Rossendales Bailiff enforcement £235 charge.

[thumbtack]

You're quite right alfiemac - the law states the maximum that can be charged. It's perfectly within the bailiff's gift to charge you less. Not that they will.

[Bailiff Advice]

You're quite right alfiemac - the law states the maximum that can be charged. It's perfectly within the bailiff's gift to charge you less. Not that they will.

 

May I make a suggestion. Have a thorough read through of posts on here so that you can make yourself familiar with legislation otherwise I fear that this thread is going to be 'railroaded' by nonsense that you are posting.

 

You have said in your above posts that:

 

'The law states the maximum that can be charged'.....it's perfectly within the bailiff's gift to charge you less'

In fact, you need to read the legislation properly yourself and you will see that the 'law' does not say what you have stated above.

 

The 'law' is the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (link below). You will see that the 'law' states Table 1 and underneath the heading are the words: Enforcement other than under a High Court Writ. Now look under those words and it states as follows:

Fee Stage.......FIXED fee.

 

PS: Not more....not less but fixed.

[thumbtack]

You know, a 'fixed fee' is meant to be agreed between the 2 parties involved.

[wonkeydonkey]

Thumbtack.........do you have anything positive to contribute to this thread or are you merely out to be disruptive?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

No, its a fee fixed by the goverment and has nothing to do with the two parties.

[Bailiff Advice]

This is becoming tiresome (once again).

 

Posters on here are giving their precious time to assist debtors with genuine questions and we should not have to tolerate this nonsense from individuals intend on disrupting threads.

[BornThisWay]

I have to say that jumping between this thread and my own, I am learning some very useful stuff about High Court Bailiffs.

 

 

The most striking thing, as the OP has said, is the sheer scale of charges that they are allowed to impose. How on earth does this ever get Government approval?

 

 

I had watched the TV programmes about HC bailiffs and I assumed they only dealt with companies and criminal fines, so my anger is as much at Anglian Water for setting these people on a single woman who cannot currently afford their ludicrous bills than the bully boys who actually do the job.

 

 

I'm sure the public really don't understand the sort of pressure which can be applied to people who are unable to pay and all of this has certainly been a huge eye opener for me.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I have to say that jumping between this thread and my own, I am learning some very useful stuff about High Court Bailiffs.

 

 

The most striking thing, as the OP has said, is the sheer scale of charges that they are allowed to impose. How on earth does this ever get Government approval?

 

 

I had watched the TV programmes about HC bailiffs and I assumed they only dealt with companies and criminal fines, so my anger is as much at Anglian Water for setting these people on a single woman who cannot currently afford their ludicrous bills than the bully boys who actually do the job.

 

You will not have seen a tv program where hc enforcement agents execute criminal fines. They are Magistrates EA. You may have a high court EA that is also a Magistrates EA.

 

They are not bully boys at all, but in the same way that all sparkies or builders are generally good people, every trade has its bad apples.

 

How does anglian water know before sending the EA's out that she is a single mum? has she told them? has she supplied proof? or has she ignored them and they have had no choice but to send in the bailiffs as they are not allowed to turn her water off anymore so have to keep supplying even when they are not being paid.

 

The job of the EA is to get the non payer, usually those that refuse to pay, to pay up. When we come accross an individual in a circumstance where she has no assets and no funds to pay it off, it usually falls to an arrangement to pay and should it be a vulnerable person, we usually work with them to sort the matter out or return the case should the debtor be unable to understand or handle the matter.

I'm sure the public really don't understand the sort of pressure which can be applied to people who are unable to pay and all of this has certainly been a huge eye opener for me.

 

I for one am glad this is done, as i would end up paying for every freeloader that decides their holiday is more important than their bills or debts. if everyone paid their way(obviously taking inot account vulnerable cases) then this would never be an issue. as it is, almost every case i visit is for an individual that chooses not to pay, rather than is unable to pay. i think the general public would rally for this to happen more and harder if they were assured that by everyone paying thier bills, the bills for the rest of society would drop 10% 20% 30%. Just a 5% saving would have saved me £100 last year on my bills. So because joe bloggs doesnt want to pay their bill, i have to be lumbered with the extra debt and pay it off for them. im sure my children would have prefered that £100 for xmas.

