Refusing to deal with enforcement agents - Off Topic Posts

[stu007]

[Peterbard]

 

Im trying

[Leakie]

Ok so the other tread had gone off topic Dodgeball but can you answer the questions which has been asked on this thread,

where does it state that we have to deal with the EA in law

 

I personnel have respect for you and BA's knowledge, but you both seem to favour the EA's

it may not be the case but it does come across this way,

 

I respectfully ask you to show the link if this is the case, for the original question,

 

I live in hope lol

[Peterbard]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433424-Ministry-of-Justice-explain-why-the-Compliance-Fee-of-%A375-is-deducted-first.&highlight=neckbeard

[Bailiff Advice]

As your very keen on legislation perhaps you could point to where you have to deal with an EA?

 

And you seem very keen to disrupt this thread and forum. So very obvious.

[Peterbard]

We have been around bailiff law for some time and were both involved in the formation of the TCE in the early days. Eas are not going anywhere, the new laws are working but they have to be allowed to, all this trying to point out imaginary loopholes in not helping..

 

In the middle of all this are people who do not give a stuff about the law but just want reliable accurate advice on how best to handle their debt..

[Peterbard]

Ok so the other tread had gone off topic Dodgeball but can you answer the questions which has been asked on this thread,

where does it state that we have to deal with the EA in law

 

I personnel have respect for you and BA's knowledge, but you both seem to favour the EA's

it may not be the case but it does come across this way,

 

I respectfully ask you to show the link if this is the case, for the original question,

 

I live in hope lol

 

I have seen this onvarious FMoTL forums and it seems to be somehing of a chant , we do not have to deal with you".

 

It is a nonsense. There is no law anywhere which says you have to do anything, there are laws which give the sanction or penalty should you chose a certain action or inaction however.

 

In the case of the TCE the penalty for not dealing with bailiffs is the increasing fee , and the possibility of continuing bailiff harassment.

Perhaps this does not mean a lot to some people but many do not want to live in fear of the six o'clock knock for a year of their live, knowing that the debt can be reissued and then the same thing again or an alternative action can be taken against them.

 

Debts have to be addressed and in most cases, it is because they have not addressed this, that the bailiff is knocking.

[neil_tp]

And you seem very keen to disrupt this thread and forum. So very obvious.

 

 

Any chance of you answering the question then? Or is CAG now only for people who toe the party line?

[neil_tp]

Lots of reports both in here and other forums, perhaps you are referring to the situation before the new rues came into place.

 

Bailiffs are not part of the LA anymore they are a separate entity. If the LA accepts payment and does not pass fees along to the bailiff they are in breach of a contract between them(as well as the applicable law)

 

 

Your just making things up, Not every LA does things the same way!

[Peterbard]

Your just making things up, Not every LA does things the same way!

 

They all work under the same section of the TCE , now why dont you stop trying to disrupt this thread.

 

If you want to know something try my ask aspell thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

Ok so the other tread had gone off topic Dodgeball but can you answer the questions which has been asked on this thread, where does it state that we have to deal with the EA in law

 

I personnel have respect for you and BA's knowledge, but you both seem to favour the EA's it may not be the case but it does come across this way,

 

I appreciate that your question has been aimed at Dodgeball but I hope that you do not mind if I also respond.

 

 

Can I refuse to pay a bailiff?

 

For the avoidance of doubt and this need to be made clear, there is no actual legal obligation on a debtor to engage with, or 'deal' with a bailiff/enforcement agent. In fact, if a debtor wishes, he can completely ignore a bailiff.

 

 

Can I pay the council instead of the bailiff?

 

Yes. Payment can be made to the council. However, if your payment is made whilst the account is with the enforcement agent, then it is almost always the case that the council will refer your payment to the enforcement company. They will deduct the Compliance fee of £75 and with regards to the balance; this will be split on a 'pro rata' basis (70% towards the debt to the council and 30% towards any remaining bailiff fees).

 

 

If I refuse to pay the bailiff, can he take my car?

 

Yes. If you do not pay or enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement, then your car is almost certainly at risk and will continue to be so, until the enforcement agent returns the debt back to the local authority

 

 

How long will I have to wait until the bailiff sends my account back to the council?

 

This can vary from approx 3 months to 6 months and is usually dependant on the individual requirements in the contract between the enforcement company and local authority.

 

 

How many times will the bailiff visit me?

 

As many times as he likes.

 

 

Will I still owe bailiff fees if my debt is returned back to the council?

 

No. Any bailiff fees that would have been added by the enforcement company are removed.

[neil_tp]

They all work under the same section of the TCE , now why dont you stop trying to disrupt this thread.

 

If you want to know something try my ask aspell thread.

 

 

Anything I ask results in you not answering the actual question, buttercup & leake have the same problem. It appears that you only have your view point even when given evidence ie not all LA's give payments to the EA company. So I can only assume that CAG is not independent anymore.

[Peterbard]

Anything I ask results in you not answering the actual question, buttercup & leake have the same problem. It appears that you only have your view point even when given evidence ie not all LA's give payments to the EA company. So I can only assume that CAG is not independent anymore.

Just because we choose not to respond to your drivel has nothing to do with CAG one way or the other , now this is quite an important thread, so could you please stop trying to disrupt it with your nonsense.

[Leakie]

Thank you Dodgeball but this covers the compliance fee£75,

 

I understand this and accept this is the case the same once the EA attends the property the £235 fee comes into effect,

 

But as Buttercup7 has asked where does it say that You MUST deal with the EA

 

if the EA is unsuccessful they pass it back to the council.

 

So in effect this indicates to me that if you do not engage with the EA it will eventfully be passed back and in your words,

Post17 of the link you provided the fees will be dropped.

