Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post Reply
John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#71 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 05 Jan 2018 22:06

The chimp was always the master of the last word. That's why so many threads he was involved in were either locked or descended into irrelevant drivel. I've lost count of the number of "may" means "may not" type of threads the clown was involved in. It was like debating with a 10 year old, you might just as well not bother.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#72 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 06 Jan 2018 12:15

I've just looked over the CAG board, and it has lost its focus through bad management.

The decision to align with a bailiff company caused it to be struck off the BBC because it was not impartial to consumer advice. That was the biggest mistake, and I think Marston's agenda is to take it out of circulation, and the CAG board fell for it.

Since Sheila complained to the BBC and I handed over her file, she got herself investigated and linked to CAG. I cannot see any way the CAG board can regenerate a new focus and move forward. It has stagnated with old historic threads which have no relevance to todays consumer advice. Its hosting bill must absorb any donations made, or it is being subsidised, but there is no evidence of a business model supporting it.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#73 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 28 Jan 2018 13:37

CAGs latest car crash:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... wing)-nbsp

All the usual suspects are tripping over themselves to tell the OP that there is nothing that he can do. Of course, they are wrong, there is plenty that can be done. The correct course of action would be:

1. Write to Marston (copy in the council) requesting a complete breakdown of all fees charged in the 2012 incident.

2. Write to the council regarding the latest crop of arrears. Ask for the date that each LO was obtained and the date that it was passed on to enforcement agents. If they were all passed at around the same time, the council are guilty of maladministration for failing to mitigate the impact of enforcement. Wherever possible, all debts should be enforced simultaneously in order to minimise enforcement fees. Simply splitting them up between three different agencies is not acceptable and compounds the ability to set up a repayment plan. Include a request to place enforcement on hold whilst a sensible repayment plan can be arranged - Paying one is often difficult to pay, paying three would be impossible to a large majority of debtors.

3. Ask the OP to elbourate on what proof he has that he didn't reside at one of the properties.

There is a good chance that there will have been some unlawful fees charged in 2012 - It was impossible to enforce lawfully for council tax and make a living prior to the new fee schedule of 2014. Any unlawful fees could be offset against the debt. Certainly, all accounts need to be amalgamated with one agency to enable the debtor a sensible and realistic opportunity to repay. Having 3 different companies threatening enforcement is excessive adherence to the law, failure to heed guidance and the result will cause an injustice to the debtor. That fat slug Craig is the epitome the total indifference or compassion that authorities show to debtors. Like most council employees, he has a very limited grasp of the recovery process, other than what he was taught at the council. One of the best things about advising debtors is seeing fat slugs like Craig backtrack and concede to requests that are made in writing.

All hail the saving grace though - Harding has asked if the complaint was escalated to the LGO. That question is about as relevant as the ridiculous LGO decisions that she posts without actually understanding their significance.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#74 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jan 2018 22:23

It seems that Mr Shifter has finally responded to the challenge of finding the pre 2014 legislation that backs up his claim that the council refused payment as the fees would need to be deducted. Apparently he feels it's unrelated nonsense. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good old Dodge - never fails to fall flat on his face.

It's also funny watching them get all flustered thinking we've deliberately removed posts to make them look bad. Obviously that would force us to include the posts from everyone seeking advice over the past 3 weeks and has absolutely nothing to do with a server crash.

If anything, we are mighty pissed off that their queries and our sage advice has disappeared into the netherrealm.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#75 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 29 Jan 2018 11:07

The only nonsense has (as usual) come from the chimp.

Fees were supposed to have been deducted first but in practice, they rarely were. More importantly, there was no obligation whatsoever on the debtor to have to deal with the bailiffs and the council should not have refused payment. The chimp has mislead the debtor. He really should have asked the OP why he didn't just pay the bailiff the money after the council had refused it because that would likely have been enough to prevent removal.

