Marincor.

This thread is very likely to be the best one to start with and then if necessary I can ask one of the moderators to allow me to amend the appropriate STICKY.

Look forward to reading anything that you find.

All we need now is the input of the famous one thread, one criticism 'Panaka' (fictious protector of a fictious queen) or 'Petamaine' (professional music hall farter) to come back under yet another diversionary banal name in order to try and insult and score brownie points.

Would that be the same person as Petomaniac?

You can always star your own thread and put the updates in there, as they will always be read by us and commented on

MM

Yesterday a very important question was asked on another thread about whether a bailiff can continue to enforce a warrant of control in cases where the debtor had paid the amount of the court fines or Liability Order to the court or the local authority. Given the importance of the question a copy of my response is below. If anyone has any questions please post back on this thread.

The first point that needs to be made is that the Compliance fee of £75 is chargeable as soon as the account is referred to the enforcement company and the Enforcement fee of £235 is chargeable as soon as the account is referred to an individual bailiff This is completely different from the previous regulations. In the following example I will assume that the debtor has an unpaid Magistrate Court FINE for £575.

Magistrate Court fine: £575

Notice of Enforcement sent to debtor. Compliance fee of £75 added to debt. Amount due: £650

Debtor fails to pay and account referred to enforcement agent to enforce.

Enforcement fee of £235 added to account. Amount due: £885

Debtor visits court and makes a payment of the amount of the fine of £575

From 6th April HMCS forward all payments to enforcement company.

Compliance stage fee of £75 deducted at source leaving the balance of £500 to be split on a pro rata basis.

The 'pro rata 'spilt' is slightly complicated but for ease of reference is 70% to the creditor and 30% to the enforcement agent.

The £500 will be split as to £350 to the creditor (70%) and £150 to the enforcement agent (30%).

Using this example you will see that from the £575 payment made to the Magistrate Court....£350 is allocated towards the court fine and £225 (comprising of the Compliance fee of £75 and £150) is allocated towards the enforcement agent fees.

The amount outstanding has been reduced to £310. This comprises of the balance of the fine of £225 and £85 enforcement agent fees. At there is still an amount outstanding the warrant of control is still enforceable and it is important for the debtor to be aware that the enforcement agent is not continuing enforcement for his fees.

Very useful, thank you.

I have brought this over from your other thread to post my question here and not take that thread off track.

"You are absolutely right and this is the precise reason why you will always see from my posts that I urge debtors to contact the enforcement company as soon as they receive a Notice of Enforcement. It is at this stage that all companies are urged to consider a sensible payment proposal."

We are starting to read of instances whereby people have (on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement) contacted the enforcement company and made a 'sensible' payment proposal only to have it refused, quickly followed by a letter through the door and the enforcement fee of £235 added to their account.

If we can gather the 'evidence' of these practices would the moj pay attention when presented with them?

The first point that needs to be made is that the Compliance fee of £75 is chargeable as soon as the account is referred to the enforcement company and the Enforcement fee of £235 is chargeable as soon as the account is referred to an individual bailiff This is completely different from the previous regulations. In the following example I will assume that the debtor has an unpaid Magistrate Court FINE for £575.

 

Magistrate Court fine: £575

 

Notice of Enforcement sent to debtor. Compliance fee of £75 added to debt. Amount due: £650

 

Debtor fails to pay and account referred to enforcement agent to enforce.

 

Enforcement fee of £235 added to account. Amount due: £885

 

Debtor visits court and makes a payment of the amount of the fine of £575

 

From 6th April HMCS forward all payments to enforcement company.

 

Compliance stage fee of £75 deducted at source leaving the balance of £500 to be split on a pro rata basis.

 

The 'pro rata 'spilt' is slightly complicated but for ease of reference is 70% to the creditor and 30% to the enforcement agent.

 

The £500 will be split as to £350 to the creditor (70%) and £150 to the enforcement agent (30%).

