What fees can a High Court Enforcement Officer charge if they are unable to levy on goods?

[sequenci]

We're having a bit of a discussion about this at work. Imagine a scenario where a HCEO cannot gain entry to property and not levy on goods.

 

What fees could they potentially apply to the debt?

 

Your thoughts please

[impecunious]

I'd be very interested to hear people's views on this one too!!

 

Impecunious!

[ploddertom]

Some of the fees they charge can be very imaginative. There is 1 company who appear to load all there fees before the HCEO has even left the Office. Some use an encompassing Notice of Seizure which appears to imply that they can and have seized all the debtors goods and make it seem as if the WPA has already been agreed to.

 

They charge HCEO Attendance Fee, Management fees, Arrangemnet fees for setting up payments etc. The majority of these fees come under the dreaded Miscellaneous which has attached to it:

"For any matter not otherwise provided for, such sum as a Master, district judge or costs judge may allow upon application."

 

This has caused many arguments on here as to the interpretation but in reality they can charge whateer they like and it is up to the debtor to challenge that fee. At a Fee Assessment some have been upheld and others thrown out.

 

So even if they can't gain access to get a levy the Bill can still run into £1000's. If the debtor has nothing then you can't get blood out of a stone and in most cases the account may be given back to the Creditor who will pay an abortive fee of approx £60 +VAT.

 

PT

[sequenci]

Here are the fees outlined with the regulations....

 

 

A. Fees chargeable on execution of writs of fieri facias

1. Percentage of amount recovered

For executing a writ of fieri facias, the following percentages of the amount recovered:

(a)on the first £100 5 per cent

(b)above £100 2.5 per cent

2. Mileage

Mileage from the enforcement officer’s business address to the place of execution and return, in respect of one journey to seize goods and, if appropriate, one journey to remove the goods

  29.2 pence per mile, up to a maximum of £50.00 in total

3. Seizure of goods

For each building or place at which goods are seized £2.00

4. Making enquiries or dealing with claims for rent or to the goods

(1) For making enquiries as to claims for rent or to goods, including giving notice to parties of any such claims a sum not exceeding £2.00

(2) For all expenses actually and reasonably incurred in relation to such work including any postage, telephone, fax and e-mail charges a further sum not exceeding £2.00

5. Taking possession, removal and storage of goods

(1) Where a person is left in physical possession of goods seized £3.00 per person per day

(2) Where an enforcement officer takes walking possession under a walking possession agreement in the form set out in Schedule 4 to these Regulations £0.25 per day

(Fees 5(1) and 5(2) are payable in respect of the day on which execution is levied, but fee 5(1) may not be charged where a walking possession agreement is signed at the time of levy. Fees 5(1) and 5(2) may not be charged after the goods have been removed.)

(3) For—

(a)the removal of goods;

(b)the storage of goods which have been removed; and

©where animals have been seized, their upkeep while in the custody of the enforcement officer, whether before or after removal  

  the sums actually and reasonably paid

6. Sale of goods by auction

(1) To cover the auctioneer’s commission and expenses, where goods are sold by auction or work has been done with a view to sale by auction:

(a)when goods are sold by auction on the auctioneer’s premises, the following percentages of the sum realised—

(i)on the first £100 15 per cent

(ii)on the next £900 12.5 per cent

(iii)above £1,000 10 per cent

(b)when goods are sold by auction on the debtor’s premises, 7.5 per cent of the sum realised plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred.

(2) When no sale takes place either by auction or private contract, but work has been done by the auctioneer or enforcement officer in preparing for a sale by auction, including the preparation of a detailed inventory of the goods seized—

(a)if the goods have been removed to the auctioneer’s premises, 10 per cent of the value of the goods;

(b)if the goods have not been removed from the debtor’s premises, 5 per cent of the value of the goods plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred.

7. Sale of goods by private contract

Where an enforcement officer sells goods by private contract—

(a)the following percentages of the proceeds of sale—

(i)on the first £100 7.5 per cent

(ii)on the next £900 6.25 per cent

(iii)above £1,000 5 per cent; and

(b)when work has been done in preparing for a sale by auction, including the preparation of a detailed inventory of the goods seized, an additional sum not exceeding 2.5 per cent of the value of the goods plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred.

B. Fees chargeable on executing writs of possession or delivery

8. Mileage

Mileage from the enforcement officer’s business address to the place of execution and return, in respect of one journey 29.2 pence per mile, up to a maximum of £25.00 in total

9. Writs of possession

(1) Where an enforcement officer executes a writ of possession of domestic property within the meaning of section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 F1 , 3 per cent of the net annual value for rating shown in the valuation list in force immediately before 1st April 1990 in respect of the property seized, subject to paragraph (3).

