Ministry of Justice today release the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

[HCEOs]

You obviously haven't read my last post on this thread. Some of the reasons given for higher charge scales is the extra costs because of disputed ownership, disputes over charges and legal difficulties. Firstly a Fi Fa writ is extraordinarily easy to obtain, a doddle, so no great cost there then. Disputed ownership might be a tricky one with business debts because of varied ownerships of premises, different limited companies, personal ownership etc but really not that bad because all PLC and Ltd companies are online together with financial status. I would classify those problems as very easy to sort out by a moderately intelligent person in a few minutes. Disputes over charges occur simply because HCEO companies charge far more than they should. I would warrant that 90% of costs hearings probably go with the debtor.

 

In the case of personal creditors and sole traders there is no greater difficulty than that faced by a certified bailiff.

 

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

 

I would agree with it being some of the costs but my experience is the staffing requirements needed to deal with the amount of clients outweighs this significantly.

 

The process of obtaining a Writ still takes time as there is a lot of data entry initially and of course time costs money.

 

I disagree with your comment on businesses ownership of goods. It is always difficult and usually spurious claims that aren't in any financial accounts that are costly and time consuming to deal with.

 

Again with regard to fees I disagree. For sure, there are some HCEOs charges that appear to be excessive but I do not believe that the industry as a whole charge more than it should.

 

And almost certainly, most detailed assessments that I am aware of go largely in the favour the HCEO.

[HCEOs]

What is ridiculous about educating people on their rights, and getting the lawful, legal ways of protecting your goods from levy into public knowledge?

 

There is nothing wrong with educating people on their rights but aiding rogue debtors who do not pay individuals and small businesses keep there assets out of 'bailiffs' reach is not the way to go. Remember, HCEOs recover around £65M a year, much of which is for Joe Public and the struggling small businesses.

[Deadwood]

I would agree with it being some of the costs but my experience is the staffing requirements needed to deal with the amount of clients outweighs this significantly.

 

The process of obtaining a Writ still takes time as there is a lot of data entry initially and of course time costs money.

 

I disagree with your comment on businesses ownership of goods. It is always difficult and usually spurious claims that aren't in any financial accounts that are costly and time consuming to deal with.

 

Again with regard to fees I disagree. For sure, there are some HCEOs charges that appear to be excessive but I do not believe that the industry as a whole charge more than it should.

 

And almost certainly, most detailed assessments that I am aware of go largely in the favour the HCEO.

 

Restricting myself to one point about obtaining a Fi Fa writ. The excercise of obtaining a writ is legally and administratively trivial which does make your other responses somewhat less credible. I do know if you are an actual HCEO or one of their enforcement officers but I can assure you that I've been on both sides of the fence. I hade multiple bad debts as a small business a few years ago, I did obtain judgement but the money wasn't collected most times, the solicitors I used were clueless.

 

In relation to the consultation I would say that HCEO enforcement should have two fee scales, one for PLC's and Limited companies and one for sole traders and private citizens. I believe that the High Court fees should be applied accurately and use of extra charges only used when a service is actually provided. I believe it should be a criminal offence to overcharge.

[lamma]

"What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff." To make accountability difficult perhaps.

[brassnecked]

"What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff." To make accountability difficult perhaps.

 

Quite so, any challenge ends up being kicked around until it goes in the bin

 

For the information of HCEOs, the debtors of whom he speaks who are dodging payment etc are not usually the sort who will post on CAG, those coming here are usually trying to pay debt but ending up in a spiral of threats and ever increasing and unaffordable fees

[tomtubby]

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

.

.

.

 

 

HCEO, I am sorry but I would disagree with your comment.

 

Firstly, you are not correct concerning Alex Dehayen. As you may know, he was paid a lot of money by MoJ to undertake the task of establishing a fair fee scale. His task was not easy. The first stumbling block being that with the exception of approx 6 companies they do not file full accounts at Companaies House. Therefore it was most difficult to ascertain the actual overheads etc. Companies were therefore "encouraged" to be "transparent" and to complete financial information to Alex Dehayen. Was this done........ARE YOU JOKING!!!

 

Most companies would not allow AD access to their financial records. When it came to HCEO's it is my understanding ( and I am willing to be corrected) that AD was only able to obtain "accurate" financial information from Marston Group.

 

Since Alex's report in 2009, there has indeed been a lot of change in HCEO work and it is my understanding ( and again correct me if I am wrong) that the number of CCJ referred to them have REDUCED. Furthermore, it was thought that a lot of employment tribunal claims would be made. This was the case at first but again, the numbers have reduced significantly.

[HCEOs]

.

.

.

 

 

HCEO, I am sorry but I would disagree with your comment.

 

Firstly, you are not correct concerning Alex Dehayen. As you may know, he was paid a lot of money by MoJ to undertake the task of establishing a fair fee scale. His task was not easy. The first stumbling block being that with the exception of approx 6 companies they do not file full accounts at Companaies House. Therefore it was most difficult to ascertain the actual overheads etc. Companies were therefore "encouraged" to be "transparent" and to complete financial information to Alex Dehayen. Was this done........ARE YOU JOKING!!!

 

Most companies would not allow AD access to their financial records. When it came to HCEO's it is my understanding ( and I am willing to be corrected) that AD was only able to obtain "accurate" financial information from Marston Group.

