Direct earnings attachment DEA

Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:45 pm

Direct earnings attachments differ from the previous Attachment of earnings orders.
Unlike AEO there is no court process or application to a court for an order.
These new DEA's are being used by the Department for work & pensions, first used in trials from 2013 and to be rolled out from April 2014.

If the DWP claim money is owed to them for over payments or unpaid loans from the social fund and if a repayment is not offered then the DWP will apply a DEA and inform the employer that a direct deduction be made from earnings and that the employer can charge the employee an admin fee of no more than £1 per transaction.

The use and implementation of a DEA is at the discretion of the DWP.
The DWP does not recognise statute barred, those debts that have through the passage of time become barred from the usual recovery methods.

The DWP will/can pass the debt to its internal recovery or pass it onto a third party for collection.

My own case.

Received a few months back a letter from DWP claiming I owed £189 from 2001. The money was from the social fund.

Wrote back and asked for a re-payment and contact history.

They wrote back saying they do not keep that info and that i should speak with DWP as they will have it.

I wrote to them saying i thought you were DWP.

They wrote back saying they are a 'branch' of the DWP but not directly the DWP.

Then today (5 days after the above) received a letter informing me that they have applied a DEA and informed employer.


Now, call me old fashioned if you will, but i consider this process to be wrong.

No proof of any paperwork has been supplied.
No history has been supplied.
The debt is over 13 years old without any contact on either side.
No appeal process supplied.

Just a demand for payment without ANY proof what so ever.

I have absolutely no idea if this is even a valid debt, if i even took this loan out hence the request for further info.

There must be a way to challenge this but as its a new process being used, info is a little thin on the ground.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:04 pm

Here's how I would handle it, but it depends on your relationship with your employer as to whether or not it will work...

Get you employer to write to the DWP saying they will be happy to enforce the DEA at the DWP's request, but that due to administrative costs the DWP will be charged £200 for performance of the request.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this, hell make it £500. Nice little earner for you and your employer.

Of course the DWP will not want to pay your employer, so they will either go to a debt collection agency or apply for a court summons.

Now if your employer decides to go along with the DWP they'd better have evidence that a debt is owed because they are acting as judge, jury and executioner and are therefore liable if there turns out to be no debt. Point this out to them
and the burden of proof now becomes your employer's problem. They don't want you suing them over something which is really none of their business.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:14 pm

In this case the employer will comply with the demand/request made.

It appears as though they consider no validation of the debt is required, pay up because we say so.

The employer will merely off set any liability to the DWP should it be proven that the debt cannot be validated.
As far as they are concerned, the DWP have made a legal order and that the employer is now legally bound to comply.

But, this is a side issue. The DWP cannot act in a manner like this, they do so because many will just pay up and not challenge it. For the DWP, they will recover much more in this manner than they will payout in court if any challenge is successful.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:47 pm

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review

Judicial review
Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision.

This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.

If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court.

Examples of the types of decision which may fall within the range of judicial review include:

Decisions of local authorities in the exercise of their duties to provide various welfare benefits and special education for children in need of such education;
Certain decisions of the immigration authorities and Immigration Appellate Authority;
Decisions of regulatory bodies;
Decisions relating to prisoner's rights.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:02 pm

You could send the DWP a notice of conditional acceptance stating that you will pay upon receiving a valid rebuttal of your affidavit. The affidavit would state the true facts as you see them and also that any representation to a 3rd party (such as your employer) claiming payment - without rebuttal of your truth - will be fraud and will result in a counter-claim for such. That should make them squirm.

But, this is a side issue. The DWP cannot act in a manner like this, they do so because many will just pay up and not challenge it. For the DWP, they will recover much more in this manner than they will payout in court if any challenge is successful.


Well I totally agree but you can only fight your own corner...
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:09 pm

Found a training manual for the DWP and the use of DEA

It is important that having established contact with the debtor, a relationship is maintained with them. It is a key intention of the pilot for the Advisor to negotiate and agree a sustainable, mutually acceptable, voluntary instalment plan with the debtor. The DEA, or a threat to use the DEA, should only be introduced where repayment cannot be agreed, or where the debtor refuses to pay.
A Repayment Calculator has been created as an aide to negotiating a payment or plan for pilot cases.


At no point has refusal to pay or accept liability been put forward by me.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/162274/response/398380/attach/11/Appendix%205B%20DEA.docm
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:25 pm

(4)In section 78 of that Act (recovery of social fund awards), after subsection (3B) there is inserted—

“(3C)Regulations may provide for amounts recoverable under subsection (1) above from a person specified in subsection (3) above to be recovered by deductions from earnings.

(3D)In subsection (3C) above “earnings” has such meaning as may be prescribed.

(3E)Regulations under subsection (3C) above may include provision referred to in section 71(9C) above.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/section/106
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:57 pm

holy vehm wrote:(4)In section 78 of that Act (recovery of social fund awards), after subsection (3B) there is inserted—

“(3C)Regulations may provide for amounts recoverable under subsection (1) above from a person specified in subsection (3) above to be recovered by deductions from earnings.

(3D)In subsection (3C) above “earnings” has such meaning as may be prescribed.

(3E)Regulations under subsection (3C) above may include provision referred to in section 71(9C) above.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/section/106


"That Act" refers to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/5/section/78/enacted Social security act 1992

(3)The Secretary of State may recover an award—

(a)from the person to or for the benefit of whom it was made;

(b)where that person is a member of a married or unmarried couple, from the other member of the couple;

(c)from a person who is liable to maintain the person by or on behalf of whom the application for the award was made or any person in relation to whose needs the award was made.


So we are to insert the top section into teh above section so it will now read:


(3)The Secretary of State may recover an award—

(a)from the person to or for the benefit of whom it was made;

(b)where that person is a member of a married or unmarried couple, from the other member of the couple;

“(3C)Regulations may provide for amounts recoverable under subsection (1) above from a person specified in subsection (3) above to be recovered by deductions from earnings.

(3D)In subsection (3C) above “earnings” has such meaning as may be prescribed.

(3E)Regulations under subsection (3C) above may include provision referred to in section 71(9C) above.”

(c)from a person who is liable to maintain the person by or on behalf of whom the application for the award was made or any person in relation to whose needs the award was made

This doesnt make much sense to be honest.

Come back to it tomorrow i think.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby holy vehm » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:00 pm

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Direct earnings attachment DEA

Postby musashi » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:03 pm

Hi HV.
I haven't read through all the legal stuff associated here but just going by what you've said for the moment it seems to me that there is no legal compulsion on anyone to obey any request from the DWP to pass your money onto them.

That being the case you could tell your employer not to take anythng from your earnings - he has no legal right to do so, but is merely acting as a private individual with no court order or statute to support him. By taking your money he is acting as fiduciary and makes himself liable for every penny. Anything he takes, without lawful or legal authority, is theft and he is liable.

I know that you are not on great terms with your employers so this must be very awkward for you and you'd need to think hard about taking them on with a law suit or a criminal complaint. It is theft whatever way you look at it, however, unless there is a court order in place.

Social fund loans come with an agreement to repay so they have the right to enforce that repayment agreement. Still, it is unlikely that they have a record of a debt and no agreement or repayment plan. They have evidence of it somewhere or it is an unenforceable debt.

A disputed debt stops all pursuit and the agent must go to the principal and seek new instructions. A dispted debt cannot be collected until the dispute is settled. That's the rule. See the OFT debt collectors Gidelines posted here - or download it.

Back later.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Next

Return to Bailiffs & Debt Collection Agencies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron