Judge orders debtor to pay £7,000 in costs for trying to avoid paying Compliance fee of £75......a discussion thread.

[Peterbard]

I think that if anything maybe they are applying for leave to appeal. Which of course is a totally different thing.

 

If it is tho points raised in the transcript the idea of appeal is frankly nonsense.

[Peterbard]

As for the axi case ss ou call it. The comments which triggered this response were bout the fact that once under control goods can only be released by the bailiffs office, and certainly not by cutting a clamp off as happened. This is a point of law, not an opinion of any of the incidents which occurred in the case.

 

Tis and other points like for instance it was yet another example of silly advice regarding injunctions are not sub judice. they are a matter of fact or opinion.

[wonkeydonkey]

I think that if anything maybe they are applying for leave to appeal. Which of course is a totally different thing.

 

If it is tho points raised in the transcript the idea of appeal is frankly nonsense.

 

I think the claimant is very lucky the defendant's did not pursue a claim for unreasonable costs/conduct!!!

 

It s

[Whitely]

Bailiff Advice - could you confirm whether it was argued and agreed that direct payments are not obliged to be split between the creditor and the EA?

[Whitely]

Its wrong in any case, the high word count only applies to the initial transcription, as i thought i had said, once that is made all you are paying for is a copy.

 

So someone has to initially request for a transcript and pay for it. Who did in this case?

 

I think that if anything maybe they are applying for leave to appeal. Which of course is a totally different thing.

 

No, leave has been granted, that's all I'm at liberty to say.

[Whitely]

As for the axi case ss ou call it. The comments which triggered this response were bout the fact that once under control goods can only be released by the bailiffs office, and certainly not by cutting a clamp off as happened. This is a point of law, not an opinion of any of the incidents which occurred in the case.

 

Tis and other points like for instance it was yet another example of silly advice regarding injunctions are not sub judice. they are a matter of fact or opinion.

 

"As for the axi case ss ou call it" - I think this is meant to say "As for the Taxi case as you call it".......Sorry to call you out again, but that is not what happened at the time. The barrister for the debtor made the judge aware that details of the case were being posted on this forum during the hearing, details that could only have come from someone inside the courtroom and the judge was absolutely livid. We all know the 2 parties involved and the matter is being reviewed.

[Whitely]

Bailiff Advice - could you confirm whether it was argued and agreed that direct payments are not obliged to be split between the creditor and the EA?

 

In the absence of a reply, Dodgeball, you've read the transcript, can you confirm the above statement?

[Peterbard]

In the absence of a reply, Dodgeball, you've read the transcript, can you confirm the above statement?

 

It was decided that although section 13 does state that payments must be split, it was not terminal to the enforcment power, as the provisions of section 4 stated when fees may be recovered.

Also the very fact that the enforcment was passed to the bailiff meant that he was due payment for his services. There was nothing that remotely suggested the enforcment power would die in these circumstances.

 

It seems that section 13 and the definition of "ammount outstanding" was incorrect.

It was the opinion of the claimant that a sum must be owed to the creditor in order to permit fees to be generated. This was found to be untrue.

 

It is very clear that fees and amounts due to the creditor were separate items, which when added together formed the ammount outstanding, one was not dependent on the other. Section 50 of the act was examined in detail and it is clear from the structure that this is the case. The mentions of "can be either of these" or the "sum of" instead of just the word "and".

 

There was a discussion where the solicitor representing Mr Bola said that if there was £0 due to the creditor and £50 due in fees the total was zero, the judge corrected her, and said no the total is £50.

 

The fees are, as we know a set amount, not a product of the ammount due to the creditor.

[Whitely]

It was decided that although section 13 does state that payments must be split, it was not terminal to the enforcment power, as the provisions of section 4......

 

So was it agreed there is no obligation on the creditor to split direct payments? Were the council bound by s13?

[Peterbard]

I wanted to include tht the words are mine and an interpretation of what wa said not the judges.

[Peterbard]

So was it agreed there is no obligation on the creditor to split direct payments? Were the council bound by s13?

 

There was an obligation to send the payment to the bailiff , but failure to do so was not terminal to the enforcment. Fees In any case were collectible under section 14.

[Whitely]

There was an obligation to send the payment to the bailiff , but failure to do so was not terminal to the enforcment. Fees In any case were collectible under section 14.

 

So Newlyn's barrister didn't say:

 

"So it is not even pleaded that Harrow were in some way bound by Regulation 13 to apportion. On my analysis, as a matter of law, they simply were not"

 

To which the judge replied:

 

"Right"

[Peterbard]

So Newlyn's barrister didn't say:

 

"So it is not even pleaded that Harrow were in some way bound by Regulation 13 to apportion. On my analysis, as a matter of law, they simply were not"

 

To which the judge replied:

 

"Right"

 

Yes of course that is what i said ??

 

They wee not bound because 9f section 4.

 

You seem to be trying to score points but end up shooting yourself in the foot. This point was not in the pleadings but was raised in the course of the hearing.

 

The point is that it did not matter what the authority did the agents were still due their fees.

[Peterbard]

I am beginning to understand the judges frustration.

[Peterbard]

The fact is , that the authority hung on to the payment, they should not have.

However it made no difference anyway because the EA were still able to continue enforcing for their fees.

 

As told to you many many times all those FOIs you sent were just a complete waste of time.

[Whitely]

Yes of course that is what i said ??

 

They wee not bound because 9f section 4.

 

You seem to be trying to score points but end up shooting yourself in the foot. This point was not in the pleadings but was raised in the course of the hearing.

 

The point is that it did not matter what the authority did the agents were still due their fees.

 

It is a highly important point though isn't it. Much debate has taken place regarding whether direct payments are meant to be apportioned between the creditor and the EA. Clearly it's argued here, by the EA's barrister no less, that that is not the case; in fact I believe the barrister said arguing that the creditor is bound by s13 is a 'legal nonsense'.

 

Of course we all understand that fees are due but this seems to be clarifying that creditors receiving payments directly from debtors are under no obligation to apportion any of that payment to the EA.

[Whitely]

The fact is , that the authority hung on to the payment, they should not have.

However it made no difference anyway because the EA were still able to continue enforcing for their fees.

 

As told to you many many times all those FOIs you sent were just a complete waste of time.

 

But Newlyn's barrister said the opposite was true, with the judge agreeing. The local authority hung on to the payment as they were under no obligation to apportion it. This is precisely what the FOI's, on the whole, confirmed.

[Whitely]

Yes of course that is what i said ??

 

No you said s13 says the payment must be split. Newlyn's barrister and the judge say it doesn't.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is a highly important point though isn't it. Much debate has taken place regarding whether direct payments are meant to be apportioned between the creditor and the EA. Clearly it's argued here, by the EA's barrister no less, that that is not the case; in fact I believe the barrister said arguing that the creditor is bound by s13 is a 'legal nonsense'.

 

Of course we all understand that fees are due but this seems to be clarifying that creditors receiving payments directly from debtors are under no obligation to apportion any of that payment to the EA.

 

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)?

[Bailiff Advice]

"As for the axi case ss ou call it" - I think this is meant to say "As for the Taxi case as you call it".......Sorry to call you out again, but that is not what happened at the time. The barrister for the debtor made the judge aware that details of the case were being posted on this forum during the hearing, details that could only have come from someone inside the courtroom and the judge was absolutely livid. We all know the 2 parties involved and the matter is being reviewed.

 

You comments lead me to be consider yet again, that you are being passed highly confidential information regarding comments made in a court hearing. Very interesting indeed.

[Peterbard]

No you said s13 says the payment must be split. Newlyn's barrister and the judge say it doesn't.

 

Section 13 says it must be split, however it does not say the penalty for not splitting is that the agent cannot collect his fees.

 

The case is about fees remember.

[Peterbard]

you comments lead me to be consider yet again, that you are being passed highly confidential information regarding comments made in a court hearing. Very interesting indeed.

 

lol

[Peterbard]

But Newlyn's barrister said the opposite was true, with the judge agreeing. The local authority hung on to the payment as they were under no obligation to apportion it. This is precisely what the FOI's, on the whole, confirmed.

 

I dont remember seeing that the judge said they had no obligation to , just that in the matter of fees it was not relevant. Strictly speaking the authority should have just passed the payment on, they didn't, it does not mean tht the agent forfeits his fees, how d9es that make sense.

 

Well it didnt make sense to the judge .

[unclebulgaria67]

You comments lead me to be consider yet again, that you are being passed highly confidential information regarding comments made in a court hearing. Very interesting indeed.

 

It is not confidential, if it is said within a court hearing, unless a Judge gives instruction to this effect.

[Peterbard]

Anyway moving on, there is the question of damages. How many times do you see the advice given that because a bailiff breaches a section of the act you can sue for damages.

 

Ridiculous claims for astronomical unsupported sums were "plucked out of the air".

 

WIthout fail these were thrown out.