Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

[Rhubarb]

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 ?

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.

Sorry Ame this is incorrect.

When a debt is handed over to an enforcement agent ceases to be just the sum owed to the authority, and becomes the amount outstanding under the Schedule 12 procedure . (50(3))

Any payment received after that, is deemed to be as the result of the bailiff enforcing under an enforcement power, and therefore is credited against the amount outstanding. (sum due to the authority + fees).

Because proceeds of enforcement are split on a pro-rata basis, if the payment is less than the "total amount outstanding" , there will always be an amount due to the authority.
In short the bailiff will not be enforcing just for his fees, and the order or warrant will not be satisfied until the amount outstanding is paid in full.

The argument regarding direct payments and if they are transferred is irrelevant to this process.
It is quite possible for the authority not to transfer payments, they can be simply held in a suspense account until the end of the quarter or the end of the individual process. It is merely a matter of their accounting procedure, the pro-rata split will still take place and as above the order of the amount due to the authority will not be paid. If the sums are held the A will be notified.

[Amethyst]

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

The bailiff is entitled to the enforcement fees

4(3)
The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.

so that's not in contention.

Councils have said they don't pass on payments at all ( pro rata or otherwise) made direct to them to the bailiffs but leave the bailiff to carry on enforcement to obtain their fees. If the payment made to the council is more than the original debt the council do pass on the extra towards the bailiff fees.

[Milo]

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

Also, how can it be debt avoidance if the original debt is paid? This is about avoiding fees - why does that upset you?

But this is where you are wrong. Your tactics and advice to debtor cannot and must not be confused with 'avoiding bailiff fees' and the reason is very simple. Once a debt is passed to an enforcement agent, the amount due includes bailiff fees. Therefore, bailiff fees include the amount of the debt.

Accordingly, trying to invent ways of getting debtors to avoid paying a proportion of the debt (the bailiff fee element) is to encourage the debtor into debt avoidance.

There can be no other way of interpreting your motive.

[Fred Astaire]

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

Once a debt is passed to an enforcement agent, the amount due includes bailiff fees. Therefore, bailiff fees include the amount of the debt.

What legislation requires the creditor to pass the amount due to the enforcement agent?

[Rhubarb]

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

The bailiff is entitled to the enforcement fees
so that's not in contention.

Councils have said they don't pass on payments at all ( pro rata or otherwise) made direct to them to the bailiffs but leave the bailiff to carry on enforcement to obtain their fees. If the payment made to the council is more than the original debt the council do pass on the extra towards the bailiff fees.

The pro rata split is action at the end of the enforcment period and before the debt is returned, it does not matter if the actual payment is passed on, although it is good practice to do so. That is as long as the enforcment company has been advised a payment has been made.

The compliance stage fee does not enter into pro rata dispercement and is due to the bailiff in the first instance.

I think if you look at the FOIs they all say that the ammount outstanding must be laid in full.

[Fred Astaire]

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

it does not matter if the actual payment is passed on, although it is good practice to do so.

Says who?

[Jim Bowen]

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

I think if you look at the FOIs they all say that the ammount outstanding must be laid in full.

No, the FOIs are, mostly, saying no payments are passed onto the EA.

[outlawlgo]

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

I don't know how technically enforcement fees for council tax can be considered part of the debt. From researching this a while ago it was pretty much confirmed that local authorities do not raise enforcement fees on the debtor's council tax account. In fact the Citizens Advice Bureau was sent something along the following but I believe they never commented.

The Citizens Advice Bureau should distribute the following information to its advisors who I would suspect are inundated with customer queries about what they should do when pursued by local authorities' enforcement contractors adding hundreds of pounds in fees to their council tax bills:

There is information to satisfy beyond reasonable doubt that local authorities do not raise enforcement fees on the debtors council tax account. Therefore, despite what provisions are made in the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014, it would be unlawful if monies paid to the council intended to reduce the indebtedness of the council tax liability, was diverted to its enforcement agent. The same goes for monies paid directly into the account by means of internet banking etc.

Councils should therefore publish on their websites that a debtor can avoid all Enforcement fees, even after their case has been assigned to its enforcement contractor by paying their outstanding liability directly to the council expressing that payment is made for the purposes of reducing the indebtedness of their council tax liability.

