Help with a judgement and visit from HCEO **Partial Refund Obtained**

[puuk-matt]

Many thanks HCEO's.

Can I just say that I understand that this debt is mine, and that if the fees are the fees then so be it - I shouldn't have let it get this far and lesson learned. However can I run this by you, as maybe I seem to be missing the point (maybe even looking at the wrong document!) but

 

The following is listed on the Writ:

Judgement Debt £1195.75

Judgement Costs £170.00

Costs Of Execution £111.75

Interest to Date: £2.59

HCEO Fees: £635.27

 

Now my understanding (again possibly incorrect) is that the fees can be charged as follows:

 

Section 1 - Percentage on amount recovered of 5% on first £100, and 2.5% thereafter would work out approx £40.00

Section 2 - Mileage of 29.2p per mile to maximum of £50.00, lets assume the maximum of £50.00

Section 3 - Seizure of Goods for each building. HCEO visited 1 building so £2.00

Section 4 - Making Enquiries on claims of rent - he didn't have to make any enquiries, I showed him freely what was ours.

Section 5 - Walking Possession of £0.25 per day - 1 week of this £1.75

Section 6 - Sale of Goods at Auction - N/A

Section 7 - Sale of Goods at Private Contract - N/A

Section 8 - Mileage again - fairly sure this is N/A - but even then only max £25.00

Section 9 - Talks about Domestic Property so N/A?

Section 10 - Writ of Delivery - N/A

Section 11 - Copies of Return - N/A

Section 12 - From my reading this is the biggie, but would be grateful to know what sort of thing this could legally include.

 

So therefore I make the fees around £93.75 and not the £635.27 quoted.

 

Again look forward to having some light shed on this.

 

Many thanks.

[HCEOs]

You will need to ask for a breakdown of the fees charged.

 

You will find additional miscellaneous fees under Fee 12 will have been applied for administration and attendance and other fees like 6.2b which is for the inventory and valuation of goods - often charged at 5% of the debt.

 

Until you have this it will be difficult for anybody to comment.

[tomtubby]

In my office I have the full judgment ( and not the short version that is frequently posted on the web) in the case of Ambrose and from memory, if the bailiff made a "global" levy ( ie: all goods on the premises) then the entire levy was invalid. I could be wrong but something tells me I am right.

 

I will have a look later.

[HCEOs]

In my office I have the full judgment ( and not the short version that is frequently posted on the web) in the case of Ambrose and from memory, if the bailiff made a "global" levy ( ie: all goods on the premises) then the entire levy was invalid. I could be wrong but something tells me I am right.

 

I will have a look later.

 

I would suggest that this case applied to a debt enforced by a Certificated Bailiff for a LA/HMCTS debt.

 

If you read the points 1, 2 and 11 of a Form 55 Notice of Seizure you will see that under the auspice of the High Court it is different. I would also direct you to Cole vs Davies 1698 where a levy of part is good for a levy of the whole.

[puuk-matt]

Once the balance is paid up on Monday, I'll be asking for a breakdown of the fees etc. as well as some sort of invoice that I can show on my books. Obviously don't want to rock the boat before the matter is all paid off and closed.

 

I spent a lot of time thinking about some of the comments on here about the fees etc. and the more I did think about it the more it seems wrong (to me anyway) that the fees can be so high. Surely the HCEO is there to collect upon the debt, and whilst they have their 'fee to earn', it seems to me wrong that it is just generally accepted that their fees will be so high.

What I'm getting at, is that can it really be justified to charge over £600 for a single visit, lasting no more than 10 minutes, where nothing has been removed, before being paid in full one week later... without ever explaining what the £600.00 is for.

To me, common sense dictates that maybe £100 - £150 would suffice in this scenario.

 

Anyway will wait until Monday when the remaining £600 is paid, and then start enquiring as to what the fees consist of.

 

Thanks again for all of your input.

[HCEOs]

Firstly, you won't get an invoice and the VAT is not reclaimable of the fees. Your receipt will be sufficient for HMRC.

 

The fees are high because of the costs associated with running an HCEO business. But as I said, they are challengeable if you decide to go down that route.

[puuk-matt]

Thanks for your comment HCEO's - I appreciate that the VAT is non relaimable and that at some point I will be issued with a receipt (it has so far been paid over the phone.)

 

The more I'm reading up on all of this, the more I believe, that this is an industry that requires some drastic overhaul and scrutiny.

Your statement that it's because of the costs of running an HCEO business, I'm not sure can stand up. It is only the same as any other business surely? I should presumably only have to pay the amount it has cost to enforce and collect my judgement debt and not the costs of 'running the business' so to speak. Otherwise am I surely not paying twice or three times for the cost of enforcement? As the writ already allows for Execution Costs, Interest and HCEO fees. To say I also have to pay for the costs of running an HCEO business as well - I guess that the swanky offices, nice cars etc. do all have to be paid for by someone!

