I was in Court today as an observer. This was in the fines Courts, This is where many defendants had defaulted with the repayments that were due to the Courts in the way of fines.

I do not normally attend these as a matter of course, but had decided to on this occasion, this is due the new TCG regulations, the Bench was minded to impose an amount of variable orders to recover the amounts that was owed, instead of issuing plenty of Warrants of Control, this Bench had decided to use the AoE method of recovery. Not only that but they insisted in making the AoE order to be made a "Priority" debt. (see attachment)

This method was used on every defaulter that was in work or had an income, those that were on Benefits had the same order imposed at a lower level. Those of them that did not pay or offer an valid reason had their cases adjourned to the afternoon sitting, this in its self was unusual, but all were informed that they may face a custodial sentence in lieu of payment that was due.

This seems the be the preferred method for those that wilfully refuse to pay in this area, setting an example for those to follow. The bench made it abundantly clear pay up or go to jail. Three were jailed before the Bench retired for lunch.

Those who had an AoE will now have the salary docked for the amount due, whether or not they are paid weekly or monthly. Plus the employer will be allowed to deduct a fee of £1-00 for their administrative costs, I will attach the PDF from the HMCS website so you can see how the fees and amounts that can be deducted, also there is shown that the employee will have a "protected" amount that they must be paid, if there is not enough money the balance of what was due will be carried over to the next pay day until it is recovered.

For those in the know you will remember that a priority AoE from the Magistrates Court has priority over civil debts and according to the Clerk even those from a County Court?

Is this method going to take some work away from the EA because of the pro-rata that currently exists? The reason behind this is the question that should now be looked into are the HMCS going to try to do the work via this method instead of farming it out to the EA's that get money that should go to the Courts instead of the EA?

If HMCS decide to use this method instead of using the EA how many Courts will follow this example and get the money that is due faster and more reliably? This method is also a much cheaper option than having an EA dealing with it as the employer will deduct £1-00 instead of £75 and other fees (£225.00) (£335.00)

I for one would choose an AoE for £1-00

Your thoughts please

Thanks for the informative post MM, that is the system I much prefer to EA/Bailiffs adding fees, terrorising debtors and generally acting like a loan shark on steroids,

It is up to the employer if he takes the pound he is entitled to. As this is court fines, I can't see a problem in collecting it this way.

It should be remembered also that he can't make it a priority debt to the detriment of the debtor. If it does, then he can go back to court and get a different/lower method of payment.

Thanks for the feedback on my long post, sorry for that, but now this is out there or has been for a while what could the protocol be for a defaulter to apply to the fines Officer to allow a defaulter to attend Court to get an AoE order?

If having this method it will save the defaulter a huge amount of money in fees and allow a regular payment that is then paid weekly/monthly.

I see that the employer CAN take the fee if they do they will only take £1-00 but if the EA is involved the fees are horrendous. Surely this should become the preferred method of collection in the future!! win-win for everyone involved except the EA!!!

I note the AEO seems to work on fixed sums rather than the percentages that we see with Council Tax. This seems to be a more humane way of dealing with it as some with CT AEO's have had quite a considerable lump taken each month which seems to leave the debtor with little left.

I was in Court today as an observer. This was in the fines Courts, This is where many defendants had defaulted with the repayments that were due to the Courts in the way of fines.

 

I do not normally attend these as a matter of course, but had decided to on this occasion, this is due the new TCG regulations, the Bench was minded to impose an amount of variable orders to recover the amounts that was owed, instead of issuing plenty of Warrants of Control, this Bench had decided to use the AoE method of recovery. Not only that but they insisted in making the AoE order to be made a "Priority" debt. (see attachment)

 

This method was used on every defaulter that was in work or had an income, those that were on Benefits had the same order imposed at a lower level. Those of them that did not pay or offer an valid reason had their cases adjourned to the afternoon sitting, this in its self was unusual, but all were informed that they may face a custodial sentence in lieu of payment that was due.

 

This seems the be the preferred method for those that willfully refuse to pay in this area, setting an example for those to follow. The bench made it abundantly clear pay up or go to jail. Three were jailed before the Bench retired for lunch.

 

Those who had an AoE will now have the salary docked for the amount due, whether or not they are paid weekly or monthly. Plus the employer will be allowed to deduct a fee of £1-00 for their administrative costs, I will attach the PDF from the HMCS website so you can see how the fees and amounts that can be deducted, also there is shown that the employee will have a "protected" amount that they must be paid, if there is not enough money the balance of what was due will be carried over to the next pay day until it is recovered.

 

For those in the know you will remember that a priority AoE from the Magistrates Court has priority over civil debts and according to the Clerk even those from a County Court?

 

Is this method going to take some work away from the EA because of the pro-rata that currently exists? The reason behind this is the question that should now be looked into are the HMCS going to try to do the work via this method instead of farming it out to the EA's that get money that should go to the Courts instead of the EA?

 

If HMCS decide to use this method instead of using the EA how many Courts will follow this example and get the money that is due faster and more reliably? This method is also a much cheaper option than having an EA dealing with it as the employer will deduct £1-00 instead of £75 and other fees (£225.00) (£335.00)

 

 

I for one would choose an AoE for £1-00

 

 

Your thoughts please

Excellent post Mikeymack !!!

It is simply incredible the way in which Magistrate Courts and Fines Officers are 'clamping down' on court fines. What you have described in the most common method of repayment of a court fine but is only handed down in two specific circumstances.

Firstly, an AOE will be offered in cases where the defendant appears in court and secondly, will be offered in cases where a defendant enters a 'guilty' plea by post and completes a 'Means Enquiry Form' outlining his income and expenditure and details of his employer. Whilst an AOE may seem a good idea (and I personally agree that it is) the fact is that the vast majority of debtors do no like this way of collecting their court fines given that their employer would be aware that the employee had an unpaid debt (and possibly a criminal offence).

Sadly, the fact remains that a significant percentage of defendants fail to 'enter a plea' or to complete a Means Enquiry Form. In those cases the court will announce a Collection Order and the fine is payable immediately. It is mainly these debtors who are subject to bailiff enforcement.

I have written recently of significant changes that will shortly be made to the administration and enforcement of criminal court fines. Firstly, the administrative function is due to be privatised and the 'private partner' will deal with ALL the administrative functions that are currently carried out by the Fines Officer.

Another significant change is that in a similar way in which local authorities charge a 'summons fee' and Liability Order fee to individuals who default on their council tax, the regulations will enable a CHARGE to be made to each debtor to cover the administrative functions (including court costs). This provision should be applicable very shortly and I would 'assume' that this charge will cover the costs of the 'private sector partner'.

There are some very interesting developments in the pipeline which should become law by the end of the year.

This method works well with Ctax LO's too if you take into account what the PDF says it show tis will work with multiple AoE's as the employer will make the payments as instructed to do.

When a AoE gets the status of "priority" it will take the percentage at a higher rate also this again to put an end to the fees of the EA if used correctly and that the employer makes the payments on time and at the correct level. I can see this becoming the tool of choice for debt recovery as fa as Court fines are concerned as it will take the money before the defaulter gets paid. Its a win-win and the only loser will be the employee because his fines are being paid BEFORE they get paid, it makes so much more sense using this tools than an EA making the debtor loose all of what they own.

As this thread unfolds it could see many more ideas coming to the surface and seeing the EA's getting less fees which is what everyone wants, less fees and an affordable rate that is sustainable surely everyone agrees this could be the way forward for many of those that struggle to clear the debt let alone the fees charged?!!

This method works well with Ctax LO's too if you take into account what the PDF says it show tis will work with multiple AoE's as the employer will make the payments as instructed to do.

 

 

When a AoE gets the status of "priority" it will take the percentage at a higher rate also this again to put an end to the fees of the EA if used correctly and that the employer makes the payments on time and at the correct level. I can see this becoming the tool of choice for debt recovery as fa as Court fines are concerned as it will take the money before the defaulter gets paid. Its a win-win and the only loser will be the employee because his fines are being paid BEFORE they get paid, it makes so much more sense using this tools than an EA making the debtor loose all of what they own.

