When a new EA takes over.

[Peterbard]

Yes, I don't dispute it mentions application of proceeds, I ask where it says the EA is responsible for dividing up money taken. Of course application of proceeds comprises part of the sale stage, and of course s.13 has that heading, but neither states what you are asserting.

aaaaaaaaaaaa

The issue of bringing the subject up was a genuine compliment to you. You made a post which made me go and look very, very closely at the legislation for the first time in ages, and I'm glad you raised it as it's been really interesting.

 

The section says the at the duties at sale stage include application of proceeds, the act does not use the words dividing up proceeds, it says application of proceeds. which mean the same thing. This what section 13 which is responsible for the operation is headed "APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS...." ?

[Coughdrop]

Little point being pedantic, but I said, "the vast majority ......" Without looking back to find a decontextualised sentence, I don't recall mentioning this issue specifically.

 

As I said, it really doesn't matter much now, as it was an issue within the context of the thread; now things have moved on, it ceases to be an issue.

[Coughdrop]

The section says the at the duties at sale stage include application of proceeds, the act does not use the words dividing up proceeds, it says application of proceeds. which mean the same thing. This what section 13 which is responsible for the operation is headed "APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS...." ????

 

DB, it really doesn't matter much now. The point I was making is that the section is about that area, it does not say who is responsible for it. It's hardly worth arguing about now.

[Coughdrop]

I'm very happy to say, "Thank you" for making a post which led to a really interesting thread, once put into the discussion section. I have no problem doing that. It's raised at least one new unintended consequence of the regulations.

[Peterbard]

 

I remain to be convinced that the EA apportions funds in reality, not the EC (Enforcement Company).

ll.

 

It is this error I corrected ?

 

It is in fact the EA as shown, I am sure you dont want me to copy it again ?

[Coughdrop]

As said, there's little point in discussing it now - it was relevant in the context, it's pretty irrelevant now.

[stu007]

Off topic posts unapproved

 

[stu007]

This thread in now Temp Closed

[stu007]

This thread is now reopen.

 

WARNING Keep to the Topic and keep it civil.

[Coughdrop]

So we have this ....

 

..... the enforcment power is not addressed to the company, it is addressed to the agent. so it would seem that a power even though ending up at the same agency can be enforced by another agent as a new action. (so all fees can be charged again)

 

 

and this ....

"Bailiff Advice said ......

It would seem that Equita has allocated this account to three seperate bailiffs employed by them. Naturally, additional fees cannot be charged if the debt is passed to a fourth or even fifth bailiff working for Equita.

 

I think the discussion is really over now, but which is the correct position?

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you Coughdrop for posting Bailff Advice's comment from another thread. I am using my tablet rather than my computer which is in for repair ( apparently it doesn't like coffee) so cannot copy from other threads since I saw BA's post also. I would have liked had you comtinued with the next point that BA made which was to the effect that were the case to be handed to another EC then in theory another compliance fee would be chargeable but was unsure whether how that would work out in practice.

 

And it does appear to reinforce one of my earlier,posts on this thread when I said that I had never seen anyone come on this site to complain that an EC had charged the compliance fee twice.

However it does confirm Dodgeball's other point that a separate EC could charge a second compliance fee.

 

And just to clear up another point of conjecture between the two protagonists, Dodgeball did admit that if it wasn't the EA that apportioned the funds it was their office who did it.

 

Thank you everyone who contributed to this thrad and clarifying the points at issue.

 

One other point, it might have helped if the EAs and HCEOs among us has added their opinions as it might have avoided some of the tenser moments along the way. I know you sometimes you get stick for your comments but there are many times when your input is appreciated.

[Coughdrop]

Thanks lookinforinfo. It's been a discussion which has really highlighted the difference between theory and reality. Lots of what we've discussed has been theoretical, as, like you say, it doesn't happen in reality (or very, very rarely). The legislation is actually fairly clear, and we know there are unintended consequences still to be ironed out, so there will be conflicting statements like the two I highlighted.

 

I agree also it would be great to get the input of EA's, HCEO's, and, indeed, others. If all remain civil, it can all be discussed quite calmly.

 

I hope your computer recovers from its unwanted beverage!

[Peterbard]

So we have this ....

 

 

 

and this ....

 

 

I think the discussion is really over now, but which is the correct position?

 

 

[/color][/color]

 

Both, I also think the authority would be unlikely tyo permit for a fourth time, however there s nothing in the legislation which says they cant do so.in recycled orders.

 

In re issued orders the EA can and do duplicate fees.

 

As shown the EA are responsible for allocating fees see earlier. He is also responsible for gaining best price for goods.This does not mean that ha does the sums and delivers payments, nor does it mean he carries the goods tp auction on his back or acts as auctioneer.

[Coughdrop]

Both, I also think the authority would be unlikely tyo permit for a fourth time, however there s nothing in the legislation which says they cant do so.in recycled orders.

 

In re issued orders the EA can and do duplicate fees.

 

As shown the EA are responsible for allocating fees see earlier. He is also responsible for gaining best price for goods.This does not mean that ha does the sums and delivers payments, nor does it mean he carries the goods tp auction on his back or acts as auctioneer.

 

I'm not going to argue the point, merely to point out that both cannot be correct, as the two comments state opposing views. Also, at no stage was allocation of fees proven, save for 'lookinforinfo's' interpretation - I agree with him that was said.

 

As for gaining the best price for goods, someone should bring a prosecution. Sending goods to auction is a way to guarantee possibly the lowest price for goods. Given they have gone to auction, how can he have any say at all over the price gained? He can't, short of 'prepping the car' by washing it, polishing it, steam cleaning the engine bay, valeting it - all a little improbable!

 

This is really just to complete the discussion for the sake of accuracy, as said a few times previously, it really doesn't matter now in the case referenced at the very start of this interesting discussion (originally made on the actual thread, I think).

[Peterbard]

Yes i wnow you don' want ot argue when you are wrong, but i spoke to BA about this extensively and you are.

 

I never said that the bailiff would continue enforcing tor ever, it was someone else who took this to ridiculous extremes.

 

As far as getting the best price is concerned perhaps pu should read the regulations.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

Best price

 

37(1)An enforcement agent must sell or dispose of controlled goods for the best price that can reasonably be obtained in accordance with this Schedule.

Edited July 5, 2016 by honeybee13
Off topic comments removed.

[honeybee13]

Off topic comments have been removed.

 

HB

[mikeymack2002]

Selling items at an Auction will never obtain the best price. Private sales will do this...

[Peterbard]

The importation point is that fees cn be reissued. If the OP waited for the order to go back, they culd reissue to another and fees would be added ,"as if it were a new order" this means that any fees payed on the first order would be lost be lost and repeat fees would be due.

 

For the fee to die anyway the order would have to be returned to the authority.

 

It should give those who advise sitting it out pause for thought.

[Coughdrop]

The importation point is that fees cn be reissued. If the OP waited for the order to go back, they culd reissue to another and fees would be added ,"as if it were a new order" this means that any fees payed on the first order would be lost be lost and repeat fees would be due.

 

For the fee to die anyway the order would have to be returned to the authority.

 

It should give those who advise sitting it out pause for thought.

 

Apologies, I've been dealing with other issues this morning, so have missed a few posts.

 

Yes, for a fee to die, the account would have to be returned to the authority. That doesn't address the issue of being able to claim repeat fees in-house which you and Bailiff Advice disagree about, but it matters not now. With regards to me being wrong because you've discussed it at length with Bailiff Advice, I can only hope you enjoyed your chats and point out it is possible for two people to be incorrect about something - not a dig, purely a comment in response to your post.

 

Returning to the issue of fees dying and giving people like me cause for thought (I assume that is what you meant?) - the whole point of sitting it out is so the account will be returned to the authority and fees would die with the enforcement power ending; it is the whole point behind that suggestion, so no cause for thought at all. If anything, confirmation it is good advice - thank you.

 

I noted the change of topic away from the EA achieving the best price for goods. Auctions will never achieve the best price, and it would not take very much thought at all for enforcement companies to find a better way to sell goods, so proceeds were maximised, potentially clearing the debt, paying fees and maybe leaving the debtor with something. That would have been rather good to see, so it's a shame the regs specifiy auction. They sort of contradict themselves talking about best price, then restricting it to auction - obviously I'm writing off the top of my head now, but I think the legislation states that.

 

All interesting stuff!

[Peterbard]

 

Returning to the issue of fees dying and giving people like me cause for thought (I assume that is what you meant?) - the whole point of sitting it out is so the account will be returned to the authority and fees would die with the enforcement power ending; it is the whole point behind that suggestion, so no cause for thought at all. If anything, confirmation it is good advice - thank you.

 

 

But the fees may not die and the enforcement may not end altogether, the warrant may be reiissued and new fees added together with months mere of baiiff enforcment.

 

Also something no one seems to care about, the debt wiil still remain. sound advice? really ?

[Coughdrop]

But the fees may not die and the enforcement may not end altogether, the warrant may be reiissued and new fees added together with months mere of baiiff enforcment.

 

Also something no one seems to care about, the debt wiil still remain. sound advice? really ?

 

The fees will die if the EC returns it off their own back. As for the debt remaining, of course people care, that is why it is so important to state one's desire to pay.

 

Tell me, if £450 + fees is owing, the EC returns the warrant so the fees die, leaving a debt of £450. What happens if, before any further enforcement method is used, the debtor pays the £450 in full directly to the council, having been putting it aside for a few months?

[Peterbard]

The fees will die if the EC returns it off their own back. As for the debt remaining, of course people care, that is why it is so important to state one's desire to pay.

 

Tell me, if £450 + fees is owing, the EC returns the warrant so the fees die, leaving a debt of £450. What happens if, before any further enforcement method is used, the debtor pays the £450 in full directly to the council, having been putting it aside for a few months?

 

Yes and the debt goes back on the evasion carousel. Answer to all your problems is to pay your debts the best way you can.

 

This is the point where all advice sectors start from and for good reasons, because debt avoidance schemes never work in the long run, it always comes back and bites you on the bum. Dont they ?

[Coughdrop]

You forgot to answer this bit:

 

Tell me, if £450 + fees is owing, the EC returns the warrant so the fees die, leaving a debt of £450. What happens if, before any further enforcement method is used, the debtor pays the £450 in full directly to the council, having been putting it aside for a few months?

 

It goes without saying people need to repay debts as best they can, and I agree totally that debt avoidance is no answer.

[Leakie]

I understand what CD is saying,

 

If the debtor can pay the debt once it has been passed back to the creditor,

The fees die and the debtor, is not having to pay the £310.00 fees

 

Not all debtors are in a position to pay before it goes to the EA,

Also it could also be a wake up call to try and sort the finances out.

The end result is debt is still going to be paid.

 

Thus the wait it out is not that bad advise if in that position.

[Peterbard]

I understand what CD is saying,

 

If the debtor can pay the debt once it has been passed back to the creditor,

The fees die and the debtor, is not having to pay the £310.00 fees

 

Not all debtors are in a position to pay before it goes to the EA,

Also it could also be a wake up call to try and sort the finances out.

The end result is debt is still going to be paid.

 

Thus the wait it out is not that bad advise if in that position.

 

If the debtor is unable to pay he should substantiate that claim with the bailiff, then he will send it back with are report saying just that . the authority may then say, her is someone who i being straight and re evaluate the enforcment, as opposed to here is another debt dodger.

 

I dont believe the debt will get paid the debtor will just be searching for the next loophole.