Can Baillif company add all the fees before they visit newlyns & 2012 CTAX LO

[brassnecked]

Good luck with it all leakie, I feel your council does not seem a beacon of light, no joined up thinking.

[Peterbard]

Yes certainty a move forward, and as long as the repayment is affordable i dont suppose it really makes a difference.

The thing with the compliance fee is that the authority will be expected to pay the bailiff these if they instruct them to return the accounts.

The authority could wave this, but usually they seek to recover it from the debtor.

[Leakie]

Thank you BN

your comments are appreciated,

It is not necessarily to council, it is the regs that they are under,

 

The lady at the council wants to help but her hands are tied.

 

one example

the council rejigged the bills, when I became a single parent

when my wife left there was one month CT when council tax was due with out the single discount ,

1 year on they sorted this out,but for what ever reason I did not know and did not pay £95

so a LO was applied for and the amount owed had doubled and NoE fees had been added, this is when I found out so the Debt

had increased by £170 before I knew about it.

the £95 fee will remain but the £75 may go.

 

I live in hope

 

Leakie

[Coughdrop]

If any of the accounts are passed back, the fees for that account die on their return. If all accounts are passed back, all fees die; if one account is passed back, 1 x £75 Compliance Stage fee will die because the enforcement power for that account will have died.

[Bailiff Advice]

Leakie,

 

I am pleased to hear that the local authority are assisting you. They can if they wish, bring the debts back into their own control but, like many councils, they believe that they cannot intervene when a debt is with the enforcement agencies. This is not the case at all. Hopefully in time, their understanding of the regulations will improve.

 

What frustrates me (and I know the DB feels the same way) is that time and again, we see people being told to 'sit it out' in the mistaken belief that they will then be able to be free of bailiff fees and that a payment arrangement can be made with the council.

 

Twice in one week on this forum, this 'theory' (because that is what it is) has failed, and in both cases (and this is the worst part)....it has affected clearly vulnerable debtors.

 

As has been proved yet again, when a debt is returned, the account can be instantly referred to another enforcement company.

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed and as said if they do agree a repayment regime they will require [payment for any work done from the authority, they will then try to recover this also. They may even state that the debtor pay this before they take it back

 

Nat standards

 

11. Creditors agreeing the suspension of a warrant or making direct payment

arrangements with debtors must give appropriate notification to and should pay

appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have

undertaken.

[Coughdrop]

Thank you DB

I did bring this up

 

The key to this is if Rossendales decide to return the LO's

they will then inform me and an arrangement can possibly be made.

 

So either Rossendales fail to collect or the welfare dept decide to pass back,

nothing is written in stone ( I have recorded conversation )

 

 

So we're talking about the bailiffs returning the account either by choice, or because they have failed to collect. Surely in each of these scenarios the fees would die.

[AndyOrch]

Posts unapproved...please do not turn this into a discussion thread..if you don't agree or questioning a post...just type your query..no need for all the quotes and dissections etc.

 

Andy

[Coughdrop]

I query whether posters are told to sit it out? I think they are given a range of options so they can make an informed decision.

 

Also, I think the two cases on this forum where sitting it out has failed possibly did not originate from this forum, but were 'brought in' and cited from proper social media sites.

 

It is, of course, absolutely right that the LA could assign the case to another enforcement company, and the debtor could be given the same advice again. Equally, the LA might do an AOE or use one of the other collection methods at their disposal. What 'might' happen is speculation. The aim is to get the debt repaid via a method the debtor is comfortable with. There is no question of it not being repaid, that would clearly be debt evasion - a tactic which frequently fails on proper social media sites.

[Coughdrop]

I query also when creditors agree the suspension of a warrant or make direct payment

arrangements with debtors, whether it is the debtor who has to pay fees, as the guidance is clear the creditor must pay appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have undertaken (as per the National Standards, para.11). This is, of course, reasonable as they are contracted to the creditor, and could not be expected to work for nothing.

 

The critical thing is the creditor pays the fees, not the debtor.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Coughdrop

[Peterbard]

Yes certainty a move forward, and as long as the repayment is affordable i dont suppose it really makes a difference.

The thing with the compliance fee is that the authority will be expected to pay the bailiff these if they instruct them to return the accounts.

The authority could wave this, but usually they seek to recover it from the debtor.

 

 

See above.

 

Anyway as said it seems to be movng onn Leakie, as BA says please keep us updated.

[Leakie]

As you say DB if it is affordable,

I can only offer what I can,

If they do not accept then I only have one option and sit it out again,

Not something I wish to do.

 

I now have the letter from Family Solutions,

For those who do not know Family solutions only work with families that are in a Vulnerable position.

 

Again it is all down to interpretation,

 

Leakie

[Leakie]

DB post 107

 

The impression I was give was that the council will only make an arrangement

if Rossendales pass it back.

The same as Newlyns passed it back.

If this was the case then surely The Newlyns fees would still be on the debt,

this is not the case.

 

My understanding and I may be wrong is that if the LO's are passed back by the EA company,

then the fee's are lost by the EA company,

But if the council recall then the fee's will remain payable.

This is why when you speak to any one in recovery department,

they will say there is nothing they can do as it is out with the EA company,

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

DB post 107

 

The impression I was give was that the council will only make an arrangement

if Rossendales pass it back.

The same as Newlyns passed it back.

If this was the case then surely The Newlyns fees would still be on the debt,

this is not the case.

 

My understanding and I may be wrong is that if the LO's are passed back by the EA company,

then the fee's are lost by the EA company,

But if the council recall then the fee's will remain payable.

