‘Magicians Choice’ to evade paying bailiff fees. Is there really a ‘loophole’ in the new regulations or is this a TRICK?

[tomtubby]

The new enforcement regulations took effect on 6th April and within just 48 hours a query was raised on this forum (by Mikeymack) regarding advice being provided on a few other websites stating the following:

 

"Paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken. It also stops further fees being charged".

 

It was generally thought that the websites in question would change the advice after reading (and most importantly understanding) the new regulations. Sadly, this has not been the case and instead, the websites are almost routinely giving the following ‘advice’ to the public:

 

"Pay the council what is still owing on the liability order less any payments already made. You can pay online, or at the council offices or deploy Magicians Choice"

 

"If you want to get out of paying bailiffs fees then just pay the debt direct to the creditor. The law has a bit of a quirk, or loophole that lets you off the bailiffs fees if you pay the debt with the original creditor"

 

"The law that sets statutory bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid council tax is Table 1 of Schedule 1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. It prescribes a fixed fee of £75. If distress has been executed (taking and selling your goods) or the process of making the levy has been started, there is a further fixed fee of £235"

 

"However the law - paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken"

 

"This means bailiffs only get paid if they complete the entire enforcement process right through to the sale of goods, and only then, the fees are recovered from proceeds of that sale. Otherwise there is nothing that says you have to pay any bailiffs fees if you pay the debt at any time before your goods are sold"

 

"Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards says when enforcement action has ceased, the bailiff cannot enforce the recovery of fees"

[renegadeimp]

Im confused. How the hell did the other websites come to that conclusion? The regulation itself, to me anyway, is pretty clear.

[tomtubby]

The new enforcement regulations took effect on 6th April and within just 48 hours a query was raised on this forum (by Mikeymack) regarding advice being provided on a few other websites stating the following:

 

"Paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken. It also stops further fees being charged".

 

It was generally thought that the websites in question would change the advice after reading (and most importantly understanding) the new regulations. Sadly, this has not been the case and instead, the websites are almost routinely giving the following ‘advice’ to the public:

 

"Pay the council what is still owing on the liability order less any payments already made. You can pay online, or at the council offices or deploy Magicians Choice"

 

"If you want to get out of paying bailiffs fees then just pay the debt direct to the creditor. The law has a bit of a quirk, or loophole that lets you off the bailiffs fees if you pay the debt with the original creditor"

 

"The law that sets statutory bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid council tax is Table 1 of Schedule 1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. It prescribes a fixed fee of £75. If distress has been executed (taking and selling your goods) or the process of making the levy has been started, there is a further fixed fee of £235"

 

"However the law - paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken"

 

"This means bailiffs only get paid if they complete the entire enforcement process right through to the sale of goods, and only then, the fees are recovered from proceeds of that sale. Otherwise there is nothing that says you have to pay any bailiffs fees if you pay the debt at any time before your goods are sold"

 

"Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards says when enforcement action has ceased, the bailiff cannot enforce the recovery of fees"

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

[tomtubby]

How to calculate the "Amount Outstanding'

 

The 'amount outstanding' is referred to under Section 50(3) of Schedule 12 which states as follows:

 

Amount outstanding:

 

(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).

 

It is specifically the above sentence that the websites in question have misunderstood. Their 'interpretation' of the above is as follows:

"This means bailiffs only get paid if they complete the entire enforcement process right through to the sale of goods, and only then, the fees are recovered from proceeds of that sale. Otherwise there is nothing that says you have to pay any bailiffs fees if you pay the debt at any time before your goods are sold"

 

In the websites quest to find a 'GOTCHA' clause in the new regulations to evade payment of enforcement agent fees they failed to read and understand the regulations regarding what constitutes 'PROCEEDS OF SALE'.

 

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

[Peterbard]

\section 58 actually says

 

58(1)This paragraph applies where the debtor pays the amount outstanding in full—

 

 

Amount outstanding is detailed in section 50 as" proceeds"

 

50(1)Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.

 

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

 

\\\\\costs aare detaied in section 62 as

 

62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

(3)The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

(4)The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

 

No magic get out of jail card there unfortunately.

[Peterbard]

Crossed posts

[tomtubby]

What is meant by the regulations as the 'Proceeds of Sale'?

 

As explained above, some websites are seriously misleading debtors by wrongly leading them to believe that an enforcement agent is only able to recover their costs (£75, £235, £110 and any additional costs in relation to the removal of goods) IF goods are actually sold.

 

Sadly, this is NOT the case at all and for clarification debtors need to refer to Section 50(1) which is accurately copied below:

 

 

Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.

 

Proceeds are any of these—

 

(a) proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;

 

or:

 

(b) money taken in exercise of the power.

 

What this means is that the enforcement agents fees may be deducted EITHER from the proceeds of the sale of the debtors goods (household items or a motor vehicle) at auction or from MONEY paid to either the local authority or the enforcement company or agent.

[tomtubby]

What is 'Magicians Choice?

 

Since as far back as 2008 the person responsible for providing the current incorrect advice to debtors has been encouraging the public to 'deploy the Magicians Choice' in order to evade payment of bailiff fees. The same person continues to advice the public to also 'deploy the NOROIRA'.

 

A simple google search will explain what 'Magicians Choice' is. In a 'nutshell' it is a TRICK. And the 'trick' is complete when the unsuspecting debtor pays a fee of £15 to purchase a 'template letter'.

[Peterbard]

What is 'Magicians Choice?

 

Since as far back as 2008 the person responsible for providing the current incorrect advice to debtors has been encouraging the public to 'deploy the Magicians Choice' in order to evade payment of bailiff fees. The same person continues to advice the public to also 'deploy the NOROIRA'.

 

A simple google search will explain what 'Magicians Choice' is. In a 'nutshell' it is a TRICK. And the 'trick' is complete when the unsuspecting debtor pays a fee of £15 to purchase a 'template letter'.

 

I think calling it a trick is being charitable, I think "con" is nearer the mark. The legislation is quite clear, there is no room for misinterpretation.

[brassnecked]

There can be no trick to make the fees go away, No doubt our names will all be mud in the particular sites flame pit

[tomtubby]

Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods; National Standards

 

According to the websites in question, the 'Magicians Choice' can be 'deployed' given that (apparently) Para 31 says the following:

 

"that when enforcement action has ceased, the bailiff cannot enforce the recovery of fees".

 

On this particular point the 'Magicians Choice' trick is in convincing public that the National Standards really does state the above when in reality......it actually says the following:

 

"Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable"

 

So...when does an 'enforcement power cease to be exercisable'? The answer to this can be found under Regulation 17 and states as follows:

 

 

 

Fees and disbursements not recoverable where enforcement process ceases

 

17. (1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.

 

Paragraph (1) does not apply where the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable because the debtor has paid the amount outstanding or that amount has been recovered from proceeds or otherwise.

 

 

 

So, what is meant by the 'enforcement power ceasing'?

 

For example, under Paragraph 53(2) of schedule 12 it states that goods that are unsold at auction are deemed as being "abandoned" and must be returned to the debtor and Para 54(1)(a) confirms that, if that happens, "the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable".

 

Also, for an unpaid court fine if the debtor had made a Statutory Declaration and this was accepted the 'enforcement power ceases to be exercisable" ( and accordingly, the enforcement company cannot then enforce against the debtor for any costs incurred by them).

 

If a local authority recalled a warrant (or Liability Order) the 'enforcement power ceases to be exercisable' and once again, the enforcement agent may not enforce against the debtor for any costs incurred by them.

 

If an Out of Time witness statement was accepted at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (and the Order for Recovery revoked) the 'enforcement power ceases to be exercisable' and again, the enforcement agent may not enforce against the debtor for any costs incurred by them.

