What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

[lamma]

"Clearly the most complained about enforcement is that by certificated bailiffs under the Distress for Rent Rules - CT, Parking, Mag Fines". More slanting. CT and Mag Fines have their own sets of conditions and applicable law. Both of which are different from each other and from those used for Parking. the first two are are more analogous to execution than to the common law right of a landlord to distrain for rent. I find it disengenuous and misleading for them to be grouped together as "Distress for Rent". For example: Parking PCNs in CPE areas are enforced by an agent of the council acting in the capacity of a mere private bailiff. They are certified but they do not act in that capacity. True they are certifoe but for all the power that gives them the condition may as well be that they are a Pisces. Similarly it is not "under the Distress for Rent Rules", it is "as if" they were were. There is a difference. the "as if" and the certificate are mere window dressing that give the colour of law so that the council can behave as a landlord. "As if" is not "is". Try driving "as if" the speed limits do not apply. QED. I will not go into the Three-card Monte that is CT enforcement, that is well known already.

Edited December 4, 2012 by lamma

[brassnecked]

You can justify the role of certificated bailiffs all you like, but in reality seizing goods and selling them for a fraction of their value is medieval, one bad apple like Mr Boast Ex of Rossendales, and the Marstons criminal who has assaulted third parties is enough to bring the whole system into disrepute. It belongs in the 12th Century, it's day is done.

[Jamesx81x]

Personally I have very little experience in this kind of work.

 

Well why are you here trying to push your ridiculous views on how you think these charges are fair then?

 

Trawl across this site and you will see the misery and upset bailiffs inflict on people on a daily basis, not to mention all the well known news stories regarding bailiff actions.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who has had experience of a bailiff with good intentions.

 

Your comment about how they have to turn up in two's for their own safety is also laughable.

 

IMHO if a bailiff turns up at your property, with total disregard to the law, your rights or the householders safety acting in an aggressive manner he deserves to get knocked clean out, and believe me their are plenty that will do it, then again if they see they are not vulnerable they probably wouldnt try it. Many wouldn't condone violence put some deserve it only language they understand.

 

Sneaky, deceitful, aggressive sums up your industry to name but a few, so with your little experience of the industry if you start in that manner your on your way there.

[smouk]

Spot on James - this thread has set me thinking around the whole issue of bailiff ethics or even just the concept of an "ethical bailiff". I can only conclude that a certain personality type seeks to become a bailiff and that is the very reason why that certain personality type should NOT be allowed to be a bailiff - a bit like political office!

[HCEOs]

Where I find the problem is making the distinction between the Certificated Bailiff & the HCEO. I don't see a difference between the two & strongly believe the charges applied should be the same, after alll there is little diffrence to knocking on the door and asking for Council Tax/Unpaid PCN & that of Southern Water's Bill. It is the same goods you are attending to seize & remove. The HCEO is in the same position as the Certificated Bailiff when the debtor refuses you entry.

 

Ploddertom, it's probably a good idea to study Alexander Dehayen's own report for the MoJ as this is what the new proposed fee reform is based upon. For your ease here an edited extract:

 

There are several key differences between Non‐High Court Enforcement (Bailiff) and High Court Enforcement:

 

1) Legal obligations; An HCEO is obliged to accept any Writ sent to them for the postal districts to which they have been assigned. They also have the discretion to accept Writs from anywhere in England and Wales, but may decline or accept the Writ if it is for an area to which they have not sought assignment. The obligation to accept Writs from certain postcodes potentially places HCEOs in a position where they must incur costs, even in some cases where they may not assess a high probability of recovering fees, and therefore may not achieve a profit on a case‐by‐case basis. On a case‐by‐case basis HCEOs may therefore potentially be obliged to undertake unprofitable activities. In addition to these costs, HCEOs are also exposed to the risk that a creditor may seek damages in respect of any cases where the creditor believes that, through the HCEOs negligence or lack of appropriate action, a Writ was not successfully enforced. Due to this obligation to the creditor, the HCEO may find that he is under pressure to incur further cost in attempting to enforce the debt, at the creditor’s insistence, even when the HCEO may not believe that the actions are cost effective or appropriate. The increased level of legal obligations of the HCEO to the creditor, compared to those of the EA to the creditor are therefore likely to increase the average cost of Enforcement of High Court debt compared to Non‐High Court debt.

 

2) Case volumes / Economies of scale; In comparison to Bailiff Companies, HCEOs handle a significantly lower volume of cases. Responses to the RFI indicated that Bailiff Companies handled an average of 196,000 cases annually. HCEO respondents handled on average only 12,000 cases: just 6% of the case volume handled by the average Bailiff Companies.

 

Due to lower volumes, HCEOs have less scope to exploit economies of scale, which are most likely to exist in the administrative stages of cases. Benefits of economies of scale are likely to be limited to administrative activities as Bailiff / HCEO activities incur mainly marginal costs, assuming that Bailiffs / HCEOs are operating at close to capacity.

 

HCEOs costs per case handled are therefore likely to be higher than Bailiff Companies due to a reduced opportunity to exploit economies of scale.

 

3) Nature of client relationships; Although HCEO case volumes are very much lower than Bailiff Companies case volumes, conversely they are likely to deal with a larger number of different clients. Whilst EACs may have a smaller number of “bulk creditors”, such as LAs or Magistrates Courts, many HCEO creditors are infrequent users of Enforcement services, and may only send a single Writ to an HCEO for Enforcement.

 

Consequently, HCEOs have less incentive to attempt costly Enforcement actions on the basis of maintaining a creditor relationship. Bailiff Companies on the other hand, may undertake costly actions, even when they exceed the available fees on a particular case, in order to maintain the creditor relationship to preserve the larger volume of cases where fees exceed costs incurred.

 

This feature of HCEO‐creditor relationships might suggest that greater incentives are required to ensure sufficient HCEO action, potentially by allowing cost recovery and profitability on a case‐by‐case basis. However, the HCEO obligation is useful here, as that alone (aside from financial incentives) should ensure that HCEOs take sufficient reasonable action on all cases.

 

Since creditors send fewer cases to HCEOs, each creditor has higher expectations (on a per case basis) of the amount of information and feedback they expect to receive from HCEOs in relation to the progress made on their case or cases. The RFI responses indicated that all HCEOs were in the practice of providing “initial reports” to their creditors, containing important debtor information and an assessment of the probability of successfully enforcing the debt. Only two Bailiff Companies were in the practice of providing a similar report.

 

Providing this detailed information to creditors is costly for HCEOs. Furthermore, since creditors each supply a low volume of cases they are more likely to make ad hoc enquiries relating to case progress, and to be more insistent on further specific Enforcement action: each of these factors serve to increase the cost per case of HCEO Enforcement.

 

4) Legal complexity of cases handled; High Court Enforcement tends to be a more legally complex process than Non‐High Court Enforcement, since:

 

HCEOS have the obligation to have a wide ranging knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules and should be prepared to defend that knowledge and expertise before senior judiciary as the circumstances of each case dictate; following the levying upon goods, it is more common that an interpleader process will be entered into, during which the debtor and third parties may make representations relating to the status and legal ownership of goods levied upon;

 

HCEO fees are more often challenged by debtors through the legally complex process of detailed cost assessment; and since the HCEOs actions are potentially subject to legal challenge by the creditor, to whom the HCEO has enhanced duties and obligations (compared to an Bailiff), various aspects of the case must be recorded and administered to a level of accuracy and detail that could withstand examination in the context of a legal challenge. The administration of High Court Writs of Fi Fa therefore includes a greater level of detail and quality of information than that of non‐High Court distress Warrants.

 

As a result of all of the above considerations it is necessary for HCEOs to employ admin staff with greater levels of skill, and often with legal qualifications. Suitably qualified admin staff demand higher salaries, and serve to increase the staff overhead cost per case for HCEOs compared to Bailiff Companies.

 

5) Average size of debt enforced; In terms of case volumes the bulk of Bailiff Company case volumes (around 84%) consist of Council Tax, HMCS, and RTA Enforcement (with one Bailiff Company also enforcing significant volumes of CSA debt, and most EACs also enforcing a small number of Commercial Rent and NNDR cases in comparison to their core debt‐types). The average debt size for the core EAC debt‐types are as follows:

 

Council Tax ‐ £543;

 

HMCS ‐ £197; and

 

RTA ‐ £111

 

The average debt size for High Court debt was £3,696: substantially higher than the core Bailiff Company debts. There is likely to be a correlation between debt size and cost of Enforcement, particularly for the latter stages of the Enforcement process, since physical activity is required to be performed on goods with a larger total value. This correlation may also exist at the Administration Stage if debtors with larger debts are more likely to be seasoned debtors, or to expend greater effort to avoid paying debts.

 

The impact of these correlations would be reflected in higher costs per case for High Court debt compared to non‐High Court debt.

 

6) Frequency of occurrence of exceptional cases. Anecdotally HCEOs report a far greater frequency of occurrence of exceptional cases; where, for example, they are required to levy and remove for sale particularly large or valuable items. These exceptional cases are more costly to enforce and increase the average costliness of cases enforced by HCEOs.

 

The following section discusses each of these differences and describes how many of them increase the cost of High Court Enforcement compared to Non‐High Court Enforcement.

 

1) The Cost of Enforcement; The accounting data gathered during the RFI exercise clearly shows that the impact of the sum of factors described above is to increase the cost of HCEO Enforcement to a level substantially above Bailiff Comapny Enforcement.

 

The average total cost per case for an HCEO was determined be nearly seven (7) times higher than that of a Bailiff Company.