 

I appreciate that is possibly a little facetious, but as I say, this industry seems to be able to levy fees in cloak and dagger fashion, completely aware that the power remains in their corner, and I guess most just pay whatever is asked because of the fear of losing their goods etc. and then it appears that to go back and challenge these fees costs a great deal of money. Obviously at the moment, I don't know what the extra fees the HCEO have added to my bill, common sense tells me that if I could get the matter in front of a judge that the fees would probably be reduced in my case, but surely this is all the wrong way round.

 

Again I stress, I fully appreciate my debt has to be paid, and that I should of acted sooner, and that in enforcing this costs have to be met, but surely, it doesn't cost £600+ to collect £1300.00 of debt.

[HCEOs]

I understand your plight and can see why on the face of it you take the stance you do and your logic behind it.

 

However, the costs of running an HCEO business are significant and many do not realise the considerable back office costs compared with a regular 'bailiff' company.

 

Changes in law back in 2004 made it a competitive market meaning HCEOs now had to compete for work whereas prior to this it was geographically based. Suddenly HCEOs had to sell and market themselves otherwise they might not survive. Free services were introduced to try and keep clients (like free transfer up, tracing etc). Websites, sponsorship of events etc etc all costs money. This, along with falling collection rates and increases in general business costs (fuel etc) means only one person is going to pay for it. The debtor. And remember that debtor pays for the non-payers too. A bit like the way that credit card rates are higher than they've been for ages but the BOE interest rate still remains at it's lowest.

 

Now, I agree that this is fundamentally wrong but it is where we are.

 

This is all changing next year with strict fixed fees that are considerably lower than those charged today (for HCEOs at least - Bailiff companies are rubbing their hands together as we speak). This will see considerable changes to the industry which are welcomed by this forum but not necessarily by creditors as the Government is biased towards protecting debtors.

[puuk-matt]

HCEO's - thanks for you reply again - interesting reading and I'll be honest I think it's imperative that the industry is changed.

 

To comment on a few of your points - I personally don't think anyone has a 'right' to remain in business (I know you didn't claim this of the HCEO in your argument) but as such if changes to regulations mean that HCEO have to compete etc. then they either have to work out if it's viable to continue or not, again I can't agree and it simply can't be right that I have to pay for anything other than the cost of collecting my outstanding debt. So therefore, if the HCEO office cannot stay in business without inflating charges above and beyond then my argument, which I think is logical, is that the business and model aren't viable and therefore should fail.

 

Instead if you follow the argument to it's logical conclusion (as so easily could have been the case for me) the fees added could have broken the back of my business and therefore caused it to close. Would I have any argument or would there be any sympathy to me saying, well to be honest since there are too many other people in my trade competing in my area... no probably not - that is the open market. In this economic climate we all have to look at where costs can be saved, and tighten up our operation.

 

I also don't feel as though I should be paying for the non-payers, even though I can see merit in your argument about the credit cards (but then let's face it, banks and finance are some of the biggest crooks around!) but looking at it from my side of the equation, if Joe Bloggs doesn't pay me for goods and services supplied, I can't simply up everyone elses prices for the day once they've been quoted to cover this, with a mystery line on their invoice I create without explaining what it contains, and threaten to prevent them driving home in their car from my car park unless they pay it! And then when the customer complains tell them... tough, pay up, and if you feel as though it's unjustified then gamble another £300ish odd pounds of your money to see if you can get me to change my figures.

 

Instead I would have to go down the route of debt collection etc. Especially as non-payers are already covered from the HCEO point because as I understand it the transfer up of £60.00ish (sorry working from memory) is paid by the creditor in the event of non-payment.

 

Therefore I welcome any changes to the law and fees etc - believe me I completely understand the need for HCEO to be there, and that I could have avoided the action taken by dealing with my debt in this case sooner, but I can't accept all of the arguments you've put forward, if you can't earn money with the fee schedules in place then it's time to get out of the game.

 

Again I appreciate that some of these arguments go to the n'th degree and may be a little flippant but the system seems broken from my point of view.

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

[tomtubby]

HCEO: You will need to ask for a breakdown of the fees charged.

 

You will find additional miscellaneous fees under Fee 12 will have been applied for administration and attendance and other fees like 6.2b which is for the inventory and valuation of goods - often charged at 5% of the debt.

 

Until you have this it will be difficult for anybody to comment.

 

I know that you will NOT be surprised to hear that I do not agree with your above point that costs for "administration" etc can be charged.