[tomtubby]

As outlined above, if the debtor makes a payment to the enforcement agent this is considered as 'proceeds' and it is important to be aware that from any 'proceeds' received the enforcement agent is permitted to deduct at source the "Compliance Stage" fee. This is clearly outlined in the statutory regulations (Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014) (see below)

 

After deducting the Compliance Stage at source the remainder of the payment is distributed on a pro rata basis with some going towards the actual debt to the court/local authority or other creditor and some towards discharging the balance of the enforcement agents fees (and disbursements).

 

To conclude; this is compelling evidence that 'evading bailiff fees' by deploying Magicians Choice' is utter rubbish (and impossible).

 

 

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/13/made

[brassnecked]

Don't think it can be any plainer than that.

[tomtubby]

Naturally, seeking ways to evade paying bailiff fees is something that is of huge interest to websites associated with the Freeman on the Land movement. The link below is to one such site where they advise debtors how 'Magicians Choice' 'supposedly' works with a debt to a local authority for unpaid council tax.

 

The 'advice' given (as useless as it is) is as follows:

 

 

 

Make two identical documents based on this template; take cash and a witness to the council tax payments office.

 

If the council accepts payment ask for a receipt and hand a copy to the bailiff through your letterbox or window.

 

If the council declines your payment then ask the council to confirm this by completing Part A. If they refuse to sign then sign Part B and your witness signs on the council’s behalf. Complete two copies of Part B and hand a copy to the council

 

 

Confirmation of declined payment

Council tax account number:_____________________________________

Name on the account:__________________________________________

Address giving rise to charge:____________________________________

Name of Council_______________________________________________

 

Complete either part A or Part B

 

 

Part A:

Signature confirming declined payment

(The council declines payment).

 

I as an agent of the Council hereby deny the above-named council tax payer to discharge their liability under Regulation 20(3)(a) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

Signed (agent for the council) __________________________

Print name ______________________________________

On (date) _____________

 

 

Part B:

The council refuses to sign

 

I the council tax payer and before a witness together sign before an agent of the council that I, the Signee attempted to discharge my liability under Regulation 20(3)(a) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 but the council prevented me from doing so.

 

Signature (council tax payer) ____________________

Before me (witness) ___________________________

On (date) ___________________________________

 

(Hand a copy of completed Part B to the council.

Make two further copies, one to the Local Government Ombudsman and one to the bailiff and say the matter is in the hands of the LGO.

 

If the bailiff attempts to subvert this notice, file a Form 4 complaint addressed to the bailiff’s certificating court)

 

 

http://www.normanhinks.com/new/index.php/toolbox/bailiffs/sample-letters/6-magicians-choice-getting-out-of-paying-bailiff-fees

[lamma]

If the bailiff attempts to subvert this notice, file a Form 4 complaint

Groan.

I read it as:

When, not if, this fails, file a Form 4 compliant (available here for c.£100).

But the Form 4 will fail as well because all the rules have changed so that is £100 down the pan for starters and the cost if it will just add to your troubles but what the heck the more of those £100 fees the better.

[unclebulgaria67]

When you boil this all down, there is a real issue that most people would agree with. Councils are perhaps over using bailiffs and there needs to be a better way for councils to collect the amounts they are due. It is a tax, the same as any other, but for some reason governments have chosen to have a different system for collection.

 

There is also the issue of Capita running councils admin services and also running two bailiff companies. Government should never have allowed this conflict of interest to occur.

 

Once councils are able to increase their council tax rates again, we could be looking at an average council tax of over £2k per household. This could be against a backdrop of most peoples wages not increasing atleast in line with inflation.

 

There is also the issue of council tax for people in receipt of benefits. Most councils now appear to be charging something, when government are in the process of keeping benefits payments to the minimum they can.

 

I don't blame bailiff companies, as they could be making a lot of money out of other peoples misery, but I do blame government for not coming up with a better system for local authority taxes and collection. National politicians are ducking responsibility and leaving it up to local authorities. When a politician tells you that they are in favour of local decision making, they are delegating responsibility, but they are not giving the local authorities enough money to pay for services, so council tax rates go up.

 

Just a Monday morning moan, but all pretty true.

[lamma]

I now join you:

but all pretty true.

not at all

Its all VERY true

And has deep societal impact and implications.