 

[HCEOs]

Well why are you here trying to push your ridiculous views on how you think these charges are fair then?

 

Trawl across this site and you will see the misery and upset bailiffs inflict on people on a daily basis, not to mention all the well known news stories regarding bailiff actions.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who has had experience of a bailiff with good intentions.

 

Your comment about how they have to turn up in two's for their own safety is also laughable.

 

IMHO if a bailiff turns up at your property, with total disregard to the law, your rights or the householders safety acting in an aggressive manner he deserves to get knocked clean out, and believe me their are plenty that will do it, then again if they see they are not vulnerable they probably wouldnt try it. Many wouldn't condone violence put some deserve it only language they understand.

 

Sneaky, deceitful, aggressive sums up your industry to name but a few, so with your little experience of the industry if you start in that manner your on your way there.

 

James, that is just one aspect of enforcement and as I admit it's not one I personally have a great deal of experience in. This does not mean that the original question posed is without merit.

 

In relation to your other (mature??) points, yes the industry has it's flaws but not every enforcement officer acts in the way you describe and you've only got to look in the press to see that some debtor's go to prison for assault too.

[outlawla]

Oh and the general public form a fair portion of the £65M that HCEOs recover each year. I'm not sure that they're fed up with it.

 

 

This reminds me of the kind of thing Ms Green-Jones (AKA the first millionaire bailiff) often boasts (no pun) about in her Rossendale propaganda....

 

 

Our full range of collection and enforcement services, including ancillary services provide the perfect Corporate Debt Solution. We pride ourselves on our ability to excel in the quality of service and in market leading collection rates currently recovering in excess of £92 million per annum for our clients. Rossendales are fully committed to our Local Authority partnerships.

 

 

Perhaps it would be better to look a little closer at, what exactly, these figures mean. To begin with, the figure quoted "£92 million" will probably be not much more than 30% of the alleged debt passed to Rossendales.

 

Even in percentage terms, the information is still misleading and bailiff performance, even at these low levels is over rated.

 

The important question to ask is – how much of the collected debt attributable to bailiff enforcement is actually money that would have been paid regardless of bailiffs being put on their cases?

 

I'd estimate (in relation to alleged outstanding council tax) you could put down most of the money collected by bailiffs to that owed purely as a consequence of instalment facilities being cancelled. This element of alleged outstanding money owed would not technically be outstanding debt. Councils just create a temporary debt by demanding the entire liability at once by cancelling instalments.

 

Householders struggling to hit instalment dates will have been pushed into paying the entire council tax in one go and consequently forced into paying additional fees for court costs and bailiffs when they obviously struggled in the first place.

 

In these cases, the majority of the money would have been paid by the end of the financial year despite court action and bailiff enforcement. The only reason councils throw around summonses like confetti is because they probably make a couple of hundred thousand pounds a month in court cost.

Edited December 5, 2012 by outlawla

[lamma]

isn't an action for damages against an HCEO (or ordinary bailiff) covered by their bond ?

[ploddertom]

isn't an action for damages against an HCEO (or ordinary bailiff) covered by their bond ?

 

The HCEO isn't covered by a bond in the same sense the Certificated Bailiff is. This I assume would be covered by the HCEO/Employers Insurance.

[Jamesx81x]

but not every enforcement officer acts in the way you describe

 

Then you really have no idea about the industry at all then do you if that is what you believe.

 

And before you starting pulling points about who is mature i was pointing out how your industry acts! The fact that they will only bully and abuse those they think they can get away with.

 

Like i said you find me someone who has a nice thing to say about a bailiff and ill retract what i said! Pretty sure you wont!

 

Your original point is crap, coming in here asking what a fair charge is then on the other hand saying you agree the proposed charges are fair.

[brassnecked]

To the vulnerable or people thrown onto benefit due to losing their jobs or people on low income, it doesn't matter whether the fee is £5 or £500 they will not be able to afford them any more than they could afford the original debt.

 

Why do I bang on about the vulnerable, well it's because the thuggish element amongst enforcers treat them with utter contempt and even brutality.

 

Is it fairly common for HCEOs to meet a subsequent occupant as the debtor has moved on by the time a writ of fi-fa is obtained ?

Edited December 5, 2012 by brassnecked

[zydeco]

What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

 

Simple answer, nothing.

 

Bailiffs fees are based on the maximum that the local authority is allowed to charge by statute.

 

There is no allowance in the regulations for making a profit from debt collecting, therefore all bailiffs are in breach of these regulations unless they can prove the true costs of their work and provide a complete breakdown of every fee they charge.

 

If we have to have the bum bailiff then he should only be paid what he is worth, which would be somewhere around the legal minimum wage.

(If he's lucky.)

 

( Watch out next year when council tax benefit is removed. )

[dx100uk]

ok thread has run its course

 

thanks to all contributors.

 

now closed

 

dx