They should be seriously looking at any contract they have with the bunch of cowboys they use.

Just checking CES, both authorised HCEOs are male and UK based.

In fairness to CES, until we know which company is named on the paperwork, it would be wrong to jump to conclusions that they have visited an address that they were not authorised to.

Continuing from Teds Thread in the main Bailiff forum

Just to furnish you an example of exactly what you are up against regarding the bailiffs lying and stealing from you, here is what the HCEOA tell their members:

....If the stage is being escalated from ES1 to ES2 within the initial visit, the trigger point for this would be that no CGA has been entered into and there was a clear refusal by the debtor to either pay in full or by instalments supported by a CGA

This is in direct conflict with the Fees regulations which state:

....The enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage will also apply.

Now call me sceptical here but how many bailiffs are going to want to visit a debtor and receive commission on £190 when they can receive commission on £685? From where I am sitting, the HCEOA are claiming that if a bailiff knocks a door and asks a debtor for £2k, if he claims not to have it (and let's face it, how many would?) then he is penalised by way of an additional £495 plus VAT being added to the account. This is clearly a problem that is rife across the board at HCEO level, it is certainly not exclusive to one company. If Ploddertom is correct in stating that HCEOs are reading this thread then perhaps they would be prepared to share with us their opinion on what they think the ratio of £190 charges are on initial visits, compared to £685 charges (pre-arranged CGAs excluded). However, I won't hold my breath.

You do realise that I quoted from the explanatory memorandum as well don't you?

The guidance does NOT mirror that quoted in the explanatory memorandum. The guidance states that ES2 kicks in if a debtor "refuses" to pay. Debtors rarely refuse to pay, especially if the bailiff has gained entry - Debtors claim not to have the money to pay. At this point, the bailiff takes it upon himself to determine that he can now escalate matters to ES2 without carrying out a specific act.

If you think that the explanatory memorandum states that ES2 can be added after a debtor claims not to have £2k in his bank account then I would be interested to see which part of it you are relying on.

It is also worth noting that in this particular case, the OP told the bailiff that he had the money in the safe at work - He didn't even claim not to have it yet still the ES2 was added.

There is no fine line between ES1 and ES2.

The memorandum is clear that in order for ES2 to be triggered, the memorandum is very specific:

.....the enforcement agent (HCEO) will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage will also apply

There is no reference to length of time in the memorandum. Indeed, 20 minutes is not excessive when a debtor is being asked/pressurised to hand over several thousands of pounds. I think that we both know that this ES2 fee is being charged as a matter of course don't we?

In this particular case, not only did the OP pay the debt via bank transaction but prior to this, he actually informed the HCEO that the cash was available in the company safe. It is also worth noting that at no time has the OP mentioned that a CGA was discussed as an option. It appears (to me anyway) slightly premature to escalate to ES2 without exploring the option of a CGA, as detailed in the explanatory memorandum and indeed the HCEOA guidance. I'm sure that a company of the magnitude and profile of EON would be prepared to accept stage payments in these circumstances.

In all fairness though, the argument is moot

 

 

I personally feel that the argument is still relevant to the OPs situation. Until such time as the situation is unravelled completely, there is still a possibility that the fee may end up being disputed.

 

 

Nobody will ever convince me that someone who stands to triple his commission is best placed to determine when ES2 is to be triggered. Can anyone here seriously claim that it was Parliments' intention to allow a debtor to be forced to pay £1,000 in bailiff fees for a 20 minute visit when the debt is settled in full?

 

 

The £190 fee is already enhanced by an additional 7.5% of any sums owed over the first £1,000. That means that for a debt of £3,000, the debtor will have to pay £340 plus VAT for an ES1 visit.

 

 

HCEOs are privileged in that they are afforded 2 enforcement fees. For every other type of enforcement, the fee is £235, regardless of how many visits the EA makes. I see no evidence anywhere of a debtor being charged ES1 only - In every single case that has been reported, both stages (at least) are included.

