Privatisation of Magistrate Court Fines......UPDATE

caledfwlch · September 9, 2015

Why are we permitting foreign companies to bid for this type of contract anyway?

Absolutely ridiculous isn't it! In France some industries are protected - UK Power Stations are sold to french, danish, german companies all the time, but a British, German, etc company would be blocked by the French Government if they tried to buy a power station or other utility in France.

And good on the French Government for doing that imo, since it protects jobs and so on.

Bailiff Advice · September 11, 2015

The Independent has a large news article today on the proposal for HMCTS to award the contract to Concentrix

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/concentrix-controversial-us-firm-to-be-sole-collector-of-court-fines-for-ministry-of-justice-10495671.html

It must be stressed that HMCTS have stated that no contract has yet been signed.

Bailiff Advice · September 14, 2015

It seems that the Independent are taking an interest in this subject as there is yet another press article on this matter in today's edition. The story states that the Ministry of Justice have so far spent £14 million on the delayed privatisation of court fine collection.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/moj-spends-14m-on-delayed-privatisation-of-court-fine-collection-before-appointed-firm-has-managed-to-chase-a-single-debtor-10498336.html

mikeymack2002 · September 16, 2015

This was covered by Scoop a few days ago. Imagine if you will you want to go to the States and say you have had no Police issues or fines/jail, now they can revoke your visa for not declaring it, so much for the Data Protection Act it sucks....

citizenB · September 16, 2015

This was covered by Scoop a few days ago. Imagine if you will you want to go to the States and say you have had no Police issues or fines/jail, now they can revoke your visa for not declaring it, so much for the Data Protection Act it sucks....

I don't understand the logic of this, MM. If you say you do not have fines or jail, but you did then they would be justified in revoking your visa.. wouldn't they ?

mikeymack2002 · September 16, 2015

Some people bluff at the visa stage, it happens all the time, then checks by ICE shows this up, it been televised numerous times in the past... The same goes for Aus as well

Old Cogger · September 16, 2015

In this country if an offence is spent (except certain areas) then that is it you do not have to declare it, but the Yanks ignore our Rules. We should do the same to their citizens.

tobyjugg2 · September 16, 2015

In this country if an offence is spent (except certain areas) then that is it you do not have to declare it, but the Yanks ignore our Rules. We should do the same to their citizens.

Don't worry, I'm sure we have some agreement that lets the yanks have information that is illegal to share in this country. GCHQ does it all the time.

Bailiff Advice · October 15, 2015

The following public statement has been made confirming that the outsourcing contract is not going to go ahead.

https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/ministry-justice-axes-plan-outsource-collection-court-fines

valiant 1 · October 16, 2015

All HMCTS staff involved with court fine enforcement recived a letter yesterday that the privitisation wil now NOT go ahead. The reasons where not disclosed. After about 4 years and apparently £6.5 million spent on this it's dead. Staff have had had a long period of not knowing where the jobs are going, staff have left due to uncertancy and been replaced by agency staff at greater cost. Those staff have to be trained but may well leave within a short period having found more secure employment.

Originally staff where told the privitisation woukld take place at the end of the financial year in April, then a delay due to the election. Following that staff were advised that the contract was waiting for the final signature. I doubt we will ever learn what' gone on here.

Coughdrop · October 16, 2015

All HMCTS staff involved with court fine enforcement recived a letter yesterday that the privitisation wil now NOT go ahead. The reasons where not disclosed. After about 4 years and apparently £6.5 million spent on this it's dead. Staff have had had a long period of not knowing where the jobs are going, staff have left due to uncertancy and been replaced by agency staff at greater cost. Those staff have to be trained but may well leave within a short period having found more secure employment.

Originally staff where told the privitisation woukld take place at the end of the financial year in April, then a delay due to the election. Following that staff were advised that the contract was waiting for the final signature. I doubt we will ever learn what' gone on here.

We won't find out what has gone on. We may be told a tiny bit to appease the tiny minority of the UK poulation who take any interest in this, but most don't, so we may be told nothing at all.

I think you hit the nail on the head in post 21, "The surprise disappears when you understand the corporate powerhouses behind the company. Just how much freedom of choice did the UK Government have when awarding these contracts?"

I don't think they had much choice at all. The government are scared of these powerhouses, and rather than put them in their rightful place, they let them influence their decisions. It would not surprise me at all to find significant corruption in the process somewhere along the line, and tie ups whereby certain senior government officials (or their relatives or close friends) would have done very nicely, thank you, out of this.

Bailiff Advice · October 18, 2015

All HMCTS staff involved with court fine enforcement recived a letter yesterday that the privitisation wil now NOT go ahead. The reasons where not disclosed. After about 4 years and apparently £6.5 million spent on this it's dead. Staff have had had a long period of not knowing where the jobs are going, staff have left due to uncertancy and been replaced by agency staff at greater cost. Those staff have to be trained but may well leave within a short period having found more secure employment.

Originally staff where told the privitisation woukld take place at the end of the financial year in April, then a delay due to the election. Following that staff were advised that the contract was waiting for the final signature. I doubt we will ever learn what' gone on here.

The Independent newspaper would like to take the 'credit' for this contract not going ahead....but the court staffs union believe that full credit should be given to them (which may well be right).

The union have argued that court staff have collected many millions of pounds and whilst this is no doubt correct, future collection is very much dependant on the government committing millions of pounds into upgrading the courts antiquated computer system.

Old Cogger · October 18, 2015

No credit to any one get on with the job and look to the future not like this government lives in the past 3 decades

citizenB · October 18, 2015

In the latest shift by the justice ministry under Michael Gove - who this week shelved a controversial deal to provide prison and probation advice to Saudi Arabia - ministers confirmed that the MoJ had abandoned its procurement competition for the collection of fines and fixed penalties. - See more at: https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/ministry-justice-axes-plan-outsource-collection-court-fines#sthash.ktuhMCzX.dpuf

To Saudi Arabia, with their Human Right's record !!

Bailiff Advice · October 6, 2016

Although this thread was started 18 months ago, I am referring to it again today in order to dispel yet more internet claims regarding bailiff fees when enforcing a magistrate court fine.

For many years now, internet posts have stated that if a debtor receives a letter from a firm of bailiffs seeking payment of a magistrate court fine they can make payment of the amount of the fine only (minus bailiff fees) and that supposedly, the warrant will then 'cease to have affect'. These internet myths have costs debtors many thousands of pounds and in some cases, have directly led to bailiffs forcing entry into a property. The following is a particularly harrowing example from a few months ago:

A young lady with an unpaid court fine paid a fee for a telephone consultation fee to an 'advisor' and she too, was advised to pay the fine to the court (minus bailiff fees). Believing that this payment would mean that the warrant 'ceased', she used every penny of her child tax credits.

She was told to use her mobile phone to covertly film herself handing over the fine payment to the court. In her case (as in all such cases) the court advised her by post that her payment had been passed to the enforcement agency so that they could deduct their compliance fee (of £75) and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation.

She again contact the person advising her. She was told that as she had paid the 'sum adjudged' the court were wrong (which was of course incorrect).

She was in the house with her two young children when bailiffs attended. They had a locksmith with them and started drilling her locks. She bolted the front door and took her children out the back door and fled the property. This was just after 6am in the morning. She went straight to her mothers house. She managed to contact the person who had advised her to pay the court direct. He informed her to call the police and report that a BURGLARY WAS IN PROGRESS !!!

Sadly, a few days ago, internet sources are attempting to claim that bailiff fees cannot be applied to magistrate court fines because of Section 75(A) 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 75A is relevant to this particular thread.

Bailiff Advice · October 6, 2016

Section 75A of the Magistrates Court Act is entitled: Costs of collecting sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction.

(1)

Where a sum is adjudged to be paid by a conviction, the person liable to pay the sum is also liable to pay amounts in respect of costs of doing things for the purpose of collecting sums of that kind.

(2)

Where the person is charged such an amount, the sum adjudged to be paid is treated as increased by that amount.

(3)

No such amount may be charged unless a collection order or other notice of the person’s liability to pay such amounts has been served on the person.

(4)

Where time has been allowed for payment of the sum, no such amount may be charged before the end of that time.

(5)

Where payment is to be by instalments, no such amount may be charged—

(a)

before the first occasion on which there is default in the payment of an instalment, or

(b)

at any other time when the instalments are up to date.

(6)

No such amount may be charged in respect of costs that may be recovered under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (costs related to taking control of goods and selling them).

(7)

This section applies in relation to a sum even if a collection order is in force in relation to the sum.”

The (inaccurate) internet claims (which should be ignored) are as follows:

1) Looking at 75A(6), it would be completely wrong to add enforcement fees to the sum adjudged onto the warrant.

2) It appears (to me anyway) that specific mention has been made, that costs related to enforcement may not be added to the sum adjudged.

3) 75A is clear that the sum adjudged can be increased to include costs of collecting the fine, EXCEPT any costs that are added under s62 of sch12 of the TCEA. EA fees do not become part of the sum adjudged.

Bailiff Advice · October 6, 2016

.

Why was section 75A introduced into the Magistrates Courts Act 1980?

Section 75A was introduced to provide for the privatisation of court fines.

Prior to 75A being introduced, if a debtor adjudged by a conviction was ordered to pay a sum of money, this amount would include an amount for the fine, victims surcharge, prosecution costs and compensation. There was no procedure in place for the Fines Officer at the court that adjudged the sum to be paid, to be remnumerated for his part in collecting the sum.

Is section 75A currently in use.

No. Although Section 75A has been enacted, it is not presently in use (although there are current plans for courts to charge fine defaulters for the work that the Fines Officer does in collecting the sum up the the stage of a warrant being issued.

Last year, as a way of making fine defaulters pay towards the administration fees etc, HMCTS introduced the Criminal Courts Charge. This fee was set at far too high an amount and was thankfully scrapped in December 2015.

Does Section 75A (6) mean that bailiffs cannot charge enforcement agent fees?

No it does not. Section 75(A)(6) means is that the Fines Collection Officer at the court that adjudged a sum to be paid following a conviction, cannot charge administration costs after a warrant has been issued.

Peterbard · October 6, 2016

Yes I think it was mentioned on another thread, it was introduced under the crime and courts act 2013(section 26). The rest of the amendments listed in that part may also prove instructive as they relate to the new but as yet unused section.

As said, 75A has nothing at all to do with bailiff fees, bailiffs recover the amount outstanding not just the sum due, The amount outstanding includes their fees.

The misconception was due to someone discovering the section and getting all giddy when he saw that the words magistrates and the fees were mentioned in the same paragraph.

Peterbard · October 6, 2016

Regarding the crimes and courts act 2013 most people who follow the the development of schedule 12 will be aware of this section, as it is next the the one which introduced all the forced entry provisions all the way back in 2014.

Peterbard · October 6, 2016

(2)In paragraph 17 (enforcement agent may use reasonable force to enter etc where paragraph 18 or 19 applies) for “or 19” substitute “, 18A, 19 or 19A”.

(3)After paragraph 18 insert—

“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;

This us one if the forced entry measure now contained within the act.

**unclebulgaria67** · October 7, 2016

Where does CPR 30 issued in Oct 2015 fit in with this, in regard to criminal fines settled directly with a Mags court fines officer ?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-30.pdf

Seems to me that there is a separation between different elements. The payment of the criminal penalty, which the courts must handle very carefully in line with the rules that apply and then the enforcement activity with its fees. There is a deliberate divide between these elements, because there are consequences if the criminal penalty is not settled.

Bailiff Advice · October 7, 2016

Regarding the crimes and courts act 2013 most people who follow the the development of schedule 12 will be aware of this section, as it is next the the one which introduced all the forced entry provisions all the way back in 2014.

Anyone with even a slight interest in bailiff regulation had to watch the passage of the Crime & Courts Bill (as it was at that time called) very carefully indeed in 2013. A link to the Explanatory Memorandum supporting Section 26 is outlined below. Note that it does NOT refer to the 'sum adjudged'.

Section 26: Payment of fines and other sums

40.

In England and Wales the Lord Chancellor by virtue of section 36 of the Courts Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) may appoint

fines officers

for the purpose of managing the collection and enforcement of court fines. Fines officers play a crucial role in the operation of the fine collection scheme detailed in Schedule 5 to the 2003 Act. For example, the role of a

fines officer

includes chasing payment via texts or letters, and issuing notification to the Department for Work and Pensions for benefit deductions in the event of non-payment of a court fine in certain cases.

41

. In 2008 HMCTS launched the Criminal Compliance and Enforcement Blueprint. The fundamental principle of this strategy was to ensure criminal financial penalties imposed by the court were complied with earlier and reduce the use of costly enforcement actions such as issuing a warrant of distress. The costs of collection incurred by HMCTS while attempting the recovery of financial penalties are currently funded via the public purse.

42

. To support the implementation of the above strategy and increase the incentive for early compliance, section 26 of the Act will enable the imposition and recovery of a charge imposed on offenders for the costs of collecting or pursuing financial penalties and clarifies the role of the fines officer.

I will re-iterate once again, this section was introduced to allow for a private sector Fines Officer (as opposed to an HMCTS employee) to charge administration fees/collection costs. The Fines Officer would not be able to charge administration fees in relation to the Taking Control of Goods.

The right to charge enforcement agent fees is provided under entirely different legislation outlined under Schedule 13 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/notes/division/3/2/10?view=plain

Edited October 7, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

Bailiff Advice · October 7, 2016

The misconception was due to someone discovering the section and getting all giddy when he saw that the words magistrates and the fees were mentioned in the same paragraph.

Giddy is an understatement !!! and should be replaced by envy and embarrassment and a dreadful misunderstanding and reliance on one particular word...'adjudged'.

Peterbard · October 7, 2016

Giddy is an understatement !!! and should be replaced by envy and embarrassment and a dreadful misunderstanding and reliance on one particular word...'adjudged'.

Good to see all the backtracking going on,at least it should mean the orriginal flawed misconception should not be ssued as advice.

The current direction of the discussion itshould be acknowledged, is an attempt to distract from the error and hide embarramsnt. But it is nevertheless an interesting subject in its own right.

Bailiff Advice · October 7, 2016

The right to charge enforcement agent fees is provided under entirely different legislation outlined under Schedule 13 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The relevant legislation permitting enforcement agents to charge fees (Compliance fee of £75 and Enforcement Fee of £235) is provided under section 46 of Schedule 13 of TCE2007.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/crossheading/magistrates-courts-act-1980-c-43?view=plain

45.

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is amended as follows.

46

(1) Section 76 (enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum” substitute

“ issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum ”.

(3) In subsection (2)(a)—

(a) for “warrant of distress” substitute “ warrant of control ”;

(b) for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum” substitute “

pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ”

.

Announcements

Tweets

Posts

Recommended Topics

Our picks

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Recommended Topics

Privatisation of Magistrate Court Fines......UPDATE

Recommended Posts

Link to post

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 Caggers

Navigation Links

Latest

Help and Support

Useful LInks

Reclaim the right Ltd

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service