 

It would seem that the "enforcement" industry and in particular the HCEO area of enforcement have not read two very important Judgments that are highly relevant to the industries view that "office costs", "admin fees" and the like can be charged. I would so that this is NOT the correct position and they are the everyday costs of running a business.

 

There have recently been two very important Judgments on this very point. One was in relation to the case of A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K and was heard before His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC lat year. The claimant wished to claim £137.50 which was made up of the following:

 

 

Staff/Management Time investigating and dealing with the tort: £82.50

 

Administration costs resulting from the tort: £24.75

 

Proportion of general security and surveillance costs: £30.50

 

His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC REJECTED the claims and interestingly, on the matter of "administrative" costs, the Judge stated that "the claimants were doing what they were paid to do" and furthermore, the claimant was not able to show that the costs were attributable to the defendants activities !!!

 

The most significant Judgment of all relates to the well know case of Ibbotson v VCS which relates to a claim by VCS for costs in relation to private parking charge for parking in a supermarket car park.

 

VCS issued a schedule of costs which include as example the following:

 

Image processing costs: £2

 

Image transfer costs of 52p

 

PCN costs of 62p

 

Wallet cost of 37p

 

Parking attendant uniform (true)

 

Counsel for VCS attempted to explain that : This is the overall cost of issuing a parking charge notice to which the Judge stated:

 

NO IT IS NOT......IT IS THE COST TO THE BUSINESS !!!

 

The "costs" were of course rejected !!!!

 

 

You can read the Ibbotson Judgment here:

 

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

 

I will try to get a link to the other judgment this afternoon.

[puuk-matt]

As per my discussions last week, now paid the balance of the Writ, and upon receiving confirmation that the Writ was now satisfied, have requested a full breakdown of fees charged. This is being sent out by post this evening by all accounts, so I look forward to seeing what fees exactly I have been charged for and will post back accordingly upon receipt.

Many thanks again for all of your input, if nothing else this opens up a very lively discussion!

[HCEOs]

I know that you will NOT be surprised to hear that I do not agree with your above point that costs for "administration" etc can be charged.

 

tomtubby, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

The matters you refer to were firstly in the County Court and secondly are not the same.

 

The High Court case of Bernard Loynes v Beswicks Solicitors clearly states that the approach taken in the standardisation of an administration fee was appropriate.

 

As already stated, the OP does have the choice to have the fees assessed if he wishes to do so.

[tomtubby]

tomtubby, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

The matters you refer to were firstly in the County Court and secondly are not the same.

 

The High Court case of Bernard Loynes v Beswicks Solicitors clearly states that the approach taken in the standardisation of an administration fee was appropriate.

 

As already stated, the OP does have the choice to have the fees assessed if he wishes to do so.

 

If my memory serves me right, Bernard Loynes was indeed sucessful in getting some of the HCEO fees removed or greatly reduced and the application to APPEAL was purely ONLY on the basis that he was unhappy that the court allowed the Cost draughtsman fees for preparing the Bill of Costs for the Detailed Assessment. The outcome of the appeal was that the court allowed the costs draughtsman fees.

 

I may be wrong but I think that in this case I am right. I have all of the notes from Bernie Loynes from a few years ago so can check if necessary.

[puuk-matt]

Regrettably, I have not received the statement of fees in today's post, so will check again tomorrow.

I have however emailed the HCEO office asking them to confirm that they have actioned my request to send out this statement, and if they prefer to send it by email they are more than welcome to.

I will update when the statement is received.

[puuk-matt]

Morning all,

 

Have received the financial statement from the HCEO and it breaks down as follows:

 

Amount of Judgement: £1195.75

Fixed Costs On Judgement: £170.00

Execution Costs: £111.75

Accrued Interest: £5.84

Due Claiment: £1483.34

 

Percentage Fee 1: £39.58

Mileage Fee 2: £49.88

Seizure Fee 3: £2.00

Enquiry Fee 4: £4.00

Walking Possession Fee 5(2): £0.00

Enforcements Under Fee 5(3): £310.00

Disbursements Under Fee 5(3): £0.00

No Sale Inventory Fee 6(2)(b): £74.17

Disbursements Under Fee 12: £50.00

VAT: £105.93

Total Enforcement Fee £635.56

 

I've looked up the allowed fees again and I have the following concerns, which maybe someone more knowledgeable here can help with please:

 

The Enforcements under Fee 5(3) of £310.00 seem to relate to where goods have actually been removed (see below) - this has not been the case as the goods were left in our possession.

(3) For—

(a)the removal of goods;

(b)the storage of goods which have been removed; and

©where animals have been seized, their upkeep while in the custody of the enforcement officer, whether before or after removal

 

The fact the goods remained in our possession seems further highlighted by my second query of:

No Sale Inventory Fee 6(2)(b) which has been charged at £74.17.