It makes me laugh that they think they are important enough to make us want to remove posts because of them. They are four incredibly thick and stupid people who are among the dregs of society. They exist (as far as we are concerned anyway) for entertainment purposes and to be laughed at. I mean how unbelievably ridiculous is it for an uneducated buffoon; who clearly lacks any capacity to read or write higher than a standard associated with an 8 year old to dissect legislation and interpret it for us? "May not" is optional ffs. The man is insane. What prompts him to even attempt these child like interpretations of the law? "imprisonment is not coercive - That is FMOTL nonsense" "EA fees can be added to AOEs" "I deliberately posted repealed legislation to get a reaction" The list is endless.

Then we have Harding, who googles LGO decisions using keywords to support her argument - And then fails to read and understand the decision, often posting cases that show the exact opposite to what she is arguing, or at best being totally irrelevant. The historic posts made over the weekend about Sue Oddy show what a sad, pathetic, idiotic lost soul she is and her husband Clive cries like a baby when he is shown to be wrong (as was the recent example of his failure to understand forced entry).

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4116
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#76 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Amy » 29 Jan 2018 11:43

Just to confirm for them, I am the only person who deletes posts around here and the last time I deleted one was because the server had a bit of a wobble and duplicated some posts.

No other posts have been removed especially any concerning them.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#77 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jan 2018 14:55

Shifter is now pretending he doesn't know what 'challenge' has been paid before his hairy feet, so let's remind him. The OP says, in 2012, they offered to pay the council what was owed in council tax but they refused to take payment. Shifter replied:
Under the old rules the fees would have been taken off any payment in full before anything came off the outstanding tax bill, so unless you offered full payment of all sums due the council would not accept.
So the challenge is, Mr Shifter... what part of the legislation of the time compels this?

Three days so far.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#78 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jan 2018 15:16

Still waiting for the legislation, Shifter. No good saying "it's all true" if you can't back it up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#79 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jan 2018 16:34

As predicted, he's playing his typiclal avoidance charade. Tut-tut Shifter - caught out yet again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#80 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 29 Jan 2018 20:55

A rather strange thread on CAG:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... es-Marston

Harding appears to think that some kind of "expert" advice was needed when it was blindingly obvious that the OP was not the debtor. As if that wasn't enough, we have some member with a grand total of 5 posts (last post made before today was 12 months ago),posting the following:
Very well done, BA.
Why is it very well done? but more interestingly, why would the poster chose to compliment the lunatic for this simple task?

If pushed, I would say the poster is old ma Oddy - She has a similar habit of putting in commas where they are not required and leaving them out where they are needed. Why these moronic mongrels feel the need to constantly pat each other on the back is beyond me - It only serves to demonstrate the insecurity complex they all have.

The poster made 4 posts last January about a problem with a TV they had bought and has no connections with bailiffs whatsoever. Here is the thread:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... neral-help

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#81 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jan 2018 21:37

Looking at the name, it's someone into bikes.... Steve Baker?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#82 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 29 Jan 2018 22:06

True. I could think of a lot of things to call old ma Oddy but "Speedy is not one of them.

Whoever Speedy is, it wouldn't surprise me if the lunatic had asked/pressured him/her to make that post. We all know how manipulative she is.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#83 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jan 2018 22:11

John The Baptist wrote:
29 Jan 2018 22:06
True. I could think of a lot of things to call old ma Oddy but "Speedy is not one of them.
On a steep hill she would. :mrgreen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#84 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 08:39

At long last someone has tried to respond to the challenge - they've cited the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. Unhelpfully they've not supplied the actual section, just copy and pasted the paragraph. For clarity, they've relied upon s52(4):
  • Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.
Sadly, but typically, they've failed to understand that this section has nothing to do with bailiff fees, only the costs and charges incurred by the council. In fact the whole of these regulations have absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of bailiffs and this has been confirmed on many occasion. This is why the TCEA2007 and the TCG 2013 and 2014 regulations were needed.

