For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'.

Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post.

By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month:

The Labour party MP; Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) raised a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines.

His questions were answered by Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-04-19.34637.h&s=%22Warrant+of+Control%22#g34637.r0

I can't see where it says that

I can't see where it says that

Its the last paragraph of the explanation.

Comments are funny.

It is also clear that the MOJ do not even differentiate between payments made to the court and those made to a bailiff after a warrant has been issued, as they do not even make a record of them.

I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

not sure what it is you are after ?

BA: To help clarify your thread can you please confirm the following for other readers that may not fully understand the 'forced entry protocol'.

1. For a Magistrate fine can they force entry?

2. For a TEC Warrant (PCN) can they force entry?

3. For a CCJ can they force entry?

4. For a High Court Writ/warrant can they force entry?

Secondly: If a debtor pays the amount remaining balance of the fine plus the compliance fee of £75 but before the enforcement fee is added to the court directly what happens then?

Finally if the debtor pays the outstanding balance and compliance fee to the court within the seven days and the court fails to notify the EA they have been paid. Can the EA still attend the debtors property and add the enforcement stage fee?

not sure what it is you are after ?

Trying to find where TCE says £75 can be retained as Bailiff Advice said

1,2,3,4 have nothing to do with this thread MM.

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'.

Oh sorry

Trying to find where TCE says £75 can be retained as Bailiff Advice said[/QUOT

 

Probably best explained here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/memorandum/contents Althou9ght here is confirmation in the regulation and section 50 of the TCE

 

 

Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline

significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in

order to try and recoup the entire debt. It was therefore decided that enforcement agents

should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of

proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.

Above is a response to a consultation and section 50 TCE about judicial appointments, so where is bit about the £75 as I can't see it

n it is the explanatory memoranda and is legally enacted in the same manner as the rest of the instrument.

1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice and is laid

before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.

I thought explanatory memoranda were just put to parliament as a bill goes through so isn't legislation really. I don't think you're going to answer the question. Thanks for trying though.

You asked for an explanation regarding the EAs entitled to retain fees and it was provided ?

As usual when it is not what you want to hear you resort to silly abusive comments.

Sorry the memorandum is issued with the enacted legislation or SI so it would hardly be of use to the house , as it is already past the consideration period.

Found this for you http://www.legislation.gov.uk/help

Explanatory Memorandum

An Explanatory Memorandum (EM) sets out a brief statement of the purpose of a Statutory Instrument or Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland and provides information about its policy objective and policy implications. It aims to make the Statutory Instruments or Rules accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. EMs accompany any Statutory Instrument or Draft Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament from June 2004 onwards and any Statutory Rule laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly (or UK Parliament during the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly) since June 2004

So do you think they are likely to put incorrect info in there ?

You asked for an explanation regarding the EAs entitled to retain fees and it was provided ?

 

No, I asked where in the TCE it says £75 can be retained. I didn't ask for an explanation. I haven't had an answer to the question.

You have been shown how the legislation applies. This has been confirmed by the under secretary of state, and just about every magistrate court in the country.

You are not in pursuit of clarification, you are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.

His questions were answered by Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

 

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

You have been shown how the legislation applies. This has been confirmed by the under secretary of state, and just about every magistrate court in the country.

 

You are not in pursuit of clarification, you are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.

Shailesh Vara stated something incorrect. The TCE doesn't state what they claim, an appalling and amateur error.

Shailesh Vara stated something incorrect. The TCE doesn't state what they claim, an appalling and amateur error.

The ASS made an error, the memorandum supplied by the MOJ is in error, every court and bailiff in the land made the same error. But you got it right. Likely. Oh i forgot JK and every other knowledgeable source.

If you have any evidence of the act functioning otherwise lets see it, otherwise stop embarrassing yourself and change the subject

Our resident troll appears to have made another return visit.

=Dodgeball;489611

 

You are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.

Please ignore him DB.

It was a simple question, that's all

I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

In light of another serious incident yesterday, (which I believe that you are familiar with), I will on this occasion only respond to you. I would not otherwise do so. If you are going to use my answers (or anybody else's) to provide a running commentary elsewhere, I will cease responding.

For interested viewers, the serious incident that I refer to above was featured on the internet yesterday:

Background

The person who he paid the fee of £35 to commented as follows:

Your comment was similar:

Both of you are wrong, and these inaccurate and misleading comments are leading the incidences as outlined here.

Taking your comment into consideration, if it was to be the case that the Schedule 12 procedure only applies in cases where goods have been taken into control and sold, then this would eliminate over 99% of all cases (council tax, road traffic debts and court fines). This is because, goods are only actually removed and sold in less than 0.1% of cases.

PS: I am not around for much of the day so will respond to any queries later on.