New Sticky...Bailiff Enforcement about being vulnerable

[Peterbard]

Incidentally, I always show evidence , you have seen evidence form everyone it seems and it all says the same thing, you are wrong.

You do not seem to be able to let this go and move on, that should not be our problem, so I wonder why we continually have to be confronted with your nonsense.

 

As for you not taking me seriously, TBH i would be worried if you did.

[Peterbard]

remember this. It as the result of one of your foi's

Pretty comprehensive and echoes word for word what we have been telling you on here.

Now any sensible person would accept this and move on, you have sent probably 100 foi s on precisely the same subject since, all receiving a similar reply.

 

"Direct Payments – Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act 2007

Where an enforcement power confers a right to take control of goods and sell

them to recover a sum of money, then the enforcement must be conducted in

accordance with the procedure in schedule 12 TCE and the regulations made

thereunder.

Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 12 defines an “enforcement power” as a power to

use the procedure in schedule 12 to recover a particular sum. The definition is

wider than the taking control of goods.

The TCE enforcement regime requires a Notice of Enforcement to be issued

as the first stage in the enforcement process, prior to goods being taken into

control, subject to an exception where a court order has been obtained. This

“compliance stage” is therefore an integral part of the TCE enforcement

“procedure”.

It is therefore not necessary for goods to be taken into control for the

provisions of the TCE to apply and this includes with regard to the distribution

of monies.

FOI ref . 3783 Response sent . 23 February

The “amount outstanding” is defined at paragraph 50(3) of schedule 12 as the

sum of

(a) The amount of the debt which remains unpaid;

(b) Any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations

under paragraph 62 (costs)

The proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to

pay the amount outstanding: paragraph 50 (1).

Proceeds are defined as any of -

(a) Proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods

(b) Money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to

it.

The compliance stage fee is, in accordance with regulation 5 (1) (a) of the

TCOG (Fees) Regulations 2014, due and payable from receipt by the EA of

the instruction to use the schedule 12 procedure. Therefore, from the point in

time when the EA receives the instruction, the sum required to fully settle the

liability includes the appropriate fee.

Money paid to the Council following the issue of an instruction to an

Enforcement Agent, is clearly money paid, and taken, under compulsion of the

Enforcement Power and accordingly any such payment is subject to the TCE

procedures.

The distribution of funds where an amount less than the full sum outstanding

is paid is governed by regulation 13 of the TCOG (fees) regulations and where

relevant to a direct payment, this regulation directs that the payment should

be allocated in the following order, compliance fee and then pro rata in

payment of the debt and fees. "

[outlawla]

and you do ?

 

Before even considering re-posting the evidence, this has already been reinforced in a post a day or two ago by bailiff advice.

 

You have paid the debt due to the Council and deliberately ignored the statutory costs of Enforcement. You managed to pay £348.61 to the Council on 14th November 2015. You now need to pay £75 to ourselves.

 

 

Is this an admision to posting comments which are tongue in cheek?

 

As for you not taking me seriously, TBH i would be worried if you did.

 

EDIT: Will you please edit the post above, because no one will bother to read it in the vertical style you have presented it. Even the Chinese have fallen in line with the rest of the world and conformed to writing horizontally.

[Peterbard]

B

 

You have paid the debt due to the Council and deliberately ignored the statutory costs of Enforcement. You managed to pay £348.61 to the Council on 14th November 2015. You now need to pay £75 to ourselves.

 

Is this an admision to posting comments which are tongue in cheek?

 

 

.

 

NO , i regard this as an accurate record of what happened. The debtor paid the La but still owes the money/fee. This is what it says.

 

How does this help your case that fees are not due on direct payment ?

[Peterbard]

You see you are so accustomed to re interpreting to fit your own predetermined ideas , that really you do not know you are doing it any more.

[brassnecked]

AAAAAAGHHHHHH enough already Keep it civil, said the copper to the debtor

[Peterbard]

Strange isn't it, that the three of them bleat about wanting to see proof, but when presented with all the legislation they are unable to come up with anything which contradicts it.

