Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts *CONSULTATION*


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3084 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

This thread is now open for discussion.

Edited by citizenB

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposedenforcementcosts.jpg

 

 

 

 

Proposedenforcementcosts-common.jpg

 

multiquote_40b.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Life is fickle; the fair man doesn't invariably win. Mark Hodder, The Strange Affair of Spring Heeled Jack (Burton & Swinburne in), 2010

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...