How can the enforcement officer have placed any value on the goods when he was here for 5 minutes most?

 

As I say maybe I am misreading this and the second point is less important than the first.

 

Look forward to any comments.

[danmcr]

In my opinion those fees are reasonable compared to what you would/could have been charges by some HCEO's.

[puuk-matt]

Danmcr -

 

Thanks for your response, and I appreciate that other firms may have charged more.... but again my question is not whether the charges are reasonable, it is if they are fair.... am I correct in that the fees charged relate to removal of goods instead of walking possession, in which case regardless of whether the fees are reasonable compared to others or not, I am being charged for things that didn't occur.

 

You'll also appreciate from my previous posts, that my personal opinion the more I read into all of this is that £600+ fees for a 5 minute visit and a week wait for payment is less than reasonable!

[danmcr]

As HCEO's points out the costs of running a HCE business is considerably more than a normal Bailiff co.

 

A defendant will never see fees charged as reasonable they will always be unfair as in your case. Have you thought about making a complaint to the HCEO regarding the fees?

[puuk-matt]

Hi Danmcr -

 

But therein lies the crux as far as I am concerned...

I've already given my thoughts on the fees of running the business etc. but I come back to the same point.

 

It cannot be justified to charge more than the costs of collecting the debt and in any event, it cannot be right to charge for items and list them on the statement if they haven't been charges incurred. As per my statement, the £310.00 fee for removal of goods has not occured so regardless of the costs of running the business etc. I should, in my opinion, not have to pay it.

 

I also take umbridge to your comment that a defendant will never see fees as fair. I have on numerous occasions said that I fully understand that the debt had to be paid, that I ignored it and therefore allowed it to escalate, so of course I expect some fees to be added. If the fees appeared reasonable then this question would never have arisen, but it has, and on reading I believe that there are £310.00 of fees on the bill for items which have not been actioned.

My question earlier today, was not whether the fees were fair, but whether I was correct in my thinking that the way in which the fees have been listed for this £310.00 is in fact a mistake, and therefore not payable.

 

And yes I will be making a complaint to the HCEO involved, however I was looking for some advice first to see if a complaint would be valid.

[ploddertom]

If you trade as a sole trader I would be inclined to serve a SAR on the HCEO to see f you can elicit what actual work they are claiming for. I see a few different points on which the fees could be challenged but would need more info first.

[puuk-matt]

It is a limited company - does this have a significant bearing?

[HCEOs]

I think ploddertom was wondering if the goods levied could be exempt as 'tools of the trade' but this remedy is not available to Ltd companies. If they were exempt then you may have been able to argue some of the fees.

[puuk-matt]

HCEOs - thanks for that - I can see his logic on that one.

 

I'm still hoping for advice on the basis that there were fees charged under 'Enforcements under Fee 5(3)' which from my reading relates to goods being removed from premises and not just levied on as in my case. But I accept that being new to all this I may have read this wrong???

 

Many thanks again.

[puuk-matt]

Thought I would come back and supply an update.

 

Following the discussions on this site I wrote the HCEO a strongly worded, firm but fair email on the 19th August, querying the fees in particular the Enforcements Under Fee 5(3): £310.00 amount.

 

Having not heard back anything for near on two weeks, I have phoned this morning, and again fairly but firmly stated that the delay in responding to my query has been unacceptable and that I would require a response no later than 5pm on Monday 2nd September otherwise I would seek legal redress.

 

Low and behold at 4pm this afternoon, I have received an email response from the HCEO, firstly apologising that due to server problems and staff sickness (blah blah blah), it has taken longer than usual to answer my query....... but that they agree the fees are wrong and HAVE REFUNDED THE £310.00 back to my payment card.

 

Has cheered me up no end on a Friday afternoon I can tell you.

 

So firstly thank you to all those who offered advice, and my advice to anyone reading this is don't be scared to 'have a pop back'. I wonder how many others have the fees added on and it just goes by the by.

 

Secondly to those on here, whose stance was that the fees charged in my case 'were reasonable' compared to what other HCEO firms would charge... I feel somewhat vindicated, and this confirms my suspicions about this industry that there are some very unreasonable characters within it.

Anyway thanks again for all the advice received... I will very shortly be donating to the upkeep of the site, and will check back in from time to time!

[danmcr]

Firstly well done on getting some money back.

 

Secondly regarding your comments as someone who works in the industry I have seen much higher fees, fees which have been subject to being challenged and the defendant losing the the claim. Am sure HCEO will back me up on this. The HCEO in your case seems very reasonable and I'm surprised you got some money back. However once again well done at least you have some money to treat yourself to a pint or three this weekend.