As I said last week, the regulations actually state the complete opposite to what Mr Shifter insists:
Under the old rules the fees would have been taken off any payment in full before anything came off the outstanding tax bill, so unless you offered full payment of all sums due the council would not accept.
The regulations deal with sums owed to the council only. S45(3) states:
If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with.
For clarity, the 'appropriate amount' includes any charges or costs owed to the council un schedule 5 of the regulations. So the council should not have refused the payment offered.

Now, instead of using potty language, I suggest the retards on that blog try to educate themselves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#85 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 09:12

I think that fees could have been recovered and they should have been deducted first. In practice, they rarely were as greedy councils pocketed anything they received, leaving the bailiffs to battle on for their fees. We already know (due to Harding's epic mistake and misinformation of a couple of years back) that certain bailiff fees could also have been added to any subsequent AOE.

Where the chimp was incorrect was to state that unless the amount paid was the total (including fees) then the council were correct in not accepting payment. This statement was wrong and as demonstrated over the weekend, even his three fellow mongrels have stated that a council may not refuse direct payments. The LGO had found wrongdoing by authorities when they had refused direct payments because there was never anything written in law stating that a debtor had to deal directly with a bailiff. Bailiffs were simply servants of the council - They had no powers other than to levy distress. They certainly had no power to dictate who a debtor made payment to nor did the council for that matter.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#86 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 09:26

The 1992 regs deal solely with costs owed to the council, nobody else. Some councils tried to interpret it in favour of the bailiffs, as did a certain tubby username, but the fact still remains that the 1992 regs had nothing to do with fees owed to a bailiff. Other councils did indeed understand this and clarified the position that should a direct payment be received then the bailiff must pursue his fees separately.

I highlighted s45 to show the chimp that the council should not have refused the payment as he asserted - this was indeed part of the challenge put to him, to show where payment must be refused.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#87 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 09:42

Back in 1992, the costs of enforcement were borne by the council. Many councils undertook distress in house. Back then, there was no provision for profit (£24.50 for the first visit, £18 for the second) Many authorities wanted to pass on this dirty work to 3rd party contractor and were provided the ability to do so via the contracting Order of 1996.

If you look at the wording of Reg 45 and Sch 5, you will see that it is providing the fees for the council, not outside contractors, unlike the Fees Regs today. Distress was a fee incurred by the council and owed to the council.

Reg 45(2) states that he amount outstanding was the aggregate of the amount of the LO plus any costs connected with distress (sch 5)

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#88 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 09:53

Precisely - therefore any reference to costs or charges being discharged before the liability order is a reference to the council's costs and charges, not the bailiff's.

It means that if a debtor owes £200 of which £150 is council tax and £50 is the LO costs, and the debtor pays just the £150 CT to the council then they would use the first £50 discharging the LO costs before applying the remainder to the CT debt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#89 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 10:09

Yes I agree.

In the case of the thread on CAG, the amount owed was £218. The OP offered to pay that amount to the council but they refused. They should have accepted, and then taken off (for example) £50 LO costs plus £24.50 first visit costs (the actual fees in this case would have been higher as it was at the removal stage)

This would leave £143.50 being offset against the council tax and £74.50 still outstanding.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#90 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 10:25

Actually, the above is not quite true.

The £218 would have included the costs connected with obtaining the LO so all that needed to be deducted from that payment was the bailiff fees so in my example, £24.50 council tax would have remained outstanding.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#91 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 10:45

Yep - the £24.50 would not be deducted from the payment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#92 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 10:52

It would. Whichever mongrel posted Reg 52(4) was (surprisingly) correct:
Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.
There is no reference to costs being discharged before the LO. The opposite is stated. It clearly states that the amount on the LO plus costs of any enforcement step should be taken from any underpayment.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#93 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 11:00

It took Einstein 22 hours to think of this:
Yes well done indeed BA.
Yes very well done BA - Such a pity the same can't be said about the previous 300 odd threads that the lunatic has contributed to. :lol:

It's such a rarity for BA to actually be able to provide positive input that her lackeys feel the need to come out in force to celebrate. I wonder how long it will take the pathetic Sue Oddy to get in on the act?

