens in practice on the ground is the important thing and until/unless someone ends up in court arguing the point you have to just go with what the general consensus and reality is - which seems to be that if you pay the council direct the EA's don't come after you for just their fees even though they are entitled to ? ( that's not a pronouncement btw just the impression I get from my limited reading about the place )

It's the same with court claims - we know most of them are enforceable but we also know the DCAs can't be arsed arguing the point and discontinue generally after a witness statement is submitted.

You are actually not correct Amethyst.

In the case of court fines, in EVERY case, the payment is simply forwarded to the enforcement company. Also, in every case, HMCTS write to the debtor advising them that their payment has been received and that the payment been has forwarded to the enforcement company and that all future payment MUST be made to the enforcement agency.

The same happens with council tax. Bailiff companies continue with enforcement for the balance of the debt.

If aggressive bailiff enforcement returns....(which we hope never to have that happen), then the blame would be laid on 'debt avoidance' tactics (such as paying the councils direct).

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

Could you please answer the direct question that I raised which was this. It is a vitally important one.

It would seem that the emphasis of your posts is that, unless goods have been taken into control and actually sold....that enforcement agent fees cannot be charged.

I'll answer that with what schedule 12 says:

Using the procedure in this Schedule to recover a sum means taking control of goods and selling them to recover that sum in accordance with this Schedule and regulations under it.

- - - Updated - - -

If aggressive bailiff enforcement returns....(which we hope never to have happen), then the blame would be laid on 'debt avoidance' tactics.

I don't think it's ever gone away, otherwise the forums wouldn't exist. Also, how can it be debt avoidance if the original debt is paid? This is about avoiding fees - why does that upset you?

[Fred Astaire]

Re: Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

You are actually not correct Amethyst.

In the case of court fines, in EVERY case, the payment is simply forwarded to the enforcement company.

What legislation provides for money to be forwarded to the enforcement company?

- - - Updated - - -

The same happens with council tax. Bailiff companies continue with enforcement for the balance of the debt.

Would you agree the law says the balance of the debt is the "amount outstanding" as defined in Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12?