This is why when you speak to any one in recovery department,

they will say there is nothing they can do as it is out with the EA company,

 

Leakie

 

Yes thats about right, if the account is returned on an ongoing enforcement at the request of the debtor and the authority the bailiff are entitled to fees for any work done up until that point.

 

If the enforcment has allready been ineffective then no fees will be due. It is a matter of contract the bailiff has not failed to perform he is returning the action on request.

[Leakie]

Just had a read through from the beginning,

 

I can now see where my misunderstanding came from with regards to the 7.5% uplift.

I think it came from the way Newlyns presented there paper work.

As there were the 3 LO's the uplift was almost correct.

Newlyns showed in one of the letters the Largest LO

 

£1455 +75+235+7.5% @ £68

the other 2 just showed the £75 NoE

 

but adding them all together, without the Fee's this figure may have been not far out.

I had asked the question on the one letter and not all of them.

 

Now Rossendales say they calculate it differently

they charge the uplift on the whole amount owed to the council and all there fees,

this was how it was explained to me, by there adviser.

Also where Rossendales are different the uplift is not added until the EA attends the property

where Newlyns added before the first visit

 

I think that the biggest problem is that even the EA companies, interpret it differently.

So you can see why there is so much debate on here to do with the Regs.

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

Just had a read through from the beginning,

 

I can now see where my misunderstanding came from with regards to the 7.5% uplift.

I think it came from the way Newlyns presented there paper work.

As there were the 3 LO's the uplift was almost correct.

Newlyns showed in one of the letters the Largest LO

 

£1455 +75+235+7.5% @ £68

the other 2 just showed the £75 NoE

 

but adding them all together, without the Fee's this figure may have been not far out.

I had asked the question on the one letter and not all of them.

 

Now Rossendales say they calculate it differently

they charge the uplift on the whole amount owed to the council and all there fees,

this was how it was explained to me, by there adviser.

Also where Rossendales are different the uplift is not added until the EA attends the property

where Newlyns added before the first visit

 

I think that the biggest problem is that even the EA companies, interpret it differently.

So you can see why there is so much debate on here to do with the Regs.

 

Leakie

 

The regulations state that , if the sums due(that is the ammount on the liability orders) are to be enforced at the same time then the procedure is, you add all three sums together, disregard the first £1500 and then calculate 7.5% on the rest.

 

If they are not doing this they are wrong.

[Leakie]

Yes DB this is my understanding

 

I was just stating where my confusion was in the beginning, the way it was set out.

So Newlyns were correct ,

 

But as I have stated Rossendales think differently

Anything above the £1500, is 7.5% uplift including there fees

So they will uplift an extra £34.50

Maybe the adviser was misinformed

 

leakie

[Peterbard]

Yes DB this is my understanding

 

I was just stating where my confusion was in the beginning, the way it was set out.

So Newlyns were correct ,

 

But as I have stated Rossendales think differently

Anything above the £1500, is 7.5% uplift including there fees

So they will uplift an extra £34.50

Maybe the adviser was misinformed

 

leakie

 

Yes probably a polite way of saying it.

[Coughdrop]

It's set out quite simply here:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/7/made

[Peterbard]

Just had a read through from the beginning,

 

I can now see where my misunderstanding came from with regards to the 7.5% uplift.

I think it came from the way Newlyns presented there paper work.

As there were the 3 LO's the uplift was almost correct.

Newlyns showed in one of the letters the Largest LO

 

£1455 +75+235+7.5% @ £68

the other 2 just showed the £75 NoE

 

but adding them all together, without the Fee's this figure may have been not far out.

I had asked the question on the one letter and not all of them.

 

Now Rossendales say they calculate it differently

they charge the uplift on the whole amount owed to the council and all there fees,

this was how it was explained to me, by there adviser.

Also where Rossendales are different the uplift is not added until the EA attends the property

where Newlyns added before the first visit

 

 

Leakie

 

 

Sory missed this bit. The uplift can only be applied a enforcement, so only after the first visit by the EA.

[Coughdrop]

I should perhaps have added this list of definitions to clarify language:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/2/made

[Peterbard]

As regards combining sums due[

 

b)the amount In relation to which the percentage fee for each stage, if any, is to be calculated is the total amount of the sums to be recovered under all enforcement powers to which paragraph (1) applies.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/11/made

[Peterbard]

For other members

 

If the matter of calculation the uplift is an issue we can start a thread over on discussion.

 

sorry for the interuption

[Coughdrop]

For other members

 

If the matter of calculation the uplift is an issue we can start a thread over on discussion.

 

sorry for the interuption

 

I don't think it is complicated.

 

Legislation is here:

 

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

 

Paras. 2 (for definitions), 4, 7 and 11 explain uplift (5 & 6 depending whether or not high court).

 

I think a common misunderstanding might be what an enforcement power actually is. Simply put (as i understand it), if I owe one council tax debt, there is one enforcement power; if I owe three, there are three enforcement powers being combined, so one for each debt.

 

The definition of an enforcement power can be found in paragraph 1(2) of the link below:

 

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

 

That's my understanding anyway!

[Leakie]

I & E form sent off today with letter from Family solutions

and a copy of the repayment with council,

 

I have £5.50 spare a week.

 

So I did not offer anything until the end of prepayment plan

then £25 per week after this has ended.

 

Some how think EA will be coming soon and more charges.

It will arrive Monday so will know soon enough.

 

leakie