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

[Whitely]

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.

 

I'm not quite sure how commenting on a transcript that you have been given and freely shared amongst others on here can lead you to seriously say this is 'highly confidential information'. It is not. Sharing information on a live court case certainly would be though.

[Whitely]

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 .

 

Pages 90/91 of the transcript Dodgeball. The argument and conclusion is that the local authority are not bound by s13.

[Whitely]

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.

 

The barrister and judge do not agree Dodgeball. The split only occurs after goods have been sold. As I've been saying for a couple of years now.

[Whitely]

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.

 

It is true I made over 100 FOI's to local authorities spread across England and Wales. The result was that around 80% confirmed they did not apportion direct payments with the EA.

[wonkeydonkey]

I am beginning to understand the judges frustration.

 

I sympathise with the Judge also.....

 

The date the claimant made the £172 payment direct to Harrow was 16th January2016.. this was a Saturday... and although the payment was recorded as having been received it would have been 18th January before any action could be taken to process that payment.

 

By the 18th Jan the bailiff had already been instructed to enforce and he was entitled to £75 so the £172 had increased to £247.... and that left a balance owed which ever way you look at it.

[Whitely]

 

The date the claimant made the £172 payment direct to Harrow was 16th January2016.. this was a Saturday... and although the payment was recorded as having been received it would have been 18th January before any action could be taken to process that payment.

 

It was paid on the 14th.

[Peterbard]

Pages 90/91 of the transcript Dodgeball. The argument and conclusion is that the local authority are not bound by s13.

 

Not what you said

[Whitely]

Not what you said

 

Can you expand on that? What did I not say?

[Peterbard]

It is true I made over 100 FOI's to local authorities spread across England and Wales. The result was that around 80% confirmed they did not apportion direct payments with the EA.

 

Jesus. The judge said it does no matter, it does not effect the enforcement, you seem to be hung up on irrelevancies'

[wonkeydonkey]

It was paid on the 14th.

 

You are correct it was the 14th the payment was made, I apologise.

[dx100uk]

thread will be closed for the night at 10pm

 

 

dx

[Bailiff Advice]

"As for

 

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)?

 

Could you please answer my questions Whitely?

[Whitely]

Jesus. The judge said it does no matter, it does not effect the enforcement, you seem to be hung up on irrelevancies'

 

It is highly relevant. Members of this board are adamant that local authorities and HMCTS must apportion payments taken directly from the debtor. By doing this they are taking money direct from the public purse into the coffers of private enforcement companies. We now have a barrister for an EA company (and a judge agreeing with him) stating there is no legal obligation to apportion payments, and to argue the case is 'legal nonsense'.

 

This point is not about whether or not fees are due, and nobody has ever argued the fees are not due and are payable by the debtor, but it certainly accords with 'our' argument that direct payments are not proceeds of enforcement and do not fall into the remit of s13. Direct payments should not be apportioned between the authority and the EA. It also highlights that Shailesh Vara was indeed incorrect in his lazy response.

 

Fees are due, no argument, but they should not be taken from direct payments. That would be a legal nonsense.

[Whitely]

Could you please answer my questions Whitely?

 

When you answer mine.

[Peterbard]

The barrister and judge do not agree Dodgeball. The split only occurs after goods have been sold. As I've been saying for a couple of years now.

 

the judge will have found for the claimant in a while and given him an award of several million, You cannot just re invent what people say to suit your erroneous beliefs.

[Whitely]

the judge will have found for the claimant in a while and given him an award of several million, You cannot just re invent what people say to suit your erroneous beliefs.

 

Dodgeball, for the benefit of everyone, can you direct us to the part where the barrister and/or judge say direct payments are bound by s13 and must be apportioned accordingly?

[Peterbard]

It is highly relevant. Members of this board are adamant that local authorities and HMCTS must apportion payments taken directly from the debtor. By doing this they are taking money direct from the public purse into the coffers of private enforcement companies. We now have a barrister for an EA company (and a judge agreeing with him) stating there is no legal obligation to apportion payments, and to argue the case is 'legal nonsense'.

 

This point is not about whether or not fees are due, and nobody has ever argued the fees are not due and are payable by the debtor, but it certainly accords with 'our' argument that direct payments are not proceeds of enforcement and do not fall into the remit of s13. Direct payments should not be apportioned between the authority and the EA. It also highlights that Shailesh Vara was indeed incorrect in his lazy response.

 

Fees are due, no argument, but they should not be taken from direct payments. That would be a legal nonsense.

 

This is FMOTL hogwash. Creditors hire bailiffs to collect debts , they simply pay them what they are due.

[Whitely]

This is FMOTL hogwash. Creditors hire bailiffs to collect debts , they simply pay them what they are due.

 

Ah, the old FMOTL insult again. Clearly the barrister is a FMOTL also as he stated:

 

"Regulation 12 of the Fees Regulations is unhappily worded in some ways, but clearly it does not require, in my submission, a divvying up where the total debt has been paid."

 

And before you ask, he'd made it clear earlier on that by saying 'the total debt' or 'the debt' he was referring to the amount owed to the council, not the fees. He kept the two elements separate.

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball, for the benefit of everyone, can you direct us to the part where the barrister and/or judge say direct payments are bound by s13 and must be apportioned accordingly?

 

I think you will find i said the regulations. 13.—(1) Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

 

This is true, but as i keep saying, not doing so does not kill the enforcement power. So as far as that is concerned the authority is not bound.

 

Just to remind you your argument was that because of the requirements of section 13 the power will cease and fees will be void, remember;

[Whitely]

I think you will find i said the regulations. 13.—(1) Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

 

This is true, but as i keep saying, not doing so does not kill the enforcement power. So as far as that is concerned the authority is not bound.

 

Just to remind you your argument was that because of the requirements of section 13 the power will cease and fees will be void, remember;

 

No, no, no. You claimed that I was reinventing what the barrister said. You were implying that he didn't say it. I have posted verbatim what the barrister said.

[Peterbard]

If the full ammount is due there is no divvying up because everyone has been paid what they are owed. you do know this ?

 

The fact is that the judge ruled that even though the authority had been paid the sum adjudged. the fees were still due. Now wriggle as much as you like it does not alter that judgment.

[Whitely]

I feel like Richard Whitely counting down to the 10pm deadline.

[Whitely]

If the full ammount is due there is no divvying up because everyone has been paid what they are owed. you do know this ?

 

The fact is that the judge ruled that even though the authority had been paid the sum adjudged. the fees were still due. Now wriggle as much as you like it does not alter that judgment.

 

It certainly blows out the water the argument that direct payments for the original debt should not be split, divvied, apportioned or passed to the bailiff.

[dx100uk]

I feel like Richard Whitely counting down to the 10pm deadline.

 

 

shame that

 

 

thread now closing for the night.

 

 

dx

[honeybee13]

I feel like Richard Whitely counting down to the 10pm deadline.

 

It was a fortuitous choice of name it seems.

 

HB