 

 

As this thread unfolds it could see many more ideas coming to the surface and seeing the EA's getting less fees which is what everyone wants, less fees and an affordable rate that is sustainable surely everyone agrees this could be the way forward for many of those that struggle to clear the debt let alone the fees charged?!!

Can't see the likes of Marstons, Jacobs and Crapquita taking this lying down. We will have to watch any developments very closely. In principle it seems far better than letting the bailiffs loose.

Can't see the likes of Marstons, Jacobs and Crapquita taking this lying down. We will have to watch any developments very closely. In principle it seems far better than letting the bailiffs loose.

The only companies allowed at present to enforce unpaid Magistrate Court fines is Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Swift Credit Services (for Wales) and Excel Enforcement (also for Wales).

The eventual 'private sector partner' will only consist of one enforcement company (and not four that we have at present).

However, I would assume that the 'private partner' will also earn a fee for setting up AOE's and this will come from the new charge that is being proposed against fine defaulters. At the present time, the actual amount that will be charged to each fine defaulter is unknown.

In an ideal world this is both responsible and "caring" in a way allowing the debt to be cleared as well as protecting the debtors income at a level that will allow them to feed and clothe themselves and their family if they have one.

Surely in this day and age this is must be seen now as a far better solution to the EA, it gives hope and in some way and some dignity too. I know this method will go down like a bitter pill for the EA's but the time and place for them could be reduced and then see the debtor making headway in clearing their debts easier consistently and therefore giving them a way to survive.

For the persistent defaulter of fines there will be the option of sending them to jail for failure to pay, could we see a new style of defaulters prison re-emerge where they can buy themselves out by clearing the debt? It was not that long ago where this happened was it?

The entire way in which Magistrate Court fines will alter significantly in the next 2-3 months and I would assume that far less cases will end up with bailiff enforcement and one single factor alone will determine this.

If for instance a person has a credit card then they will receive a statement every month. The situation with court FINES is that once a Collection Order has been made the CURRENT position is that there is a requirement to send just ONE further notice and that is called a Further Steps Notice. It is simply crazy that with court FINES there is no requirement to send a statement. Also, if a debtor has a payment arrangement in place, they will be required to keep a note of every payment made and work out for himself how much he has paid and what the balance is. Not statement or reminder is sent.

The new 'private partner' will be required to send statement and reminders and there will also be a requirement for the 'private partner' to make telephone calls to the debtor to chase payment.

There are a lot of changes coming through.

TT the last sentence of your reply goes to show that again this will be open to abuse by the EA's Why should they charge a fee which again will be big when currently it states that the employer can do the same thing for a £1-00 fee?

There is no reason for the EA to have this under their control is there? If the Courts can order the employer to as such then this again keep the EA at bay.

Court fines are due and must be paid, if the Courts can order this AEO then this must not be allowed to be regulated by the EA under ANY circumstances. The idea behind an AEO is to make the defaulter pay at a RESONABLE and SUSTAINABLE rate set by law and not the EA.

The idea of a protected income by a defaulter is a must so the greedy EA's are kept at bay and SHOULD only be used as a last resort, or simply haul the defaulter back to Court for an explanation, failure to explain then and only then should the EA get involved or jail them for non payment as a last resort?

The fee in my attachment is extremely fair to the defaulter but not to the EA that is what is an issue that will rear its ugly head on this matter. I cannot see why if at all the Courts issue an AEO why the EA will need to get involved because the money is deducted at source and WILL be collected?

I really am looking forward to seeing the draft of this TT as we need this information clearer and much earlier than we saw when the new regulations came out.

Even if an employer makes the deductions it will take but 2 lines extra on a salary slip to notify the balance left to pay? I have already created a mock pay slip with the calculations already added and it runs no differently to the original, so the balance will always be shown on the slip.

