Vulnerable debtors...should all bailiff fees be removed....should the account be returned to the council/creditor?

[mikeymack2002]

One thing that has never been discussed on this forum is a disturbance of the mind. Not to be confused with mental health, this also has some serious implications when dealing with debt/enforcement. I have already posted about this previously....

 

 

The then OFT dealt with this issue in 2011 when they wrote a guidance about how to deal with this ...

[Bailiff Advice]

One thing that has never been discussed on this forum is a disturbance of the mind.

 

A solution to this would be for you to start a new thread on the subject.

[mikeymack2002]

This could be a short thread. If the debt is returned to the LA/creditor then the fees are removed anyway this has already been covered several times...

[mikeymack2002]

By posters standards what is a true vulnerable debtor?

[Peterbard]

By posters standards what is a true vulnerable debtor?

 

Apparently it is "common knowledge" ?

[mikeymack2002]

Having read many posts by various posters they have their own version of what a vulnerable debtor is, this is why I have asked. So for me this is not 'common knowledge' your views vary from mine and so one, hence the question that's all...

 

 

According to some the national standards is wrong and someone with mental health, disabled is not vulnerable and so on...

[Peterbard]

Hmm

 

I dont think I have seen anyone way the national standards is wrong, unless I missed it, nor the rest of the sentence come to that.

I have seen people who lack the capacity to understand what is written though.

[Leakie]

DB Give it a break please

you just seem to want wind posters up all the time

 

As said before there are two side to everything

[Coughdrop]

Hmm

 

I dont think I have seen anyone way the national standards is wrong, unless I missed it, nor the rest of the sentence come to that.

I have seen people who lack the capacity to understand what is written though.

 

Again the personal insults - why? To whom were you referring?

 

I'm still waiting for the OP to post answers to a couple of questions going back some 29 posts, but am not holding my breath for a personal opinion. I appreciate the legislation is there, but there is scope for debts to be taken back by councils, so there is also scope for our personal opinions on whether or not a particular debt should be taken back and fees removed - this would be particularly interesting from someone who does this professionally. There was also a question regarding the vulnerability posts we see on here, and the passing of accounts from councils to EA's / welfare departments. I'd still like to know the answers to these.

 

These are well within the general scope of the thread, I'll look in tomorrow to see if there are any updates.

 

As for specific vulnerabilities, it is impossible to cover all of them, hence them not trying to. If there are more unusual ones, it would be interesting to read about them though, and how they affect people, how common they are etc...

[brassnecked]

I'm sticking my head over the parapet waiting for the rocks to come from the protagonists of ner ner ner ner ner.. It looks like the Compliance Fee of £75 might still be payable, but any Enforcement Fee may be removed if a Vulnerable situation confirmed. So where does that lie with total ignoring of the EA until it is returned to the council and allegedly all fees are removed?

 

 

All this bickering makes me want to find another forum, perhaps I should go to the dogs.

[stu007]

Warning this stops now I am not having such a critical area side tracked by trying to score points it STOPS.

[stu007]

Off topic posts unapproved.

 

I did warn you

[Peterbard]

I'm sticking my head over the parapet waiting for the rocks to come from the protagonists of ner ner ner ner ner.. It looks like the Compliance Fee of £75 might still be payable, but any Enforcement Fee may be removed if a Vulnerable situation confirmed. So where does that lie with total ignoring of the EA until it is returned to the council and allegedly all fees are removed?

 

 

All this bickering makes me want to find another forum, perhaps I should go to the dogs.

 

Yes you have it, if the bailiff returns the warrant to the authority because of lack of performance(unable to collect the debt) then all fees die. However if they return it because they are requested to by the authority then they must be paid the compliance fee. In cases wher ere the warrant was issued i error, then the authority would be liable but when it is on the request of the debtor and as an accommodation to them they will usually be liable.

[stu007]

Off Topic post removed.

 

This is a critical area about Vulnerability and I am all for it being discussed in a civil manner.

 

Remember this is to assist our users so it would be useful to actually have a conclusion and a summary that would help our users.

[stu007]

warning as off this post any off topic posts will be unapproved

[Coughdrop]

warning as off this post any off topic post will be unapproved

 

The difficulty there is it is an emotive subject as there is actually no right answer. The legislation cited by BA here is part of the picture, but councils retain the right to recall accounts, and debtors retain the right to sit it out and wait for EA's to pass the account back. In each of these cases, the fees would die.

 

The problem is defining vulnerability which, at the end of the day, only the institutions involved, the LGO or a court can do. It is a great shame the 'vulnerability card' has been overused as a way of evading payment.

[stu007]

I am all for discussion in this specific area due to its nature but when it starts to go way beyond that as this thread has the WARNING STANDS

[Peterbard]

The difficulty there is it is an emotive subject as there is actually no right answer. The legislation cited by BA here is part of the picture, but councils retain the right to recall accounts, and debtors retain the right to sit it out and wait for EA's to pass the account back. In each of these cases, the fees would die.

 

The problem is defining vulnerability which, at the end of the day, only the institutions involved, the LGO or a court can do. It is a great shame the 'vulnerability card' has been overused as a way of evading payment.

