Hi,

I'm just after some clarification of when the compliance stage begins please.

My OH got a speeding fine back in Jan.

He made two payments then received notification that they had located his employer

and would take the remaining £60 from his wages (ok with us).

However the employer they had was incorrect so like the letter asked,

he wrote to them with details of his new employment on 22/03/16.

Expected money to go out of April's pay as thought it would be too late for March's (28th.)

The week before April payday he got a letter from collectica saying the £60 fine had been passed to them

and we now have to pay a £75 compliance fee, totalling £135.

We contacted the court central finance unit to ask why

as we thought it was going to be taken from wages

and they claimed they never received the letter and were absolutely disgusting with us

(threatening to have bailiffs sent round and a warrant for his arrest

and he could spend the night in the cells if he wanted,

then told him she couldn't help him anymore and put the phone down on him.)

They said he should have chased the letter up when they didn't respond within 7 days.

(We told them we didn't know they respond to everything within 7 days

or we would have and we would have chased it up if it hadn't been taken from April's wages.)

I made a formal complaint about not being allowed enough time to realise the letter "hadn't been received"

and the manner in which we were spoken to,

only to be met with more disappointing responses

(addressed by the wrong name and told they "felt the manager wouldn't have spoken to you in this manner

as she is very experienced.")

I replied to tell her it was unprofessional to call him by the wrong name (amongst other errors)

and she should listen to call recordings before suggesting he was lying.

Apparently they don't record calls but she managed to apologise for the "grammatical errors causing confusion."

Obviously their admin and managerial skills are very poor and we think the letter has been lost.

whilst this was happening I told collectica about the ongoing dispute as it shouldn't have been passed to them in the first place

and I asked the CFU to contact Collectica to put a hold on the account whilst dealing with the complaint, which they did.

When I received the response letter from the CFU (the one with the wrong name etc)

I called collectica to make payment as I was unsure if this meant they would take the account off hold

and didn't want the £235 enforcement fee to be added.

The lady at collectica confirmed it was on hold until 31st May but could be taken off at any time by the CFU

(the 7 days to pay to avoid enforcement fees had passed by this point.)

I asked the lady what the compliance fee was for as I thought the stage commenced

when the enforcement agent was instructed by them and not when the company received it.

She told me that was incorrect and it was when the company received it and not when it was passed to one of their agents.

I've had another look at the taking control of goods regs and it does say agent:

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent

of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

Then under interpretation:

“enforcement agent” means an individual entitled to act as an enforcement agent by virtue of section 63(2) of the Act,

but it does not include an individual who may so act by virtue of section 63(2)©;

This to me means when it is passed to one of their agents and not just the company itself?

Considering the account was on hold for the majority of the time and by what the lady said on the phone

it sounded like had only been passed to the company and not one of their agents.

Do you think there would be any chance of getting the £75 fee back?

A fee larger than the original amount owed for sending a letter then putting an account on hold seems very excessive to me?

Thank you for any help and advice!

Hi Salphy,

You sent the same question to me via PM. I did try responding but your inbox is full !!

I have saved your answer on my other computer and will post it up in the next or so.

Hi Salphy,

 

You sent the same question to me via PM. I did try responding but your inbox is full !!

 

I have saved your answer on my other computer and will post it up in the next or so.

I know I'm really sorry I didn't realise! Just emptied it

Hi,

 

I asked the lady what the compliance fee was for as I thought the stage commenced when the enforcement agent was instructed by them and not when the company received it. She told me that was incorrect and it was when the company received it and not when it was passed to one of their agents.

 

I've had another look at the taking control of goods regs and it does say agent:

 

(a)

 

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

 

Then under interpretation:

 

“enforcement agent” means an individual entitled to act as an enforcement agent by virtue of section 63(2) of the Act, but it does not include an individual who may so act by virtue of section 63(2)©;

 

This to me means when it is passed to one of their agents and not just the company itself? Considering the account was on hold for the majority of the time and by what the lady said on the phone it sounded like had only been passed to the company and not one of their agents. Do you think there would be any chance of getting the £75 fee back?

