When a new EA takes over.

[lookinforinfo]

On post 19 of this thread-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?466480-Equita-threatening-court-action-despite-payment-arrangement(4-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Dodgeball said " is he aware that whenever an EA is instructed the fees will be applied again by the new bailiff."

 

That sounds as if a second fee of £75 can be charged and later another of £235. I must be reading it wrongly since I can see no reference in the

Legislation for charging more than £75 and £235 for each L/O.

 

I am unaware of how bailiffs are paid but I am guessing that the bailiff company will keep both sets of fees and pay their EA a proportion of them.

So I would welcome clarification of the above statement since I imagine I have misread it.

[fkofilee]

I would imagine that if a change of enforcement company then the original fees would be dropped off.

Then reapplied to the same debt again or nothing is taken off or added.

[Coughdrop]

Given the context of the post, with it being the same enforcement company, but the account being passed to a different EA, I took it to mean that he was asking if the OP realised that given the payments made so far would have been split pro rata, as mentioned previously in the thread, when another bailiff took it over, the fees would be applied again (so if £45 had been paid of the bailiff's fees of £235, £190 would be applied to the account with the new bailiff).

 

There is no provision to apply multiple fees of £235, only multiple compliance stage fees for each LO.

 

I may have read it incorrectly, as it was not entirely clear, but that was my interpretation. If I'm right, this had already been explained to the OP.

[Coughdrop]

HI

Is the OP aware that every-time the debt goes back the EA will retain the fees due to him which he has already paid ?

 

Yes

 

So the debt will only have reduced by whatever he has paid, less that amount.

 

Yes

 

Also is he aware that whenever ane EA is instructed the fees will be applied again by the new bailiff.

 

Yes

 

As the OP now ceased payment completely, of so why ?

 

See thread.

[Peterbard]

If so is he aware that by simply allowing the debt to ho back he merely increasing the eventual cost and just putting the debt back on the roundabout without taking any moves to settle it.

 

I should also advise the OP that as far as i am concerned this forum does not "challenge fees", fees are a legal and proper way for the enforcement action to be funded.

 

What we may sometimes do is ensure that the correct fees have been included in the "amount outstanding"..

[Coughdrop]

If so is he aware that by simply allowing the debt to ho back he merely increasing the eventual cost and just putting the debt back on the roundabout without taking any moves to settle it.

 

There is no mention of them making no effort to settle it, quite the opposite in fact.

 

I should also advise the OP that as far as i am concerned this forum does not "challenge fees", fees are a legal and proper way for the enforcement action to be funded.

 

What we may sometimes do is ensure that the correct fees have been included in the "amount outstanding"..

 

If incorrect fees have been applied to the debt, this forum would rightly challenge them.

 

As far as I can see the OP has been given solid help, and is happy with the way forward.

[Peterbard]

On post 19 of this thread-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?466480-Equita-threatening-court-action-despite-payment-arrangement(4-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Dodgeball said " is he aware that whenever an EA is instructed the fees will be applied again by the new bailiff."

 

That sounds as if a second fee of £75 can be charged and later another of £235. I must be reading it wrongly since I can see no reference in the

Legislation for charging more than £75 and £235 for each L/O.

 

I am unaware of how bailiffs are paid but I am guessing that the bailiff company will keep both sets of fees and pay their EA a proportion of them.

So I would welcome clarification of the above statement since I imagine I have misread it.

 

Probably, the new bailiff would also want paying for doing the work. He would be a new enforcement action under the same warrant. The legislation sates that the enforcement is started by the transfer of the warrant (section 62) the warrant for the first is sent back, thus ending that action, then the power to use the sched is confered to the new agent the procedure begins again.

[Coughdrop]

Probably, the new bailiff would also want paying for doing the work. He would be a new enforcement action under the same warrant. The legislation sates that the enforcement is started by the transfer of the warrant (section 62) the warrant for the first is sent back, thus ending that action, then the power to use the sched is confered to the new agent the procedure begins again.

 

In this scenario, the fees for the initial enforcement action would have died when the warrant was returned, so it would not mean the debtor paid more. Any enforcement under a new power would be subject to fees (if, say, the warrant was returned to the council and given to a different company for new enforcement).

 

I assumed, seemingly incorrectly, you were talking about the specific case in question on the thread, apologies for that.

[Peterbard]

I would imagine that if a change of enforcement company then the original fees would be dropped off.

Then reapplied to the same debt again or nothing is taken off or added.

 

Yes. The EA is a contractor who will want to be paid of course it does not matter if he is the first or the hundredth to receive the same warrant.

It is also the contractor who apportions the money which has been paid to him on the defaulted arrangementH he will retain his fees. Which are £75 off the top and then the rest pro rata.

 

That is the end of that enforcement action, and when the warrant is returned, the enforcment power.

 

This is a problem when a debtor makes an arrangement with a bailiff and then defaults, as here in the first instance. In that anything payed may only result in a small amount coming off the debt.off the debt.

 

Then of course if reissued to the bailiff (any bailiff) the £75 will again be due and so on.

[brassnecked]

So if it gets passed to 10 bailiffs in total the £75 becomes £750 DB?

[ploddertom]

 

Then of course if reissued to the bailiff (any bailiff) the £75 will again be due and so on.

 

So if it gets passed to 10 bailiffs in total the £75 becomes £750 DB?

 

?? - someone has their wires crossed.

[brassnecked]

?? - someone has their wires crossed.

It would appear that DB is saying the Compliance fee is payable multiple times if the council issue the LO to a different bailiff, or 10; or has BREXIT fever taken hold on CAG?

[Peterbard]

It would appear that DB is saying the Compliance fee is payable multiple times if the council issue the LO to a different bailiff, or 10; or has BREXIT fever taken hold on CAG?