A note of caution should also be added that under no circumstances should the debtor engage with the bailiff and any goods such as motor vehicles be kept out of the bailiff's reach (so he is unable to 'take control' of them) until such time as the liability is settled.

[Jim Bowen]

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

But this is where you are wrong. Your tactics and advice to debtor cannot and must not be confused with 'avoiding bailiff fees' and the reason is very simple. Once a debt is passed to an enforcement agent, the amount due includes bailiff fees. Therefore, bailiff fees include the amount of the debt.

Accordingly, trying to invent ways of getting debtors to avoid paying a proportion of the debt (the bailiff fee element) is to encourage the debtor into debt avoidance.

There can be no other way of interpreting your motive.

My motive is trying to avoid fees, nothing more. Of the FOIs only 20% are saying they pass on fees. Why do you want to say these are correct and the the rest are wrong?

You still haven't answered the question posed - do EAs need to use the schedule 12 procedure to enforce? If so, what is your interpretation of the first line of that schedule? What does enforcement using schedule 12 mean?

- - - Updated - - -

The pro rata split is action at the end of the enforcment period and before the debt is returned, it does not matter if the actual payment is passed on, although it is good practice to do so. That is as long as the enforcment company has been advised a payment has been made.

The compliance stage fee does not enter into pro rata dispercement and is due to the bailiff in the first instance.

I think if you look at the FOIs they all say that the ammount outstanding must be laid in full.

Perhaps you can answer - must an EA use the schedule 12 procedure to enforce? What does the first line of the schedule say?

- - - Updated - - -

The pro rata split is action at the end of the enforcment period and before the debt is returned, it does not matter if the actual payment is passed on, although it is good practice to do so. That is as long as the enforcment company has been advised a payment has been made.

The compliance stage fee does not enter into pro rata dispercement and is due to the bailiff in the first instance.

I think if you look at the FOIs they all say that the ammount outstanding must be laid in full.

Perhaps you can answer - must an EA use the schedule 12 procedure to enforce? What does the first line of the schedule say?

[Jim Bowen]

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

Someone has finally put 50p in the meter.

So we still have the question being avoided - what does using the schedule 12 procedure mean? Does the EA collect his fees from using the schedule 12 procedure?

[Fred Astaire]

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

The bailiff can use schedule 12 to collect his fees along with the debt. Schedule 12 is the procedure for taking and selling goods to pay the debt and paragraph 50(3) decides how the bailiff and creditor are paid from the proceeds.


Edit: I seemed to lost a bit of my post.

The question Milo is avoiding is explaining why she promotes an idea that money paid to a creditor is processed under Paragraph 50(3). She is asked to put forward her interpretation.

[Milo]

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

Fred,

I have a full time job and my clients really must come before your enquiry.

I will try later this evening to post back but otherwise, you may have to wait until early tomorrow morning. By which time, hopefully you will have answered this query (which I have asked 4 times):

It would seem to me 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.

Please respond.

[Jim Bowen]

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

I will try later this evening to post back but otherwise, you may have to wait until early tomorrow morning. By which time, hopefully you will have answered this query (which I have asked 4 times):

It would seem to me 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.

Please respond.

You've had a reply, a direct quote from the legislation:

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.

So on a basic level, yes it means the fees come from the proceeds of the sale of goods. Of course they can also be taken from money taken by the EA - money of course means any currency, so Dollars, Euros, Yen or Vietnamese Dongs. Money is taken control of just the same as any other goods.

If the EA takes goods and they don't sell then no fees can be paid.

[Jim Bowen]

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

Fred,

I have a full time job and my clients really must come before your enquiry.

Yet you've been posting here all day side-stepping the question you were asked over 5 days ago, plus posting on another forum and blog.

Remember what you said 5 days ago?

It would help visitors if you would provide a link to both sections. I will then gladly assist you with my interpretation.

Yet still nothing.

[ploddertom]

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

Seems strange thaat we have 2 posters here being allowed back again but when they go back to their own "home" they prefer to poke fun at what has happened earlier today instead of having the common courtesy to ask.