Newlyn's admit direct payments must not be split

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6297
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.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12734
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: 12
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: 12734
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: 12
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: 12734
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: 12
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: 1907
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: 12
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?

Post Reply