 

 

Recently, CIVEA sought advice from counsel over when a sale fee could be added. The opinion was that a clear act must take place in order to escalate from enforcement to sale stage. Simply hearing a debtor claim that he doesn't have the money or placing a time limit on the visit is not sufficient to escalate stages. In the words of Ploddertom's favourite authorised HCEO, "can't pay - We'll take it away". There can be no middle ground and claiming that ES2 was triggered without making any attempt to control goods, let alone remove them is laughable. As a HCEO is commanded to take control of goods, it is not possible for him not to do so and by the same token claim that ES2 has been triggered.

Hi Nikki

You should contact the creditor and inform them of the application and ask that they instruct the bailiffs to hold fire pending the outcome of your application. A word of warning though - As has recently been discussed, simply ignoring your court heaaring will no be a ground for setting aside the judgement.

I'm not sure what the 2 notices are that you are referring to but the key notice is entitled "Notice of Enforcement" (NoE) and that must give you 7 clear days before the bailiff can visit (in real time, this works out at around 10 days including allowing for postage) They cannot visit you until the expiry of the NoE. If the date shown on the notice is less than this, then the notice is defective. However, this may not be enough on its own to stop enforcement. From what you have posted (which is albeit a little unclear), it would appear that it would not be permissible for them to visit on Monday 3 July in any case.

Are the bailiffs county court bailiffs or high court enforcement officers?

Arrow are not bailiffs - Who has sent you the 2 letters/notices last week?

I wouldn't overly worry about this.

Firstly, you are not obliged to allow the bailiff entry into your home and it would be perfectly reasonable for you to inform him that entry is denied pending the outcome of your application. In your shoes, I would 100% refuse entry.

The reference to entering your home in your absence is a clever play with words. Yes, they can enter in your absence but only if you very kindly leave a door unlocked for them. This applies if you are at home as well - A bailiff may enter through an unlocked door (front or back of house)

I have to say that £10 per week is a tad optimistic - This would take around 7 years to repay but you can but try. Your car is at risk I would suspect, even if it was only to be used as a lever to force you to pay.

Hi Nikki

The works van would need to be valued at over £1,350 (not £1,350 auction prices). This more or less means every work van can be taken. Your husband would also need to show that the van is essential for his work, which may be an issue if he is retired.

I hear what dx is saying but if it were me, I would still make an attempt to keep the vehicles away from my home. That way, there would be no question of the vehicles being at risk. My feeling is that these people are employed by HMCTS - They have a duty to the creditor (understandably) and they are going to act in the creditors interests, not yours.

Also, there is no automatic right to apply to a court to force entry and the very fact that a debtor is "sticking two fingers up" at the bailiff is no ground to make an application to court. bailiffs do not discriminate against people in large houses with expensive cars - They will enter any premises that they are legally entitled to do so. In your case, I can't see them being able to apply - You have a legitimate right to refuse entry and this cannot be overturned by a court without very good reason.

That all said, I'm pretty sure that your case will be placed on hold, by virtue of your application to suspend the warrant.

It is perfectly legitimate to charge ES1 & ES2 on the same visit.

The problem arises because HCEOs are charging both fees as a matter of course, as I highlighted in post #86

looking at the argument put forward for succeeding in the detailed assessment, I think it is safe to say that it did not happen.

I think that it may be helpful all round if nobody referred to "cases that they have recently dealt with" in the absence of supporting evidence.

My apologies. It was your comment about "fleecing the public" that made me assume that the detailed assessment did not happen.

It clearly states in legislation that ES2 can be triggered from the FIRST attendance at the premises - 6(1)© of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations.

Hi Mabski

Firstly, they cannot break entry into your house unless they have previously been in before. The "locksmith" bit has been added to pile up the pressure and scaremongering. If you have vehicles outside, they are at risk of being taken away.

You still haven't confirmed if they are county court bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers. This is pretty important.

You are somehow going to have to deal with these debts by the look of it although possibly not through bailiffs.

What kind of bailiffs are they?

Do you own vehicles or anything else of value outside of your home?

Are you a homeowner?

OK

You are not obliged to allow the bailiff entry to your home and I personally would not do so under any circumstances. The vehicles are at risk if parked outside and there is no guarantee that they will not be either clamped or removed (although from what you have posted, it may well be unlikely) If your son's car is registered to him and insured in his name, that would probably be enough to protect it.

