As it stands HCEO enforcement of low value could turn a £100 debt into potentially £3,000 by the time the HCEO has finished.

The enforcement of private parking tickets by HCEO's is already under the spotlight. Hopefully there will be change soon.

 

I think the operative word there was COMPLAINT, as we were talking specifically about EAC2s. I think most people were able to read and understand the content but thank you for raising it.

 

Just re-read this thread and no, we were not specifically talking about EAC2" no one was. You mentioned it once. In any case, you said "should never be "a last resort that is lunacy"

You did not specify nor limit your remark to EAC2s,

Alreadyexists I am sorry that we do not agree that the £235 is a disgusting amount to have to be paid just to deliver a letter.

However you make a good point about allowing more time for negotiating at compliance stage. There should be extra time allowed when a debtor has come forward within the 7 day period to attempt a repayment scheme with all the parties involved [and this should involve the Council when there are sticking points] so that a deal can be hammered out thus avoiding the £235 . And the practice of bailiffs not answering the phone during that period has to resolved too.

Excluding VAT, any debtor who incurs a visit will be charged a £75 compliance fee and a £190 ES1 fee. That has to be paid regardless.

 

Over and above that, there is an ES2 fee of £495 and a sale fee of £525 that may be charged if things escalate. In many cases, debtors are being charged both of these fees when they are paying at the first visit. It is (IMO) the biggest single problem with enforcement as it stands. However, it is an extra £1,000 not £3,000. The figures will rise when the debt being enforced is more than £1,000 as the HCEO may add 7.5% to sums over the first £1,000 on 2 of the fee stages.

 

It is still a frightening figure for someone to have to pay for just one visit in which the debt is settled. The true figure should be £265 which includes the £75 compliance fee.

 

Bailiffs who are currently enforcing High Court debts have never had it so good.

Unfortunately, HCEOs do not share this posters idea on VAT and they charge an enforcement fee (compliance stage) at £90, the rest of the fees are also plus VAT.

You can challenge this if you dont believe what the government says, but if you want them to stop chasing you, this is the figure you will have to pay.

I would like to agree with BA where the investment in the EA's welfare department are concerned.

I have a debt that is with Rossendales.

The front line operators are working from a script, which they will not deviate from as there aim is to recover the debt only.

I have been involved with the welfare department. so insisted on speaking to them.

the problems I have had with the front line is they will say your account is on hold then you will get a letter stating it has been passed to the bailiff, the only problem the letter was dated 3 days before the account date as on hold for.

After speaking to the welfare and explaining what was agreed verbally ( notes do not match up )

I have now had the account on hold for 30 days whilst they investigate. and for me to be able to send the required documentation.

I have had a lot of problems with EC's, but will give credit where it is due,

Rossendales welfare have been very helpful, advised what info is needed, and will fight my corner with the council.

In conclusion if training w3as improved in frontline operators it would improve,

and the main problem from I am finding is the Council recovery department.

may be there needs to be regulations to make them take more responsibility.

My case 2 accounts on hold and no notification that they have been lifted.

how can they make an informed decision without the correct info, which means contacting the Debtor

to get the info on any change of circumstances.

overall I have to say Rossendales welfare department are good and they actually try to help, those who need it.

Experience with others is not the same, ( the same debt)

Conclusion Council recovery needs to be reigned in, as most of the time they have a do not careless attitude.

not our problem with the EC but we still pull the strings as such.

but training to help identify the true vulnerable, people from the will not pays.

I also believe that the councils need to be reigned in on the fees charged for LO's as it is easy money for the council.

hope all the above makes sense

Leakie

I would like to agree with BA where the investment in the EA's welfare department are concerned.

 

I have a debt that is with Rossendales. I have been involved with the welfare department. so insisted on speaking to them.

 

the problems I have had with the front line is they will say your account is on hold then you will get a letter stating it has been passed to the bailiff, the only problem the letter was dated 3 days before the account date as on hold for.

 

After speaking to the welfare and explaining what was agreed verbally ( notes do not match up ), I have now had the account on hold for 30 days whilst they investigate. and for me to be able to send the required documentation.

 

I have had a lot of problems with EC's, but will give credit where it is due, Rossendales welfare have been very helpful, advised what info is needed, and will fight my corner with the council.

 

In conclusion if training was improved in frontline operators it would improve, overall I have to say Rossendales welfare department are good and they actually try to help, those who need it.

 

Leakie

A very good post Leakie.

I have long been a supporter of Welfare Departments and only yesterday, I was speaking with the Director of a fairly large company and they informed me that they have 11 members of staff working in their Welfare Dept. Those staff members receive regular training so as to further their understand of 'vulnerability' and in particular, mental health.

I was also pleased to hear yesterday of the success with the introduction in 2014 of a 'compliance period' (the period from receipt of the Notice of Enforcement until the 'cut off' date for making payment.....7 clear days). It was reported that in excess of 50% of cases are paid in full during the compliance period (meaning that bailiffs fee were capped at just £75.

Most importantly, over 60% of 'vulnerable cases' are identified during this period (compliance period).

Just to be clear on this, businesses who are the subject of HCEO enforcement cannot reclaim VAT on their payments. They are not issued with a vat invoice.

Your welcome and the MOJ are not responsible for VAT of course.

So tell us , do you think they should consider the" most contentious matter in the whole new enforcement system", that of proceeds?

Perhaps I should clear this misconception up also.

The regulations regarding bailiff fees were introduced by parliament as we know in 2014 they prescribe what the bailiff can charge in fees.

The requirements on who is liable to VAT is prescribed by the HMRS, currently the tax applies to HCEO enforcement and is not recoverable by the debtor.

This is not a fee due to the bailiff, so it is not in the regulations. It is VAT which is due to HMRS.

Also, i noticed the same poster mentioned that the fees regulations were rushed through and implied they were somehow at fault due to it.

This is indeed said. However, the remark refers to its passage through parliament, and not to the amount of consideration given to it before it was presented.

The regulations were passed under a negative resolution process. This process speeds the transit through the houses by removing the requirement for bills to be agreed at each stage. Instead, it continues through as if it had been agreed if there is no objection raised. This removes the time-consuming need for debate at every stage.

The instrument has less power under this process, and cannot, for instance, be used to modify, or in any way change legislation(acts), but in this case, serves the purpose.

Can we keep this factual please? Any unnecessary personal slights are likely to be removed.

HB