[brassnecked]

Strange isn't it, that the three of them bleat about wanting to see proof, but when presented with all the legislation they are unable to come up with anything which contradicts it.

Well they have one interpretation, and the MOJ another as have the bailiffs who have their own. We need to make sure the advice on here is definitive and accurate, so maybe the John Kruse position on the legislation is key. It's pointless going round in circles.

[Peterbard]

I would be surprised if John would comment on this, as said it is really a none issue and plainly covered in the legislation.

 

At the base f this is the inability for some to understand that once an enforcment power exists the debt is payable and owed to the bailiff, simple as that.

[silverfox1961]

Ladies, Gentlemen.

Can you please keep this thread on topic and not keep going off on a tangent to argue your points. This thread is about vulnerable debtors, not the legalities of the charges.

 

I would hate to close a thread but it may come to that even if it is just to cleanse the spat between users.

 

There are plenty of of other threads where you can debate the issue on charges.

 

In other words. Keep it civil.

[Bailiff Advice]

Start one then, but don't do it on my behalf.

 

I'm pretty sure you've threatened to do this before but not followed through with it because you know you are on to a loser.

 

I'm calling your bluff. Give us the evidence that people can rely on your advice that effectively states that choosing to enrich the enforcement industry is the only way round settling council tax liability one it has been outsourced to these opportunists crooks?

 

Yet again Outlawla you have managed to disrupt this thread so that you can use it to pursue your endless (and frankly obsessive) theory about making payments direct to the local authority once an account has been referred to a bailiff company.

 

This thread was an important one about 'vulnerability'. I posted a copy of a letter from Jacobs Ltd that had been sent to a debtor who had 'claimed' that she was from a 'vulnerable household'. That debtor made payment direct to the council (minus the Compliance fee of £75) and Jacobs have given her a final opportunity to pay the balance of what she owes (of £75). The only part of the letter that is of interest to you personally is the request by Jacobs of the amount of £75.

 

You consider that the comment proves that your 'theory' is right and that the local authority have not abided by the regulations and deducted the Compliance fee of £75. In fact, the letter says no such thing. All that the letter is saying is that the debtor needs to now pay £75. My opinion is that the council have deducted the compliance fee of £75 and accordingly there is still a balance remaining under the enforcement power.

 

Given that this part of the forum is for discussions/debates about bailiff enforcement then yes, I will start a new thread about paying a local authority direct once a bailiff has been instructed.

 

However, it may not be to your liking.

[outlawla]

Can we now please get back on topic.

[Peterbard]

The council obviously has no intention of parting with this presumably £75 compliance fee then?

 

Just to remind you of where it was that this thread went off topic.

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread is about vulnerability and nothing else and certainly not about the compliance fee or who it was paid to.

[mikeymack2002]

Well it seems that a thread was started on 2014 about this and still nothing seems to have moved forward has it? I am now wondering why this is! Why has not a lot been done since this time when a poster asked this very question?

 

 

Here we are some 21 months further on and still this is being talked about with no progress. Who was this poster? Umm me!!! It was discussed very shortly by BN/DX/TT/MM and that was all...

 

 

A quote by TT

 

 

"Trying to answer your query as to the 'guidelines' for vulnerability with the enforcement sector I am afraid to say that nobody appears to know the answer and we show know more in the next week or so when the third and final regulations about the certification process is released. It is expected that we will see in that document details of the training regime that bailiffs will have to undergo before certification."

 

So it still appears that no one knows even now.... Is this issue going to resolved? I don't think it ever will be do you?

[mikeymack2002]

Finally the .gov website has updated its page re vulnerable people see here >> https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

updated on the 04/12/2015

 

 

Dealing with bailiffs

 

You usually don’t have to open your door to a bailiff or let them in.