As they cannot legitimately force entry into your home (they can enter through an unlocked door, front or back or by invite), you may want to consider informing the bailiff that it is not in your interest to allow him entry as this will only add to your debt. Arrange an appointment with Citizens Advice and try to get to see a case worker who specialises in debt (this may not be possible at your first appointment). Be sure to stick to your guns that you do not wish to deal with the bailiff because doing so will add further costs. State that you wish to deal with Lowells directly and see how they can help you.

You can then tell the bailiff that you are planning to seek advice from Citizens Advice and that you will not be allowing access to your home until you have received the advice. There is no need to be nasty or personal with the bailiff - You simply have to be firm and to ensure that your best interests are being looked after. Allowing him into your home will certainly not be acting in your best interests.

I thought that the court couldn't grant a forced entry ??? or am i wrong ?

They can't - Many people have a misconception that the bailiff can apply to the court to force entry if a debtor does not grant access. This is of course ridiculous. There would be no point issuing a writ/warrant without the ability to force entry if all that it took was another visit to the court to obtain permission to force entry.

The wording on your letter is very cleverly done (as is usual with this type of letter). If you allowed a bailiff into your home and signed an agreement to repay in installments but defaulted on that agreement, then and only then could the bailiff return with a locksmith and break in.

Personally, I would let the bailiff know that you are not going to grant entry until you have spoken with Citizens Advice and take it from there. You may also qualify for help with fees if you are on a low income which is around £1200 per month for a couple. However, you are under no pressure to make an application to the court at this stage, PROVIDED that you are comfortable in telling the bailiff that he will not be gaining access to your home and dealing with him if he still turns up. With the help of Citizens Advice, you can then approach Lowell direct and come up with an offer which is more likely to be accepted if they see that the bailiff is not going to succeed and that you do not own your own home.

When you received the notification that your appeal had been refused, there would have been instructions on how to proceed if you didn't agree with the decision. Most importantly, there would have been a stipulation that you must act within 14 days of receipt of notification.

However, I have known people to successfully overturn the decision after applying more than 14 days after receipt of the notification.

In order to make an application, you will need to submit an N244 application together with a fee of £100 (ensuring that the "without hearing" box is ticked. There is no guarantee that your application would be successful - Especially as more than 6 months have elapsed since you received notification.

Your best bet may be to contact the council concerned and inform them that you have been made aware that bailiffs are visiting your previous address regarding the PCN. Again this comes with an added problem because 2 stages of bailiff fees will have been added.

The first stage is a compliance fee of £75 and the second is an enforcement fee of £235.

As the compliance stage was not completed in accordance with legislation (you were not given notice pursuant to regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which states that notice must be given to you at a place where you usually live)

Ask the council to instruct Task to send the notice to your correct address and that you will arrange to pay the debt.

You will also have to pay the £75 compliance fee that Task will add nd they are likely to want the entire payment in one go.

Best option is to speak to the court bailiff and provide details of your current situation. If you can't pay anything and have no goods of any value that could be sold, this would get reported back to Lowells and they would stop trying to enforce this debt.

 

You can't just do nothing hoping it goes away. Lowells don't know your situation and think you are just wanting to avoid repaying debts.

UB - The bailiff is likely to want to enter the property in order to satisfy himself that there is nothing of value to be taken. That is not something that I would personally recommend.

I believe that the best course of action would be to arrange an appointment with Citizens Advice and to inform the bailiff of this.

Citizens Advice are then in a position to help and guide the OP (on a face to face basis)

Moving forward, the options for Lowell are to transfer up to High Court Enforcement, apply for an attachment of earnings or apply for bankruptcy

You can invoice them for anything you want.

I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting for payment though.

Sorry - Yes they are enforcing for credit card debts so scrub HCEOs off the options moving forward.

Starts at Para 15 and continues thro to Para 30, and is used by both County Court Bailiffs & HCEOs.

Actually, you need to read it in conjunction with Regulation 28 of TCGR 2013.

