Freedom of Information Act Request. Does HMCS officially acknowledge bailiffs are increasing defendants court fines?

[tomtubby]

As many people on here may be aware, I have a copy of the Contracts between HMCS and the relevant private enforcement companies in relation to unpaid COURT FINES. For the avoidance of doubt, these are mainly: unpaid TV licence, driving a car without insurance, tax or MOT, speeding etc etc.

Included in my documents ( which were provided under an FOI request) are the following:

Invitation to Tender (36 pages )

Conditions of Contract ( 24 pages)

Specification for the Provision of Private Enforcement Services (138 pages)

Schedule of Fees, Charges and Expenses for all 4 companies ( 3 pages for each company)

Having looked at ALL pages of all documents above, I can find only ONE reference to a "Civilian Enforcement Officer" all other references are to "The Contractor".

The paragraph in question states as follows;

Civilian Enforcement Officers will remain an integral part of enforcement. They will continue to primarily execute arrest and community penalty breach warrants.

[brassnecked]

So it looks like in the absence of any concrete facts in the leaflet that each court makes it up as they go along, in interpreting the contact that sets out monies the bailiff firm can retain before handing any balance to the court.

 

Not much profit in it for Marstons et al if they are collecting an overdue balance of a fiver for a non payment of TV licence fine is there?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

In this case it appears that the Courts are refusing to answer which in my view is not conducive to the public good.

 

Why?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

So it looks like in the absence of any concrete facts in the leaflet that each court makes it up as they go along, in interpreting the contact that sets out monies the bailiff firm can retain before handing any balance to the court.

 

Not much profit in it for Marstons et al if they are collecting an overdue balance of a fiver for a non payment of TV licence fine is there?

 

Court fines and any penalty issued by a government departnemt including the BBC DVLA and Transport for London et-al, also counts a court fine - they are processed through a Magistrates Court. Thus, no bailiffs fees are due from the defenants.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

For the year 2008/9 the number of warrants issued to Civilian Enforcement Agents was approx 484,000 and private enforcement agents were issued with approx 600,000 warrants

 

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source? or what government deartment you made your FOI request to. This would help place a value of the case notes, bailiff documents, video evidence I am holding along with my findings, if they were to be made available to auction.

[tomtubby]

As many people on here may be aware, I have a copy of the Contracts between HMCS and the relevant private enforcement companies in relation to unpaid COURT FINES. For the avoidance of doubt, these are mainly: unpaid TV licence, driving a car without insurance, tax or MOT, speeding etc etc.

 

Included in my documents ( which were provided under an FOI request) are the following:

 

Invitation to Tender (36 pages)

 

Conditions of Contract (24 pages)

 

Specification for the Provision of Private Enforcement Services (138 pages)

 

Schedule of Fees, Charges and Expenses for all 4 companies (3 pages for each company)

 

Having looked at ALL pages of all documents above, I can find only ONE reference to a "Civilian Enforcement Officer" all other references are to "The Contractor".

 

The paragraph in question states as follows;

 

Civilian enforcement officers will remain an integral part of enforcement. They will continue to primarily execute arrest and community penalty breach warrants.

 

 

In this entire thread you have been relying upon the Contract that you say that you have a copy of. You have said in post 23 that “The Contract does use the expression Civilian Enforcement Officer”

 

I have provided above details of all the documents that I have and so far, I can see only one reference ONLY to a Civilian Enforcement Officer.

Where in the Contract that you have does it refer to Civilian Enforcement Officers?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Having looked at ALL pages of all documents above, I can find only ONE reference to a "Civilian Enforcement Officer" all other references are to "The Contractor".

 

 

My copy is a 2007 contract and it says similar as yours except the wording is - ......Civilian Enforcement Officer hereinafter referred to as "The Contractor".

 

Under my understanding of simple English, that describes Philips and Marston to be contracted to work as a Civillian Enforcement Officer on behalf of HMCTS.

