What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

[42man]

May I ask...what is the work you have to carry out on an individual case before it gets to the "initial £75 letter fee"

[Sparks_]

 

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.

 

So you think people on benefits who are struggling to pay bills and get behind can afford £230? Have you any idea how much people on benefits have to live on? Get real, those on JSA and ESA can no way afford that at all! its time that Councils realise what they are doing and go for attachment to benefits than lining the pockets of these modern highway robbers!

[Jamesx81x]

Thats it nothing, they are passed the warrant and believe £75 for sending a letter to notify you is fair. £13.44 to send a single letter is high in my opinion but if they include the admin time etc in there then so be it.

 

Alot of companies charged so called HPI checks now, yet even if the car shows leased or outstanding finance they still send a bailiff who will levy on it. So apart from been an unlawful charge as it is not within the regulations what the hell do they do it for?

[i hate bailiffs]

 

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'

 

Could not agree with you more:whoo:

 

they think it is acceptable £230 visit fee just to intimidate someone

 

how much should....say a firefighter get for going into a burning building and saving life and property the list goes on.............................

 

bailiffs at the bottom

[smouk]

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

 

One can read and write and one keeps an eye on the intellectual.

[ploddertom]

If I still have it I had a guide to how some of the HCEO's work their fees out - these are for the most contentious charges they make.

[fcumred]

I am sat here laughing my socks off at this thread.

 

The whole crux of this section of the forum is that there are set guidelines as to what Bailliffs can charge, and most if not all of the bailliffs are ignoring those rules and making up their own fees. Relying on ignorance of the law and using bullying tactics that they know full well they have no legal powers to use.

 

Before we start talking about whether bailliffs are making enough money to cover their costs, how about you start by addressing the issue that most bailliffs are acting illegally, overcharging when they know they shouldn't and more importantly making threats that are wholly illegal.

 

That is the real issue that needs addressing here. Whats the point of discussing what constitutes a reasonable amount when they can't even follow the standards they are supposed to abide by anyway.

 

HCEO also happens to ignore so many factors that should be taken into account but are not. Such as how many properties a bailliff atttends with one van in a day. I have it on very good authority from an ex bailliff that one van can bring in amounts of up to £2100 per day, simply by charging every person they visit a "van hire" fee. Not bad considering he bought the van for £1000 from an auction and used it every day of the week. The actual cost of using the van ( insurance, diesel, road tax, ear and tear ) was ( according to him ) less than £50 per day, and he would charge each and every house he visited £150 in "van hire fees". Thats not including the fees he would charge for "waiting time" or attendance fees.

 

Those kinds of actions cannot be justified, and it because of unscrupulous actions such as that, that forums like this are here to expose the lies, cheating and downright fraud that occurs within the bailliff industry, and the person being threatened is being bullied into believing the bailliff has the law on their side.

 

And, the final insult, is you actually sit there saying "no ones mentioned the creditor". Bailliffs have absolutely no concern for the creditor whatsoever. Their only interest is to make as much money as they can from the debtor, for doing as little as possible. The more fees they can charge the more they will try and [problem] off the debtor. The fact the debtor cannot afford to pay and the actions of the bailliff is actually more likely to mean the creditor takes longer to get paid, is something that doesn't even cross the tiny minds of the bailliffs. If the bailliffs cared about the creditor in all of this, they would not be charging sums that increase the debt to levels that make it even harder to sort out.

 

Rather than ask us what we think is reasonable, why don't you go to the bailliff conpanies and start by asking them to act reasonable, because the way I see it, if I pay for something I expect a professional service, and the amount I pay should be reflected in the level of service I am given. If a bailliff does not act professionally then I should not have to pay him a professional fee.

 

Act like a professional and you should get paid as such. Act like a bullying lying cheating thug, and what you should get is what I personally would pay bailliffs.. NOTHING....

Edited December 1, 2012 by fcumred

[brassnecked]

Regarding the above post #57 I am in total agreement with you fcumred, and will merely observe that the "Enforcement" industry, is a medieval throwback, and has no right to even be considered an "Industry", as many of its operatives couldn't keep to the rules and would lie and cheat to extort more if the legal fee was £5 or £500.

 

With reference to Sparks @ post #52

 

"So you think people on benefits who are struggling to pay bills and get behind can afford £230? Have you any idea how much people on benefits have to live on? Get real, those on JSA and ESA can no way afford that at all!"

