Bailiff fees and the correct procedure to follow if a debtor pays creditor direct.

[Andyorch]

Hmmmm..... it seems some are able to do so. Perhaps someone should check the permissions of the posters on this thread, you know, just to make sure.

 

It is not set within the users permissions...it a default of the Forum software

[Whitely]

It is not set within the users permissions...it a default of the Forum software

 

Certainly the mods can over-rule that as they can edit posts at any time. It seems that a non-mod member may also be able to do so, editing their posts way beyond the 10 min rule.

[Peterbard]

I wish they did, do wonders for my posts.

 

Whitely the judge said nothing about Proceeds and them being legal nonsense, I know it is par for the course to misquote statute and case law where you come from, but please do not do it on here.

[Peterbard]

Do you have a source for that 80% figure as my FOIs state the exact opposite. Can you also explain under what legal compulsion the authorities would be relying upon should they decide to pass on payments? Remember, calling direct payments 'proceeds of enforcement' thus bound to s13 would be 'a legal nonsense'. So why should public money be diverted in this way?

 

The legal compulsion is the ordinary requirement to pay a contractor what is due, probably a foreign concept to you, but in the case of an ongoing contractual agreement, an encumbrant on the authority. Fees are described and quantified within the act,(this is what the EA charge)

[unclebulgaria67]

If everyone was able to just pay creditors and avoid enforcement fees because the law allowed that, then the law would be updated. Seems illogical to me that law would be written to make one of the key methods of obtaining money a waste of time for Enforcement Companies. They would not do the work.

[Whitely]

If everyone was able to just pay creditors and avoid enforcement fees because the law allowed that, then the law would be updated. Seems illogical to me that law would be written to make one of the key methods of obtaining money a waste of time for Enforcement Companies. They would not do the work.

 

UB - I don't know how many times I need to repeat this but it seems this site is stuck in a loop of thinking the argument is that by paying the creditor direct removes all fees. It doesn't and no-one is arguing that - no one at all has ever said that paying direct means all fees are removed. The EA is due his fees and there is no argument against that.

 

However a direct payment cannot be classed as proceeds of enforcement otherwise they would be bound by s13 of the 2014 regs - there is no choice in the matter, proceeds of enforcement must follow s13.

 

An EA can only, only collect his fees from the proceeds of enforcement, there are no other provisions at all. Proceeds can only be collected using the sch12 procedure. Once you connect all those dots it becomes clear that a council has no authority to decide on a whim that a direct payment is suddenly classed as proceeds for the sake of convenience.

 

The EA must pursue his fees separately.

[Whitely]

The legal compulsion is the ordinary requirement to pay a contractor what is due, probably a foreign concept to you, but in the case of an ongoing contractual agreement, an encumbrant on the authority. Fees are described and quantified within the act,(this is what the EA charge)

 

Dodgeball - the contracts will only ever state that fees would be paid if the council asked the EA to return the warrant, and even then it wouldn't be paid by the debtor.. You are becoming ever more desperate.

[Whitely]

Whitely the judge said nothing about Proceeds and them being legal nonsense.

 

I know he didn't - perhaps you should re-read it to see who did.

[Peterbard]

UB - I don't know how many times I need to repeat this but it seems this site is stuck in a loop of thinking the argument is that by paying the creditor direct removes all fees. It doesn't and no-one is arguing that - no one at all has ever said that paying direct means all fees are removed. The EA is due his fees and there is no argument against that.

 

However a direct payment cannot be classed as proceeds of enforcement otherwise they would be bound by s13 of the 2014 regs - there is no choice in the matter, proceeds of enforcement must follow s13.

 

An EA can only, only collect his fees from the proceeds of enforcement, there are no other provisions at all. Proceeds can only be collected using the sch12 procedure. Once you connect all those dots it becomes clear that a council has no authority to decide on a whim that a direct payment is suddenly classed as proceeds for the sake of convenience.

 

The EA must pursue his fees separately.

 

This is disingenuous in the extreme, you and your friends have said that this is a way to avoid fees on many occasions.

 

Nothing in the judgment or anywhere else says any such thing about the proceeds of enforcement, again stop posting this on here, or show the proof of what you are saying.##

 

The judgment itself says that the authority does not have to use the section13 procedure, this is nothing to do with what proceeds are. Proceeds are sums raised whilst the debt is under an enforcement power.(section 50.)

[Peterbard]

I know he didn't - perhaps you should re-read it to see who did.

 

I don't need to, it is you that mentioned proceeds, not I.

 

No one else has !!

 

It is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you can show something other than your rhetoric which would indicate otherwise

[Whitely]

This is disingenuous in the extreme, you and your friends have said that this is a way to avoid fees on many occasions.

 

No, we have questioned whether fees can be enforced not whether they were due. Please provide evidence of your assertion.

 

Nothing in the judgment or anywhere else says any such thing about the proceeds of enforcement, again stop posting this on here, or show the proof of what you are saying.##

 

I'll find the sections later on - my copy is a scanned copy so I can't copy and paste from it. Keep an eye out.

 

The judgment itself says that the authority does not have to use the section13 procedure, this is nothing to do with what proceeds are. Proceeds are sums raised whilst the debt is under an enforcement power.(section 50.)

