Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6654
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#1 Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 May 2017 17:22

Following the judgement and transcript of a recent court hearing, an issue that has been a matter of great debate was addressed.

The matter of whether payments made directly to the creditor when a debt has been passed to a bailiff has resulted in two firm camps - those that say some or all of this money must be passed to the bailiff to allow him to deduct his fees, and those that say there is no legal obligation for creditors to do so and the bailiff must pursue his fees separately.

A barrister acting on behalf of Newlyn's, and agreed by the judge, said that direct payments were not subject to s13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and to argue that direct payments must be apportioned between the creditor and the bailiff is 'legal nonsense'.

This concurs with the 100+ FOI replies from local authorities from all over the country where 80% of the replies said that direct payments are not apportioned.

Now, this is not to say that fees are due, just that authorities should not be passing any portion of direct payments to bailiffs. Some argued that it was at the expense of the public purse to make direct payments as some of the money would need to be sent to the bailiff so I would expect them to be pleased that this isn't the case.

HMCTS are the biggest culprits in this - they will automatically send out a template letter stating that a direct payment has been sent to the bailiff blah blah blah, citing s13 as stated above. HMCTS are wrong to be doing this and it will now be brought to their attention.

It appears that this has not gone down well with some individuals who are doing their best to airbrush it away. They won't succeed.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#2 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 May 2017 18:26

We knew that all along. You might remember Sheila had a nuclear flame war over reg 13 on the CAG board in September 2014.

It's in our library. I've uploaded it for your entertainment. Another of her theories royally busted.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

NickP
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 09:43

#3 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by NickP » 25 Jul 2017 16:26

Which court hearing is this?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#4 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Jul 2017 18:40

Someone going by the name legally blind on a certain website has a copy.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

NickP
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 09:43

#5 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by NickP » 25 Jul 2017 21:20

Sorry i dont understand. Whos legally blind? Am grateful to have found this website. Theres another site called consumer action group. Good PPI section.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#6 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Jul 2017 21:40

It was a court proceeding involving Newlyn. We've done so many, it escapes me which.

You don't need case law. The law states apportionment applies to proceeds of enforcement under regulation 13 of the 2014 fees regulations

Section 62 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 defines enforcement to be taking and selling goods. The mythologists disagree. They say, proceeds of enforcement is money paid to the creditor in discharge of liability.

PPI is a regulated activity. Pointless running a forum about it.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

NickP
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 09:43

#7 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by NickP » 28 Jul 2017 12:00

okey dokey. Been reading the pages here. i see some who come on here to ask questions can be twats. THat man of steel or superman character is a right twat!

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1994
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#8 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Michelle » 28 Jul 2017 13:41

NickP wrote:
28 Jul 2017 12:00
okey dokey. Been reading the pages here. i see some who come on here to ask questions can be twats. THat man of steel or superman character is a right twat!
WHO are we talking about here?
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

NickP
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 09:43

#9 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by NickP » 31 Jul 2017 16:14

the full username is superman returns. what a twat.

Superman_Returns
Posts: 51
Joined: 26 May 2016 12:59

#10 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Superman_Returns » 20 Aug 2017 14:30

Are you JG by any chance?

NickP
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 09:43

#11 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by NickP » 23 Aug 2017 09:27

no i am a bailiff who forgets battery in camera haha


power of print
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Sep 2017 11:49

#13 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by power of print » 28 Sep 2017 12:26

Has schedule 12 ever read this I wonder ???

Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

4.—(1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.

(2) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.

(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.

(4) For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant stage of enforcement is determined according to regulation 5 or 6 as appropriate.

(5) Where the enforcement agent is acting under an enforcement power conferred by a High Court writ—

(a)where the enforcement agent and the debtor enter into a controlled goods agreement which the debtor does not breach, only the first enforcement stage fee may be recovered from the debtor; and
(b)where—
(i)the enforcement agent and the debtor enter into a controlled goods agreement which the debtor breaches; or
(ii)the enforcement agent and the debtor do not enter into a controlled goods agreement,both the first enforcement stage and second enforcement stage fees may be recovered from the debtor, and the first enforcement stage fee is recoverable where sub-paragraph (ii) applies notwithstanding that the first enforcement stage did not apply.