[alfiemac]

What a load of rubbish, if everyone paid their bills on time you my friend would be out of a job for one, and don't know where you get your statistics from you start at 10% then 20% then 30% are these stats plucked out the sky like the£235 charge.

[BornThisWay]

Grumpy I don't know who you are but your aggressive tone is horrible.

 

 

You know nothing about me.

 

 

Why on earth are you posting on a debt forum if you think everyone who has not paid their bills is a low life deserving no respect or sympathy.

 

 

My last holiday was in 1987. When was your's? I don't have a car. What do you drive?

 

 

What a nasty spiteful judgemental person you are.

[brassnecked]

Grumpy is a bailiff, but he does often give a useful perspective as to where an EA is trying it on. usually The fees are set down in law, and were put in place from 6th April last year. We can all assure you that the situation would or could have been worse prior to April 6th 2014..

 

I am no fan of bailiffs or Distress (now taking control of goods) as a remedy, and support the late and sadly missed Lord Denning's view that it belongs in the grave with King John and the legendary Sheriff of Nottingham. However it is still here so we must mitigate its effect, and if Grumpy or HCEOs follow the rules as I'm sure they do in their daily work unlike many bailiffs, then we cannot complain they also often give good advice on here also, especially if the EA is being naughty. after all it makes their job harder.

 

What does not help is where an argument starts over an issue that is more or less set in stone that hijacks a thread to the detriment of the person in need of the advice.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

What a load of rubbish, if everyone paid their bills on time you my friend would be out of a job for one, and don't know where you get your statistics from you start at 10% then 20% then 30% are these stats plucked out the sky like the£235 charge.

Yes that one is plucked out of the sky, which is clear to see in the ways its worded.

[BornThisWay]

Thanks brassnecked.

 

 

I suppose if you choose to do that job you would have to see all debtors as people who are refusing to pay rather than those who cannot.

 

 

And I imagine you have to be incredibly hard. My much older friend tells the story of bailiffs who entered their home and having taken what they thought was valuable simply stamped on the few toys their little girl had as while valueless they did not want her to have them.

 

 

I have always remembered that. It simply cannot be possible to be a bailiff and have any empathy or compassion I suppose.

 

 

I think if I had to chose between the two I would go for prostitution. Seems more noble somehow!

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Grumpy I don't know who you are but your aggressive tone is horrible.

 

 

You know nothing about me.

 

 

Why on earth are you posting on a debt forum if you think everyone who has not paid their bills is a low life deserving no respect or sympathy.

 

 

My last holiday was in 1987. When was your's? I don't have a car. What do you drive?

 

 

What a nasty spiteful judgemental person you are.

 

This is the problem, most of the time people think we are being spiteful, horrible nasty people when in fact, we are just giving it to you straight. Im not accusing you of being anything other than an upstanding citizen so please dont mistake my words for a slight towards you.

 

I go on holiday each year, staying localized so as to save costs as i dont earn alot being a bailiff whatever people make you think.

 

I dont own a personal vehicle, i couldnt afford to run one, but i do have a works supplied van.

 

Personaly i dont think i am a nasty spiteful judgmental person. I am a bailiff(EA). im not your friend, im not your social worker, im not a CAB adviser, i do not lie, i do not coerce, i do not commit fraud.... I am just a normal person that has to do a job that most CANT do, not wont do but CANT do. Our job is a nasty job and we come up against some very nasty people, so our methods are to never make friends, never let our guard down and never let you think you own us, or we get hurt, badly.

 

Im sorry if you feel that my tone is horrible and nasty, its not meant to be. its called bluntness, and in my line of work, it the only way to be.

 

I became a bailiff after leaving the army and having bailiffs chase me for debts that i had built up. I faced it , i have been there, i have dug my way out.

