When a new EA takes over.

[mikeymack2002]

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

 

 

I use this all the time when assisting, if the debt is returned to the OC I call them and offer a repayment plan, the debt is paid but minus the £310 in fees. Especially if the debt is a PCN one and the warrant has expired (1 year) secondly if the debtor has had a previous arrangement directly with the OC and kept to the arrangement then they (OC) are more likely to allow the debt to be paid directly AND at an affordable monthly rate. No EA no fees just basic debt!

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt (love this expression) You also have to remember you do not have to engage with the EA in some situations.... A PCN debt is one of them...

[Peterbard]

 

 

I use this all the time when assisting, if the debt is returned to the OC I call them and offer a repayment plan, the debt is paid but minus the £310 in fees. Especially if the debt is a PCN one and the warrant has expired (1 year) secondly if the debtor has had a previous arrangement directly with the OC and kept to the arrangement then they (OC) are more likely to allow the debt to be paid directly AND at an affordable monthly rate. No EA no fees just basic debt!

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt (love this expression) You also have to remember you do not have to engage with the EA in some situations.... A PCN debt is one of them...

 

Your my hero MM

 

Funny that I like that expression as well.

 

You dont have to engage with anyone MM, it is just a matter of if you can cope with the consequences of not doing so.

[Coughdrop]

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.

 

This bit still remains conveniently sidestepped, but is very relevant:

 

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]

This bit still remains conveniently sidestepped, but is very relevant:

 

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 not sidestepped i just ignored it. I cannot believe you do not know that debtors not under an enforcement power is not due enforcment fees.

 

Is it often that someone who lets a debt go to enforcement actually has the money to pay the debt, he would have had plenty of opportunity to do so before the action, you would have thought;

[Peterbard]

I have to remind you that some people do not like bailiffs banging on the door,

[Coughdrop]

It not sidestepped i just ignored it. I cannot believe you do not know that debtors not under an enforcement power is not due enforcment fees.

 

Is it often that someone who lets a debt go to enforcement actually has the money to pay the debt, he would have had plenty of opportunity to do so before the action, you would have thought;

 

I don't think it should be ignored though. The reality is (continued below next quotation below):

 

I have to remind you that some people do not like bailiffs banging on the door,

 

...... that despite people not liking bailiffs banging on their doors, they probably do not like (and cannot afford) to pay £310 in fees that they do not need to pay.

 

For the first time, we are seeing the truth here. If people put money to a side for the debt and pay on its return to the council, it is possible to save a lot of money.

 

Usually bailiffs do not hang around for long when they visit, often debtors are out, locking doors is pretty common nowadays. Is sitting it out really that unrealistic? The main problem is owning a car, even if it is on HP. People have a right to be told the option, as it's quite an attractive one, especially when you're struggling.

[brassnecked]

What I don't like is the potential for someone with mental health issues to end up paying multiple Compliance fees as they l;ack the capacity to understand the payments must be kept up and it goes back and forth from council and bailiffs.

 

Surely that wasn't the intention in TCG?

[Coughdrop]

What I don't like is the potential for someone with mental health issues to end up paying multiple Compliance fees as they l;ack the capacity to understand the payments must be kept up and it goes back and forth from council and bailiffs.

 

Surely that wasn't the intention in TCG?

 

I think you have cause for worry, but not necessarily for those reasons.

 

It wasn't the intention of the TCG. The intention was that debtors receive a NOE, open it, engage with the bailiffs, agree a repayment plan having sat down with the EA and gone through their I&E, pay their debt with £75 added in fees in an affordable way - job done!

 

Of course it doesn't work like that in reality, as many debtors are scared, they incur the next lot of fees, so another £235 is added. Bailiffs don't do their job properly, thus making the enforcement stage more likely, they then threaten forced entry, removing all their goods and general abhorrent scare tactics to coerce payment.

 

It is their job to collect the money owing plus their fees. It is not their job to terrify.

 

You are right that people with MH issues may lack capacity, though unless you have a real interest in it, I think few will understand how things work.

 

I still think multiple compliance fees are highly unlikely in reality. BA states they cannot be charged multiple times within one company, disagreeing with DB. If a warrant is returned, how many cases do we see where a second enforcement company is being used? Pretty much none. Thus the debtor would incur only one fee, and a small possiblity of a second one. No council would use bailiffs a third time if two had failed - very few would use them a second time if the first had failed. There are other ways of collecting the debt - an AOE for example. They would use one of these.

 

Enforcement should be a last resort, not a first, default option.

[brassnecked]

Exactly CD should be last resort, but it isn't.

[Coughdrop]

Exactly CD should be last resort, but it isn't.

 

Yes indeed!

[Bailiff Advice]

What I don't like is the potential for someone with mental health issues to end up paying multiple Compliance fees as they l;ack the capacity to understand the payments must be kept up and it goes back and forth from council and bailiffs.

 

Surely that wasn't the intention in TCG?

 

Unfortunately, it will more likely be the case that misinformation as opposed to lack of capacity would be the cause of debtors with mental health issues paying multiple compliance fees. I am truly stunned at the level of incorrect information that has been written on this thread.

 

Comments from CD in post number 83 are simply wrong. He states that the intention of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations was for debtors to engage with bailiffs....and "agree a repayment plan having sat down with the Enforcement Agent and gone through their Income and Expenditure"...and pay their debt with £75 added in fees in an affordable way. If an enforcement agent were to be sitting down with a debtor going through an Income & Expenditure it would obviously be the case that this would take place at the debtors home. Accordingly, an enforcement fee of £235 would apply.

 

He further states (in paragraph 3) that the reality is that Bailiffs 'threaten forced entry.....removing all their goods.....and abhorrent scare tactics.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have only ever come across one case where household goods were removed and I cannot even remember one case on this forum in the ten years that I have been posting.

[Bailiff Advice]

There is clearly also the need for a proper discussion thread to be started regarding the matter of 'recycling/reissuing of warrants'. If I have time before the weekend, I will start such a thread. Sadly, this is another area where inaccurate information is being provided on this thread.

 

Almost two million Liability Orders alone are passed to enforcement agents each year. If one company are unable to secure payment (or are only able to secure a 'part payment'..perhaps for just £100) then that payment will be allocated towards discharging the Compliance Fee of £75 in full. The balance of £25 would be allocated on a pro rata basis of 60% towards reducing the debt to the creditor, and 40% towards reducing the enforcement fee.

 

The enforcement company would normally keep control of the account for approx 4 months. The enforcement agent may visit as often as he likes during this period but unless he is able to secure goods for sale, his 'enforcement fee of £235 is capped.

 

If the enforcement agent/company cannot obtain any further payment, the account will be returned to the local authority. At this stage, any uncollected bailiff fees would be removed.

 

The local authority would not waste any time at all in reissuing/recycling the accounts to their second choice bailiff provider. This is a very common procedure indeed and one that involves no cost to the local authority.

 

As the instruction is a brand new one, the second choice bailiff provider must provide a new Notice of Enforcement and a Compliance Fee of £75 would be added.

 

As mentioned above, I will try to get a new thread started before the weekend.

[Coughdrop]

Unfortunately, it will more likely be the case that misinformation as opposed to lack of capacity would be the cause of debtors with mental health issues paying multiple compliance fees. I am truly stunned at the level of incorrect information that has been written on this thread.

 

Comments from CD in post number 83 are simply wrong. He states that the intention of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations was for debtors to engage with bailiffs....and "agree a repayment plan having sat down with the Enforcement Agent and gone through their Income and Expenditure"...and pay their debt with £75 added in fees in an affordable way. If an enforcement agent were to be sitting down with a debtor going through an Income & Expenditure it would obviously be the case that this would take place at the debtors home. Accordingly, an enforcement fee of £235 would apply.

 

He further states (in paragraph 3) that the reality is that Bailiffs 'threaten forced entry.....removing all their goods.....and abhorrent scare tactics.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have only ever come across one case where household goods were removed and I cannot even remember one case on this forum in the ten years that I have been posting.

 

 

No Bailiff Advice. I may have referred to the Enforcement Stage for some things required in my haste. However what you state happens then does not in reality.

 

At Compliance Stage, it is very difficult for many debtors to have affordable repayment plans agreed.

 

As for bailiffs using abhorrent tactics, too many do still, claiming powers they don't have and coercing payment. You know this to be true.

 

The TCGR are working relatively well and we see fewer posts here, but they are not working as intended. Too many remain scared, even terrified of what is going to happen.

 

Forgive typos, I'm using a mobile phone.

[brassnecked]

I have to remind you that some people do not like bailiffs banging on the door,

They hate couriers knocking on a Sunday morning with a pre 12 timed delivery they ordered in a drunken stupor Saturday afternoon also, especially when the courier knocks like a bailiff.

[Coughdrop]

There is clearly also the need for a proper discussion thread to be started regarding the matter of 'recycling/reissuing of warrants'. If I have time before the weekend, I will start such a thread. Sadly, this is another area where inaccurate information is being provided on this thread.

 

Almost two million Liability Orders alone are passed to enforcement agents each year. If one company are unable to secure payment (or are only able to secure a 'part payment'..perhaps for just £100) then that payment will be allocated towards discharging the Compliance Fee of £75 in full. The balance of £25 would be allocated on a pro rata basis of 60% towards reducing the debt to the creditor, and 40% towards reducing the enforcement fee.

 

The enforcement company would normally keep control of the account for approx 4 months. The enforcement agent may visit as often as he likes during this period but unless he is able to secure goods for sale, his 'enforcement fee of £235 is capped.

 

If the enforcement agent/company cannot obtain any further payment, the account will be returned to the local authority. At this stage, any uncollected bailiff fees would be removed.

 

The local authority would not waste any time at all in reissuing/recycling the accounts to their second choice bailiff provider. This is a very common procedure indeed and one that involves no cost to the local authority.

 

As the instruction is a brand new one, the second choice bailiff provider must provide a new Notice of Enforcement and a Compliance Fee of £75 would be added.

 

As mentioned above, I will try to get a new thread started before the weekend.

 

Yes, this has been repeated over and over. It is what happens when payments are made. That's why it's best to pay nothing to start with and sit things out.

 

You state about new instructions to a second company. These are not common, though what you write is correct if bailiffs are used a second time. More likely is a new method being used where no money has been collected, if repayment is not made in the meantime.

 

I don't think another thread will do anything to further this. It's been discussed at length recently. It makes a mockery of CAG if similar topics are discussed too frequently. That is your right though, but too often these threads are closed for good reason. Do we really want or need yet another? My feeling is we don't.

 

I'll try to keep an eye on things this morning, but may not be around much today depending how things work out.

[Coughdrop]

They hate couriers knocking on a Sunday morning with a pre 12 timed delivery they ordered in a drunken stupor Saturday afternoon also, especially when the courier knocks like a bailiff.

 

Lol! Yes they do!

[Coughdrop]

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have only ever come across one case where household goods were removed and I cannot even remember one case on this forum in the ten years that I have been posting.

 

Yes, it's rare. That is why I used the word threaten. There remain too many threats designed to scare. Not misinformation, a regular occurrence.

[Bailiff Advice]

It has to be remembered that each year, almost 5 million debts are now being enforced by bailiffs. With the removal of the '14 day' letter by local authorities (in the case of council tax debts) the number of accounts with bailiff companies is significantly higher than it was before the regulations were overhauled in 2014.

 

This forum and ALL other forums receive significantly less enquiries now than in 2014 (or before).

 

There are less than a hand full of EAC2 complaints about the behaviour of a bailiff.

 

Applications to court to challenge bailiff fees (by way of Detailed Assessment) are unheard of.

 

Legal claims against local authorities or enforcement companies are also at an all time low.

 

By and large, the regulations are working better than expected and this is in part to good accurate information being given to the debtor and by debtors engaging with the enforcement company at the earliest possible stage (the Compliance stage) to set up a payment arrangement.

[Coughdrop]

Yes, I stated some of this in shortened form above. One (of a few) problem is early engagement with the EA to set up a repayment arrangement they can't afford, so they default. Yet again I alluded to this above also.

[Bailiff Advice]

I will start a new thread on the subject of 'reissuing' warrants. If anyone wants to read it..they can do so.

 

I also intend to address the 'debt avoidance' scheme being advised on this forum. This is where debtors are being advised to withhold paying their debts by 'sitting it out' and waiting for approx 4 months for the account to be returned to the council. This scheme is aimed solely at avoiding paying bailiff fees.

 

By and large, a Liability Order would typically be obtained approx 6-9 after the council tax became due. By the time that the debt has reached the stage of an 'enforcement visit', the council tax debt could have been owing almost 10 months. Encouraging debtors to 'sit it out' is delaying payment to struggling local authorities.

 

It needs to be made clear (and I will do this is the new thread) that unlike the previous regulations, once an account is received by an enforcement company, the amount of the debt included bailiff fees. The only time that this changes.....is if the account is returned.

 

Therefore, encouraging a debtor to 'sit it out' is almost certainly 'debt avoidance'.

[Peterbard]

I thin another consequence of this advice is that it prompts more aggressive enforcment within the bailiff industry.

[Coughdrop]

I wonder whether below, referring to saving a debtor £310 can be referred to as debt avoidance? If so, I'm sure I'll read posts about debt avoidance in the sections for DCA's, bank charges, parking charges, civil recovery and so on - issues on which CAG takes a strong stance. Misinformation? Hmm ...........

 

I will start a new thread on the subject of 'reissuing' warrants. If anyone wants to read it..they can do so.

 

Yes, as stated above.

 

I also intend to address the 'debt avoidance' scheme being advised on this forum. This is where debtors are being advised to withhold paying their debts by 'sitting it out' and waiting for approx 4 months for the account to be returned to the council. This scheme is aimed solely at avoiding paying bailiff fees, (thus saving them £310.)

 

By and large, a Liability Order would typically be obtained approx 6-9 after the council tax became due. By the time that the debt has reached the stage of an 'enforcement visit', the council tax debt could have been owing almost 10 months. Encouraging debtors to 'sit it out' is delaying payment to struggling local authorities.

 

Yes, the question for us is what is our main concern, the struggling local authorities, or the debtor? For me, it is the debtor.

 

It needs to be made clear (and I will do this is the new thread) that unlike the previous regulations, once an account is received by an enforcement company, the amount of the debt included bailiff fees. The only time that this changes.....is if the account is returned.

 

Therefore, encouraging a debtor to 'sit it out' is almost certainly 'debt avoidance'.

 

Wrong! Simply wrong. It is saving the debtor £310. What do you have against doing that? Why is this something of which you seemingly disapprove?

 

As stated so many times now, if we followed your line of thought, CAG would be a forum which by and large preaches debt avoidance - DCA's? Pay as little as possible and challenge charges? Likewise banks; likewise civil enforcement (for a crime of shoplifting); likewise private parking charges - the list goes on. So much debt avoidance - or is it actually saving debtors money?

 

 

One very simple question Bailiff Advice, and it is not a sideswipe, it is a genuine question for a very good reason. Do debtors have to engage with enforcement agents for council tax debts?

 

The correct answer is, "No, they do not."

 

So why encourage them to do only that, when there are options to save the £310 fees, especially if they don't own a vehicle? The least we can do is outline their options. They can make an informed decision then, rather than being told just to pay, risking possible further fees. For too long only one view has been stated when there are options to do other things.

 

 

[Bailiff Advice]

I think another consequence of this advice is that it prompts more aggressive enforcment within the bailiff industry.

 

Absolutely right. We must not lose sight of the fact as well that the debt avoidance scheme of 'sitting it out' (a phrase that I really do dislike) is rife within all of the 'Beat the Bailiffs' F/B pages. Each one is heavily towards FMoTL and by encouraging such action here, we are giving the public the wrong impression of this forum.

 

By all means, we should be assisting the debtor by questioning the fees that may have been charged and if the fees are wrong, we should be advising the debtor how best to challenge these.

 

As I said earlier, a fundamental part of the regulations (which was not the case previously) is that the amount of debt includes bailiff fees. Advising a debtor to 'sit it out' is to advise the debtor to withhold payment of a government debt as well as legally due bailiff fees. I do not support such behaviour.

 

Previously, in some cases where there may have grounds for a serious complaint, I used to advise the debtor to write to the Chief Executive of the council and to copy the correspondence to the Head of Revenue and the enforcement company. Because of the significant changes implemented in 2014, it is only on very rare occasions that I would suggest writing to the Chief Executive of the council.

 

PS: The propensity for answering forum posts by the excess use of 'multi quoting'.....shouting at other posters by writing in bold, in CAPITAL letters and bright red text is very off-putting. It should stop (this is not aimed at you DB).

[Coughdrop]

I thin another consequence of this advice is that it prompts more aggressive enforcment within the bailiff industry.

 

Absolutely right.

 

This would be the aggressive practices (or what I call threatening behaviour) which you were in denial of earlier today, would it. Scare tactics, threatening behaviour, aggressive practices - call it what you will, on the doorstep it amounts to much the same thing.

 

 

We must not lose sight of the fact as well that the debt avoidance scheme (or saving a debtor £310) of 'sitting it out' (a phrase that I really do dislike ) is rife within all of the 'Beat the Bailiffs' F/B pages. Each one is heavily towards FMoTL and by encouraging such action here, we are giving the public the wrong impression of this forum.

 

I ask again, Do debtors have to engage with bailiffs for council tax debt?

 

The correct answer is, "No, they do not."

 

So why encourage them to do only that, when there are options to save the £310 fees, especially if they don't own a vehicle?

 

The least we can do is outline their options. They can make an informed decision then, rather than being told just to pay, risking possible further fees. For too long only one view has been stated when there are options to do other things.

 

There is nothing FMoTL about the above whatsoever, absolutely nothing. Trying to align CAG with Beat the Bailiffs and other such pages seems to me to be wholly wrong. CAG is not, and I doubt it ever will be, anything like those pages, as anyone who visits them can see.

 

As I said earlier, a fundamental part of the regulations (which was not the case previously) is that the amount of debt includes bailiff fees. Advising a debtor to 'sit it out' is to advise the debtor to withhold payment of a government debt as well as legally due bailiff fees. I do not support such behaviour.

 

You do not need to support such behaviour. That does not preclude others from doing so. When the warrant is returned to the council, are the bailiff fees still legally due for the remaining government debt? No, they are not. The two can not only be seen as separate sums, but treated as such in reality, saving the debtor £310.

 

Nobody is saying do not pay the debt, they are saying there are options whereby fees incurred can be saved (fees due at that point in time, but which can die again, so not permanent fees). The word 'government' is designed to make everything look worse than it is, almost akin to scare tactics. We are talking about saving people £310. What do you have against that?

 

PS: The propensity for answering forum posts by the excess use of 'multi quoting'.....shouting at other posters by writing in bold, in CAPITAL letters and bright red text is very off-putting. It should stop (this is not aimed at you DB).

 

...... or indeed underlining phrases in purple which is also very off-putting. Multi-quoting is extremely useful. I taught Dodgeball to do it not long ago, and he's making good use of it which is great. It's a key feature of vBulletin, software developed at great expense to be user friendly. You may not like the feature, but others find it helpful. It simply is not for you to say, "It should stop." How posters post is a matter for them, and them only. They should not be dictated to.

[brassnecked]

Lol! Yes they do!

They like it even less when the courier, in this case me says, well in that case you don't want the parcel, RTS refused by customer, they soon calm down then. As they should when faced with a bailiff refuse them entry, but try to come to an arrangement.