 

No Dodgeball - if a direct payment was proceeds of enforcement then s13 must be applied, no choices. Proceeds are amounts collected using the sch12 procedure. The EA is the one who exercises the power of this procedure not the council.

[Peterbard]

"No Dodgeball - if a direct payment was proceeds of enforcement then s13 must be applied, no choices. Proceeds are amounts collected using the sch12 procedure. The EA is the one who exercises the power of this procedure not the council."

 

You seem to have forgotten the judge's determination that section 5(recovery of fees) stands alone in this, in respective of fees. It was the whole point of the judgment.

[Whitely]

You seem to have forgotten the judge's determination that section 5(recovery of fees) stands alone in this, in respective of fees. It was the whole point of the judgment.

 

I assume you mean section 4 as no-one mentions section 5. The whole point? Really?

 

However thanks for pointing it out as it backs up my point. Reg 4(2) reminds us that fees are recovered from proceeds. Proceeds must be apportioned using Reg 13. Direct payments are not required to use Reg 13 so are clearly not proceeds. Well done.

[Peterbard]

You need to read the judgment.

[Peterbard]

What do you think the judge may have meant when he said the section stands alone. Do you think he may have meant it is not dependant on 13. Or was it something else?

[Whitely]

Let’s look at some of what was said. First off, Newlyn's barrister clari

fied that "the amount outstanding" means the original debt only:
 

Under [schedule 12] para.1(4), “Debt means the sum recoverable”, and that is the debt owing to Harrow. That is nothing to do with fees to be added on.
 

Judge: And “debt” we had defined ---

  Barrister: “Debt”, if you go to the definitions means “the sums recoverable”.

  J: Yes, which must include both – both the debt and the – or does it?

  B: No. Debt is ---

  J: Debt to Harrow.

  B: Debt to Harrow

  J: Yes.


 

Under [schedule 12] para.1(4), “Debt means the sum recoverable”, and that is the debt owing to Harrow. That is nothing to do with fees to be added on.
 
 

He goes on to clarify that the direct payment is to be apportioned to the original debt only:
 

The amount of the debt here, none of it remains unpaid. It has been paid in full, the £172. Nor has the creditor agreed to accept a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the debt. It has not, for instance, agreed to accepy £100 and say “Well, the £72 we will send to Newlyn because the compliance fee is a statutory fee charge which Newlyn is entitled to enforce as a matter of right and free-standing entitlement”.
 

The situation requiring apportionment of the fees has not even arisen.


 

He then clarifies that direct payments are not subject to reg13:
 

B: So it is not even pleaded that Harrow were in some way bound by r13 to apportion. On my analysis, as a matter of law, they simply were not.  J: Right


 

  R13 is unhappily worded in some ways, but clearly does not require a divvying up where the total debt has been paid.

  
 

The recipient was perfectly entitled to appropriate the amount entirely to satisfy their own debt, which they did.

  
 

What is the reason for those last 3 quotes? It's because direct payments are not classed as proceeds of enforcement; proceeds are bound by reg13.

[Bailiff Advice]

The EA must pursue his fees separately.

 

Would you mind explaining what you mean by 'pursuing his fees separately'?

[Peterbard]

Duplicate ?

[Whitely]

Would you mind explaining what you mean by 'pursuing his fees separately'?

 

Is there any need for the purple text?

 

Well it's how some of the FOIs termed it. I read it that as the original debt has been paid, the EA must try to collect his fees directly from the debtor. Whether that means he can continue to use the original enforcement power is what I question.

[Whitely]

What do you think the judge may have meant when he said the section stands alone. Do you think he may have meant it is not dependant on 13. Or was it something else?

 

It's not something I'm at liberty to answer - sub judice and all that.

[Peterbard]

Is there any need for the purple text?

 

Well it's how some of the FOIs termed it. I read it that as the original debt has been paid, the EA must try to collect his fees directly from the debtor. Whether that means he can continue to use the original enforcement power is what I question.

 

Bailiffs cannot operate unless they are under an enforcement power, you do know this? They are not debt collectors.

 

If fees die, they can't recreate them and enforce under their own steam, I am afraid it does not work like that. Fees are awarded under the TCE when the power to use the TCE dies so do fees, this is why fees die. Whitely.

[Peterbard]

It's not something I'm at liberty to answer - sub judice and all that.

 

Ahh, sub-judice. I see

 

I looked at your earlier post, still, no mention of proceeds I see, much of it just wrong. Amount outstanding is not the same a sum owed for instance.Sorry not going through the rest.

[Peterbard]

Just to help you out with your "Sub judice".

 

The judge meant that the requirements of section 13, do not influence the ability for the bailiff to collect fees.

it is self-standing, a right under the act, even if those fees are not apportioned.

 

I hope i won't get thrown into the nick now, for contempt.

[Whitely]

Ahh, sub-judice. I see

 

Not exactly bright to be talking about something that I understand is part of the appeal, that's all.

[Whitely]

Just to help you out with your "Sub judice".

 

The judge meant that the requirements of section 13, do not influence the ability for the bailiff to collect fees.

it is self-standing, a right under the act, even if those fees are not apportioned.

 

I hope i won't get thrown into the nick now, for contempt.

 

And as I've said many, many, many times, I do not argue that the bailiff is not due his fees. Not sure why you cannot understand that.