Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts *CONSULTATION*

[MARTIN3030]

This thread is now open for discussion.

Edited March 12, 2012 by citizenB

[tomtubby]

The following is a copy of the proposed fee scale as outlined in paragraph 126 of the Consultation paper and the 2nd category of fees relate to the enforcement of CCJ's that have been transferred to a High Court Enforcement company.

 

The Consultation confirm that the most common complaints about bailiffs is the tees they charge and that the current costs regime is "complex" and that the cost structures "lack clarity" and are "difficult to interpret".They also state that in "some instances" the fees do not provide adequate remuneration (for the bailiff company) and that this makes the current charging process "open to abuse".

 

To deal with these problems the government intends to invoke paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 of the TCE Act which they consider will provide"transparency, consistency and proportionality”

 

In reaching a proposed fee scale, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the services of an external consultant (Alexander Dehayen) who spent a considerable amount of time visiting enforcement companies and working with them to develop a sensible fee scale. The Consultation Paper provides a copy of the Mr Dehayen’s report.

 

One point that needs to be made here is that Mr Dehayen carried out this exercise during 2009 and furthermore, it is based on data from only a “small sample of firms” and for this reason; MOJ have confirmed in their Consultation that they are seeking further data during the consultation process to address this. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that during this consultation period, enforcement companies will no doubt be trying to convince the Ministry of Justice that the proposed fees (as outlined below) are outdated and need to be INCREASED!!!!

 

It is for this reason, that the views of the public are vitally important.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tomtubby]

As can be seen from the above, the proposed fee scale is significantly increased for the enforcement of a writ by a High Court Enforcement company. Personally, I have serious concerns at this.

How can it be possible that if goods are actually sold by an HCEO that the fee can be £510 which is almost 5 times the amount being proposed for all other enforcement companies !!!

Furthermore, by allowing such an excessive fee to be charged, it is patently obvious that an HCEO would be encouraged to sell goods as this is where he would be able to generate the most fees!!

[tomtubby]

The Consultation Paper on the proposed reform of the bailiff industry consists of 203 pages !!!!

In the following Newsletter that I have written for Consumer Action Group I have provided an outline of the important parts of the Consultation.

From reading the Newsletter you will see that I have made reference to the proposed changes outlined in Chapter 9 of the Consultation where views are sought from the public regarding plans to allow ALL county court judgments (irrespective) of the amount ....to be enforced by an HCEO !!!!!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/content.php?857-Newsletter-March-2012-Special-Focus-Edition-MOJ

[ploddertom]

If there is to be real change then the HCEO should be scrapped altogether. How can it be different for one person to attend Mr X to collect for unpaid CT/NNDR or a PCN yet if he attends as an HCEO he can charge 5 times a s much. After all his shoe leather costs the same, his motoring costs the same and at the end of the day Mr X is going to say .... O.F. In my view one Enforcement Officer should encompass all and be properly trained. That way greedy and obsessive companies that we have seen on here can be put out to grass.

 

PT

[nohope]

And for them to charge so much they would need to take your house to auction to make there money and leave the tv's and the car behind on an empty bit of land.

[brassnecked]

It begs the question, would they take away and sell, a number of low value items that wouldn't even cover the new fee, just to apply it?

[Deadwood]

One thing to bear in mind with these new proposals is that the new version of High Court enforcement is very recent and far from being "unclear", "complex" and "difficult to interpret", the regulations and charges are actually very clear. The problem is that the HCEO companies are abusing the system in several ways in order to generate income for themselves, sometimes to the detriment of the judgement creditor. A Fi Fa application will becomes a vehicle for the enrichment of HCEO's rather than a means of settling debts. The High Court know this but no legal precedent has been set to put the situation straight, HCEO enforcement has turned into another feeding trough of the corrupt and expensive legal system. The problem is that overcharging of costs by solicitors and by extension bailiffs and HCEO's, is routine and accepted, it's up to the other side to argue over costs, something which most debtors will find very difficult to do or even understand. I believe that judges (ie lawyers) and the legal system in general think that debtors that don't pay their judgements are **** and are basically thrown to the wolves.

 

So rather than rip up the existing charges and rules, "enforcement" and regulation of the existing rules would be better. The Fi Fa limit does obviously need to increase dramatically.

[Badbunny]

I am no expert on these matters but I would question the administration costs. Surely it should be in line with other administration costs such as banks charges for default? and not punitive? administration is something that has to be done anyway so it shouldn't be a profit making exercise merely recoup of actual cost...

[Deadwood]

I am no expert on these matters but I would question the administration costs. Surely it should be in line with other administration costs such as banks charges for default? and not punitive? administration is something that has to be done anyway so it shouldn't be a profit making exercise merely recoup of actual cost...

 

There are two basic elements to HCEO bills, the scale fees as set out in the regulations and the extra amounts they add under section 12 as costs allowable by a High Court Master. The charges set out in the regulations are often inflated by charging for work not actually done, appropriate or necessary. Then charges for all sorts of other things are added on re section 12 and they will add on/make up pretty much anything they want to. The problem is that HCEO's are officers of the court and the rules on costs mean you have to pay whatever costs they say unless they are assessed and in the interim they can continue to enforce as they please.

 

Regulation outside the court system will be resisted by many in the legal system because it is the ultimate arbiter, the problem is that the court process is difficult and expensive. In my experience HCEO's will mislead debtors about almost the whole process including their own powers, debtors rights and how to challenge the process. HCEO's routinely ignore data protection (and court) rules on disclosure which makes examination of their costs and evidence very difficult.

[tomtubby]

To have a CCJ enforced by way of a High Court Enforcement Officer all that is needed is to have a CCJ for £600 or over. This "minimal" amount was many years ago and at the time, it was considered that this type of enforcement would be in respect of debts owed by large business etc. Now...the amount of £600 is affecting debtors who are on benefits etc and appeared to be the "preferred" option for the likes of Southern Water etc.

 

As far as I am concerned, the qualifying amount before the debt can be enforced by a High Court Enforcement company should be SIGNIFICANTLY increased to approx £5,000.

[nohope]

As far as I am concerned, the qualifying amount before the debt can be enforced by a High Court Enforcement company should be SIGNIFICANTLY increased to approx £5,000.

 

I sort of agree with you there but then people would be inclined to let debts stagnate for longer then get hit with bigger debts and higher fees as the amount they would try and get away with on £5,000 would be stupid. So it mite help in one way but end up being a killer in another in the long run.

[brassnecked]

I sort of agree with you there but then people would be inclined to let debts stagnate for longer then get hit with bigger debts and higher fees as the amount they would try and get away with on £5,000 would be stupid. So it mite help in one way but end up being a killer in another in the long run.

 

Your point has merit, but when the £600 was set it would buy what would need around £6000 today, and as has been illustrated on threads in this very forum, certain companies SW, are setting HCEOS and their fees on low paid debtors, such as people on benefits, where the fees of HCEOs can quadruple the debt or worse, so It's minimum £10k for me. We need debt to be affordable to repay, not punitive charges on people who because of losing their job, or becoming disabled and unable to earn their original salary, cannot afford to repay at the same rate.

[nohope]

I spose like everything it should be raised with inflation, as you say, living is higher now so raising it would make sense. Its just finding a happy cut of point thats not going to cause more problems in the long run..

[chazzo125]

I am very concerned at the level at which debts may be passed to the High Court and thus incur much higher fees.

 

Even £25,000 debt is a comparatively small sum for a personal debt and a tiny sum for a business debt (being less than an average salary) .

 

In this day and age it would not be too much to set at least a £35,000 limit for a personal debt to pass to the High Court and £55,000 before a business debt is so referred.

 

The fees scales, especially for bailiffs take no account of a person's ability to pay and may lead to very unnecessary bankruptcy proceedings for many very poor people.

 

If the court fees are set too high, there is no incentive whatsoever for courts to refer most debts other than enforceable fines/ tax cases to bailiffs as it will be immediately apparent to the courts that the plaintiffs will have no means or property to settle debts/fees that they are already very seriously struggling with.

 

I am most concerned to hear about cases where vehicles are seized and thus employment lost, except where there is willful refusal to pay taxes.

[tomtubby]

Chazzo 125

 

Your query is very well founded indeed and it is presicly for this reaosn that I am PLEASED to see that under the Consulation there is a Paragraph 70 which provides the following:

 

70 Power of High Court to stay execution

(1) If, at any time, the High Court is satisfied that a party to

proceedings is unable to pay—

(a) a sum recovered against him (by way of satisfaction of

the claim or counterclaim in the proceedings or by way

of costs or otherwise), or

(b) any instalment of such a sum,

the court may stay the execution of any writ of control issued in the

proceedings, for whatever period and on whatever terms it thinks fit.

[Karada_uk]

Firstly, I think that there should be proper procedure in issuing High Court Enforcement Orders with notification from the Court and the option to present a case before the Court before Bailiffs are allowed to take action.

2. Bailiff fees are excessive. To reduce this, a local Bailiff should always be used. I have recently had a problem with South East Water and we went to the County Court and presented the case that as an old age pensioner I was happy to pay on reasonable installments. South East Water had refused to set up a Direct Debit for payment on three separate occasions as there were arrears on the account which they insisted had to be brought up to date first. Agreement was reached with their solicitor, account details were provided, they didn't take any payments and Marston's arrived on the doorstep with a High Court Enforcement Order - a scrappy photocopy on their letterhead. Was this even a genuine Order? At any rate they had come down from the West Midlands to Surrey in a car and two vans and added a huge charge to the outstanding balance, and they were unable to take anything away as I had an agreement in writing that SEWater would accept a monthly payment..

3. I understand that where things like Council Tax are involved, Bailiffs can be instructed at a flat fee of £28.50 for a first visit and £18 for a subsequent visit. Other charges for removal of goods, and sale are also controlled. Why should High Court Bailiffs be any different when they are dealing with similar size debts?

4. In the revision to the Consumer Credit Act, I believe that loans of up to £500,000 are now covered. Should it not be the case that the High Court Enforcement should only apply to debts above that amount to bring the various regulations into line. The County Court is perfectly capable of dealing with cases that involve a lesser amount.

5. The other thing that I hope will end is that Bailiffs charge a fee for accepting payments by Debit Card. Since last June it has been against EU law to charge a fee on Debit Card payments.

6. I see no logic for having a sliding scale or charges as a percentage of the debt. The work that a bailiff has to do is much the same regardless of the size of the debt.

I would say a flat fee for a first visit. If they have to attend a second time then a further flat fee plus an allowance for additional vehicles. No bailiffs should be employed if they are located more than 35 miles from the defendant's location to minimise expenses.

[old bill]

There is far too much abuse by creditors. Any bailiff's fees should be loaded on the creditor and should be "up front". There should also be statutory sanctions introduced against creditors who frequently and repeatedly target and bully "can't pay" debtors. Denying them access to the legal system is one way. However, it would need a change in the law and a provision to stop any sanctioned creditor from assigning or selling a debt on to get round this. A lot of the problem can be apportioned to creditors acting unreasonably and, in some cases, unlawfully.