Further issues

Quash the Liability Order. Suspend Enforcement. Disputing Liabilities. Claim Damages for Misuse of Enforcement Power.
Post Reply
Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 13 Apr 2018 10:22

The council state if i psy them the outstanding 479.78 counvil tax that they will send it to bristow and sutor
Can they do this?
I read online that by paying the outstanding it stopped the action ? Am I wrong?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

Re: Further issues

Post by Schedule 12 » 13 Apr 2018 11:41

There is no enforcement regulation that states a creditor must give money paid to them to a bailiff company.

That is a play on the myth that a bailiff company must apportion money between itself and the creditor.

The regulations that apportion (or "pro-rata") only applies to the proceeds of enforcement. That is money raised from the sale of goods to pay the debt.

As no goods of your have been controlled let alone sold and proceeds raised, there is no provision to apportion any money paid by you in the discharge of a liability.

A creditor cannot revive a liability after is has been discharged under a pretense the fees (as apposed to "costs") form part of the amount outstanding as it is dfined in Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunbals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which states:


  • (3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

    (a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

    (b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

Paying the amount outstanding does stop the enforcement power, but you might get an angry bailiff who is out of pocket. He may even falsely represent that the creditor must hand over money paid to them, or the enforcement power continues until the fees are paid.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 13 Apr 2018 12:26

I think if i can raise it im going to pay the council even though they state that they will not stop the action.

What im concerned about is the fees due tobristow and sutor?

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 13 Apr 2018 13:10

Bembear123 wrote:
13 Apr 2018 12:26
I think if i can raise it im going to pay the council even though they state that they will not stop the action.

What im concerned about is the fees due tobristow and sutor?
The fees will still be due to B&S & the regulations state that they may recover them.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

FD20
Posts: 3
Joined: 14 Mar 2018 10:15

Re: Further issues

Post by FD20 » 14 Apr 2018 14:32

John,

Your reply above directly contradicts Schedules 12's post earlier in the thread. Where in regulations does it state they may still recovering fee? Just asking to clear up my confusion.

Thanks.

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 14 Apr 2018 17:33

It is regulation 4(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014 ... ion/4/made

It has also been determined in a court that the bailiffs may recover their fees. The fact that it was only in a lower court and not binding makes little difference. Until we have evidence to the contrary, the court's decision is the best guideline we have.

Schedule 12 has difficulty reading and understanding what has been written and seems to be getting worse, not better. It wasn't so long ago that he was telling people the the wording "Notice must be given" meant that the bailiff had to physically hand over a piece of paper to the debtor, as opposed to posting it.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

Re: Further issues

Post by Schedule 12 » 14 Apr 2018 18:27

It doesn't say the bailiff can take an enforcement step. It says the bailiff may recover fees.

Schedule 12 is primary legislation, the 2014 regulations are secondary, so I go by paragraph 6(3) and paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Apr 2018 11:38

It doesn't say he can't enforce for his fees either. You have just decided that this is what is meant.

When talking about fees, the only relevant legislation is the Fees refs. Also, throughout Sch 12 there is mention of recovering money rather than enforcing for it.

Why would the regs mention recovering fees? If the intent is there to ensure the bailiff gets paid then of course it would mean he can enforce for his fees. How else is he going to get them?
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

Re: Further issues

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Apr 2018 11:40

If the enforcement power has ended, the bailiff will have to sue for them. Just like any other tradesman with a fee dispute.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Apr 2018 12:46

Do you seriously think, given the emphasis on encouraging parties to resolve disputes amicably, without the need to trouble the courts that the Fees regulations would encourage small claims for fees?

If the intention is for the bailiff to get paid then obviously the intention is for him to be able to enforce for his money. To suggest that the regs are simply providing an option for the bailiff to sue is absolutely absurd.

There is no fee dispute, the fees are owed.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

Righteous_Anger
Posts: 3
Joined: 02 Apr 2018 06:47

Re: Further issues

Post by Righteous_Anger » 17 Apr 2018 06:26

Good morning,

How can a bailiff just have fees outstanding? Please explain.

User avatar
Syd Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Further issues

Post by Syd Snitkin » 17 Apr 2018 08:00

If the debtor pays the original debt to the creditor direct.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 17 Apr 2018 09:12

Whixh i did pay to creditor direct
But i cannot afford to also pay the gees on top

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 17 Apr 2018 11:25

Schedule 12 wrote:
13 Apr 2018 11:41
There is no enforcement regulation that states a creditor must give money paid to them to a bailiff company.

That is a play on the myth that a bailiff company must apportion money between itself and the creditor.

The regulations that apportion (or "pro-rata") only applies to the proceeds of enforcement. That is money raised from the sale of goods to pay the debt.

As no goods of your have been controlled let alone sold and proceeds raised, there is no provision to apportion any money paid by you in the discharge of a liability.

A creditor cannot revive a liability after is has been discharged under a pretense the fees (as apposed to "costs") form part of the amount outstanding as it is dfined in Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunbals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which states:


  • (3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

    (a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

    (b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

Paying the amount outstanding does stop the enforcement power, but you might get an angry bailiff who is out of pocket. He may even falsely represent that the creditor must hand over money paid to them, or the enforcement power continues until the fees are paid.

THERE YOU GO JOHN THE BAPTIST

User avatar
Syd Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Further issues

Post by Syd Snitkin » 17 Apr 2018 11:29

The problem is, some councils have been persuaded by their bailiffs that they must apportion all or some of the payment between themselves. An aforementioned mad woman from Somerset also relentlessly pushes this agenda as well.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 17 Apr 2018 11:31

They state its reg 13 of taking control of goods.
The council have sent me an electronic copy

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 17 Apr 2018 11:36

Firstly regarding the payment of £479.78 you have made, unfortunately this does not draw the matter to an end. Under regulations that came into force on 6th April 2014 we will be legally obliged to pass £208.08 from this payment to Bristow & Sutor in order that fees can be satisfied (reg 13 The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This specifies how part payments should be allocated, and stipulates that the compliance fee is paid first and the debt is paid on a pro-rata basis with any remaining fees), only the remaining £271.70 would been then credited to your account.

 

Part of the email stating how they split it up!!

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 17 Apr 2018 11:49

Although the council are wrong about ref 13, the National Standards still expect the council to pay any bailiff fees if they withdraw the enforcement power. If they did this, the council would be out of pocket so the only alternative available is to divide the payment as has happened in your case.

You have not lost anything because you had incurred the fees lawfully and were always liable for them.

The only way to avoid them was to pay nothing and sit it out but it's too late for that now.

In your shoes, I'd respond to the councils latest email explaining that the £400 has cleaned you out and could they ensure that B&S are instructed to accept a repayment plan for the balance.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

Re: Further issues

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Apr 2018 11:50

Reg 13 only applies to proceeds of enforcement. Nothing to do with money paid to the council.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

Bembear123
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 09:39

Re: Further issues

Post by Bembear123 » 17 Apr 2018 15:14

In your shoes, I'd respond to the councils latest email explaining that the £400 has cleaned you out and could they ensure that B&S are instructed to accept a repayment plan for the balance.


Done and received a response, semi agreed to do what has been asked on proviso I submit a income and expenditure form (which Ive done at least 6 times) and a new firm called a request for information? Seems Im to sign it and they will apply possibly for attachment of earnings? Not sure

My question is simple do I legally have to fill in the request for information?

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Further issues

Post by John The Baptist » 17 Apr 2018 16:57

Unfortunately yes, you must comply with their request and within 14 days as well.

You might want to take this opportunity to fill it in and ask if you have previously been considered for an attachment and if not, why not? The added fees have placed an extra financial burden on you at a time you can least afford it. See what they have to say.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

Righteous_Anger
Posts: 3
Joined: 02 Apr 2018 06:47

Re: Further issues

Post by Righteous_Anger » 18 Apr 2018 09:11

Just get a DRO. Especially if you have a big council tax bill. Everything gets expunged.

Righteous_Anger
Posts: 3
Joined: 02 Apr 2018 06:47

Re: Further issues

Post by Righteous_Anger » 18 Apr 2018 10:19

Pote Snitkin wrote:
17 Apr 2018 08:00
If the debtor pays the original debt to the creditor direct.
Why do you have a rat avatar?

User avatar
Syd Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Further issues

Post by Syd Snitkin » 18 Apr 2018 13:44

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.


Post Reply