As the pillage ramps up on what seems a daily basis more and more people are asking "Hang on, just what is going on here ? How does this work ?"

And its happening in the middle classes. History shows us that that is were effective foment originates.

And at this time of the issue of Scottish independence I am sure some are asking themselves

"The people of Scotland are being asked if they want to overturn the Act of Union, what are the mechanics of that ?" Not that I have seen that aspect covered in the media but then I pay very little attention to the media.

 

Interesting times as they say.

[bazm]

And then you read of a hedge fund manager evading fare dodging by paying a 'fee' and Bernie Ecclestone avoiding a mega tax bill by paying 10% and you realise there is something seriously wrong with this country where we continue to squeeze those on benefits/low income as a vote catcher.

 

The trouble is that the media is controlled so tightly that everyone 'believes' that anyone unemployed (worse if not born here) is a huge drain on this country's resources .

 

Sorry for the off-route rant!

[tomtubby]

As I have explained above, the 'trick' is to get the unsuspecting debtor to believe what you are saying and in so doing...extract from them a fee of £15 to 'download' various documents. Most importantly I have just read on the sites in question that using the templates can help the debtor:

 

Recover thousands of pounds in unlawful fees and charges.

 

Seek redress and damages in the courts without solicitor's fees!

 

Use court rules to claim up to £18 per hour for your time.

 

On the little subject of 'claiming £18 per hour, this is actually a very rare possibility indeed and this was confirmed by one poor debtor on 22nd April when he attended court in connection with a claim against Ross & Roberts Ltd. This debtor paid the the website in question a fee of £99 to draft his claim form. Astonishingly, the 'claim form' included the £99 fee for drafting the claim and a simply unbelievable amount of £1,242 for 69 hours of research at £18 per hour !!!

 

Common sense alone would mean that spending 69 hours on 'research' would equate to him working on his case every working day from 10am to 1PM with a break for lunch and every afternoon from 2pm to 5PM for 11 whole days !!!

 

The outcome of the Hearing:

 

The Judge awarded a discount on an Attending to Remove fee of approx £200. He also agreed that Ross & Roberts should not have charged a fee for a bounced cheque. The following are the exact quotes from the debtor himself:

 

"He (the Judge) was particularly critical of me over the large claim for time spent. He refused my affidavit fee and my £99 fee (for drafting the claim form). he agreed that my costs, petrol charges, parking fees, and £60 for lost wages should be paid by the defendant".

 

"We then moved onto the costs. The Judge tore into me a bit about excessive time claimed". He did approve of my Court fee so far paid-some £290 and my traveling expenses of £60"

 

"OK. What have I learned from all this. Certainly the matter of simply claiming back everything from the visit and walking possession fees, is by no means a walk in the park"

 

And:

 

"All in all, the time that I have spent on this has not been worth it money wise"

[Peterbard]

Is there nothing that can be done with this perhaps via the FCA.

 

It seems to me that this is debt advice, does he have a a license for instance.

[Coughdrop]

If the sites referred to are the ones I think, they are registered on nominet to two different people who share the same surname. The registrant in both cases lives in the UAE, does that have any bearing on whether or not they would need to register for a CCL?

[renegadeimp]

You can put any address on a web registration form. It doesnt have to be correct.

[Coughdrop]

I appreciate that. The question was does it have any bearing on the requirement to hold a CCL?

[wonkeydonkey]

If the sites referred to are the ones I think, they are registered on nominet to two different people who share the same surname. The registrant in both cases lives in the UAE, does that have any bearing on whether or not they would need to register for a CCL?

 

That is exactly the impression the sites wish to create....the reality is the owner/author of the sites actually lives in West Sussex. Creating such a falsehood does of course give the impression the man at the top is 'untouchable' should anyone have reason to 'sue' him for charging for duff advice.

[Coughdrop]

Apologies - they don't share the same surname, they're two different people. They share a first name. I don't know how one would prove a falsehood if the registrant lives in the UAE and West Sussex, then there's the other person who is a registrant as well.