 

Does anyone else agree?

[tomtubby]

It would appear that you have been relying upon an OLD contract.

 

In relation to the CURRENT contract the following dates would assist you if you are wanting to make an FOI request:

 

Invitations to Tender were sent on 8th December 2008

 

The Provisional Bidders Conference started during the week of 19th Janaury 2009

 

Tender return date was 30th Janaury 2009

 

Preferred Bidders announced on 8th April 2009 and finally, the Contracts were signed on 1st August 2009

[tomtubby]

Court fines and any penalty issued by a government department including the BBC DVLA and Transport for London et-al, also counts a court fine - they are processed through a Magistrates Court. Thus, no bailiffs fees are due from the defendants.

Transport for London run the congestion charging scheme and ANY parking charge notice issued by them are NOT processed through a Magistrates Court. They go through the Traffic Enforcement Centre which is part of the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre. They are therefore civil debts and NOT criminal FINES.

The ONLY debts relating to Transport for London that would go through the Magistrates Court would relate to cases where a person travelled on one of their trains without purchasing a ticket.

[tomtubby]

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source? or what government department you made your FOI request to.

Number of Civilian Enforcment Officers employed by HMCS can be found here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-10-19a.141.0&s=%22civilian+enforcement+officers%22#g141.2

[tomtubby]

Sorry

Made an error.

Edited January 6, 2012 by tomtubby

[Guest Happy Contrails]

It would appear that you have been relying upon an OLD contract.

 

To keep things on topic. This thread not about the tender schedule. Its all about defendants being forced to pay bailiffs (- or in HMCTS parlance - Civilian Enforcement Officers) fees of £75 & £200.

 

Where does it state in your version of the contract, the defendant is liable for the £75 + £200 fees?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source? or what government department you made your FOI request to.

 

Number of Civilian Enforcment Officers employed by HMCS can be found here:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-10-19a.141.0&s=%22civilian+enforcement+officers%22#g141.2

 

This thread is nothing to do with how many CEO's are employed by HMCTS. It does not answer the question:

 

which is:

 

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source?

[tomtubby]

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source? or what government department you made your FOI request to.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-07-14b.7008.h&s=%22civilian+enforcement+officers%22#g7008.r0

[Guest Happy Contrails]

tomtubby, you have quoted some interesting numbers - 484,000 and 600,000 warrants executed, Can you tell me your source? or what government department you made your FOI request to.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-07-14b.7008.h&s=%22civilian+enforcement+officers%22#g7008.r0

 

 

 

I found it. Its a copy & paste from here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/text/100714w0004.htm

 

I'll get a FOI on its way and get the latest figures, and ask to disregard the warrants executed inhouse. We already know that defedants receiving an inhouse CEO were not charged £75 + £200 on top of the fine.

[tomtubby]

In your post number 21 you stated that a change had been made to the leaflet issued by HMCS and that this provides that CIVILIAN ENFORECEMENT AGENTS cannot charge fees.

I hope that I have demonstrated to you that the Contract with HMCS and the 4 private enforcement agents that I have a copy of does NOT state that these “bailiffs” are CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS.

I also hope I cleared up the fact that you had been relying upon an OLD contract from 2007 when the one that is current took effect from September 2009.

I have also demonstrated to you that of the warrants issued by the Magistrates Court approx 50% are sent to private contractors such as Philips/Marston Group are the remainder are enforced by the Magistrates Court in house CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

 

On the matter as to the basis of charging £75 and £200, with respect, this was NOT what you were raising in post 21.

[nohope]

So does it state anywhere that they can charge £75-£200 and more of there own back?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

On the matter as to the basis of charging £75 and £200, with respect, this was NOT what you were raising in post 21.

 

My post 21 contains a link to an official source that clearly and unambiguously says the defendant is not liable to pay £75-£200 fees.

 

Also, it does not differentiate whether the bailiff is employed or a contractor, or whatever name or job description the bailiff is given. Thats because, to the defendant, it doesnt matter.

 

Its exactly the same as council tax and parking tickets, in these cases, the fees are prescribed, and do not change just because the bailiff is a contractor and not a council employee.

[nohope]

Where about in the link does it state that they can not charge those fees as all i can see is

 

What is the cost to me?

Certificated bailiffs are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe. If you think that the fees charged by a certificated bailiff are unreasonable, you can apply to the county court for a detailed assessment of the fees. This means that a district judge will decide if the fees you have been charged are reasonable or not. Detailed assessment applies where the fee scale does not set a fixed charge.

[tomtubby]

You are confusing Approved Enforcement Agents ( the official term) for those bailiffs enforcing unpaid COURT FINES with CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS who are employees of HMCS.

 

The link that you have posted in your post number 21 clearly shows that a CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENT cannot charge fees. What the link does NOT say is that the defendant is not liable to pay £75 or £200.

 

The link that you are constantly referring to is ONLY applicable to those warrants enforced by enforcment agents employed by the Court. As I have also indicated, these CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS primararily execute arrest and community breach warrants.

 

Also, the link does differentiate what type of bailiff it is referring to.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I also hope I cleared up the fact that you had been relying upon an OLD contract from 2007 when the one that is current took effect from September 2009.

 

I have asked for an up to date contract.

 

Meanwhile, from your copy of the contract, where does it say the bailiff can add £75+£200 to the amount the defendant has been fined?

 

HMCTS will not acknowledge bailiffs are charging defendants £75+£200 when there is lots of evidence they are.

 

Philips stuck their foot in it when they were caught charging fees, and I challenged them, they said (actual words)

 

Under the said Warrant, Philips may recover the Fine as issued by the relevant Magistrates’ Court together with Philips’ costs associated with executing the said Warrant, we may recover our costs/fees under a Warrant of Distress.

 

With permission of the defendant, I approached the Court Manager and obtained a copy of the warrant. It had nothing about recovering costs/fees. The money paid was promptly refunded and put it down to a one-off mistake.

 

Since then I have obtained corroborated evidence Philips and Marston continue the practice of charging defendants £275, and I am now in the process of capturing more doorstep cases live on video with volunteer defendants.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

You are confusing Approved Enforcement Agents ( the official term) for those bailiffs enforcing unpaid COURT FINES with CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS who are employees of HMCS.

 

The link that you have posted in your post number 21 clearly shows that a CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENT cannot charge fees. What the link does NOT say is that the defendant is not liable to pay £75 or £200.

 

The link that you are constantly referring to is ONLY applicable to those warrants enforced by enforcment agents employed by the Court. As I have also indicated, these CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS primararily execute arrest and community breach warrants.

 

Also, the link does differentiate what type of bailiff it is referring to.

 

So, lets get this clear without going off topic again.

 

The bailiffs job description is what enables him to charge a defendant £275?

 

If that is true, why is HMCTS stonewalling the question.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Where about in the link does it state that they can not charge those fees as all i can see is

 

What is the cost to me?

Certificated bailiffs are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe. If you think that the fees charged by a certificated bailiff are unreasonable, you can apply to the county court for a detailed assessment of the fees. This means that a district judge will decide if the fees you have been charged are reasonable or not. Detailed assessment applies where the fee scale does not set a fixed charge.

 

This is for unpaid council tax and parking tickets etc, the legislation enables a certificated bailiff to charge 'reasonabe costs' for additional work he has done which is in addition to the statutory fees.

 

Distress Warrants for unaid court fines is a legal process under Section 76 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which, does not provide for bailiffs to charge costs to a defendant on top of the fine - it only provides for recovering the fine.

[hallowitch]

have a look at this its from 2006

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/inforeleased/ir061124.pdf

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Bit out of date, the £25/£75 fees are now £75/£200.