MOJ or even the HMCS could provide such a template for this and it will work well or you could just say keep the EA and their fees and still get no money from the defaulter, this is a very compassionate way of dealing with this. Most adults are responsible and do not end up in Court, a few do but in the end what is the best way forward? big fees or an employer doing this for a very small fee?

Mikey,

It is not known how the new 'private partnership' will work and neither do we know the amount of the 'charge/cost' that the courts are planning to charge to the debtor to represent 'court costs'. What is known is that the level of 'cost/charge' will be set out in legislation. Personally, I am concerned that this additional 'charge' could be very un-affordable to many debtors. As I say, we will have to wait to see how this develops.

What is very clear is that the government are becoming very tough with fine defaulters and they are of the opinion that people who break the law should pay towards the cost of running the Magistrate Courts.

Since I have started this thread it appears there is much going on in the background than first thought. So I will leave this thread alone for a while and see what transpires.

Lets hope this does not turn into a new playground for the EA;s to acquire a new way to grab more fees, lets also hope that HMCS does NOT allow the EA's open season on the information that they may come across, then use it to contact the employer directly to gather fees before they pay the fine as needed, or use it to fill their deep pockets at the expense of the defaulter....

TT will you be starting a thread to inform us all what will/may come into the pipeline in the future? But please correct me if I am wrong here but surely when the Bench awards a sum towards the costs does this not get shared between the Court service and the Prosecutors office? Also where does the victim surcharge go and what does it cover and why are all cases now having this fee attached if it is not for the "victim"

Is there any information on this new 'private partnership' available for general release that can be discussed in open forum?

I was in Court today as an observer. This was in the fines Courts, This is where many defendants had defaulted with the repayments that were due to the Courts in the way of fines.

 

I do not normally attend these as a matter of course, but had decided to on this occasion, this is due the new TCG regulations, the Bench was minded to impose an amount of variable orders to recover the amounts that was owed, instead of issuing plenty of Warrants of Control, this Bench had decided to use the AoE method of recovery. Not only that but they insisted in making the AoE order to be made a "Priority" debt. (see attachment)

 

This method was used on every defaulter that was in work or had an income, those that were on Benefits had the same order imposed at a lower level. Those of them that did not pay or offer an valid reason had their cases adjourned to the afternoon sitting, this in its self was unusual, but all were informed that they may face a custodial sentence in lieu of payment that was due.

 

This seems the be the preferred method for those that wilfully refuse to pay in this area, setting an example for those to follow. The bench made it abundantly clear pay up or go to jail. Three were jailed before the Bench retired for lunch.

 

Those who had an AoE will now have the salary docked for the amount due, whether or not they are paid weekly or monthly. Plus the employer will be allowed to deduct a fee of £1-00 for their administrative costs, I will attach the PDF from the HMCS website so you can see how the fees and amounts that can be deducted, also there is shown that the employee will have a "protected" amount that they must be paid, if there is not enough money the balance of what was due will be carried over to the next pay day until it is recovered.

 

For those in the know you will remember that a priority AoE from the Magistrates Court has priority over civil debts and according to the Clerk even those from a County Court?

 

Is this method going to take some work away from the EA because of the pro-rata that currently exists? The reason behind this is the question that should now be looked into are the HMCS going to try to do the work via this method instead of farming it out to the EA's that get money that should go to the Courts instead of the EA?

 

If HMCS decide to use this method instead of using the EA how many Courts will follow this example and get the money that is due faster and more reliably? This method is also a much cheaper option than having an EA dealing with it as the employer will deduct £1-00 instead of £75 and other fees (£225.00) (£335.00)

 

 

I for one would choose an AoE for £1-00

 

 

Your thoughts please

Thank you MikeyMack, your OP was very intresting indeed....

I'll also look forward to reading what else TT may have to share in the coming future..

Unfortunately my much loved Apple Mac died at the weekend and until it is repaired in a few days I am having to rely upon a dreadful "tablet" in the evenings. I should be able to post further details in a day or so.