 

Using this example you will see that from the £575 payment made to the Magistrate Court....£350 is allocated towards the court fine and £225 (comprising of the Compliance fee of £75 and £150) is allocated towards the enforcement agent fees.

 

The amount outstanding has been reduced to £310. This comprises of the balance of the fine of £225 and £85 enforcement agent fees. At there is still an amount outstanding the warrant of control is still enforceable and it is important for the debtor to be aware that the enforcement agent is not continuing enforcement for his fees.

Crystal clear...well done TT

I have brought this over from your other thread to post my question here and not take that thread off track.

 

"You are absolutely right and this is the precise reason why you will always see from my posts that I urge debtors to contact the enforcement company as soon as they receive a Notice of Enforcement. It is at this stage that all companies are urged to consider a sensible payment proposal."

 

We are starting to read of instances whereby people have (on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement) contacted the enforcement company and made a 'sensible' payment proposal only to have it refused, quickly followed by a letter through the door and the enforcement fee of £235 added to their account.

 

If we can gather the 'evidence' of these practices would the moj pay attention when presented with them?

Would be a good move, as they will be looking to exploit any loophole they can find, real or imagined.

 

We are starting to read of instances whereby people have (on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement) contacted the enforcement company and made a 'sensible' payment proposal only to have it refused, quickly followed by a letter through the door and the enforcement fee of £235 added to their account.

 

If we can gather the 'evidence' of these practices would the moj pay attention when presented with them?

WD. Excellent question and a worrying one. What needs to be made clear is that the Enforcement company are working as agents to the local authority (or any creditor) and accordingly; they must take into consideration the terms outlined in their contracts with local authorities regarding the period of time that a payment arrangement should run for.

There is no legal obligation on the EA to accept a payment arrangement but I can assure you that the Ministry of Justice would not be happy to find that 'sensible' payment arrangements are being rejected and with it, the debt increasing by £235. That is neither the spirit or the intention of the new regulations.

In the next few weeks a large number of Liability Orders are expected to be forwarded to the enforcement companies and we need to be on the look out for cases such as this.

Debtors must contact the enforcement company as soon as possible after receiving the Notice of Enforcement to arrange a payment arrangement and from the many conversations that I have had with local authorities it would seem that the vast majority of them are stating that a payment plan over 3-6 months is perfectly acceptable.

The debtor should send a complete income and expenditure with his payment proposal. I will look around for a simple I & E so that a copy can be posted on the forum.

What happens when a court does not pass on the money to the bailiff company ? I ask this, as I can see people phoning the courts and the courts staff confirm that the fine has been paid in full, with no sum passed to bailiffs. Then the argument about 'proceeds' starts and that the bailiff is not entitled to fees. You can bet that there will be people who will find an angle to continue giving out information that appears to offer a loophole.

There is still the issue of bailiffs visiting debtors without original signed/stamped paperwork from the courts. It would save them a lot of hassle, if they had the proper paperwork and not what has been commented, as just photcopies of documents which don't appear to have been seen by the courts.

This is pretty user friendly and a summary can be printed out:

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/steps/step2/Pages/Step_2_11.aspx

Where a debtor has taken advice, and contacted the EA and the EA has refused any and all reasonable offers I feel we will have to be vigilant and look at all the enquirers circumstances, as even if a debtor takes that advice, we will need to collate and record cases where the EA has refused any reasonable offer in the debtors particular circumstances, and escalated to an Enforcement Stage Visit, in order to add the £235. I consider that will be an issue cropping up with a monotonous regularity in future.

Given a FOI request should reveal details of the LA's contract with an enforcement company, it is a great shame the terms outlined in their contracts with local authorities regarding the period of time that a payment arrangement should run for are not made public, on the understanding they are under no obligation to accept an offer.

The spirit of the law is clear, so if this information were published it would make it easier for debtors to come up with reasonable offers and harder for EA's to refuse them.

Given many EA's rely on mobiles, is it good advice to suggest the offers be sent via text message so there is something in writing which can be proven?

It is something I have also noticed that payment proposals are being turned. I think we know that the Enforcement Co's & their Agents cannot survive on the £75 Compliance Fee and see an opportunity to either refuse the proposal made or instil a stupid amount the debtor has no chance of making. Adding the Enforcement Fee of £235 looks better for them and puts their "customers" into a debt they cannot afford in the first place.

Of course the most frightening aspect of this is that all we see are a small minority so it begs the question of what really is happening in the outside world.

It is something I have also noticed that payment proposals are being turned. I think we know that the Enforcement Co's & their Agents cannot survive on the £75 Compliance Fee and see an opportunity to either refuse the proposal made or instil a stupid amount the debtor has no chance of making. Adding the Enforcement Fee of £235 looks better for them and puts their "customers" into a debt they cannot afford in the first place.

 

Of course the most frightening aspect of this is that all we see are a small minority so it begs the question of what really is happening in the outside world.

Quite a few refused offers and consequent Enforcement Visits with the added fee no doubt, wonder if they are also "Taking Control" of third party cars by or near a debtors house still?

I am waiting for a clamping debacle where a commuter parks outside a debtors house and the car is clamped, EA ignores proof and protestations of owner who may live in a different town, and takes the car anyway. It is only a matter of time.

This worries me. I had heard of some EAs at compliance stage not accepting an arrangement unless they called and obtained a Controlled Goods agreement. Either this is a hangover from pre 6th April or a blatant attempt to increase fees.

There are two solutions; ensure that MoJ are aware and FOI request to obtain details of the SLA or Contract (I think someone suggested this earlier).

I can't think of any creditor who would want it otherwise

This worries me. I had heard of some EAs at compliance stage not accepting an arrangement unless they called and obtained a Controlled Goods agreement. Either this is a hangover from pre 6th April or a blatant attempt to increase fees.

 

There are two solutions; ensure that MoJ are aware and FOI request to obtain details of the SLA or Contract (I think someone suggested this earlier).

 

I can't think of any creditor who would want it otherwise

Wigan Council seem to have made a commitment in that regard...

Would that all LA' were like that. If Crapita are in charge of the revenue function, they might try sending Equita or Ross 'n rRbbers at the first opportunity, maybe even trying to combine the Compliance and Enforcement stage into one. A bit like their upfront fee fraud under the old rules

In post number 210 I stated the following:

There is no legal obligation on the EA to accept a payment arrangement but I can assure you that the Ministry of Justice would not be happy to find that 'sensible' payment arrangements are being rejected and with it, the debt increasing by £235. That is neither the spirit or the intention of the new regulations.

The new regulations have only been in place for 3 months and it will naturally be the case that the bailiff 'on the street' and the 'in house staff' (in particular those who answer the phone) will take a while to change their behaviour . This has not been helped by the fact that the regulations themselves were released very late indeed (in some cases just a week or two before 6th April). Consequently, enforcement companies AND local authorities are still undergoing training on the new regulations.

A second point (and one that is very important) is that the Ministry of Justice have put a team of analyists in place whose role is to look at how the new regulations are working in practice and to see what changes are needed to the regulations to ensure that complaints are reduced etc. MOJ will also be reviewing whether complaints to the court increase or decrease and whether or not 'interpleader' applications are working etc .

Thirdly,to assist the Ministry of Justice in establishing whether the new regulations are working they have provided all 'stakeholders' (which naturally include all advice agencies) with a confidential email address for them to send details of cases where the regulations are not being adhered to and suggestions for change. By way of example:

On Tuesday I used the email address to send an example of where a bailiff was attempting to charge £1,536 for enforcing 3 PCN's at the same time (£512 each). Under the new regs the bailiff must attempt to enforce all debts on the system at the same time and although he can charge 3 Compliance fees of £75 he may only charge one enforcement fee of £235. This bailiff was attempting to charge the Compliance fee of £235 for EACH PCN. The debtor was being overcharged £470. If examples can be seen on the forum whereby sensible payment proposals are being rejected these too will be copied to the Ministry of Justice.

Whether they like it or not.....the enforcement industry is being watched.

@ TT "Whether they like it or not.....the enforcement industry is being watched."

They know I'm sure but they won't like it. We must now make sure each case is measured against the rules so breaches can be logged and I'm sure TT will be checking the threads and referring as and when it is justified,

What happens when a court does not pass on the money to the bailiff company ? I ask this, as I can see people phoning the courts and the courts staff confirm that the fine has been paid in full, with no sum passed to bailiffs. Then the argument about 'proceeds' starts and that the bailiff is not entitled to fees. You can bet that there will be people who will find an angle to continue giving out information that appears to offer a loophole.

 

There is still the issue of bailiffs visiting debtors without original signed/stamped paperwork from the courts. It would save them a lot of hassle, if they had the proper paperwork and not what has been commented, as just photcopies of documents which don't appear to have been seen by the courts.

Any answers to this ?

UB

It is my understanding that at present if a payment is made to the court (either on line to HMCS or by way of the ATM 'drop box') that the court are forwarding the payments to one of the 4 enforcement companies who have the contract to enforce court fines. In this way, the enforcement company are able to deduct their Compliance fee and to do the accounting exercise under the pro rata basis for the balance. The current computer systems in the courts are unable to deal with the accounting.

In the next few months there will be significant changes in the magistrates courts regarding court fines and each of the four contracts will also be expiring. As I say...significant changes.

There will always some people who are intent on debt avoidance and will try to find 'loopholes' or angles to defeat payment (or worse still....to gets debtors to pay for wrong advice). However, despite boastful claims of hundreds of 'redress' cases being settled by enforcement companies or even the Ministry of Justice, the fact of the matter is that such 'redress' settlements are nowhere to be seen.

UB

It is my understanding that at present that is a payment is made to the court (either on line to HMCS or by way of the ATM 'drop box' that the court are forwarding the payments to one of the 4 enforcement companies who have the contract to enforce court fines. In this way the enforcement company are able to deduct their Compliance fee and do the accounting exercise under the pro rata basis for the balance. The current computer systems in the courts are unable to deal with the accounting.

 

There will always some people who are intent on debt avoidance and will try to find 'loopholes' or angles to defeat payment (or worse still....to gets debtors to pay for wrong advice). However, despite boastful claims of hundreds of 'redress' cases being settled by enforcement companies or even the Ministry of Justice, the fact of the matter is that such 'redress' settlements are nowhere to be seen.

The reality I suspect is that there will be cases where the courts receive full payment of the fine and they confirm this to the person concerned. The bailiff then visits and is told that the fine has been paid, so there is nothing to enforce. The bailiff then goes back to the courts and they may transfer the money to the bailiff company. This is where the courts and bailiff companies must work together to confirm what has happened with the money. In my opinion, the courts would need to send out a letter explaining that the fine money has been passed to x bailiff company and confirm what will happen next.

You really have to think about people who may be able to find say £200 to pay off a fine, but then don't have £310 to pay the bailiff fees. If the bailiffs are then threatening to take the families car away, which may be the only transport to work or to force entry to take goods, then people will go on the defensive. It is not about avoidance to some people, but being able to put food on the table.

The courts and bailiff companies in my opinion are not working hard enough to resolve these situations. A better process is needed.

 

The courts and bailiff companies in my opinion are not working hard enough to resolve these situations. A better process is needed.

The court staff are never going to start explaining the enforcement process for EA fees as well, the training implications alone are substantial.

As for the better process, it's there on paper and is called the Compliance Stage. Debtors need educating to engage early, and EA's need educating to accept reasonable payment offers without going to the Enforcement Stage to bump their fees up. The question then arises that if an honest EA is really successful and negotiates repayment offers for all his clients, thus costing them only £75, where does he stand when wages are paid compared to the less honest one who pushes for the £235 Enforcement fee as well? Where is the incentive for honesty?