 

These are my thoughts exactly, as where does a couple struggling on £111.50 per week afford normal living expenses, OK rent and council tax should be paid by the respective benefits, but on that income, where do they even find £24.50 and £18 for the legitimate fees, let alone the

 

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

 

by HCEO exposes denial by the " wannabe industry" as to the unaffordability of enforcement for low income debtors, the suggested letter fee is £4 more than the £71 the law says a single person needs to live on per week, as to the £230 visit fee, the culmulative effect of the letter and first visit fee adds £305 to the original debt, which as outlawla has exposed can be for a Liability Order sought for Council Tax arrears of £1 or £5

that is equivalent to Wonga.com levels of interest and is abhorrent. It is quite possible that enforcement could be challenged by Muslims as it most certainly is against Sharia due to being akin to usury which is totally forbidden and haram in Islam.

 

The fees as per the consultation punted by HCEOs would leave £2 to live on for a month, £307 being the calendar monthly equivalent of a single person's JSA so HCEOs and cronies could be putting a low income debtor onto a legally sanctioned non NHS version of the Liverpool Care Pathway, where the debtor starves, and freezes to pay his/her wages.

 

That is the really real world, and disposible income for low income families even with tax credits is broadly similar to JSA once rent etc paid. Now can HCEOs see where the hostility to his flippancy and mock outrage comes from?

 

As to the egregious Mrs Green-Jones and her rent a thugs at Rottendales, along with the other greedy law breaking enforcers, hope they can sleep well at night!

 

The situation will become much worse when the welfare benefit changes come into effect, and even JSA claimants will have to find 10% of the council tax when it is subsumed into Universal Credit.

 

Are the "Enforcement ( creating misery ) Industry" operatives rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of an increase in business from council tax defaults when UC comes in?

 

Yes not all debtors are low income but the majority that come for advice are, therefore the costs of enforcement are unaffordable for many debtors, it is entirely possible for a low income debtor being trapped in a permanent debt spiral by rapacious bailiffs as surely as a rolling payday loan from the likes of Wonga, where the debt is never repaid due to the constant visit, attendance to remove, van fees etc and possibly dodgy fees added constantly.

Edited December 1, 2012 by brassnecked

[seanamarts]

subbing with great interest

[i hate bailiffs]

to post 57 & 58

[seanamarts]

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

More than likely bored and just wanted to stir the hornet nest up a bit.

 

I have no doubts he has been here before.

[ploddertom]

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.

 

If I still have it I had a guide to how some of the HCEO's work their fees out - these are for the most contentious charges they make.

 

It took some finding but here it is. I must emphasise that not all charge on this basis but do know of at least 2 companies that do and in some respects blows the 10% figure out of the water. They have been based on the Chargeable Rates for Solicitors as advised by the Senior Courts Costs Office you can read the whole document at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/guideline-hourly-rates-2010-v2.pdf . The timelines they use are broken down into 6 minute increments, thus 10 charging points per hour, and the figures I have seen are all based on London 3 - at the bottom.

 

You will note that that the beginning of the document gives a key to the costing grades and these have been adapted as:

A - Authorised HCEO's & Company CEO's

B - Managing Directors

C - Solicitors, Senior Management, Other Directors

D - Enforcement Officers, ParaLegals & what appears to be Office Staff

 

It doesn't take much to work that there is 1 particular company who charge £300 for a Management Fee & even at the bottom rate this seems to work out at them doing approx 2.5 hours work to set this up, the same firm charge £720 for an enforcement Officer to visit - again a time of nearly 6 hours + how can an person with no qualifications be charged out at this type of rate.

 

I leave you to your own conclusions.

[wonkeydonkey]

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.

 

Fortunately CAG will survive without your input, thanks to those dedicated to cleaning up your filthy industry. They are the people who do manage to be at the 'beck and call' of CAG both on and off forum to help the victims of your 'work commitments'.

 

Dialogue is defined as a conversation between two people, if you would care to read through a few posts here on CAG you will quickly see there is a distinct lack of dialogue between bailiff and debtor that would see the latter in a position to enter into affordable repayment plan without facing penalty by way of obscene fees.

 

WD

[brassnecked]

Fortunately CAG will survive without your input, thanks to those dedicated to cleaning up your filthy industry. They are the people who do manage to be at the 'beck and call' of CAG both on and off forum to help the victims of your 'work commitments'.

 

Dialogue is defined as a conversation between two people, if you would care to read through a few posts here on CAG you will quickly see there is a distinct lack of dialogue between bailiff and debtor that would see the latter in a position to enter into affordable repayment plan without facing penalty by way of obscene fees.

 

WD

 

That's a multiple thumbs up from me WD

[ims21]

And you guys and gals all put it so much more eloquently than I did but I'm with you all the way

[brassnecked]

And you guys and gals all put it so much more eloquently than I did but I'm with you all the way

 

We try our best, but HCEOs viewpoint could not go unchallenged, as realistically 50 pence on top where there is zero disposable income is too much in charges. They just don't get it do they, and that is why their "industry" is doomed and has no place in a modern society.

[Leakie]

I second that I hate bailiffs

 

I think that the posts 57 &58 sums it up really.

 

I understand the need for Bailiffs,

but unfortunately there are more can not pay than won't pay's at the moment

 

the CT is one that you can not get away from,

 

I hope common sense prevails but I doubt it.

 

Leakie

[Jamesx81x]

There is no need for bailiffs what so ever

 

Its simple: working - attachment of earnings or benefits - attachment to benefits!! No way of non payment!

 

Either way the debt is collected and people are not intimidated.

 

The government should realise this and close down the industry. The world would certainly be a better place!

[i hate bailiffs]

There is no need for bailiffs what so ever

 

Its simple: working - attachment of earnings or benefits - attachment to benefits!! No way of non payment!

 

Either way the debt is collected and people are not intimidated.

 

The government should realise this and close down the industry. The world would certainly be a better place!

 

 

Not sure it will be that simple what about people that not working and not claiming benefits

[Jamesx81x]

Then they certainly wouldnt have the money to pay ridiculous charges

 

But then you have to ask how they living if they not working or on benefits must have something somewhere

[brassnecked]

Then they certainly wouldnt have the money to pay ridiculous charges

 

But then you have to ask how they living if they not working or on benefits must have something somewhere

 

They could be a spouse or partner therefore they fall under the radar.

[outlawla]

There is no need for bailiffs what so ever

 

Its simple: working - attachment of earnings or benefits - attachment to benefits!! No way of non payment!

 

Either way the debt is collected and people are not intimidated.

 

The government should realise this and close down the industry. The world would certainly be a better place!

 

 

 

Our kind and caring local authorities, as you say, could easily collect outstanding council tax through an AOE. The reason they don't is because this incurs more in administration costs. They consider bailiffs come at nil cost because they get paid from fees added to the debtors account. Consequently they take the easier and more reckless option of appointing bailiffs, even though this should be their last resort.

 

 

Council Tax Collection Good Practice

8

.

3

.

3

. Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

[brassnecked]

Our kind and caring local authorities, as you say, could easily collect outstanding council tax through an AOE. The reason they don't is because this incurs more in administration costs. They consider bailiffs come at nil cost because they get paid from fees added to the debtors account. Consequently they take the easier and more reckless option of appointing bailiffs, even though this should be their last resort.

 

 

Council Tax Collection Good Practice

8

.

3

.

3

. Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

 

Yes outlawla i agree with you, the councils have it within their remit to handle it themselves, but being the masochistic muppets they are, they risk the ire of the Ombudsman, and public odium when the bailiffs overstep the mark.

[josephbloggs]

Too many people would get away with not paying that way mate, not telling the council where they work so cant do aoe, too many benefits now unattachable as well

Plus %age taken on one l/o for council tax is for low income a lot less than amount of actual bill for the year, so easily fall into significant arrears. Also a lot of poor employers dont comply when attachment application is sent.

Also if no bailiffs for parking fines people would park wherever they wanted it would just get stupid, i think it would be better to hand back fines over to the police like years ago.

[brassnecked]

@josephbloggs " Plus %age taken on one l/o for council tax is for low income a lot less than amount of actual bill for the year, so easily fall into significant arrears "

 

Either wages are too low, or council tax is too high then, as bills that are unaffordable are a joke, how can arrears be avoided?, they can't under the current regime in that case.

"i think it would be better to hand back fines over to the police like years ago. " Might be better that way again, at least coppers and police Wardens were more likely to use discretion.