Freedom of Information Act Request. Does HMCS officially acknowledge bailiffs are increasing defendants court fines?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The Admin Section

London Collection Compliance Centre

Rose Court, Second Floor

2 Southwark Bridge Road

London

SE1 9HS

 

 

11 December 2011

 

Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

 

Please provide a copy of the Contract or service agreement you have with a company called Phillips Collection Services who is collecting unpaid court fines from defendants from the Croydon Magistrates Court.

 

This request also asks for the following points:

 

1) The legislation the contract relies upon to enable the company to increase the amount the defendant has been fined by the Court, namely, £275, without a court order, and without the defendant being means tested for his abilities to pay.

 

If no legislation exists, then:

 

2) Is HMCS aware the company is increasing the fine by the sum of £275 (or more) on top of the fine amount the defendant has been ordered to pay? yes/no.

 

If the answer to (2) above is "no" then:

 

3) Confirm the contract allows the company to deduct the sum of up to £275 from the amount recovered before paying the remainder to HMCS.

 

 

If HMCS is unable or unwilling to confirm, then:

 

4) Specify what authority HMCS has availed itself to enable the company to unilaterally increase the amount the defendant has been fined, and enforce payment of the whole amount on the basis it is a fine, without having applied for Judgment against the defendant for the additional amount.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

Edited January 6, 2012 by MARTIN3030
Requesting members to pm with contact numbers is not something we are happy to approve of.

[ploddertom]

Would be good to have a definitive answer on this.

 

PT

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I already have it. but i just need something durable. Philips becomes evasive when pushed on this point, so I set a trap with a ginea pig defendant and Philips walked straight into it eyes wide open.

 

Good to see you are still keeping up the good work PT!.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

HMCS is unable to fulfil my FOI request and has returned my £10 fee cheque.

 

The questions now go to the House of Lords.

[tomtubby]

Precisely on what basis are HMCS unable to reply to your FOI request. If they have refused, then you can instead make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner Office.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I dont think a complaint will stand. That is because HMCTS has a right to refuse to answer the FOI because is not in national interests to do so, or in their own parlance - not conducive to public good.

 

If they answered it, its a very big can of worms and their lawyers may have realised a lot of defendants out there who will have redress and reclaim all those £275 bailiffs fees back. The bailiff companies ore OK because they can be wound up and all their liabilities wound in, a-la Drakes who reforned as Marstons to ditch its liabilities and get a new credit license.

 

Ultimately, as there is a contract between HMCTS and bailiff company, its HMCTS that could be liable to repay an awful lot of £275's as charged by Philips and Marstons irrespective of HMCTS is aware of the practice. Its the taxpayer that takes the brunt.

 

The next stage is the House of Lords. If that fails to get a definitve answer, then the whole case will be put up for auction to the national press.

[tomtubby]

Thank you for your response but your have not said WHY HMCS have refused to respond to your FOI.

 

Have they responded to say that " a reply is not conductive to public good"

 

As you will know, the matter of this fee of £75 and £200 has long been the subject of enquiries on here and you have always stated that there is no legal basis for the charging of such fee.

 

For this reason, it would be helpful to know the precise reason that has been given to you by HMCS as to the WHY they are refusing to provide a response to your FOI request.

 

As you will know, a public body (such as HMCS) cannot simply refuse to respond to an FOI request and some sort of reason MUST be given. Can you please let us know.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The reason is in the first paragraph of my post.

 

A mate of mine who is a solicitor thinks their refusal to disclose could be exempt information under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in particular sub-section(2).

[josephbloggs]

No company, not marstons, philips or any other bailiff company would conduct work for hmcs for free surely.

The fees are obviously set out by the courts what they can charge so they do. I really dont understand what you trying to ascertain by your query to hmcs. Of course bailiffs arent going to go around for fines knowing full well they wont be able to charge for it, who would be that stupid to run a buisness not earning any money

[tomtubby]

Did HMCS state ONLY that they were unable to fulfil your FOI request as such a response would be most unusual indeed. A reason of some sort would always be given.

 

Please clarify. the precise wording would assist everyone with an interest in this subject.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I dont see anything unusual in saying its not conducive to public good. By revealing the answers to my questions could result in legal proceedings being brought by defendants reclaiming these £275 fees.

 

It does fit into Sub-sections 2&3 of Section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and I anticipate my enquiry in the House of Lords will be dismissed for the same reason - to protect public money from fee reclaims being brought by defendants.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

No company, not marstons, philips or any other bailiff company would conduct work for hmcs for free surely.

 

They work under a contract that allows them to deduct £75 and £200 from the amount "recovered" from the defendant and pay the balance to HMCTS.

 

There is nothing in the contract that says the bailiff can add theose fees on top of the amount the defendant has been fined. However, I am in possession of documents proving that bailiffs do, so my FOI is asking HMCTS whether or not, they are aware of this.

[brassnecked]

They work under a contract that allows them to deduct £75 and £200 from the amount "recovered" from the defendant and pay the balance to HMCTS.

 

There is nothing in the contract that says the bailiff can add theose fees on top of the amount the defendant has been fined. However, I am in possession of documents proving that bailiffs do, so my FOI is asking HMCTS whether or not, they are aware of this.

 

Thanks for the clarification, so legally the bailiff cannot add fees on top of the fines, but obviously they do. I would be most surprised that MOJ don't know about this, and as you rightly point out, they will keep schtum to avoid a floodgates scenario, and a mass repayment of unlawful bailiff fees.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Lets spread our net.