BA was involved in providing evidence of a fraud. It's hardly the stuff that legends are made of is it? Certainly no reason for an open top bus parade through the streets of CAG. Where is BA in the Kiknik thread or the Roll Blunt thred? She's been online for the past 2 hours yet not a squeak.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#94 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 11:20

John The Baptist wrote:
30 Jan 2018 10:52
It would. Whichever mongrel posted Reg 52(4) was (surprisingly) correct:
No bailiff fees would be deducted from a direct payment. The £24.50 is not a cost owed to the council.

In this case, the OP owed £218. Let's assume the LO at that time was £48, so the actual CT debt was £170. The OP offered £218, so the council should have first apportioned £48 to the LO, then anything to any other costs owed to them (£0 in this case) and the remainder (£170) to the CT debt. The debt to the council would now be zero.

Had the OP offered just the actual CT debt of £170, the council should have still accepted the payment, apportioned £48 to the LO, then any other costs (£0) then the remainder (£122) to the CT debt, leaving an outstanding balance owed to the council of £48.

At no time should the council have refused any payment, and as yet Mr Shifter has failed to provide the evidence to back up his position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#95 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 11:33

It is a cost owed to the council. What about if the council conducted the visit by using in house bailiffs?

Legislation does not differentiate between costs incurred directly by the council and costs incurred by contractors. It simply states that when a step is made (in this case distress), the cost of that step becomes payable.

The purpose of the visit fees was to ensure that no profit was made by carrying them out. There is no way on earth that legislation would provide for genuinely incurred fees to not become payable.

Practice note 9:
An authority may not aggregate additional charges, such as the cost of sending letters to debtors or making voluntary payments to pay. Where a bailiff carries out these tasks on behalf of an authority it will be for the authority to reimburse the bailiff by agreement

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#96 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 11:46

We're not talking about in-house bailiffs in this case. As you said earlier, the regulations were drawn up when enforcement was done in-house, so all costs would've been due to the council. Over time, councils tendered this role to private firms to reduce their own costs, so the £24.50 and £18.00 no longer became owed to the council.

If councils compensated bailiffs then that is an agreement between themselves and the debtor is not bound by them. The argument is never about whether fees are due but from where they are paid from.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#97 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 12:02

If a council instruct a contractor, they will incur a charge. This is a charge that the council bear. There is nothing anywhere in legislation that prescribes a bailiff won't be paid if the debtor simply pays directly. If it were that simple, nobody would pay anything until a bailiff visits and no bailiff would ever collect a penny. The fact that the council incur a charge of a third party contractor is enough in itself, regardless of the fact that legislation allows for the charge to be made. The charges connected with distress are part of the aggregate under regulation 45(2) At no place, anywhere does it state that these charges may only be aggregated if the council carry out the visit themselves.

In any case, the regulations state that once a step is made, those fees become payable. It does not state that the step must be made by the council directly. The "by agreement" bit applies when no money was collected. When money was collected, there is a prescribed sequence as to how money was divided.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#98 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 12:08

I don't see where the council incur a £24.50 charge. Are you saying that they would need to pay this to the bailiff before the bailiff takes the account on?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#99 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 12:17

It doesn't really matter if the council incur the charge or not - legislation prescribes that it may be aggregated to the amount outstanding, regardless of who carries out the visit. Legislation does not state that the council must carry out the visit themselves, only that a fee becomes part of the amount outstanding once a visit is made (by whoever)

The £24.50 becomes payable for making a visit to the premises - That is the point at which the council would become liable. There are no subcontractors out there who work for nothing and there is nothing in legislation that permits a council not to be liable for any fee incurred by hiring a third party contractor.

