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

[wonkeydonkey]

Do they show at the National Association of Licensed Paralegals or the Institute of Paralegals.

 

Neither...Lamma, but then again it was also claimed in another thread he was a member of some 'professional' will writers guild but it transpired to be just like 'gym' membership you take for a year ....then never renew it.

 

I think dodgeball could be onto something ..... a 'paranormal paralegal' passing on advice from the spirit world.....certainly fits with the given advice from the sites in question.

[tomtubby]

This thread and the identical STICKY have been read by nearly 2,000 visitors in just over 2 days. Stunning. If just one person has been assisted it will have been worth the effort but I suspect that many more people have been helped.

[wonkeydonkey]

It proves there was a need to get the information out there, lets hope that those who have taken time to read the thread/sticky will pay heed to the warning it carries. Great effort from you TT as usual, we do seem to take you for granted don't we...... thank god your there for cag and thank you for giving your time FREELY...xxxx

[sillygirl1]

Can I just add that I received an 'enforcement notice' from my local council for £173+ being the remainder of the council dax due, paid the amount on line as soon as my delayed salary came through and so far they haven't chased the 'enforcement fee'. I did point out to them though that I had already informed them of a the problem and that the summons reference they quoted was wrong, as they had withdrawn it in September! Luckily I had the proof they had withdrawn the summons, so attached their enforcement letter to the email to their offices and have decided, as they take 5-10 working days to reply I feel fully justified in using that against them.

 

May I just add that the enforcement notice was hand posted through my letterbox late on Thursday afternoon (don't know what time as I was at work) and said I had 7 days to make an arrangement, however this was the Thursday afternoon before Easter, so 4 of the 7 days were non-working days and again I believe it was a psychological move on their part - again something to use against them.

 

My salary should have been in on Friday but got delayed until lunchtime Tuesday. Tuesday evening I paid the remainder of last years, and then on Wednesday morning I paid the first installment of this years... so most of my salary went to them - again something to use against them.

 

This whole 7 day thing is something that needs to be re-worded as soon as possible - plus the fact that councils have such a backlog due to 'shared service practices' it is in their favour to NOT reply to council tax queries as promptly as they expect payment.

 

I am moving home on the 12th and will visit the council offices on my way to the new place to pay the remainder of the tax on my current property and set up a STANDING ORDER for the new one, yes, I do not do DIRECT DEBTS and insist I control MY money. New property is also a band lower (I've already sent the info to the council about this - including the printout from the land registry site proving it).

[tomtubby]

Sillygirl

 

Your above question is one that is of interest to me and to ensure that this thread stays 'on topic' would you mind editing your post and reposting on the following thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421480-The-Taking-Control-of-Goods-Regulations-2013.-A-general-discussion-thread......./page6

[HCEOs]

May I just add that the enforcement notice was hand posted through my letterbox late on Thursday afternoon (don't know what time as I was at work) and said I had 7 days to make an arrangement, however this was the Thursday afternoon before Easter, so 4 of the 7 days were non-working days and again I believe it was a psychological move on their part - again something to use against them.

 

This whole 7 day thing is something that needs to be re-worded as soon as possible

 

A few points here:

 

Was this notice the prescribed Notice of Enforcement? If so:

 

The 7 days is not working days so it will include the Saturday but not bank holidays (Friday and Monday) or Sundays. If it was delivered Thursday, the first day is Saturday and the second day is Tuesday.

In any event it will have the date you have to pay by on page two.

It can only be delivered by the Enforcement Agent or hos office (not by the council).

 

This sounds like it may just be a 7 day warning letter from the council to me.

[tomtubby]

I hope that this question gets repeated on the right thread as I am VERY interested in the response from HCEO !!!

[tomtubby]

Returning back to work after the bank holiday break I have unfortunately received 4 enquiries from debtors seeking clarification as to whether internet claims that paying the debt direct to the council really does mean that enforcement agents fees cannot be collected. In each case the queries relate to Item 31 of the National Standards (which is the subject of this thread).

[Coughdrop]

This is from a post made on another forum on August 31st 2012 which clearly shows he advocates to have 'legal' qualifications.

 

"I had a classic case several years back. I didnt represent the NRP at his tribunal because I am not a solicitor, but as a qualified paralegal, I drafted his statements, and he got a nice payout, but CMEC (as its former self) was slow making that payment."

 

Wonkeydonkey - are there any links to this or any other posts? If so, and the person / people are not all they seem, the posts and the real information about this person should surely be posted in the public interest.

 

I believe that where many people may be affected by costly advice, especially incorrect advice, it can be legally published as being 'in the public interest' without risk of legal action.

 

Does anyone know more on this final bit please?

[wonkeydonkey]

Wonkeydonkey - are there any links to this or any other posts? If so, and the person / people are not all they seem, the posts and the real information about this person should surely be posted in the public interest.

 

I believe that where many people may be affected by costly advice, especially incorrect advice, it can be legally published as being 'in the public interest' without risk of legal action.

 

Does anyone know more on this final bit please?

 

LB bailiff forum page36 post #16 will cover my post, as to the person not being all they seem...... much has been gathered on the subject in question.........but it would be unfair on cag to publish the dossier.

[Peterbard]

Returning back to work after the bank holiday break I have unfortunately received 4 enquiries from debtors seeking clarification as to whether internet claims that paying the debt direct to the council really does mean that enforcement agents fees cannot be collected. In each case the queries relate to Item 31 of the National Standards (which is the subject of this thread).

must be v frustrating. The problem is that personally I cannot see the powers that be making a pronouncement on the subject, because really it is not a contentious issue, the facts are plain , if you are able to read proficiently.

[tomtubby]

I couldn't find the post on LB but found quite a few more. Take your choice:

 

"That template is the most lucrative one in my library

 

Only last week, the HCEO version of it recovered bogus fees of £2,610.44 from a hapless debtor who came to me back in May. The HCEO wrote back with a carefully worded essay of excuses, I filed the N1 and the client got his money.

 

My 25% cut was £651.51; not bad for 20 minutes reading the client's complaint, plus 20 minutes drafting the letter and N1 and a very happy client"

 

and the following post:

 

 

"I don't need a license because I do not trade in Payment Protection Insurance

 

I use a solicitor (an old friend) to sign off court papers that are court-facing.

 

It also gives me an extra line of legal scrutiny on my draft documents before they are filed at court. I never sign documents on behalf of a client, unless the client wants it on solicitors notepaper (fee applies)"

 

PS: I had to laugh when I read this post:

 

 

"Apparently I am not in CIVEA's good books. They are complaining that I am giving out letter templates and 'dangerous' advice "

[tomtubby]

It is important to get back to the subject of this thread which concerns certain internet sites misleading debtors by claiming the if the amount only of the debt (liability order, unpaid parking charge notice or magistrate court fine) is paid direct to either the local authority or magistrate court that the debtor will be able to evade paying enforcement agents fee. As I have hopefully demonstrated in this thread this 'advice'(for want of a better word) is not only incorrect but it is dangerous as the creditor will almost certainly find that their goods (mainly a motor vehicle) is at serious risk of being removed (or to use the correct phrase...."taken into control").

 

It must not be forgotten that the relevant internet sites charge debtors a fee of £15 for this frankly useless information (the payment will be to purchase template documents).

 

PS: The 'template documents' are well known to all enforcement agents and are by and large......IGNORED by them.

 

The example in the following post should hopefully assist.

[tomtubby]

In 2007 the Government introduced the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act and Part 3 related to the proposal to overhaul the enforcement industry. Part 3 was only implemented on 6th April after 7 years of 'background work' (which included a public Consultation). In this respect the Ministry of Justice employed the services of an Economist to look at the fees and to introduce a fair system. This included proposals for a 'pro rata' system whereby the creditor would receive a proportion of any payments made (either to the enforcement agent or local authority).

 

It is important to point out that in the first instance from any proceeds (including money) the Compliance fee of £75 will always be deducted at source. This is made very clear in the regulations.

 

After deducting the Compliance Stage fee (of £75) 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)

 

Although ‘Pro Rata’ is commonly taken to mean ‘in proportion’. The following example was provided to all CIVEA members at their conference earlier this year

 

Debt (to local authority): £600

 

Compliance fee: £75

 

Enforcement fee: £235

 

Total: £910

 

Compliance fee of £75 is deducted first from any payments made (either direct to the creditor (local authority etc) or enforcement agent leaving a balance of £835.

 

Enforcement Agent agrees a repayment arrangement of £80 per month

 

This is distructed on a pro rata basis (the exact ‘split’) is 71.85p in the £ to the Local Authority and 28.15p in the £ to the enforcement agent.

 

 

Monthly payment of £80 split as follows:

 

Local Authority: £57.48

 

Enforcement Agent: £22.52

 

What this means in practice is that the Liability Order or unpaid PCN will only be discharged if the debt and fees is paid in full. There is no longer any 'wriggle room' to evade paying enforcement agent fees.

[outlawla]

.....Although ‘Pro Rata’ is commonly taken to mean ‘in proportion’. The following example was provided to all CIVEA members at their conference earlier this year.....

 

CIVEA has as much sway as far as the law is concerned surrounding bailiffs (Enforcement Agents) as as bunch of 'have a go heroes' in a pub thinking they have a say. They are no less a leeching, parasitic quango as are the LGO, IPCC, Parliamentary Ombudsman or any of the other bogus watchdog organisations which predominantly mug the taxpayer for their existence.

 

CIVEA should rightly be completely ignored (especially by easy target, naïve local authorities) and the Statutory Instrument adhered to, which in these matters – unless enforcement is kept in house – states that the bailiff (EA) has no claim on any fees paid the council other than the "Compliance fee" (£75).

[outlawla]

CIVEA's example is relevant only where goods are sold under Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

Paragraph 50(2) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (from which the Regulations derive) defines "Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement" which includes "money taken in exercise of the power" as well as "proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods". However, Regulation 13, where proceeds less than the amount outstanding are dealt with, provides solely for "where the goods are sold or disposed of at public auction". The Regulations do not appear to provide for pro-rata payments where the enforcement power relates to money taken in exercise of the power.

 

Additionally you might find (for outsourced enforcement) that even the £75 compliance fee may not be recoverable by the EA unless all the "Amount outstanding" has first been recovered. Local Authorities may well take advantage of paragraph (3) of Regulation 13 and contractually require this as it only states that the enforcement agent may recover the compliance fee.

"

(3) Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent

may

then recover the compliance fee

.