What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

[brassnecked]

One thing to remember, and it is an insurmountable issue where bailiffs HCEOs and other enforcers go in to collect debt, is this:

 

If someone falls behind with council tax or a utility bill, it is usually due to a drop in income, or unemployment, where the debtor cannot afford the original debt at the original repayment rate, as they cannot now afford to service said debt; how does loading more costs and charges help the debt be discharged?

 

In these circumstances and in a vulnerable situation one penny extra is unhelpful. as to the ludicrous charges put on by the likes of Sherfarce, how can someone on JSA waiting for a claim to be processed and the couple rate at £111 per week afford to pay the likes of Sherfarce £3000 in fees plus the original £600 plus costs to a water company?

 

Bear in mind that the late great sadly missed Lord Denning a Master of The Rolls in the last century, wanted to end distress as being medieval and abhorrent to a modern society.

 

Now go figure Mr/Ms HCEO.

 

The thought that trapping people into more debt by a legal route of imposing more and more charges which in extremis could lock someone into a permanent cycle of default and more charges, ad infinitum like a Wonga or loanshark on steroids, is a business model to be exploited makes me extremely angry if not physically sick with disgust!:mad2:

Edited November 28, 2012 by brassnecked

[brassnecked]

brassnecked, with all due respect that is not what I asked. I would also advise that not every debtor is vulnerable, especially in HCEO work.

 

There is a cost to enforcement and I am merely asking what the forum members believe is a sensible charge. I would be grateful if we could stick to the point.

 

No not every debtor is vulnerable, but remember that allowing charges to spiral many multiples of the original debt as can happen now is also unhelpful. I would suggest that no more than £50 and a maximum of 25 miles at 40 pence per mile for private individuals, is the ballpark.

 

Obviously if it is a corporation and they have funds, then £300 plus mileage, and legitimate true cost of removal vehicle, remember that a Luton 3.5 tonne vehicle is around £75 per day to hire if self drive, plus £8 per hour for a couple of porters, the hourly rate to cover duration and attendance plus two hours for base job and return to base, bear in mind that loading these fees upfront all together is naughty and should only be imposed if HCEO calls subsequently specifically to remove.

 

As to sticking to the point, not all debt is wilful avoidance, and is due to a change of circumstances severely reducing income and ability to pay, that is my point, that any extra makes successful timely discharge of the debt less likely. This is true whatever the cost of enforcement.

 

In modern society with electronic systems, affordable deductions from salary/benefits is an equitable alternative with minimal cost to the creditor if systems were put in place.

 

Sorry if I cannot see the value of your work, but distress is medieval and deserves no part of the system in the 21st century. As an advice worker and Councillor I have seen the results of excessive enforcement demands, and action by Bailiffs and HCEO, and they could well amount to breach of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights, as cruel and inhuman treatment that could be construed as mental torture.

 

There is one underlying issue that is the elephant in the room, you run the risk with excessive enforcement charges coupled with the existing debt, sending the debtor into bankruptcy, at which point it is effectively game over for enforcer and creditor, who may then get diddly squat.

[brassnecked]

@lamma post #12 I agree

[brassnecked]

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.

 

There is one firm who make charges akin to telephone numbers yet the attending officer receives nothing like the £750 demanded for a visit, they use blanket charging and have lost on more than 1 occasion when challenged, which is very akin to the Certificated Bailiff either blatatntly overcharging or going for multiple fees.

 

I can't put a figure on what the charges should be but as the person attending is basically no more than an unqualified collector of monies then the £75 per hour the local plumber charges looks value for money. Until such time that challenging charges is simplified - preferably to a completely independent body - then the complaints will carry on. They may have put the "Bailiffs & HCEO's" out for consultation but with some of the figures that are being bandied about then in the present climate more are going to resist.

 

When you put it that way they are no more than the likes of Moorcroft and Snotcall, minimum wage door knockers. I also see the commonality and HCEO and bailiff should get exactly the same scale.

 

Agree with wonkeydonkey's points also in post #16, with a subtle variation: a 10% charge for debt or fine up to £500, 5% on sums above £500, 2% 0ver £1000 to avoid telephone number charges. Lower limit for fi-fa should be £5000, and preferably £7,500

Edited November 28, 2012 by brassnecked

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

Are we not forgetting that a bailiff visit is a last resort because people haven't paid something that is owed. They have always been chased by post but still ignore it.

 

Almost all of brassnecked's comments refer to the vulnerable again. NOT EVERYBODY is vulnerable. No not everybody is, but it is mainly the vulnerable and low income families who have fallen into hard times and arrears or gained a CCJ from a water company, that gets sent up to High Court that suffer disproportionately from the charging regime There are many debtor's out there who just refuse to pay what's owed. Yes there are many companies do a phoenix to avoid paying, some of the worst payers are councils

 

Remember, in the HCEO business the debts have made judgment. The creditors are often small businesses struggling themselves yet this always seems to be missed in this forum.

 

Not all debt is Council Tax! No it isn't but it forms a large proportion of the debt that advice is sought for on here

 

Now on a lighter note if I got a High Court Writ on Comet, what would be your chances of getting any money by enforcing against them?

[brassnecked]

You make some fair points brassnecked. I'm not saying that enforcement doesn't affect people in financial difficulty. It's just that I see a very different side to enforcement, which doesn't include CT/Parking by the way.

 

With regard to Comet, there are two hopes....

 

The majority on here is CTax and parking with the odd Sherforce. The majority who come on CAG have every intention of paying debts, just that the enforcement backs them into a corner, as it compounds an already unmanageable debt. And yes threre are professional avoiders, but they will use bankruptcy, and where are you then with a writ, when the OR tells you nothing for you?

[brassnecked]

Have to agree with seanamarts, in any case distress is medieval and has no place in a modern society, Lord Denning said as much 30 odd years ago in the last century.

[brassnecked]

Well how about the Bailliffs start by doing something really sensible and finding out WHY people haven't paid and rather than treating everyone like a criminal ( which they are not ) working out the best way to proceed rather than just using the "you are paying now whether you can afford it or not, and by the way I've added 25% onto your bill because I am a thieving thug".

 

You say SOME refuse to pay it, that is a very very small minority. The majority cannot afford it and in most cases I think that pride means they refuse to face up to it and admit there is a problem. That pride takes a further knock when some thug is stood in front of you telling you that you should ring friends or family and admit to them they are in trouble. That is the most disgraceful thing a bailliff can do. Not only do they make the matter worse by adding on huge charges, they then force them to go to other people and tell them that they are being blackmailed into borrowing money which they cannot afford to repay.

 

Exactly, where are they going to get the money, wonder if some bailiffs have told them to go to Wonga to get money to pay their fees legit and dodgy?

[brassnecked]

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.

There we will have to politely beg to differ, as the rogues seem to outnumber the good in the enforcement "industry?" is it an industry, or a service? well it does when you trawl the debt forums. I would say a service, where you are paid for extracting money that is due when all else fails, what you have to accept is that there is a growing number of cases where the cost of the enforcement will be too great for the debtor to bear, due to reducing income from low pay or benefits, that conundrum will remain whatever we say.

[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.

[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