Enjoy the wait. Good luck to those i helped. You can blame those that sent the PM's telling me we are all the same and tarring us all with the same brush for me not bothering to help anymore. I did this out of kindness but its just a battle against insults.

Its a business so they can. A freezer is not "exempt goods" for a trading business. The environmental disposal payment following it not selling at auction would be the reason.

Hopefully in the future, the fee schedule will be overhauled and provide a fixed fee rate that is not open to interpretation and is transparent. Currently, the fee schedule is determined by some very outdated legislation and scales that don't take the modern world into consideration. I can confirm that this is all under scrutiny at the moment and will hopefully be resolved in the near future. People only moan about the bad situations they endure. I have got thankyou letters in the office from unemployed defendants and from businesses that I have enforced against. In those cases I used my discretion and balanced approach to negotiate a fair repayment schedule without being forced to remove assets. I try to maintain this approach at all times. I currently have unemployed defendants paying £10 per month, but they are paying something and the interest is frozen. The other catagory of defendant - Sometimes, I will meet defendants who I wish to help but they won't negotiate and won't meet me halfway. I instruct them that I am forced to remove as they have sufficient assets to clear the debt and am forced to do so. Although they were in a position to make a monthly payment, they decided not to, and put themselves out of business because they had too much pride and would not pay the claimant. I also meet defendants who say that they won't pay - they have no spare funds - not even £2.50 per week. This is despite the fact that their wheelie bin is full of cigarette packets and empty drink bottles. @danboy. We as HCEO's are COMMANDED to remove goods if you do not make payment. We are lawfully liable for the execution of the writ. If we are obstructed in our duty then we will notify the Police. A Policeman is legally obliged to assist an HCEO if requested. Better the Police are called than an HCEO take the matter into his own hands don't you think? I'll request you stop tarring all HCEO's with the same brush for the last time. I'm here to offer free help and advice from a balanced perspective but if you continue to act with imprudence towards me I'll cease my posts on this forum.

If a High Court Writ was issued they would have had to make an attendance, as the HCEO is instructed and legally obliged to do so. Dejee - You need to post a copy of a letter you have received on the thread (obscure all personal details and ref numbers). We need more detailed information. What agreement did you make with "M" to pay the debt. I have a feeling you have agreed to pay by instalments and accepted that they will charge you interest and add for administration costs? *Ignore the post didnt read the whole thread*

Debtors / Defendants are not heroes. The money outstanding is at cost to someone else. You celebrate a victory while forgetting the broken lives of those you owe. Just remember those to which money is owed that have lost their livelihoods, businesses, own houses , and have suffered severe family consequences because they were owed so much money. I see it every day. I don't support unfair operating practices by bailiffs or HCEO's. However we have a role to play in the Justice system of this country, and indeed there would be anarchy without us. We reintroduce over £30 million into the economy each year in collected debt. "They may have the last laugh" - ironic that you seek knowledge from those you so detest. I am here to help, but please don't insult. Without us you would have very little technical help.

Where distress is levied upon a trading business, the stock and materials seized under a walking possession agreement, must be sold by the firm. Technically if the business sold the goods they would breach the walking possession agreement, and to allow it would be "abandonment2 by the bailiff.The normal solution is to allow the the trader to sell the seized goods as long as they are replaced. To avoid abandonment the bailiff should note on the inventory that the stock will change and that this has been agreed with the debtor. Regular visits must be made to check that the quantity of goods still remains the same. For this paractice to work the Bailiff must either seize more goods to replace the sold stock OR take seize the money taken from the sale of the former levied stock. This practice would not be used to levy for Distress. A case file showing this as sanctioned practice by the courts is Dalton ex p Herrington 7 Carmichael vTrustee [1963] CH336.Abandonment by the bailiff cannot be proved in cases where there is an arrangement in place. There is case law to support this: Any sort of agreement or arrangement with the debtor is likely to be evidence of impounding contrary to a claim of abandonment (Anderson v Henry[1898] 29 OR 719.

A common strategy which is commonplace amongst bailiffs is that although they have taken possession of the goods they allow the business to trade so long as they are replaced. This is clearly what the Bailiff has done. You must keep to your replacement schedule to ensure the Bailiff doesnt return and seize the goods for sale at an auction.On the fee scale I would question the 2nd visit fee if he only attended once.On the subject of the commercial refrigerator/ freezer, they sell for very little and if they fail to sell at auction the Bailiff will have to pay for the disposal fee, as it is hazardous to the environment.

October 2008 and you didnt chase it up or attempt to contact them again? What has most probably happened is you were pulled over by the Police as a result of a ANPR check, and as you had an outstanding PCN it was enforced by a Bailiff. It is not a criminal case as you werent charged with any offence or committed one. My recommendation to all would be that you should always follow up everything you do. Things get lost in the post, people make admin errors. It is in your interest and your responsibility to check that everything sent is received.

This would be why HCEO's and Bailiffs have little luck in your circumstance. The defendants lack of assets provides no leverage to secure payment. Tracing does cost money, yes, but is also a cost to us in pursuing the defendant. That is why you have more success in selling the debt - they will take their costs out of the debt for tracing and have no impact on you. Your client status is the reason why Bailiff / HCEO action has failed. They have nothing to lose by non-payment. Have you considered credit-checking your clients or offering 12 month lets?

@ohitsonlyme: I would need to be given (by PM) a detailed breakdown of your case. When the visits were made, details of paperwork left, and the full fee breakdown that you were given (DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS OR ANY REFERENCE NUMBERS). I'll take a look at the case. @forkit : I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about your dealings with the HCEO's you have used. You seem disappointed and suspicious. @danboy381 - Innocent until proven guilty. You don't have a full understanding of the case. Please don't brand everyone with the same iron in the HCE Industry. I would like to demonstrate over time that the majority are very fair.

Are you sure the fee you are referring to is not the £50 transfer up fee? I too know of no claimant that has been made to pay anything more than the transfer up fee at the initial stages. Even during execution, there would be very little , if anything, requested of the claimant in advance, aside from indemnity to remove assets which could be of insufficient value but the claimant has specified the asset must still be removed.

This may help you: The HCEO is entitled by statute to fees and costs for enforcing writs, unless the debt is below £600 (CPR Sch.1 RSC O.47 r.4), and the writ instructs him TO LEVY FOR THESE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS. A FORMAL SEIZURE MUST BE MADE FIRST (Barker V Dynes (1832) 1 Dowl 169; Nash v Dickenson [1867] LR 2 CP 252). WITHOUT ANY SEIZURE AT ALL THERE CAN BE NO POUNDAGE (Nash v Dickenson[1877] 2 CP 252).