Paying the council direct to avoid fees after the bailiff (EA) has been engaged
This is another theory which is peculiar to this forum and certain freeman of the land internet sites.
Put simply there is no avoiding the EA fees once the account has been passed to the bailiff, unless the enforcement is unsuccessful and is returned, or the account is taken back by the authority due to vulnerability or for some other reason.
Once the account is “under an enforcement power”all fees as prescribed by Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 will be due as the sums owed under the liability order and the fees will form one amount under section 50(3) of the act. It does not matter who the debt is paid to, it may be the EA or the authority, whilst under the enforcement power all sums are due. Until this amount is paid IN FULL the enforcement power will remain and the EA will be entitled to continue enforcement. The act is perfectly clear on this.
50(1)Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.
(2)Proceeds are any of these—
(a)proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;
(b)money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to it.
(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—
(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);
(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).
This is a resent post made which shows the confusion created over what is a relatively simple matter.
http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=37670#p37670
Leave a Reply
55 Comments on "Paying the council direct to avoid fees after the bailiff (EA) has been engaged"
He’s just told someone they should have paid the council directly instead of Marstons, now he’s advising them to recover whatever it is (not clear whether it’s the payment already made or the fees he’s not paid yet) via the county court. Really? What would you write on your PoC? I paid a debt I owed and now I want my money back?
http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4630
The theory about ‘paying direct’ in order to avoid bailiff fees has been dealt another blow this week.
http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/bene…her/16-014-707
Fareham Borough Council
The following is a ‘word’ version of the decision:
More comments about the LGO decision (paying the council direct) can be found on the Consumer Acton Group forum here:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477356-Local-Government-Ombudsman-(LGO)-decision….Vulnerability-…Paying-the-council-direct…Pro-Rata-distribution-and-more.
How many of these have there been now, he will take no notice.
I have noticed him telling debtors that if debtors are vulnerable they are “immune from fees”. I was going to mention it on here, but he spouts so much bullshit, who has the time?
Posted by Jason today:
“Sheila and the jobless hippies used to quote interpretations of the HMCTS Enforcement Services Contract like sacred writings. When I blew the lid by putting it on the internet, she never mentioned it again”
No because it never happened, I think you still have a case of the bends from your deep sea pearl diving days.
Pote you are an idiot.
Still waiting on Jason and Pote to post any evidence – their personal opinions are worthless (and wrong)

We have been waiting for nearly four years.
I was disusing that forum the other day. There used to be six or seven giving advice, slowly as the letters kept coming in from debtors, saying Jasons theories didn’t work, they drifted away.
Now really, we just have Jason. Mark has already said that Jason talks bollocks,
i think he just posts because he enjoys an argument and dislikes me and BA.
His name is a joke all over the enforcment and advice industry. Put his name on google and it points at one of the forums where he has made a tool out of himself,or here.
Then he makes himself even more ridiculous, with his Mrs Bouquet-eseque allusions..
In additions things can only get worse. I could care less, as he says. i am just a jobless hippie.
True to form, I think through lack of understanding Pote again misses the point

Pote, take your wife for a walk, it might dawn on you whilst you are away
When Cpt Picard, read some of Pote’s comments

Something to discuss from the HMCTS Enforcement Services Contract
6.29 The Department will not accept full or part payments on any account where any
warrant or clamping order is with the Contractor.
Should a Defaulter attend a court and offer to pay whilst a warrant or clamping order is outstanding, the court will direct the Defaulter to contact the Contractor concerned.
A process will be agreed by the Department to pay to the Contractor the administrative fee in instances where courts have recalled warrants outside these provisions and the contractor can demonstrate they have undertaken considerable work to execute the warrant before it is recalled. This means all administrative process (i.e.tracing) and one visit.
Jason and Pote (aka Bill and Ben or even Dumb and Dumber)
As we know
In the letter from the HM Courts & Tribunals Service, it confirms:
“Accordingly your payment has been forwarded to the Approved Enforcement Agent to credit against the money owed”
Where is your evidence to contradict this evidence ? Come on, you must have something more than hot air
You make claims about legal arguments etc, then you should know that claims have to be supported by evidence – Where is yours ?
Anyone else notice how silent Tuco/Statto is on this one ? Not even so much as a sniff of an insult
After examining the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, Mr Kruse concluded by stating as follows:
“That’s all fine- as long as the agent gets the cash. If it goes to the creditor, what then happens? I think that the assumption is that the creditor will pass on the sums received in order to allow the enforcement agent to make the correct distribution following the fee scale. This is their responsibility, not the creditor’s.
That said, it is perhaps asking a lot of a creditor to give up the lump sum they’ve just got their hands on. At the very least, the creditor must seek a breakdown of the fees calculation from the agency and transmit to them the amount due for fees.
But what of the balance? This must be regarded as the net amount remaining after the proper deduction of fees and expenses. It will predominantly comprise the debt.
Debtors like to think that by direct payment they have discharged the debt and left the bailiff without his fees, but this cannot be an honest interpretation of the wording or intention of the Regulations. There will still be a balance of the debt outstanding and this may still be quite properly enforceable– with extra fees of course being a possibility”
My emphasis.