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

[Whitely]

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.

 

I think you've just explained why I question whether an enforcement power exists after the debt has been paid. Thank you. Bailiff Advice.

[Whitely]

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.

 

Just posting exactly what the judge and barrister said. You can then work out the rest - proceeds of enforcement are bound by r13. Direct payments are not bound therefore cannot be proceeds of enforcement. If they were, they would be bound. Simple really.

[Peterbard]

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

 

Why ?

 

It is not sub-judice to discuss a point of law, as i have told you before. People use this sort of thing as a conversation stopper. It's nonsense.

 

Interested in this appeal though, since you mentioned it. The judge failed to give permission. So it is permission to appeal which is being saught?

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Whether that means he can continue to use the original enforcement power is what I question.

 

Well thank goodness for the Bola v Harrow & Newlyn judgment then !!!!

 

Just to clarify; the claimant received the Notice of Enforcement and clearly understood the instructions on how to pay and diverted the payment instead to the local authority (minus the compliance fees). The local authority did not pass the payment over to Newlyn and the Judge made clear, that as the amount paid did not clear the amount stated on the Notice of Enforcement, the 'enforcement power' had not ended, and the enforcement agent was therefore permitted to continue enforcement. Nothing could be simpler.

[Peterbard]

I think you've just explained why I question whether an enforcement power exists after the debt has been paid. Thank you. Bailiff Advice.

 

 

That would be me not BA, but you are welcome.

Not at all, the power dies after the amount outstanding is paid(i thought we had gone through this).

The amount outstanding is the sum due to the creditor, summed with the fees that have become payable.

[Whitely]

The judge failed to give p[ermission. So it is permission to appeal which is being saught?

 

The judge refusing permission doesn't mean you can't appeal - you have great difficulty in understanding that concept. Permission has now been given - been sought, been given. Not much else to add to that.

[Whitely]

Well thank goodness for the Bola v Harrow & Newlyn judgment then !!!!

 

Just to clarify; the claimant received the Notice of Enforcement and clearly understood the instructions on how to pay and diverted the payment instead to the local authority (minus the compliance fees). The local authority did not pass the payment over to Newlyn and the Judge made clear, that as the amount paid did not clear the amount stated on the Notice of Enforcement, the 'enforcement power' had not ended, and the enforcement agent was therefore permitted to continue enforcement. Nothing could be simpler.

 

Appeal in process.

[Peterbard]

Just posting exactly what the judge and barrister said. You can then work out the rest - proceeds of enforcement are bound by r13. Direct payments are not bound therefore cannot be proceeds of enforcement. If they were, they would be bound. Simple really.

 

So I saw. It is not what the judge and barrister said which is a fault, it is your interpretation of it.

[Peterbard]

Appeal in process.

 

Details, please.

[Whitely]

Details, please.

 

Erm.... I don't think so matey. Why would you want that?

[Whitely]

So I saw. It is not what the judge and barrister said which is a fault, it is your interpretation of it.

 

Ok, so if a direct payment is classed as proceeds of enforcement, why are they not bound by reg13?

[Peterbard]

The judge refusing permission doesn't mean you can't appeal - you have great difficulty in understanding that concept. Permission has now been given - been sought, been given. Not much else to add to that.

 

I thought that this was what I said earlier?

 

I see so a circuit judge has given permission to appeal? ( when was this).

Has the appeal itself commenced?

[Whitely]

I thought that this was what I said earlier?

 

I see so a circuit judge has given permission to appeal? ( when was this).

Has the appeal itself commenced?

 

I cannot go into details. Leave to appeal has been granted and is going ahead, that's all I can say.

[Peterbard]

Ok, so if a direct payment is classed as proceeds of enforcement, why are they not bound by reg13?

 

Because of the action of the authority, that is all.

 

The mention of proceeds etc. is just you trying to work your own particular theories into the case

Proceeds are never mentioned or even considered, why would they be?

[Whitely]

Because of the action of the authority, that is all.

 

What? How does that even come close to answering the question? Come on Dodgeball, why are direct payments not bound by reg 13?

[Whitely]

Ok let's try this.

 

Q1 - are proceeds of enforcement when they are less than the sum outstanding bound by regulation 13?

 

Q2 - are direct payments to the creditor bound by regulation 13?

[Peterbard]

The authority is not bound by section 13 according to the judge.

I am sure we have said this before.

[Peterbard]

The authority is not bound by section 13 according to the judge.

I am sure we have said this before.

 

Yes it seems so, many times"

[Bailiff Advice]

Well thank goodness for the Bola v Harrow & Newlyn judgment then !!!!

 

Just to clarify; the claimant received the Notice of Enforcement and clearly understood the instructions on how to pay and diverted the payment instead to the local authority (minus the compliance fees). The local authority did not pass the payment over to Newlyn and the Judge made clear, that as the amount paid did not clear the amount stated on the Notice of Enforcement, the 'enforcement power' had not ended, and the enforcement agent was therefore permitted to continue enforcement. Nothing could be simpler.

 

Somehow I knew that 'Whitley' would look for a reason not to respond to my above post. Instead, he has managed to ruin yet another thread with his endless talk of 'proceeds'.

[Whitely]

Yes it seems so, many times"

 

Why are you replying to your own questions?

[Whitely]

Somehow I knew that 'Whitley' would look for a reason not to respond to my above post. Instead, he has managed to ruin yet another thread with his endless talk of 'proceeds'.

 

I thought I did respond - appeal in process. Obviously I can't reveal the points of law that the appeal will be exploring, suffice to say it will be looking at whether the enforcement power does exist after the debt is paid.

[Whitely]

Instead, he has managed to ruin yet another thread with his endless talk of 'proceeds'.

 

It's a highly important matter, as someone often says.

[Whitely]

Well that's me done for today. Hopefully answers to post #92 will arrive by sunrise. G'night everyone.

[Bailiff Advice]

Members of the public may be confused by what is being discussed on this thread and the reference to the legal case of Bola v Harrow & Newlyn.

 

The very short thread in the following link explains more about the case.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.

[Bailiff Advice]

Also, since 20th May our 'new' poster; 'Whiteley' has failed to answer the following question that I posted on another thread. Instead, he spends his time on this forum endlessly using diversionary tactics by arguing quite irrelevant subjects with Dodgeball.

 

Let's hope that he answers this time:

 

As one of the main culprits, you personally have spent the best past of the last 3 years wasting local authorities time by sending hundreds of Freedom of Information requests seeking out one or two councils who may apportion payments in a particular way.

 

In addition, you have personally been responsible for repeatedly joining this forum and one other and turning threads into slanging matches with your endless insistence that debtors should pay councils direct (minus bailiff fees).

 

You have also sat back on your 'board' and allowed vulnerable debtors with magistrate court fines, to be told to pay the 'sum adjudged' to the court when you know perfectly well that every debtor who does so, will receive a letter (which your board refer to as a RETMAR letter......which by the way...means RETurn MARston). You personally know that the advice given (to pay the court fine direct) could well lead to that person being subjected to forced entry. In fact, you know of quite a few cases where this has happened.

 

Let me ask you 2 questions:

 

In light of this judgment, will you continue to advise debtors to make payment online to a local authority or magistrate court (minus bailiff fees)?

 

In light of the judgment, will you correct inaccurate advice on your board by others advising debtors to make payment online (or sum adjudged)?