 

Yes CD a very reasonable statement,however wrong.

In the case of the warrant being withdrawn the enforcment fees only willl not be payable, the compliance fees would. This is clear from the legislation BA mentioned". This is the right answer for that reason.

 

Also at the end of the day the "institutions mentioned " have to obey the law, this is illustrated in the report where the LGO says he has" no option to" and general knowledge.

 

As mentioned also authorities are loathe to withdraw accounts and for good reason, hopefully the development of EA centered facilities will stop the practice altogether.

[Peterbard]

Incedentally, regarding the issue of detecting vulnerability.

 

I believe the suggestion that it is difficult to detect genuine vulnerability ore overblown. I also believe that in 99% of vulnerable situations the EA is perfectly well equipped to recognize them. The fact that they are unable to interact would be a fairly good clue.

 

The whole hing has become a bit of a growth industry in the debt dodgers hand book, not to put to finer point on it.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hopefully the following may assist:

 

What is the position with bailiff fees if the enforcement company return the account to the creditor/local authority?

 

If the enforcement company voluntarily return an account back to the local authority, then all bailiff fees (compliance fee and enforcement fee) are removed.

 

How long will it take for the enforcement company to return the account back to the council?

 

This can vary but an enforcement company will not return an account without first making at least 2 or more personal visits to the debtors property. In most cases, an account will not be returned back to the creditor for approx 3 months.

 

What is the position with bailiff fees if the local authority ask the enforcement company to return the account to them.

 

If the local authority recall the account from the enforcement company, then according to Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014, they (the local authority) should pay the enforcement company for any enforcement fees incurred.

 

The local authority have agreed to recall the account but only on condition that I pay the bailiff fees?

 

This scenario is becoming very common indeed and is primarily due to Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 (see above).

 

Can I refuse the local authorities request (to pay the bailiff fees)

 

Yes, but if you do, it is more than likely that the local authority will not recall the account/warrant.

[Peterbard]

Hopefully the following may assist:

 

What is the position with bailiff fees if the enforcement company return the account to the creditor/local authority?

 

If the enforcement company

voluntarily

return an account back to the local authority, then all bailiff fees (compliance fee and enforcement fee) are removed.

 

How long will it take for the enforcement company to return the account back to the council?

 

This can vary but an enforcement company will not return an account without first making at least 2 or more personal visits to the debtors property. In most cases, an account will not be returned back to the creditor for approx 3 months.

 

What is the position with bailiff fees if the local authority ask the enforcement company to return the account to them.

 

If the local authority

recall the account

from the enforcement company, then according to Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014, they (the local authority) should pay the enforcement company for any enforcement fees incurred.

 

The local authority have agreed to recall the account but only on condition that I pay the bailiff fees?

 

This scenario is becoming very common indeed and is primarily due to Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 (see above).

 

Can I refuse the local authorities request (to pay the bailiff fees)

 

Yes, but if you do, it is more than likely that the local authority will not recall the account/warrant.

 

Yes exactly that.

[Bailiff Advice]

This is a critical area about Vulnerability and I am all for it being discussed in a civil manner.

 

Remember this is to assist our users so it would be useful to actually have a conclusion and a summary that would help our users.

 

Hopefully my recent post (link below) has achieved this aim.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465378-Vulnerable-debtors...should-all-bailiff-fees-be-removed....should-the-account-be-returned-to-the-council-creditor&p=4909113&viewfull=1#post4909113

[Coughdrop]

Yes CD a very reasonable statement,however wrong.

In the case of the warrant being withdrawn the enforcment fees only willl not be payable, the compliance fees would. This is clear from the legislation BA mentioned". This is the right answer for that reason.

 

If the warrant has been withdrawn, under what enforcement power would fees be payable?

 

You've now stated fees are not payable and they are payable on this thread, both statements cannot be correct. My words were chosen carefully - I stated fees; I did not specify compliance or enforcement stage fees.

 

Out of interest, when you state the institutions have to obey the law, I assume you are not stating the council cannot recall the account, as we know that not to be the case. We ALL have to obey the law.

 

BA's post is accurate enough for the moment. The debtor doesn't pay the fees unless agreed with the authority. We have zero evidenceother than hearsay this is becoming more common.

 

I'm going to leave you both to your comments though, as nothing will persuade you that anyone other than you can be right, which will result in yet another closed thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

Can we please stop this endless sqabbling. It does nothing to help anyone.

[Coughdrop]

Can we please stop this endless sqabbling. It does nothing to help anyone.

 

Hear, hear! I have reported DB's last post as being designed to inflame. It is easier to report than reply and have yet another thread closed.

 

It's a shame we cannot discuss sensibly without personal digs of someone posting for other people or whatever (either on this forum or by people phoning each other up!) It all ends up coming out on here and this mess is the result.

 

Sensible discussion might get somewhere, as would toleranceby all of differing opinions. Personal abuse is totally pointless. I agree with you 100% the petty squabbling on here (and behind the scenes by some) should stop. We've been warned, we'd do well to heed Stu's warning. All of us are fed up with it.