HCEO Regulations - What they say about fees.

[Nintendo Pü]

£600 min value for transfer up.

[High Court Enforcer]

£600 min value for transfer up.

 

That £600 includes court costs too. So the judgment may be £550 with costs of £60 for example.

[postggj]

so once a ccj has been granted

can it be passed up to hceo with immediate effect or does there need to be a period of non payment of a ccj for a period of time before paaing up the ccj judgement

[Nintendo Pü]

No time limit.

[postggj]

that stinks

[Guest DebtWeary]

It's up to the creditor as to whether the CCJ gets moved to the High Court. If you have an arrangement to pay off the CCJ either all at once or by instalments, and you keep to it, then your creditor should have no reason to involve HCEOs.

[postggj]

i helped out a pal on this

 

he got a ccj for 2k

 

before he even got the judgement it was passed up to hceo

 

who with immediate effect put on 700 quid in fees

 

i got them revoked but see my point

[Nintendo Pü]

The correct fee for collecting a £2000 debt is £52.50, how could that amount to £700?

[postggj]

you tell me

 

i wrote a nasty letter to the sols who cancelled the hceo and aranged a payment plan

 

on a 2k debt

 

how did you get the figure 52.50

[Nintendo Pü]

The law prescribing fees chargeable by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) for collecting unpaid debts the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004.

Where the sum due is £100 or less - 5%

On sums above £100 - 2.5%

[High Court Enforcer]

The law prescribing fees chargeable by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) for collecting unpaid debts the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004.

 

Where the sum due is £100 or less - 5%

On sums above £100 - 2.5%

 

What about a valuation fee of 5% when a levy is made and other fees applicable under Fee 12....

[High Court Enforcer]

The correct fee for collecting a £2000 debt is £52.50, how could that amount to £700?

 

[Guest DebtWeary]

Getting back to the regulations for a minute, I have just noticed something else.

 

Part 4, Section 13(2) says:

 

"Where the execution of a writ of fieri facias is completed by sale, fees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (1) and 7 under Schedule 3 may be levied by deducting them from the proceeds of sale."

 

Am I missing something here, but this reads to me that fees can only be levied if goods are seized and sold.

 

In other words, the HCEO only gets his money if he actually gets his hands on saleable goods belonging to the debtor and then sells them.

 

Also, Schedule 3 which lists the fee structure refers to "Percentage of amount recovered".

 

How can an HCEO calculate any sort of percentage anyway if no goods have actually been sold? Or even valued for that matter? Yet these charges appear on my financial statement.

 

Maybe it's just me being thick but this is the way the regulations read.

[postggj]

any comments hceo

 

interesting comment that

[ohitsonlyme]

Getting back to the regulations for a minute, I have just noticed something else.

 

Part 4, Section 13(2) says:

 

"Where the execution of a writ of fieri facias is completed by sale, fees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (1) and 7 under Schedule 3 may be levied by deducting them from the proceeds of sale."

 

Am I missing something here, but this reads to me that fees can only be levied if goods are seized and sold.

 

In other words, the HCEO only gets his money if he actually gets his hands on saleable goods belonging to the debtor and then sells them.

 

Also, Schedule 3 which lists the fee structure refers to "Percentage of amount recovered".

 

How can an HCEO calculate any sort of percentage anyway if no goods have actually been sold? Or even valued for that matter? Yet these charges appear on my financial statement.

 

Maybe it's just me being thick but this is the way the regulations read.

 

Looks like fraud to me see section 2 fraud act 2006:

 

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

2

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)

 

(i) to make a gain for himself or another

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it

(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device

designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without

human intervention).

.

Edited January 5, 2010 by ohitsonlyme

[Guest DebtWeary]

That's what it looks like to me, unless there is some legal trickery that is used to get around it.

 

Incidentally, I have been unable to access the HCEO Association website for a few days. Perhaps they are having to hastily re-write it!!

 

http://www.hceoa.org.uk/

[spamheed]

I should think it isn't fraud, how can an industry that is (as claimed by High School Musical) "indispensable" be guilty of operating fraudulently, or somehow knowlingly breaking the law?

 

Surely not, you must all be confused

[Nintendo Pü]

 

Incidentally, I have been unable to access the HCEO Association website for a few days. Perhaps they are having to hastily re-write it!!

 

http://www.hceoa.org.uk/

 

I wouldnt hold too much weight on what they tell you.

 

I could set up a Ltd company and trade it as, say, The Institite of High Court Enforcement Officers and stick a load of bovine fecial matter on its website.

 

There is no reason why anyone should treat a private website as fact. Always use an official source.

[Nintendo Pü]

That £600 includes court costs too. So the judgment may be £550 with costs of £60 for example.

 

Just to clarify, the judgment debt must include costs of the original judgement.

 

If the judgement and costs is £599, it cannot be transferred up by adding costs retrospectively to bring it over £600. The costs must be included in the original judgement document itself.

 

Its a myth that a transfer up service can take a £25 judement and add £675 costs to qualify it for transfer up.

[High Court Enforcer]

Just to clarify, the judgment debt must include costs of the original judgement.

 

If the judgement and costs is £599, it cannot be transferred up by adding costs retrospectively to bring it over £600. The costs must be included in the original judgement document itself.

 

Its a myth that a transfer up service can take a £25 judement and add £675 costs to qualify it for transfer up.

 

I never said that. If the judgment debt and the judgment costs (and assessed costs) amount to over £600 then it can be transfered up.

[ohitsonlyme]

HCE I have copied this from another post of mine so that I dont take that thread off track

can you help ??

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by High Court Enforcer

Nintendo Pu, under the order of a Writ of Fi Fa, the HCEO is comanded to seize in execution the goods, chattels and other property of the defendant and raise the judgment sums plus the HCEO's fees and charges.

 

Just like Happy C, you are misinforming the forum based on your limited legal knowledge.

 

HCE I can see maybe some positives in one or two of your posts and perhaps you can clarify a couple of things from your point of view and presumably from the legal position as seen by a hceo

 

When is a writ deemed to have been served on an individual does the individual have to have seen the writ or have been told about it to be cahrged fees by the hceo and at what point do fees start being incurred such as levy and valuation ?

 

regs say the max cost for the first visit is £50 (or mileage at 29 p) how can a first visit be justified at £150

I ask these questions of you in good faith as I want to learn how the law is interpretted from your side of the fence

 

onlyme

[ncf355]

Getting back to the regulations for a minute, I have just noticed something else.

 

Part 4, Section 13(2) says:

 

"Where the execution of a writ of fieri facias is completed by sale, fees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (1) and 7 under Schedule 3 may be levied by deducting them from the proceeds of sale."

 

Am I missing something here, but this reads to me that fees can only be levied if goods are seized and sold.

 

In other words, the HCEO only gets his money if he actually gets his hands on saleable goods belonging to the debtor and then sells them.

 

Also, Schedule 3 which lists the fee structure refers to "Percentage of amount recovered".

 

How can an HCEO calculate any sort of percentage anyway if no goods have actually been sold? Or even valued for that matter? Yet these charges appear on my financial statement.

 

Maybe it's just me being thick but this is the way the regulations read.

 

 

 

 

 

HCE -

 

Can you give your thoughts on this please?

[danboy381]

Folks, I have examined many high court writs, from several different companies. Not ONE had actually adhered to the Regs, and listed out fees in an understandable, clear, concise fashion.

 

Every hceo I have looked at relies on Rule 12 to bump up the fees. Fact. Also fact that they will never ever give a straight answer, as they are clinging desparatly onto a career that produces easy cash, and of course everyone wants to stay on the gravytrain. Fact.

[Nintendo Pü]

Its not that lucrative, marketing a transfer up service is expensive and there is no easy route to collate clients with ready-made CCJ's.

 

Even If an HCEO has 2 good cases a week, he could make a living on it with the current fee policy, but many HCEO's get far less because company directors & managers hog the cream of the work for themselves.

 

Too many bailiffs/HCEO's sharing too little work.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Nintendo Pü

[ncf355]

The problem I keep coming back to though is Fee 12 says nothing about the fees being REASONABLE, so effectively gives them carte blanche to charge what they like?