(2) Where an enforcement officer executes a writ of possession to which paragraph (1) does not apply, 0.4 per cent of the net annual value for rating of the property seized, subject to paragraph (4).

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), where the property does not consist of one or more hereditament which, immediately before 1st April 1990—

(a)had a separate net annual value for rating shown on the valuation list then in force; and

(b)was domestic property within the meaning of section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988,

the property or such part of it as does not so consist shall be taken to have had such a value for rating equal to two-fifteenths of its value by the year when seized.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (2), where the property does not consist of one or more hereditaments having a separate net annual value for rating, the property or such part of it as does not so consist shall be taken to have such a value equal to its value by the year when seized.

10. Writs of delivery

For executing a writ of delivery, 4 per cent of the value of the goods as stated in the writ or judgment.

C. General fees

11. Copies of returns

For a copy of any return indorsed by the enforcement officer on a writ of execution £5.00

12. Miscellaneous

For any matter not otherwise provided for, such sum as a Master, district judge or costs judge may allow upon application.

[sequenci]

What I'm trying to work out is which of these fees can be claimed if no levy can be made!

[impecunious]

An HCEO would possibly advocate that ALL the above is payable!!! :O) :O)

 

Oops sorry - mustn't tar all HCEOs with the same brush.

 

 

Impecunious!

 

I don't why know I'm laughing - I have an outstanding CCJ for over £26,500 that HCEOs might just try collecting!! BUT as PT says - you can't get blood out of a stone!

[Guest DebtWeary]

As one of a number of people here who have challenged such fees, most of which are charged under Rule 12 of the HCEO Regulations 2004, I have a quote here from an HCEO of one of the most infamous of such organisations which sums up their attitude well:

　

"You have maintained that you do not accept the explanation that has been provided of the fees charged pursuant to Fee C 12. Fee 12 provides for payment of a fee for any matter not provided for and such sum as a Master or District Judge MAY allow upon application. It is our position that it is not a prerequisite for that application to be made before the fee is charged and that position has been accepted on numerous occasions by Masters of the Queens Bench Division."

 

In other words, they charge whatever the hell they like, and from that quote it appears that Masters actually go along with this [problem], in spite of the very clear wording given in that regulation:

 

"For any matter not otherwise provided for, such sum as a Master, district judge or costs judge may allow upon application".

 

As PT has pointed out, this has been subject to a lot of debate here. Personally, I think they have absolutely no right to make these charges unless they have applied for them, as the rule states, so somewhere along the line they must have decided they could get away with doing things in reverse order, flouting the regulations.

 

It does not make sense to me that the debtor should be responsible for challenging these fees AFTER they have been charged, when the rule puts the responsibility onto the HCEO to justify them in advance of charging them, which would be right and fair.

[fork-it]

The answer is none. The creditor pays the fee upfront. I am a BTL landlord with a portfolio of properties specialising in low-income and student accommodation and I used to use HCEO's for collecting unpaid rent from absconding tenants. Nowadays I just sell debt and cut my losses.

[sequenci]

That's interesting fork-it, good to know! I wounder if Tomtubby would like to confirm that for us?

[ploddertom]

The answer is none. The creditor pays the fee upfront. I am a BTL landlord with a portfolio of properties specialising in low-income and student accommodation and I used to use HCEO's for collecting unpaid rent from absconding tenants. Nowadays I just sell debt and cut my losses.

 

That's interesting fork-it, good to know! I wounder if Tomtubby would like to confirm that for us?

 

The answer is only none if they cannot trace the debtor or otherwise fail to engage them. If someone battens down the hatches and will not allow the HCEO access then there is little that can be done. However it must be remembered that the majority of cases for HCEO's are business to business.

 

PT

[High Court Enforcer]

The answer is none. The creditor pays the fee upfront.

 

You shouldnt be paying up front....

 

Yes, the HCEO will charge an abortive if they cannot enforce the matter. You would also be liable for their fees if you did a deal with the claimant and called them off.

 

But, as above, you really shouldnt be paying up front....

[fork-it]

I also had to pay a charge up fee £50 aswell.

 

To be honest, I dont have any confidence in HCEO's for collect unpaid rents. Its always nulla bonas, gone aways and skint. Its much easier to sell debts at 50% with the tenancy agreement to a debt collector, they can trace debtors, apply attachment orders and use inhouse bailiffs to seize vehicles without me attending court and faffing around with county courts and all that malarkey.

[ploddertom]

I also had to pay a charge up fee £50 aswell.

 

To be honest, I dont have any confidence in HCEO's for collect unpaid rents. Its always nulla bonas, gone aways and skint. Its much easier to sell debts at 50% with the tenancy agreement to a debt collector, they can trace debtors, apply attachment orders and use inhouse bailiffs to seize vehicles without me attending court and faffing around with county courts and all that malarkey.

 

I would have thought it stood to reason that if someone can't pay their rent then to try and enforce it through use of Bailiffs or HCEO would result in failure. Better off in my view of researching prospective tenants properly.

 

The £50 you pay is a Court fee.

 

PT

[fork-it]

Its not really my place to detail how tenant screening works, but the majority of my rental accommodation portfolio is built for low-income market. I cant make significant earnings renting up-market, luxury properties or spanish holiday accommodation. I accept trading in high risk sector properties I factor in a risk that tenants will abscond. Its also how I come to be on the receiving end of bailiffs and to a lesser extent High court officers, most of the time its amicable, sometimes I get a shirty bailiff, one even turned up with a mobile crane and lifted a neighbours car in broad daylight! - it was a "Passport" finance Peugeot, the bailiff ended up paying lots of money for his stupidity when he took it to a dealership claming he is the owner and tried to get it remobilised, Peugeot seized the car, funny as fcuk!

[Fair&Balanced]

What I'm trying to work out is which of these fees can be claimed if no levy can be made!

 

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).

[High Court Enforcer]

Some use an encompassing Notice of Seizure which appears to imply that they can and have seized all the debtors goods

 

The Notice of Seizure is a prescribed form the wording of which is not up for editing. All HCEO's should be using this form, the first paragraphs of which state:

 

 

"A formal seizure of the goods at the above address has been made under a Writ of Execution directed to an Enforcement Officer by the High Court. The Enforcement Officer accordingly has conduct of the execution. The goods seized are now in the custody of the Enforcement Officer, authorised to enforce writs of execution from the High Court, and must not be removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. This will remain the position until the sum due under the execution has been paid in full".

[fork-it]

 

WITHOUT ANY SEIZURE AT ALL THERE CAN BE NO POUNDAGE (Nash v Dickenson[1877] 2 CP 252).

 

this explains why they take their fee upfront from the creditor.

[High Court Enforcer]

this explains why they take their fee upfront from the creditor.

 

I am not personally aware of any HCEO that takes a fee up front from the creditor.

 

Can you justify your claim and name the company concerned?

[fork-it]

Maston.

[High Court Enforcer]

Maston.

 

Well, that's not correct procedure, I can only assume there is more to it than that?

 

Completely up to you (me being the enemy and all that), but if you give me the details I am more than happy to advise.

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

[fork-it]

You are saying the right things, I remember a fixed 50 fee for each case, plus other items, communicaton on case progress, or lack of it was at best, limited. I ended up losing nearly everytime and I was better off selling the debt on and cutting my losses early, recovery rates then increased enabling me to ask higher purchase prices. Using a county court bailiff at CCJ stage invoked the 'nothing to take' comeback, not even a written confirmation. It gave me no confidence in the CCJ and high court bailiff system.

[ohitsonlyme]

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).

 

 

Hmmmm

Iwas the victim(oops) defendant in a high court writ being issued to an HCEo Sheerfarce who went on to charge me for

A a levy that didnt take place (and associated fees)

b A valuation that couldnt have happened

C an initital visit fee of £175

D An admin fee Of £175

E A financial mangement fee of £160

F Debtor services fee of £60

G A second visit fee of £175

H plus all of the % of amount recovered fees

There was only one visit

No seizure

I paid the whole amount including all of the fees within 10 days of my knowledge of the HCEO being involved and the telephone calls were made by me not them!!

 

Needless to say I have already had the fees reduced by the high court

but they are still wrong so I am awaiting appeal

 

What do you think I should have paid the HCEO

 

Onlyme

[danboy381]

the answer is f*ck all only me, you should have called the Police and they should have arrested the hceo for fraud and theft, and the court should have had him locked up. for a long time.

 

In addition, the Police should have turned his domestic residence upside down looking for, and seizing all goods in connection with the proceeds of crime act, because there would be a possibility that he has done this time and time again. This is what should happen to all hceos/bailiffs that can't help but steal.

[fork-it]

I think the police are trained to discregard reports of a crime committed by bailiffs, and log the report as a civil incident and not as crime.

 

The fees do look well and truly cooked up, never seen any HCEO charging my debtors anything remotely like this , unless its been concealed from me. If you dont get police cooperation and still have the original document showing those fees, try BBC watchdog, and call your local newspaper and ask for the photographer to visit you and ask the local Police community liason officer to comment on the police position. The photographer will come round take a photo of you holding the document outside your premises and splash a screenshot of the document, its fills a free rag cheaply and quickly and they will ask police for comment for publication. then, Have a look at the fraud act and the house of lords, theres a thread about it on here saying anyone charging for work not done commits a crime under the fraud act. you might want to work with the locla journalist and publish the HofL ruling. Go careful though, local papers arent keen to upset relations with local police, esp if they are being asked to print facts that could discredit a community liason officer.