 

I am not, and I am sure Buttercup7 are not looking for imaginary loophole as you say, as we have both stated we want to pay the debt that is owed.

but not the rip off fees that the EA companies charge.

I appreciate they are a business, but they need to follow the regs and not change them to suit themselves.and follow it to the letter.

and if they do mess up with the interpretation, of TCE then they should be brought to book as you or I would, if we do not comply with the Law.

 

But as BA has stated in my thread about fraud by the EA,s company no one has been prosecuted for this, in other words it is ok for them to do as they want.

So after looking for some time I still can not find where it says you must engage with the EA's in the law.

 

with regards to your last sentence, I agree with you, but if the want help to sort there debts out, without worrying the law, why would they want to pay an extra £310 in fees this would not help,

 

Unfortunately it seems TCE has put everyone in the will not pay box, and not can not pay or need more time, box.

 

which is not the real world, everyone's circumstances are different, ( may I ask if anyone who would have been affected by TCE was involved in the consultation, if they had been and listened too, then may be we would not need to have these posts )

 

I have already state I am not in FoTL camp before this is thrown back at me.

 

 

 

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

Fees and charges are now set in stone bailiffs can no longer get away with inflating either.

 

I understood the query was about sums being paid to the council then the debt being passed back in an attempt to avoid fees.

This cannot happen as explained because the LA will simply take what is owed to the bailiff out of what is payed and the amount owed to the council will be short that amount, so the order will not be paid and enforcment by whatever method will continue;

[neil_tp]

Just because we choose not to respond to your drivel has nothing to do with CAG one way or the other , now this is quite an important thread, so could you please stop trying to disrupt it with your nonsense.

 

 

 

You have been quite insulting personally where do I report you?

[Leakie]

Thanks BA for answering the question, for Buttercup7

 

My last post crossed,

I understand the possible consequences,

Unfortunately I have had to deal with a few bailiff's /EA's.

due to circumstances beyond my control, and 1 Lo spiracle into 2 and so on. pay one off and get another LO,

because of paying off the first one and the added fees, which then causes me to pay late for the council tax, and another LO.

I have 2 more LO's to be settled with Newlyns and an arrangement with the council for another.

About 40% owed are LO fee's and EA's fees, catch 22 in my case.

I have learnt how they work on peoples fear.

My fear has now gone, and I will eventually get it all paid off, once most of those fee's are drop on return to the council.

This is why I will not deal with the EA's,

I have nothing of value. so they can not get blood out of stone as they say.

 

I have lost that fear

[neil_tp]

Fees and charges are now set in stone bailiffs can no longer get away with inflating either.

 

I understood the query was about sums being paid to the council then the debt being passed back in an attempt to avoid fees.

This cannot happen as explained because the LA will simply take what is owed to the bailiff out of what is payed and the amount owed to the council will be short that amount, so the order will not be paid and enforcment by whatever method will continue;

 

Not true, https://hardpressedthinker.wordpress.com/

[Peterbard]

Thee reason bailiffs are not generally prosecuted for fraud is that offences are generally covered by section 66 of the TCE, fraud is a criminal matter and very hard to prove because of intent issues.As for paying the extra fee, it is really the debtors choice, but if you have seizable assets it may be cheap at half the price as they say, also we can always find a reason to put off paying a debt, this is just another one in many cases.. and of course as said avoiding bailiffs and having them interfere with your life in general is not the most pleasant thing,

 

To be honest and avoiding the BS, many or most debtors put themselves in the wont pay bow by ignoring there debts, until this late stage.

 

If oyou are talking about the later consultation i was involved in it as were man y others on here as apart of a work or voluntary activities.

[Leakie]

Thanks again Dodgeball

please check your quote in the link you provided post 17

it will be passed back to the LA and the fee's dropped,

what you are now saying is the fees will be paid to both if paid direct to the LA , but this is when it is still in the EA's hands and not passed back to the LA

[Leakie]

Just to clarify I was not questioning, your or BA's input into TCE

[Peterbard]

Not true, https://hardpressedthinker.wordpress.com/

 

Yes oerfectly true this was an attempt to prove a silly idea by sending out countless FOI hoing that someone would resond with a phrase which could be missinterpreted.

And of course due to the sheer numbers some did.

At his point concils where having to deal with a new regime and many were trying to use their existing systems to cope. Some where not sending fees directly to bailiffs , this did not mean that they were not paying them, believe me the bailiffs would have made sure they were paid, but possibly at the end of the month or the quarter, the council's answered the questions pragmatically, however one thing that was not highlighted and which virtually all of these agree ln is that fees are always due and payable to the EA which I would have thought was the main ppnt.

 

In short it wa a complete wast of time by someone who had noting better to do and has little knowledge.

[Leakie]

Neil-tp

 

In defence of Dodgeball

I think our wires were crossed.

Dodgeball was saying if you pay the LA When it is still with the EA, then there will be a shortfall and a debt will still be owed to the EA.

 

 

We are talking about when it has finally been returned to the LA , and then pay the LA direct then the fee's are dropped.

[wonkeydonkey]

Not true, https://hardpressedthinker.wordpress.com/

 

There are two on the list of 'Do Not' that I know for certain do pass monies paid to them onto their bailiffs. However, both of these may have changed their policy since the date the information was collected. I had dealings with them October & December 2015.

[Peterbard]

Thanks again Dodgeball

please check your quote in the link you provided post 17

it will be passed back to the LA and the fee's dropped,

what you are now saying is the fees will be paid to both if paid direct to the LA , but this is when it is still in the EA's hands and not passed back to the LA

 

Not sure what you thought i said however my opnion has not changed op this for the last couple of years. Sums paid to the LA in respect of fees due will not be refunded, the only fees that are dropped are those not yet paid, ones already paid will not be refunded, if that is what you mean.