As a matter of interest, why do you think a council were obliged to collect the bailiff fees on behalf of the bailiff under an AOE if they weren't payable?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#100 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 12:23

John The Baptist wrote:
30 Jan 2018 12:17
It doesn't really matter if the council incur the charge or not - legislation prescribes that it may be aggregated to the amount outstanding, regardless of who carries out the visit. Legislation does not state that the council must carry out the visit themselves, only that a fee becomes part of the amount outstanding once a visit is made (by whoever)
It matters greatly - if the council have paid it then it's a cost owed to them. If the haven't paid it then the debtor doesn't owe that amount to the council.
The £24.50 becomes payable for making a visit to the premises - That is the point at which the council would become liable. There are no subcontractors out there who work for nothing and there is nothing in legislation that permits a council not to be liable for any fee incurred by hiring a third party contractor.
Yes, in this case it becomes payable to the bailiff, not the council. The 1992 regs do not legislate for subcontracting. Any reference to costs and charges are those borne by the council only. To turn your second sentence around there is nothing in these regulations that compels the council to pay subcontractor fees. That was left to private agreements between them
As a matter of interest, why do you think a council were obliged to collect the bailiff fees on behalf of the bailiff under an AOE if they weren't payable?
What part are you referring to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#101 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 12:42

It matters greatly - if the council have paid it then it's a cost owed to them. If the haven't paid it then the debtor doesn't owe that amount to the council.
But that's the whole point of including it - The council are liable but legislation provides for a means of collecting it directly. It is a charge. That doesn't mean it has to be paid before the debtor owes it. That is ridiculous.

The 1992 regs do not legislate for subcontracting.
Nor do they forbid subcontracting. Bailiffs were used way before the 1992 regs came into force.

Any reference to costs and charges are those borne by the council only
This is just your assumption. There is nothing anywhere in writing that states this.

there is nothing in these regulations that compels the council to pay subcontractor fees. That was left to private agreements between them
So if a private agreement was made, would the authority then be liable for the fees?

What part are you referring to?
5(1A)(b)(i) Schedule 4 LGFA. If the council are not compelled to pay subcontractor fees, why are they compelled to collect them under an AOE?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#102 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 12:58

John The Baptist wrote:
30 Jan 2018 12:42
5(1A)(b)(i) Schedule 4 LGFA. If the council are not compelled to pay subcontractor fees, why are they compelled to collect them under an AOE?
It doesn't say anything about subcontractors. It just says any charges may be added. This would be charges owed to the council.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#103 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 13:02

It doesn't say anything about subcontractors. It just says any charges may be added. This would be charges owed to the council.
Correct - The word "subcontractors" is irrelevant. Bailiff fees would be deducted regardless, just as they would from any direct payments.

I know you won't let the direct payment argument go. We'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#104 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jan 2018 13:23

It seems you're now arguing that bailiff fees can (or could?) be included in an AOE.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#105 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 30 Jan 2018 13:39

Could

They no longer can by virtue of the wording in the fees regs that states fees are no longer recoverable once an enforcement power ceases. As only one step at a time may be carried out for council tax enforcement, the ability to use the Sch 12 procedure must have ceased in order to allow the ability to use an AOE.

This was Harding's downfall a couple of years ago if you remember? they were all getting giddy at the prospect of debtors not being able to sit it out for council tax, only for the inevitable egg to end up in their faces as usual as it was pointed out that they misunderstood the legislation. The chimp then made a ridiculous attempt to argue that it was still possible if the bailiffs were in house. He was laughed out of town as his inability to work around 2 different pieces of legislation was exposed again. It was hillarious.

To top it off, Harding lied and posted that the Government were working on this loophole and that she had "shared info with her friends". Unfortunately for Harding, one of those friends was talking with me also and he confirmed that Harding had shared nothing with them.

Post Reply