Thx TT it will help if the fuller picture is made available, didn't realise I had jumped the gun so much

A worrying thought here, when the defendant fills in the MC101 form (means/financial form) to suggest lower repayment level, can the defaulting defendant also ask the Court to relist the fine for a further means hearing before the defendant gets into arrears of any kind? Therefore allowing the Court to see that they (the defendant) wishes to face their responsibilities and deal with what is due to the Courts?

If they can approach the fines manager for a further hearing at what stage should this be done? Will they tend to be more successful if doing so at the earliest opportunity? As this would save the defaulter from having further fees added for late/missed payments!!

As you can see I am trying to let readers know that there are many options in the way they could deal with the fines they have/may and ways to reduce the chance of having the EA involved in the first place and opening up other ideas/payment options are available at any given time.

Having spoken the defence Solicitor after the case I asked them do they routinely suggest an AoE to the Bench, simple answer was yes, it also appears in this area that many more defence Solicitors are also asking for this method too.

What does not appear to have been mentioned in this well received move is that it is not new, or more precisely the provision for it is not new.

The Further Steps Notice to which tomtubby referred earlier has always stated an AOE as an option for repayment, but local authorities in particular have not chosen to use it, choosing instead to use a less reliable method of bailiffs / EA's.

Court fines have always been a priority debt in a Common Financial Statement, with Magistrates' Court fines taking precedence over County Court Fines.

From all the above viewpoints nothing has really changed, except the AOE, quite sensibly, is being used. If that means EA's become redundant, then so be it.

I have to say, the notion of a missed payment being chased with a phone call, which you would get in most areas of life (albeit incurring a fee of some kind for doing so) is sensible. I maybe misunderstand the way in which AOE's work. I thought the money was deducted at source, so it is difficult to se how there could be any missed payments.

The opportunity for notifying the courts of a change in circumstance is already there too, to my understanding. It all sounds very sensible - people get a fine, it is paid from their income at an affordable rate, the fine is discharged. Job done.

As for enforcement companies not taking it lying down, I'd be very surprised if we couldn't guess which company will get the contract. If they create, let them. If they can make their system more efficient and cost effective, then I'm sure that would be used.

Mikeymack,

The regulations provide that where there has been a change to the debtors financial circumstances he may indeed request a further means hearing . Once a warrant has been issued courts rarely permit such a hearing.

Coughdrop

In answer to your posts above, very few enforcement companies bidded for this contract as it requires significant outlay as the new partner will be required to replace the entire magistrate court fines computer system. The bidding has been dwindled down to just three companies and although I know which companies they are I will not be saying anything further.

Suffice to sat TT they will be looking to make significant return on such as high investment, with all that may mean for the debtors who will have to foot the bill in fees and charges on top of fines.

BB

There was an important Judicial Review last year and the Judge confirmed that the courts computer system was 'not fit for purpose' (and it isn't). The government are strapped for cash and are relying upon the 'private sector' to inject funding. This particular contract will no doubt have to have very heavy investment indeed.

I remember the comment about the court computer systems being unfit for purpose. There are not many enforcement companies could afford that kind of investment. In fact I'm surprised there were 3 rather than 2 tenders.

 

But please correct me if I am wrong here but surely when the Bench awards a sum towards the costs does this not get shared between the Court service and the Prosecutors office? Also where does the victim surcharge go and what does it cover and why are all cases now having this fee attached if it is not for the "victim"

Mikeymack

I have to confess to be confused at the application of a 'Victims Surcharge'. Yet again, within the past couple of weeks this charge has also been subject to change ( more in a moment).

The 'victim surcharge' was introduced around 2007 at a flat rate of £15 and this was aimed at making offenders contribute to the cost of helping those affected by crime to move on with their lives as much as possible.

A amendment was introduced a couple of weeks ago whereby a person sentenced to a prison sentence of less than 6 months will now be required to pay a 'Victims Surcharge' of £80 and those sentenced to more than 6 months are now required to pay £100. Previously anyone who had a prison sentence imposed against them was excused from paying a 'Victims Surcharge'.

The actual amount 'raised' each year is a little over £10 million.