 

A fee larger than the original amount owed for sending a letter then putting an account on hold seems very excessive to me? !

Your query is very interesting and is one that has been been the subject of many discussions since the regulations were introduced in 2014.

For the avoidance of doubt, the regulations themselves (both the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 ) do not in themselves make a separate distinction between enforcement company and enforcement agent. Nonetheless, the regulations make clear that in order to AVOID a bailiff visit, the debtor needs to contact the enforcement AGENCY to either make full payment or to set up a payment arrangement.

Also, the 'Compliance fee' has been specifically introduced to cover the enforcement agencies costs in administering the account and this fee (of £75) must be deducted first from any payment made. This has been outlined by the government under section 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This section states as follows:

8.3:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

This is an observation only and no other reason.

Getting advice via PM could confuse other responders as they will not then know the full details which may have a negative effect for getting other or further advice from other regular posters.

Advice should not be sought via PM after making an initial post unless it's to a site team member for special reasons..

With the greatest of respect Mikeymack, I take offence at your above comment. If an established forum member wishes to correspond with another forum member via the pm facility they are perfectly free to do so.

Salphy has been an established member of this forum for almost three years and she and I can use the PM facility as and when we wish.

If I may remind posters with regards to the Forum Rules.

3.5

d) Offering to advise members or asking members for advice by PM or email without good reason - If it is felt that a subject is "sensitive" and would be better discussed off-forum, we ask that members contact a member of the site team BEFORE asking for contact details. This rule is in place to protect our members from claims touts, and also to ensure that any advice given is open to debate, qualification, and where necessary, correction.

Regards

Andyorch

With the greatest of respect Mikeymack, I take offence at your above comment. If an established forum member wishes to correspond with another forum member via the pm facility they are perfectly free to do so.

 

Salphy has been an established member of this forum for almost three years and she and I can use the PM facility as and when we wish.

I am sorry that you took offence BA but even as stated above it does not help other regular posters if points are discussed privately. As andyorch Has said I would agree with this. As you know that many regular posters have signatures and categorically state they also will not discuss a thread via PM it is far to dangerous to do so.

I believe this being said could protect you from being subject to a civil suit because the OP took your advice and could cause them a financial loss. If by stating this to protect members is wrong I will here and now say a very big sorry. But this is not needed at this stage.

I also feel that dealing with advice privately will cause significant confusion with others because not everything has been in the PUBLIC forum and on the thread. As I had stated it is an OBSERVATION only and not a complaint.

Even I have been contacted for advice via PM and then forwarded the contents to Admin for check if permitted and was advised not to do this. Hence why if needs be will always publish PM's to the site team regardless.

I do not want to get in to a discussion on this matter and will now refrain from speaking of it again...

Very respectfully

MM

I would advise that the OP returns to Court and speak to the Fines Officer and ask if they could get confirmation that this debt was needed to be sent to enforcement with such a low balance on the account.

I also believe that if the Bench was to hear of this then they could make a decision to recall the debt and set and new collection order to clear the remaining balance at a level that was affordable. I also believe this is the best way forward in this particular case...

If I may remind posters with regards to the Forum Rules.

 

3.5

d) Offering to advise members or asking members for advice by PM or email without good reason - If it is felt that a subject is "sensitive" and would be better discussed off-forum, we ask that members contact a member of the site team BEFORE asking for contact details.

 

This rule is in place to protect our members from claims touts, and also to ensure that any advice given is open to debate, qualification, and where necessary, correction.

 

Regards

 

Andyorch

Andy,

Thank you for providing clarity on this subject. I may well have read the rules when I first joined the forum almost 10 years ago but I genuinly had not known until reading your above post what the forums rules are regarding PM's.

In this particular case, Saphy sent a very simple PM to me yesterday to ask my personal opinion on the wording of regulation 63(2)© and whether I thought that it refers to enforcement agent or enforcement agency. I tried to respond to her PM but her in box was full. It was only after being unable to respond to her PM that she then started this particular thread. I did not correspond with her after the thread had been started...but beforehand.

Out of interest, if it is the case that we cannot use the PM facility to correspond with other registered users on the forum can you please clarify what exactly we are allowed the PM facility for?

Hi Saphy

I am unsure if your original question has been answered, forgive me if i have this wrong.

With regards to, when the compliance fee begins to be due. The answer is when the agent receives the warrant. Not the agency.

Some people say that this was a drafting error, some say that the reason is explained in other sections in the act, personally, I think it is also but whoever is right that is the fact of the matter.

It does not mean however that the agent to whom the power is transferred mus be the one who receives it.

Any licensed EA who is operating under permission of the EA in question may receive the warrant and it will be as if it was received by the person to whom the power is conferred. (I think I am making this more complicated it is, tell me if I am)

The definition of Enforcement agent is different to the one in schedule 12 in that it does not permit an unregistered person to "act as a bailiff", this is because the fees regs are mainly about handling money and there are accountability problems.

Andy,

 

Thank you for providing clarity on this subject. I may well have read the rules when I first joined the forum almost 10 years ago but I genuinly had not known until reading your above post what the forums rules are regarding PM's.

 

In this particular case, Saphy sent a very simple PM to me yesterday to ask my personal opinion on the wording of regulation 63(2)© and whether I thought that it refers to enforcement agent or enforcement agency. I tried to respond to her PM but her in box was full. It was only after being unable to respond to her PM that she then started this particular thread. I did not correspond with her after the thread had been started...but beforehand.

 

Out of interest, if it is the case that we cannot use the PM facility to correspond with other registered users on the forum can you please clarify what exactly we are allowed the PM facility for?

The PM facility is available for all members to use to correspond/connect with other posters ...Site Team ...but with common sense applied and not to advise specifically for the above reasons already outlined.

It can be used to draw others attention to threads where you seek assistance to advise on the thread etc or it maybe used when something particularly sensitive or confidential which affects the thread but can not be posted on the open thread for obvious reasons....but does not detract from the content and flow of the thread.

As in the example you have posted above...I see no reason for that to be conducted by PM in the first place nor anything that could not be answered on a thread...if there was no thread you tell them to create a thread by PM and you would respond there ?

The rules governing PMs are there for everyone's benefit and safety /protection....and as already stated to ensure that any advice given is open to debate, qualification, and where necessary, correction.

Regards

Andy

Very sorry to cause the upset I didn't mean to at all, I just thought it may be a quick and obvious answer to clarify the regs that I was missing and didn't warrant a thread (wishful thinking maybe.) As BA said, there wasn't any info in the pm that wasn't in the thread post to cause confusion and he/she replied on the thread to let everyone know this had been answered by pm and the answer would be posted onto the thread also. Very sorry again, I started the thread when I didn't get a reply as I didn't realise my inbox was full (from a thread of mine a few years back with details I didn't want the creditor to see before they had completed everything they said they would, I haven't been sending loads of PM's I promise.)

I really appreciate all of your replies but I'm very sorry I'm still a little confused. It seems that form BA's reply agent and agency are considered the same and so I'd have very little chance of a refund?

But from DB it is actually the agent and not the agency. The lady at collectica told me it was when it was received by the agency. the account was on hold within a day of receiving the letter from them so I really don't think it was passed to a specific agent. Surely if it had, when I questioned why I had to pay it she would have told me it had been passed to an agent to save argument?

And from MM2012 it seems my best option is to go back to the court and ask for it to be recalled? I did ask the central finance and enforcement unit to recall it when they told us they hadn't received the letter but they refused. I think this will be even harder now I've paid the full amount to avoid bailiff visits and more fees!

I'd probably even understand if I had to pay a small fee to cover the one letter they sent and for holding the account. Even though I don't agree that it was sent to them in the first place (lesson learnt to use recorded delivery.) But not a fee that's more than the balance!

Thanks again for all of your replies. I'm not sure what's my best chance - continue with the dispute with the central finance unit or begin one with collectica? Or am I just fighting a losing battle?