 

Since Alex's report in 2009, there has indeed been a lot of change in HCEO work and it is my understanding ( and again correct me if I am wrong) that the number of CCJ referred to them have REDUCED. Furthermore, it was thought that a lot of employment tribunal claims would be made. This was the case at first but again, the numbers have reduced significantly.

 

TT, to my knowledge AD was indeed given financial records by all of the companies he approached. In the HCEO world there are only really 6 companies worth obtaining that information from anyway, which covered the top 4 and some smaller concerns.

 

With regard to the amount of work passed to HCEOs I can confirm that the last 5 years the figure has been knocking around the 70,000 mark. It crept up to this from circa 50,000 in 2004. This does not include repossessions and is only Writs of Fi Fa.

 

Brassnecked is also right about the people that post on here not necessarily being the 'won't pays' but more the 'can't pays', although I have witnessed a good few 'porkys' being told about cases I know personally....

[brassnecked]

@HCEOs "although I have witnessed a good few 'porkys' being told about cases I know personally...."

 

That goes with the territory, whilst at CAB I came across people who you knew were stringing a line, but you are obliged to help, and one cannot be judgmental, one must advise as best as possible given a set of circumstances. If the enforcer has acted correctly, then a poster should be advised of the fact and advised to deal with them in the first instance and come back if there are any problems, it is only when there have been blatant and repeated transgressions , by a bailiff or HCEO, that other avenues need to be explored. Unfortunately it is more of the latter that come on here.

[tomtubby]

Sorry but in fact all bailiff and HCEO co's did NOT provide financial information to AD.

 

Request for Information (RFI Forms) were sent to approx 55 bailiff companiesand approx 10 HCEO firms. This bailiff companies were all those who are members of either ACEA or ESA

 

They were also sent to every local authority (by CIPFA)

 

AD received a total of just 15 responses from Members of ACEA, ESA and HCEOA.

 

Five responses were received from High Court Enforcement firms. ACEA, ESA and HCEOA each provided a response.

 

AD was “"disappointed" that from 333 local authorities who received RFI Forms only 11 LA's responded.

 

 

Most importantly, AD also commented that it was difficult to test whether the financial info was correct as so few companies filed full account with Companies House. He also stated the following:

 

 

"It is important to recognise that EACs/ HCEACs might have incentives toprovide inaccurate data to potentially attempt to mislead the fee settingprocess to their benefit"

 

Clearly, the enforcement industry could not be seen as being "transparent"....

[HCEOs]

Sorry I should have advised that I was talking about HCEOs and not the Bailiff industry. I am aware that not all HCEOs were contacted by AD but you confirm my thoughts that it sounds like the ones he did contact. responded. Unfortunately, I can't comment for the Bailiff industry.

 

In any area of business most companies do not file full accounts with companies house as it gives there competitors an insight into there business affairs. Nothing wrong with that.

[tomtubby]

HCEO

 

On the matter of Companies House I disagree with you. With respect bailiff companies are NOT like any other companies. In fact, they are unique in that they are collecters of government debts and I personally think that it is important for a local authority to know whether a company only turn over £500,000 or £5 million.

 

This could indicate how good or how bad a company are in collecting debts.

 

Also, as the LA are representing the government they should be in position to know if a Director of an enforcement company is taking £1million in salary or £75,000. It is called "transparency".

 

Also, by providing "full accounts" the bailiff co would need to disclose how many bailiffs they employ. This is crucial info when considering "tender awards".

 

There is a another "little gem" which I will come to later. Be patient....you will enjoy this.....

[HCEOs]

HCEO

 

On the matter of Companies House I disagree with you. With respect bailiff companies are NOT like any other companies. In fact, they are unique in that they are collecters of government debts and I personally think that it is important for a local authority to know whether a company only turn over £500,000 or £5 million.

 

This could indicate how good or how bad a company are in collecting debts.

 

Also, as the LA are representing the government they should be in position to know if a Director of an enforcement company is taking £1million in salary or £75,000. It is called "transparency".

 

Also, by providing "full accounts" the bailiff co would need to disclose how many bailiffs they employ. This is crucial info when considering "tender awards".

 

There is a another "little gem" which I will come to later. Be patient....you will enjoy this.....

 

TT, I disagree. You must remember that most Bailiff companies also do a variety of other work than that for LA/HMCTS (although this will likely be their main source of revenue). Commercial rent recovery, forfeiture of lease and process serving to name but a few.

 

Also, their accounts information will provide no credible detail of how good they are at collecting debt as they will likely have several revenue streams. Each client will know exactly how good each company is via their own records.

 

Further, if your turnover exceeds £5M you must provide audited accounts which will show you much of the detail you require anyway. These are available from Companies House.

 

I would also disagree that whether a bailiff is employed or not is irrelevant for tender awards. It is the management of the bailiffs on the road that is all important.

[brassnecked]

We await with eager anticipation the gem tomtubby will post about. as it happens the "enforceImpoverishment Industry" is well out of control, whilst some are ethical, many are as dodgy in their accounting it would appear as a cowboy clamper was.

[tomtubby]

HCEO I think it is clear that you and I have strong opposing opinions and it is great that we can share those opinions on this forum. No offence intended but probably there is little more that I can add.

 

PS: Good debate.....