Bailiffs can’t enter your home:

 

• by force, eg push past you
  
• if only children under 16 or vulnerable people (eg, disabled) are present
  
• between 9pm and 6am
  
• through anything except the door
  

On the second bullet point I guess that this means if the ONLY person present? Or can they still come in if a carer is with them?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Finally the .gov website has updated its page re vulnerable people see here >> https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

updated on the 04/12/2015

 

 

Dealing with bailiffs

 

You usually don’t have to open your door to a bailiff or let them in.

Bailiffs can’t enter your home:

 

• by force, eg push past you
  
• if only children under 16 or vulnerable people (eg, disabled) are present
  
• between 9pm and 6am
  
• through anything except the door
  

On the second bullet point I guess that this means if the ONLY person present? Or can they still come in if a carer is with them?

 

My god, whoever wrote this .gov guide is seriously misinformed.

 

No.1 we can enter your house if you are vulnerable, but we may be unable to TAKE CONTROL OF GOODS.

 

No.2 the percentage scales change with different warrant/writ types.

 

No.3 a bailiff is NEVER going to just pop his id through a letter box.

 

No.4 you can be arrested for non payment of a penalty notice????? Really? They must have recriminalised parking then.

 

No.5 we can enter through other means than just the door in certain circumstances. The regulation states "usual means of access" so if debtor is regularly going in and out through a window as is usual access then so can we.

 

All in all, there is some very weird guidance there.

[Bailiff Advice]

MM

 

On your point above, yes, this means what is says, if the ONLY persons present are children under 16 or a 'vulnerable' person then the bailiff cannot enter the property.

 

A debtor who has a Carer would naturally be in receipt of the highest level of DLA. The local authority would be aware of such cases and I would sincerely hope that the family would make the council aware of vulnerability. This is also why the Notice of Enforcement is such a vital document as serious cases of vulnerability should be brought to the attention of the enforcement agent at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Bailiff Advice]

My god, whoever wrote this .gov guide is seriously misinformed.

 

All in all, there is some very weird guidance there.

 

Such as this:

 

Offer to pay what you can afford in weekly or monthly payments.

 

and this:

 

The bailiff doesn’t have to accept your offer.

[Peterbard]

If the EA is made aware that there is vulnerability, it is only notification that he should be aware of the situation and act accordingly, it does not mean that he cannot call.

[mikeymack2002]

I wasn't trying to annoy posters but when I read the quoted section I knew I had to post it.

 

The fact that this is now the latest in a series of documents then I guess the EA will have to follow it, why because it now contains the words must and not!

 

So where does this leave us all now? This could be very interesting indeed!

[mikeymack2002]

DB according to this the EA cannot enter. Nothing has been said they cannot call. I don't see where you get this from as it's not written anywhere..

[Peterbard]

DB according to this the EA cannot enter. Nothing has been said they cannot call. I don't see where you get this from as it's not written anywhere..

 

I should get back in bed MM.

 

It is still a relavant point, as many people think that this is the case and in fact are encouraged to do so. In any case as Grumpy says, the restriction is not on bailiffs entry, it is on taking control of goods.

[mikeymack2002]

With what is written above the EA cannot enter, so how will the EA check to see if there are goods to control?

 

What is actually written is 'the EA cannot' enter which as I see it that means no entry, pure and simple! But there is always a but is this document an error?

 

If so will it be replaced asap? Or left as it is? So presently at this moment in time this is what has to happen... or not due to more interpretation of it....

 

Reading it as it is now written the EA cannot enter blah blah blah and so on...

 

Nothing to do with CoGs but entry in this case...

[Peterbard]

With what is written above the EA cannot enter, so how will the EA check to see if there are goods to control?

 

What is actually written is 'the EA cannot' enter which as I see it that means no entry, pure and simple! But there is always a but is this document an error?

 

If so will it be replaced asap? Or left as it is? So presently at this moment in time this is what has to happen... or not due to more interpretation of it....

 

Reading it as it is now written the EA cannot enter blah blah blah and so on...

 

The guidence is wrong MM ??