Thanks again.

Very sorry to cause the upset I didn't mean to at all, I just thought it may be a quick and obvious answer to clarify the regs that I was missing and didn't warrant a thread (wishful thinking maybe.)

 

As BA said, there wasn't any info in the pm that wasn't in the thread post to cause confusion and he/she replied on the thread to let everyone know this had been answered by pm and the answer would be posted onto the thread also.

 

Very sorry again, I started the thread when I didn't get a reply as I didn't realise my inbox was full (from a thread of mine a few years back with details I didn't want the creditor to see before they had completed everything they said they would, I haven't been sending loads of PM's I promise.)

You have nothing to apologise for.

I have been a regular contributor on the forum for almost 10 years (previously as Tomtubby and as Bailiff Advice since 2012) and it was only yesterday, that I was made aware of the rules regarding what established forum members are (and aren't) allowed to discuss by PM.

From the messages and emails that I received yesterday, it would seem that nobody else knew of these rules either.

It is a topic which has come under much discussion, not only on these forums but within the industry itself. John Kruse is of the opnion that the act refers to the warrant being issued to the individual agent, others of equal standing believe that although this is true it does not have to be issued to the agent who knocks on your door. This is because of section 63(2) (not sub c). In that, any agent can receive the warrant, not just the one who enforces it. Personally, I agree with this view.

Most agencies have a certified agent running the show who seldom goes out and enforces warrants. In the case of a writ, they are addressed to the HCEO who never (or rarely) leaves the offices(or their golf club ).

I know much is made of the restriction of none certified agents in the fees regs, but this is not relevant. If you look at the regs and the mention of EAs it is usually in connection to collection of money (proceeds) from the debtor, it would be foolish to have an uncertified member of the public collecting these. In any case, the act refers in many places to the agent collecting their fees, if the definition included joe public, well I am sure you see the logic.

 

I really appreciate all of your replies but I'm very sorry I'm still a little confused. It seems that form BA's reply agent and agency are considered the same and so I'd have very little chance of a refund?

 

But from DB it is actually the agent and not the agency. The lady at collectica told me it was when it was received by the agency. the account was on hold within a day of receiving the letter from them so I really don't think it was passed to a specific agent. Surely if it had, when I questioned why I had to pay it she would have told me it had been passed to an agent to save argument?

 

And from MM2012 it seems my best option is to go back to the court and ask for it to be recalled? I did ask the central finance and enforcement unit to recall it when they told us they hadn't received the letter but they refused. I think this will be even harder now I've paid the full amount to avoid bailiff visits and more fees! Thanks again.

The matter of 'agent' /agency /company etc is one that the UK's expert on Bailiff Law; John Kruse wrote about last year. He considered that it may have been a error in the drafting of the legislation. Following his article, additional documentation followed that rebutted his argument.

If there is a query regarding fees that have been charged, then the only route to have this resolved is to apply for Detailed Assessment by way of the Civil Procedure Rules. One particular social media website claims that they frequently use this procedure (Detailed Assessment) to challenge enforcement agent fees. So far they have never reported of any case of a court ruling that a Compliance Fee cannot legally be applied by an enforcement company/enforcement agency etc.

You are also confused by the suggestion from Mikeymack that you should complain to the court and ask that the warrant be recalled and that the court may then issue a new Notice of Fine/Collection Order.

As you have already discovered, the court have refused to recall the warrant. It is extremely rare for a court to recall a warrant and they may only do so is exceptional cases. This is due to the strict provisions under the appeal case of Hereford v Worcester.

As to the court issuing a new Notice of Fine/Collection Order......I have never before heard of a court being able to do this and would doubt whether there is any procedure available in the regulations in cases such as yours where the fine and enforcement agent fees have been paid in full.

My personal opinion is that you do have grounds to make a complaint to the courts. This is on the basis of the request to supply employment details. I am not at all comfortable with the suggestion/excuse made by the Central Fines Unit that your partner should have contacted the court within 7 days of sending his letter (to check that it had been received). This cannot be right at all.