 

 

Dear Lord Lucas,

 

Re: Bailiffs fees on unpaid Magistrates court fines

 

I understand bailiff companies are contracted by HMCTS to recover unpaid court fines, and the contract sets out fees of £75 plus £200 retained by the bailiff company from the amount recovered before paying the balance to HMCTS.

 

I have documentary evidence that bailiff companies are routinely and systematically charging the up to £275 fees on top of the amount the defendant has been fined.

 

I have tried finding answers to the following questions from solicitors, Police forces, bailiff companies and public advice groups and their advisories contradict each other. I made a request under Section 1 Freedom of Information Act 2000 directed to HMCTS, but they declined to answer because it is not conducive to public good. I would therefore, be grateful if you could clarify the following.

 

1) What legislation the contract relies upon to enable the company to increase the amount the defendant has been fined by the Court, namely, £275, without a court order, and without the defendant being means tested for his abilities to pay.

 

If no legislation exists, then:

 

2) Is HMCS aware the company is increasing the fine by the sum of £275 (or more) on top of the fine amount the defendant has been ordered to pay? yes/no.

 

If the answer to (2) above is "no" then:

 

3) Confirm the contract allows the company to deduct the sum of up to £275 from the amount recovered before paying the remainder to HMCS.

 

If HMCS is unable or unwilling to confirm, then:

 

4) Specify what authority HMCS has availed itself to enable the company to unilaterally increase the amount the defendant has been fined, and enforce payment of the whole amount on the basis it is a fine, without having applied for Judgment against the defendant for the additional amount.

 

Yours sincerely,

[caledfwlch]

Could someone not take a Bailiff firm down the CCJ process to recover the added money, and put the firm to strict legal proof that they are allowed, by law to charge this on top?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

They already have. The claim never reached trial because the bailiff always refunds the fees at the 11th hour.

 

This poster contacted the Magistrates court manager about a bailiff (Phillips) who charged her fees for collecing an unpaid fine - the fees miraculously disappeared,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/229873-help-philips.html#post2547500

 

This poster recovered his fees from the bailiffs for a Bus Lane fine after filing Form N1 in the county court naming the bailiffs as the defendant. The bailiffs refunded all the fees, but only on condition of NO ADVERSE PUBLICITY being made against them.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/254610-n244-county-court-action-2.html

[MARTIN3030]

The opening para' of the FOI says;

"Please provide a copy of the Contract or service agreement you have with a company called Phillips Collection Services who is collecting unpaid court fines from defendants from the Croydon Magistrates Court."

 

I am sure that they (as any such request) could be refused on the basis that the details of the contract are commercially sensitive.

 

The performance and scope of the contract though are less argueable imo.

 

Why did they not do partial disclosure ?

[MARTIN3030]

Can I also add that the site is not prepared to tolerate the disruptions we have seen in the past in these forums.

The site team are all aware and up to speed on this,and will not hesitate to take whatever course is needed if they are called on to do so.

This will include any subsequent secondary username accounts.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Why did they not do partial disclosure ?

 

Another FOI request is on its way to find the answer.

 

Several reasons may exist. Im not a solicitor, but I know a few which I can use as a sounding board

 

1. HMCTS know I already have the contract from a 2008 FOI request, so it could be a seen as a duplicated request. Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

2. The information being requested falls into the remit of Section 42(2) and as such, a requirement to disclose does not arise.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Update.

 

The Ministry of Justice has published a revised leaflet EX345. The question on fees on fines is answered on Page 5 under "What is the cost to me?"

 

http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345_e.pdf

 

Comments anyone?

[brassnecked]

But are bailiff companies working as Civilian Enforcement Officers? If so then they cannot charge a fee, but if they are employed as bailiffs, doesn't it still muddy the waters somewhat?....................

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The word 'bailiff' is used on this forum for shortness, but the contract does use the expression Civillian Enforcement Officer.

[tomtubby]

The page to which you refer deals with the charges that can be applied by CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and quite rightly, HMCS confirm that CEOs cannot charge any fees.

This is because; Civilian Enforcement Officers are employees of Her Majesty’s Court Service. In a similar way, county court bailiffs do not charge.

There are around 500 CEOs employed by HMCS

Many Magistrates Courts use “private Enforcment Agents” under contract with HMCS and any warrants are then passed to the 4 enforcement companies which include Marston Group and Philips.

Other courts still use their own in house Civilian Enforcement Officers (who are not permitted to charge fees).

 

For the year 2008/9 the number of warrants issued to Civilian Enforcement Agents was approx 484,000 and private enforcement agents were issued with approx 600,000 warrants

[ploddertom]

To my mind the leaflet lacks in a lot of areas and would think it is pages 9 & 10 that may be appropriate. However it does NOT state that the debtor is responsible for any extra fees nor does it say they are. Instead it says you have to ask the issuing creditor. In this case it appears that the Courts are refusing to answer which in my view is not conducive to the public good.

 

PT

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Many Magistrates Courts use “private Enforcment Agents” under contract with HMCS and any warrants are then passed to the 4 enforcement companies which include Marston Group and Philips.

 

Council tax bailiffs are also under a contract, but as you well know, the authority is liable for its agents.

 

What are you trying to say? Phillips and Marston CAN increase the amount by adding their fees?