Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
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.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14795
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 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.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest