bristow & sutor Bristol & Sutor ..ctax 2014

[otterlyendo]

Just now, Dodgeball said:

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

[otterlyendo]

6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.

 

Just to clarify - a LO can be set aside in a magistrate's court. I think Judge Burnton referenced it 4 times in the quote from the link.

[otterlyendo]

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

[Peterbard]

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought

[Peterbard]

Just now, otterlyendo said:

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.

[otterlyendo]

6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought

 

All I did was correct you by saying that a LO can be set aside. I made no mention of how - that was just your assumptions.

[otterlyendo]

4 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

[Peterbard]

On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.

[Bailiff Advice]

16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

Accordingly, I would argue that the ONLY amount that the OP is liable to pay is the council tax arrears. The problem is, if the OP paid this sum to the enforcement agent, then common sense would dictate that the 'Compliance fee' of £75 would be deducted etc, etc. In order to avoid this happening, then in this case ONLY, I have suggested that consideration could be given to paying the arrears direct to the council. 

 

I hope that I have clarified the position. 

[otterlyendo]

Just now, Bailiff Advice said:

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

So what's different about this particular case from the tens of dozens of other similar cases? In all those other cases you advise to not pay the council direct? Why not?

[otterlyendo]

8 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.

 

You stated:

 

Quote

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

 

That has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you need to clarify.

[Peterbard]

5 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.

[otterlyendo]

1 minute ago, Dodgeball said:

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie they thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

[Peterbard]

21 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?

[Peterbard]

3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie Nthey thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

I Not meaning to insult, but the requirement for evidence to support your case is not a new concept, not to me at least.

 

Night all

Edited March 29, 2019 by Dodgeball

[basildonbond1946]

I think one or two EGOs need deflating.People come on this forum for help and not be part of the arguments between two supposedly knowledgeable people. The original OP must be well and truly pi..issed off and has switched off

[otterlyendo]

15 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?

 

How is it incorrect?

[basildonbond1946]

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

[Peterbard]

26 minutes ago, basildonbond1946 said:

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Not agreeing with this though, not on my part anyway,

[brassnecked]

As BA points out, as Busted & Stupid seem not to reissue the NOE to the correct address, in this case I concur with BA that OP pays council direct and puts in a Formal Complaint as Council are liable for act, omissions, and any wrongdoing by their agent Bristols & Stupor.

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed.

[AndyOrch]

Thread now locked and will remain so until advised by the OP to reopen.

 

Regards

 

Andy