In real terms this means that if the principle debt is paid direct to the creditor of the notice of Enforcement is received the compliance fee may be pursued from the debtor. Should the bailiff turn up at the door in pursuit of said compliance fee the stage two fee can be applied and enforced. The myth that payment to the creditor direct of the principle debt post receipt of the NOE removes liability for ANY fees is exactly that. Anyone that follows advice to rely on this myth should look for a pot of gold under the rainbow whilst they are looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden. They will surely need the pot of gold when the bailiff knocks or if they subsequently rely on the old wives tale in Court as the person in the Newlyns case found out.

I like a bargain a much as the next person, but there comes a time where we have say it is what is, and pay whats due when it is at the lowest amount.
I do not like the thought of paying £7K legal and court costs.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#14 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 28 Sep 2017 16:46

Where does it say the bailiff can take an enforcement step after the power has ended?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6654
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#15 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Sep 2017 18:19

power of print wrote:
28 Sep 2017 12:26

In real terms this means that if the principle debt is paid direct to the creditor of the notice of Enforcement is received the compliance fee may be pursued from the debtor.
I don't think anyone on here has said that the fees are not due when the relevant stage is reached. Of course the fees are due - whether they get paid is another matter. However, it's good to see that accept that a payment direct to the creditor isn't split towards your fees.

Which EA co do you work for?

power of print
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Sep 2017 11:49

#16 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by power of print » 29 Sep 2017 14:45

Enforcement power ends if the debt is paid PRIOR to the notice of enforcement. Post the notice payment of the principle leaves the compliance fee outstanding which can be enforced assuming the creditor does not pay it over. If the creditor does pay it over the principle debt has a £90 balance outstanding which can be enforced. Win Win or Lose Lose depending on which side of the fence you are on.
In the words of the learned Judge " No amount of re reading the regulations will help the claimant"

Interested Observer with too much time on their hands !!

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6654
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#17 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Sep 2017 17:29

And in the words of Newlyn's barrister, to suggest a direct payment is to be apportioned between the creditor and the bailiff is "a legal nonsense".

Now go back to Quatloos and laugh at people who have lost their homes.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#18 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Sep 2017 09:48

power of print wrote:
29 Sep 2017 14:45
Enforcement power ends if the debt is paid PRIOR to the notice of enforcement. Post the notice payment of the principle leaves the compliance fee outstanding which can be enforced assuming the creditor does not pay it over. If the creditor does pay it over the principle debt has a £90 balance outstanding which can be enforced.

Can you explain with source legislation for this?

Especially where the law defines "principle" in the context that you refer to it.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

power of print
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Sep 2017 11:49

#19 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by power of print » 30 Sep 2017 17:59

Now go back to Quatloos and laugh at people who have lost their homes.???? Sorry but both the meaning and your sentiment escape me. Why would would anyone laugh at such a circumstance? Equally to intimate that someone would find it amusing is quite offensive and not worthy of an informed and articulate contributor to many debates on this forum. Disappointed !

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6654
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#20 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Sep 2017 18:36

I'm distraught.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#21 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Sep 2017 19:55

What is it you are wanting to discuss?

Quatloos was used by a certain individual to pursue a campaign of harassment and along with an accomplice, have pending proceedings against them under section 3 of the 1988 Act. Their campaign continues and evidence is still being gathered.

My clients don't lose their homes. I put all their assets in trust before any risk arises. Any subsequent liability is written off.

In Quatloos language it's debt avoidance. I call it
Family protection and it's perfectly legal. It guarantees nobody jeopardizing a roof over their heads and food on the table, The childrens education is safe-guarded as well as enjoyment of family income and investments.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6654
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#22 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Sep 2017 20:20

In Quatloos language trying to get bailiff fees removed is debt avoidance.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13348
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#23 Re: Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Sep 2017 22:25

The law decides whether the fees are owed and enforceable.

If it's owed then we say so. If it's enforceable then we say so. If the fees are owed but cannot be enforced without a warrant then we say so.

We give the law supporting it.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply