What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

[outlawla]

....I think that fee's are unavoidable, but if operating under the umbrella of for example, the MOJ can be standardised and afforded a level of transparency.

 

The fee's imposed by the system of private bailiff companies is motivated by profit only, remove the motive of profit and things will change.

 

 

I agree, but what is the Ministry of Justice if not a Department primarily in place to turn round a profit?

[mortyarty]

I agree, but what is the Ministry of Justice if not a Department primarily in place to turn round a profit?

 

True - but would it be a fairer, more transparent profit than the current system?

 

Having learnt the hard way when dealing with both bailiffs HCEO's I would rather that my fee went into the government system rather than feeding the bank accounts of the private bailiffs - best of two evils you may think!

[TheOrganist37]

With the Government due to announce its findings in the Bailiff Consultation soon, what do you think is a sensible charge for attending an address for:

 

(a) a Certificated Bailiff collecting Council Tax / Parking Fines

 

(b) a High Court Enforcement Officer collecting unpaid judgments

 

Consideration should be taken into account for costs of the bailiff(s), transport, time and the running of the business (back office).

 

 

5% on the money recovered min £50

 

Distance travelled not counted. If the job is too far away then give it to a local tradesman to execute.

 

Cost of management of debtors goods. The receipted sum paid to the auction company plus 30p a mile from debtors postcode to auction company postcode taking the shortest road route.

[outlawla]

One question:

 

5% on the money recovered min £50 (paid by the debtor or council?)

 

Distance travelled not counted. If the job is too far away then give it to a local tradesman to execute.

 

Cost of management of debtors goods. The receipted sum paid to the auction company plus 30p a mile from debtors postcode to auction company postcode taking the shortest road route.

[TheOrganist37]

The debtor.

[outlawla]

The debtor.

 

I asked because commission based payments are traditionally borne by the client. If it was also the case in these operations it would be in the authority's interest to curb unnecessarily instructing bailiffs like they do presently, as it will be taxpayers money at stake.

Edited November 28, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

I asked because commission based payments are traditionally borne by the client. If it was also the case in these operations it would be in the authority's interest to curb unnecessarily instructing bailiffs like they do presently, as it will be taxpayers money at stake.

 

exactly outlawla, if the debtor cannot afford the original bill; how are they going to afford the fees added also?

[lamma]

"They would recieve a wage in line with other civil servants, and be publicly accountable for their behaviour." Such accountability would perhaps be unique within the civil service.

[TheOrganist37]

If the debtor cannot afford the original bill then there are no fees because its based on % amount recovered.

 

Having a % system paid on result would ensure local councils and other creditors to use better dilligence whether bailiffs is appropriate action for the debtors circumstances.

 

The police are quick to nick a taxi driver for driving 35 in a 30 with three points and £90 fine, but its allright to overcharge a struggling single mum hundreds for having council tax arrears. So I also agree it should be an offence to charge a debtor more than the law allows.

 

A single fee schedule in post 28 should apply to all debts recovered and not just council tax and HCEO.

[Jamesx81x]

If you have an original fine of £80 for example, how a bailiff company can justify charging visit fees of £100-£110 which is more than the the debt they are claiming is beyond me.

 

Are bailiffs saying it costs them £100 to come and knock on your door, 80% of the time doing nothing more than that?

[wonkeydonkey]

It would appear HCEO's has left the building...no doubt due to our posts not fitting in with what they wanted to hear???

[ims21]

It would appear HCEO's has left the building...no doubt due to our posts not fitting in with what they wanted to hear???

 

Exactly what I was thinking WD.

 

He was here reading the thread this morning but since then, zippo.

 

The whole grubby bailiff industry needs to clean itself up, act within the law, stop the intimidation and adhere to the charging rules laid down.

 

A bizarre question to ask in the first place in my opinion

[HCEOs]

This was always going to be an emotive subject and as expected not one of you has mentioned the creditor in this thread.

 

To answer one of your questions, we expect to make 10% profit but have found this difficult in recent years. Many others trade at less than this, some break even, some at a loss.

 

It appears from the current postings that many have little understanding of the true costs of running such a company. Office space, systems and staff all come at considerable cost. I can assure your the 'bailiff' is only getting a small part of the fee charged for attending due to these costs.

 

Many enforcement officers also have to work in twos for their own safety also meaning the 'attendance fee' is diluted further.

 

The recent consultation has suggested initial visit fees of £230 for a Certificated Bailiff (CT/NNDR/Parking) and £185 for an HCEO (Both plus 20% Vat of course). This is after the initial £75 letter fee.

 

I feel that these fees are a sensible way forward and standardisation can only make things clearer for everybody.

[HCEOs]

Unfortunately WD I can't be a CAG's beck and call due to work commitments.

 

I'm here to stay providing the powers that be let me. As I said, surely dialogue is the way forward, whether we all agree or not.

[lamma]

But a certificated bailiff is not acting as a certificated bailiff when enforcing CPE parking tickets, he/she acting is merely in the capacity of a private bailiff and no more than that. Why on earth should a private bailiff get the same fees ? More so as in CPE matters when the vast majority of the back office function and costs etc are carried by the council and not be the bailiff. Except of course where the council has outsourced a lot of the work to the bailiff company. in which case the bailiff company has already been paid for it. Double dipping perhaps ?

[HCEOs]

Exactly what I was thinking WD.

 

He was here reading the thread this morning but since then, zippo.

 

The whole grubby bailiff industry needs to clean itself up, act within the law, stop the intimidation and adhere to the charging rules laid down.

 

A bizarre question to ask in the first place in my opinion

 

As part of the site team it's a shame you have to act like this.

[ims21]

Well I'm sorry if you are offended.

 

Lets stick with this bit then

 

The whole grubby bailiff industry needs to clean itself up, act within the law, stop the intimidation and adhere to the charging rules laid down.

[outlawla]

This was always going to be an emotive subject and as expected not one of you has mentioned the creditor in this thread.

 

To answer one of your questions, we expect to make 10% profit but have found this difficult in recent years. Many others trade at less than this, some break even, some at a loss.

 

It appears from the current postings that many have little understanding of the true costs of running such a company. Office space, systems and staff all come at considerable cost. I can assure your the 'bailiff' is only getting a small part of the fee charged for attending due to these costs.

 

Many enforcement officers also have to work in twos for their own safety also meaning the 'attendance fee' is diluted further.

 

The recent consultation has suggested initial visit fees of £230 for a Certificated Bailiff (CT/NNDR/Parking) and £185 for an HCEO (Both plus 20% Vat of course). This is after the initial £75 letter fee.

 

I feel that these fees are a sensible way forward and standardisation can only make things clearer for everybody.

 

 

The fees and charges (at least for council tax) were never intended for private companies to make a profit out of. They are the council's fess and charges, handed to bailiff firms to do whatever they can with to make them profitable; and we all know how they manage to do that.

 

Expenditure for private companies was never costed into the statutory fee scale for in-house enforcement because council offices, employees, vehicles etc. etc., exist as part of the organisation in any event. This is what the fees & charges were divised for (in-house enforcement).

 

This sort of enforcement should never have been outsourced for private companies to make profits from.

Edited November 29, 2012 by outlawla

[HCEOs]

Interesting point outlawla. I know that the economist brought in by the DCA used a mathematical model that he said would produce a 10% profit margin. I think this was in 2008.

[lamma]

Now the ad hominem stuff is over we can stop being sidetracked get back to the matter in hand. Any response to this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?374208-What-is-a-realistic-charge-for-a-bailiff-attendance&p=4063951&viewfull=1#post4063951

[Jamesx81x]

This was always going to be an emotive subject and as expected not one of you has mentioned the creditor in this thread.

 

To answer one of your questions, we expect to make 10% profit but have found this difficult in recent years. Many others trade at less than this, some break even, some at a loss.

 

It appears from the current postings that many have little understanding of the true costs of running such a company. Office space, systems and staff all come at considerable cost. I can assure your the 'bailiff' is only getting a small part of the fee charged for attending due to these costs.

 

Many enforcement officers also have to work in twos for their own safety also meaning the 'attendance fee' is diluted further.

 

The recent consultation has suggested initial visit fees of £230 for a Certificated Bailiff (CT/NNDR/Parking) and £185 for an HCEO (Both plus 20% Vat of course). This is after the initial £75 letter fee.

 

I feel that these fees are a sensible way forward and standardisation can only make things clearer for everybody.

 

£230 visit fee collecting a £82 parking warrant after they have charged you £75 to send a letter is sensible, you on crack or just stupid?

[i hate bailiffs]

 

To answer one of your questions, we expect to make 10% profit but have found this difficult in recent years. Many others trade at less than this, some break even, some at a loss.

 

.

 

My heart bleeds for you:violin:

[brassnecked]

My heart bleeds for you:violin:

that's a ditto from me, distress is medieval and it would be best if it was abolished 10% profit from someones misery is abhorrent.

 

"£230 visit fee collecting a £82 parking warrant after they have charged you £75 to send a letter is sensible, you on crack or just stupid?" No just greedy

[zydeco]

Just to keep things in perspective,

 

The whole grubby bailiff industry needs to clean itself up, act within the law, stop the intimidation and adhere to the charging rules laid down.

I know that the economist brought in by the DCA used a mathematical model that he said would produce a 10% profit margin. I think this was in 2008.

wasn't it the head of Rossendales who said that a certain Mr. boast was just one bad apple?

 

The same head of Rossendales who was announced as being the first debt collecting millionaire?

 

I doubt if she receives as much as 10% of the profit margin so how much do these leeches on society actually gain from the misery of others?

 

Of course I may be wrong but this is just my own thought on the subject.

[Jamesx81x]

They get hundreds of pounds, extorting hundreds of pounds out of vulnerable people who unfortunately are that scared they pay up and then do not know the process of challenging them

 

They certainly do not make millions in turnover by sticking to charging what they are allowed by law, but unless the government gets a grips and realised ow serious this is and stop been blinded by the waffle these companies come out with people will unfairly carry on suffering.

 

Cant believe this guys even started this post in here, who gives a flying toss about his business or costs. They all fall under same category 'Societies filth'

Edited November 30, 2012 by Jamesx81x