 

No. There would be £75 due. because each f the previous bailiffs would have either been paid £75 or the fee would have been dropped when the warrant was returned with nothing paid.

 

It would not matter if it were the same bailiff or not, just that it was a new enforcment.

 

No idea about brexit, unless it was a joke in which case Ha.

[Coughdrop]

?? - someone has their wires crossed.

 

Yes

 

It would appear that DB is saying the Compliance fee is payable multiple times if the council issue the LO to a different bailiff, or 10;

 

Yes, he does seem to think that is the case. Theory and reality are not always the same thing though.

[Peterbard]

I dont know if PT was refering to me. #Anyway i do not know how much simpler i can put it to you.

 

You obviously think that any subsequent bailiff firms are not entitled to their fees because the earlier bailiff either had or where unable to collect theirs.

[Peterbard]

Sorry, just trying to see your point of view, is this something to do with the proceeds thing ?

[stu007]

Ok DB the way I am seeing what is being asked (please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Council Employ

1. Bailiff A enforces and charges £75 but it end up being returned to council.

 

Council Employ

2. Bailiff B enforces and charges £75 but it ends up being returned to council

 

Council Employ

3. Bailiff C enforces and charges £75 but it ends up being returned to council

 

etc

[Peterbard]

Ok DB the way I am seeing what is being asked (please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Council Employ

1. Bailiff A enforces and charges £75 but it end up being returned to council.

 

Council Employ

2. Bailiff B enforces and charges £75 but it ends up being returned to council

 

Council Employ

3. Bailiff C enforces and charges £75 but it ends up being returned to council

 

etc

 

Say in one the debtor starts a plan and just pays £75, and then ceases making payments. The bailiff will pass none of this £75 to the authority as they are permuted to take the first £75.

 

On the second occasion the bailiff again starts at compliance and the debtor pays £75 and stops, again the bailiff sends nothing back for the same reason as one.

 

The debtor has paid one hindered and fifty pounds and not one penny has come off the ammount adjudged.This is the problem with pushing ill thought out payment plans on bailiffs.

 

The bailiff in his role of representing the authority has a duty to ascertain the debtors assets and ability to pay. He must be assisted to do this if the debtor is genuinely unable to pay. He will then send the account back to the authority nula bona, because basically he has no option.

 

For this to work as intended the debtor must interact with the bailiff and not lock the door or ignore him, this at best will will result in the account being passed back only to re appear again in the hands of another bailiff.

 

It is not solid advice to tackle the debt is it s just a device to further avoid confronting it and getting it sorted. It is also pointless making a complaint about a bailiff when he is just obeying the rules.

 

The OP here has defaulted on two payment plans it is not unreasonable for the bailff to be hesitant in considering another, in fact it could be said it is a good thing he does not, as in all probability he would just be making another £75 for his firm.

[stu007]

Ah right the example you are using is the debtor in a payment plan.

 

Could we have a similar example where the debtor isn't in any payment plans?

[Peterbard]

stu this is simplified of course, in most occasions the debtor will pay over the £75 and then stop, then the EA will add another £235 in fees and when the warrant eventually goes back the bailiff will retain not only the £75 but also a proportion of anything else that was payed by the debtor.

[Peterbard]

Ah right the example you are using is the debtor in a payment plan.

 

Could we have a similar example where the debtor isn't in any payment plans?

 

Well if the debtor does not pay anything the debt and warrant will just go back and the fees will die nothing will be due once this happens. If it is passed to another baiiff the new one will commence the enforcment all over again with the compliance fee of £75.

 

But in the case sited the debtor had defaulted on one plan and was seeking to start another.

[Peterbard]

It has to be remembered that the bailiffs job is to take control and sell goods to recover a sum of money owed, not to enter into repayment plans.

 

The TCE adds a compliance stage to make this possible in the first instance but only in a limited capacity, there is a time limit for collection.

 

If a plan is required it must be the creditor that actions it. The reason the debt is at the stage it is , is because previous plans will have failed , it is sometimes forgotten that baiiff enforcment is the last stage of the enforcment cycle mot the first where agreements were taken out and broken.

[lookinforinfo]

Dodgeball I understand what you are saying but what is confusing is the paradox between your interpretation of the situation and the Regulations. Regardless of payment plans it states quite clearly in The Taking of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 S11 (1va) the fixed fee for each stage may be recovered only once regardless of the number of enforcement powers to which the instructions relate.

 

That would appear to mean that the debtor cannot be asked to pay more than 75 pound for the first stage of enforcement no matter how many

EAs are involved. Indeed were it as you describe the object from the bailiff point of view would be to keep changing the EA involved thus incurring

A 75 pound fee every time.

[Peterbard]

Hi.

I am afraid you are wrong on a number of points. The EA is in fact permitted to take multiple compliance fess for different enforcment actions at the same time. Section 11 relates to enforcment stages not compliance fees. Also the section relates to simultaneous enforcment. Here we are refering to one enforcment after another, the second is not made until the first has ended.

 

(b)those enforcement powers can reasonably be exercised at the same time.

(2) In paragraph (1)(b), “can reasonably be exercised at the same time” means in particular—

 

(a)taking control of goods in relation to all such enforcement powers on the same occasion; and

 

(b)selling or disposing of

 

I describe the situations from the regulation point of view, it is also not my opinion it is the way they work.

[ploddertom]

You should have continued reading Section 11 Para 4 (a) which states:

the fixed fee for each stage may be recovered only once regardless of the number of enforcement powers to which the instructions relate.

 

Fair comment if no fee has been recovered prior then it will still be outstanding but of course there is no guarantee it will ever be recovered.