I would be very interested to hear the outcome of your complaint.

 

Most agencies have a certified agent running the show who seldom goes out and enforces warrants. In the case of a writ, they are addressed to the HCEO who never (or rarely) leaves the offices(or their golf club ). Or their overseas home

 

I've amended your post.

 

If there is a query regarding fees that have been charged, then the only route to have this resolved is to apply for Detailed Assessment by way of the Civil Procedure Rules. One particular social media website claims that they frequently use this procedure (Detailed Assessment) to challenge enforcement agent fees. So far they have never reported of any case of a court ruling that a Compliance Fee cannot legally be applied by an enforcement company/enforcement agency etc.

 

.

Since this is mentioned, i have to say that i have misgivings about the way this is supposedly used in this context.

My understanding of detailed assessment was the it was used when a party to proceedings received a costs order after a hearing(or during) which they considered to be disproportionate and got the courts permission to challenge the other party regarding it.

The fees and not estimated, they are statutory, they cannot be challenged in quantum. If they are being misapplied, then this would be a breach of the TCE and the remedy would be an action under section 66 of the act.

Caution should be applied if going down the Detailed Assessment route. If having to pay the application fees yourself then they are quite large - believe they start at £335 - you also run the risk of a substantial costs order against you should you lose. In many cases the amounts you are contesting are small. A better bet is a Small Claims Action but you do need to be certain of your claim.

Caution should be applied if going down the Detailed Assessment route. If having to pay the application fees yourself then they are quite large - believe they start at £335 - you also run the risk of a substantial costs order against you should you lose. In many cases the amounts you are contesting are small. A better bet is a Small Claims Action but you do need to be certain of your claim.

Are they even applicable to fee disagreements under the TCE PT ?

Caution should be applied if going down the Detailed Assessment route. If having to pay the application fees yourself then they are quite large - believe they start at £335 - you also run the risk of a substantial costs order against you should you lose. In many cases the amounts you are contesting are small. A better bet is a Small Claims Action but you do need to be certain of your claim.

There is probably a need for a new 'discussion' thread to be started regarding this procedure (Detailed Assessment). I have no objections with starting one later on.

Are they even applicable to fee disagreements under the TCE PT ?

Yes, but seeing as the majority of Fees are set then it can really only apply once we are past the sale stage when Auctioneers costs etc come into effect & in all honesty cannot see it is worth it given what the initial outlay is. I'm not sure on this but think those who can claim exemption still have to pay the remainder of the fee above £200. You will mainly find this route is more for Taxation of Solicitors fees now.

Even prior to the new Regulations it was never used that much and then it was mainly for HCEO Fees that were somewhat over inflated in my view.

That is what i thought, there is provision in section 16 of the fees regs for this.

The question of apportionment of sums to co-owners or the assignments of proceeds.

Application of a detailed assessment for the level f fees applied seems to me to be misplaced, as the requirements are detailed under the act. I should imagine that before April 2014 there may have been some application as so many of the fees were, down to the bailiffs discretion.

 

as so many of the fees were, down to the bailiffs discretion.

 

More like what they could get away with.

I guess if it was an error in the drafting it would protect in cases like this when we were already paying but was just an admin error, not refusal to pay.

Come to think of it now, we had an issue when we first received the speeding fine from the police, he returned their letter to accept it was him driving. A week or so later he then received a letter to say as they hadn't heard from him it will now to go court. He called up to say it had been returned and they said they had received it so she'd put a note on his file but as court proceedings had already been started it wouldn't make a difference - could they and the central finance and enforcement unit be in the same area/building and could both have the same admin issues or are they completely separate and we're just unlucky?

BA you suggest complaining to the court about the 7 days follow up call. This is what we think is unfair as we didn't have chance to realise the letter hadn't been received and the arrangement was not made as he hadn't had his wages yet. I have began complaining to the central finance and enforcement unit but I've just been met with poor responses. Are the central finance and enforcement unit and court the same thing or is there somewhere else I should be complaining to?

Thanks.