Unless you can provide me with evidence that this method has been used in the circumstances that we are discussing then you'll forgive me for taking your comment with a pinch of salt.

Are you sure that it wasn't interest that pushed it back over £7k?

Have a look on the HCEO companies website and see what they charge creditors for transferring up.

Could you give us a complete breakdown of what you think that you have been charged thus far?

Also, have you paid the debt off now?

If not, has a HCEO visited?

Have you managed to agree a repayment plan with the HCEO?

7.5% of the debt (or of £6k) is £450

To provide clarity, the link below is to the Schedule of The Certification of Enforcement Agent Regulations 2014. The Schedule provides the layout of all mandatory prescribed forms. The first form in the Schedule is a Notice of Enforcement. In my experience, this layout is standard throughout the industry with most companies adopting an identical layout.

The form is very clear, very simple and cannot possibly be deemed misleading or poorly worded:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/421/schedule/made

Under the heading "About this notice" is a box that allows for the amount owed to the creditor.

Under the heading "sum outstanding", the first box is named "debt". In this box, should be the sum of the amount owed to the creditor plus the execution cost

There are then further boxes for interest and the compliance fee - Nothing could be simpler.

For transparency, costs are covered in Paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA, not Section 62 as somebody previously stated.

For even further clarity, Section 62 actually states this:

62Enforcement by taking control of goods

(1)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exercisable only by using that procedure.

(3)Schedule 13—

(a)amends some powers previously called powers to distrain, so that they become powers to use that procedure;

(b)makes other amendments relating to Schedule 12 and to distress or execution.

(4)The following are renamed—

(a)writs of fieri facias, except writs of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis, are renamed writs of control;

(b)warrants of execution are renamed warrants of control;

©warrants of distress, unless the power they confer is exercisable only against specific goods, are renamed warrants of control.

As previously stated, it appears that some cannot understand the difference between a section in an act and a paragraph in a Schedule of an act.

Given the importance of this subject, here is the relevant regulation in its entirety:

28.—(1) This regulation applies where the enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12.

(2) The conditions of which the court must be satisfied before it issues a warrant under paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 12, or includes provision in a warrant under paragraph 21(2) of that Schedule, are—

(a)either—

(i)the enforcement agent is attempting to recover a debt enforceable under section 127 of the Finance Act 2008(1); or

(ii)the premises are premises to which the goods have been deliberately removed in order to avoid control being taken of them;

(b)there are, or are likely to be, goods of the debtor on the premises of which control can be taken;

©the enforcement agent has explained to the court—

(i)the likely means of entry, and the type and amount of force that will be required to make the entry;

(ii)how, after entry, the enforcement agent proposes to leave the premises in a secure state; and

(d)in all the circumstances it is appropriate for the court to give an authorisation, having regard (among other matters) to—

(i)the sum outstanding;

(ii)the nature of the debt.

Sub paragraph 2 states that the conditions (note the plural) that must be satisfied are a, b, c and d, NOT any one of them in isolation. Clearly unless conditions a,b,c and d are met, there can be no permission granted to force entry.

Further confusion has arrived in the form of advice that HCEOs have to go back to court to obtain permission to force entry to a residential business address. Sadly this is not correct either and since April 2014, HCEOs have had the ability to force entry to any address that they have reasonable belief is being used for the purpose of carrying on a trade or a business. To their credit, HCEOs generally appear to be respectful of residential premises when enforcing business debts but make no mistake, the ability to force entry is there. It is very dangerous to lead a debtor into a false sense of security by telling him/her that the HCEO needs to go to court before he can force entry.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant legislation (paragraph 18A of Schedule 12 TCEA 2007):

18A(1)This paragraph applies if these conditions are met—

(a)the enforcement agent has power to enter the premises under paragraph 14;

(b)the enforcement agent reasonably believes that the debtor carries on a trade or business on the premises;

©the enforcement agent is acting under a writ or warrant of control issued for the purpose of recovering a sum payable under a High Court or county court judgment;

(d)the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

(2)“Traffic contravention debt” has the meaning given by section 82(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004.]

Again, the criteria is that all 4 conditions must be met and not just one in isolation.