 

As Brass has said, i came here to add weight to the argument of why bailiffs do what we do, and sometimes i think that we are not needed, there should be other ways, and yes, i would be out of a job. But then i think of other sides to this job and who would do it if we didnt. The police? you want it criminalized? maybe a different sort of bailiff? its taken 400 years of bailiff reform to get where we are now. Bailiffs are an essential part of modern life. Since the time of money being invented, and even before, enforcers have been needed.

 

Hope that clarifies things a bit, and again, im sorry if you thought anything i wrote was targeted at you, it was not.

 

G

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

 

I think if I had to chose between the two I would go for prostitution. Seems more noble somehow!

 

Im not good enough looking so being a bailiff was the only choice left.

[BornThisWay]

Thanks for all the input from everyone.

[%Ostrich%]

Thanks to everyone for their input, a lot of people are saying i don't get it, but i do get it and understand charges and the fact that it is legislation and charges need to be applied and don't mind paying charges, the point is, the amount for one hand delivered letter, Thats what i don't get!!!.

I challenge my local council after they charged me £125 for a covenant letter, which was a standard letter, which i had to have to sell my house so i paid it, they told me the same that it was legislation and the law tells them to charge this amount, when my house was sold i challenged the£125 as being an unreasonable reflection on the costs incurred to the council to produce the letter, and i received a cheque for £75 a couple of weeks later, which meant i paid £50, which i thought was a reasonable amount.

 

If you think £50 is a reasonable amount for sending you a standard letter in relation to an "official process", what do you think is a reasonable charge for sending someone out to your house to inform you of impending court action who posts that letter personally? Maybe £100? What about if that person has to come back 3 times to catch you in? Maybe £200-£300? What if that person (upon their 3rd call) makes contact with you and spends another 2 hours with you trying to arrange payment or executes the court order and takes control of your goods? Maybe £300-£400? What if they spend 4 hours with you? £500?

 

Maybe you would've felt better paying the £235 if the EA had visited 3 times and "earned" his money (probably equating to 35-50% of the 235.00 Enforcement fee collected) ?

 

The £235.00 is suddenly looking good value......unless you paid on his first visit and the visit involved nothing more than posting a letter.

[alfiemac]

Thank's for that %Osrtrich% yes i think you have hit the nail on the head i did pay on the first visit and that was my whole point of this thread which went a bit mad, if someone had to call to my property maybe 3-5 times to make contact with me as i was at work then yes i would gracefully accept the £235charge, but these Enforcement agency representatives don't even have to make personal contact as long as they leave a letter at your property and they are able to provide evidence of being at the address, which they can by wearing a body camera which records them being at the house. I was going to request the recording to check they knocked on the door but they dont even need to do that!! its a crazy world we live in, at least with online shopping i can get free delivery.

 

Thank you

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank's for that %Osrtrich% yes i think you have hit the nail on the head i did pay on the first visit and that was my whole point of this thread which went a bit mad, if someone had to call to my property maybe 3-5 times to make contact with me as i was at work then yes i would gracefully accept the £235charge, but these Enforcement agency representatives don't even have to make personal contact as long as they leave a letter at your property and they are able to provide evidence of being at the address, which they can by wearing a body camera which records them being at the house. I was going to request the recording to check they knocked on the door but they dont even need to do that!! its a crazy world we live in, at least with online shopping i can get free delivery.

 

Thank you

 

 

Instead of trying to explain the rational behind the new fee scale it would be easier to read the official explanation from the Ministry of Justice.

 

The following is a copy of the Explanatory Memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Justice and laid in Parliament at that same time as the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 was introduced. You will need to read paragraphs 7.1 onwards:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

[outlawla]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

What the MoJ has effectively admitted is that private bailiff companies can not be trusted to apply appropriate fees and charges, so as a measure, rather than prosecuting them, they have thrown more money their way in the hope that they won't be tempted to break the law.

[Coughdrop]

What the MoJ has effectively admitted is that private bailiff companies can not be trusted to apply appropriate fees and charges, so as a measure, rather than prosecuting them, they have thrown more money their way in the hope that they won't be tempted to break the law.

 

That's one way of reading the document. It's not how I read it.

[lookinforinfo]

Coughdrop if you read 7.1 it says that when bailiffs felt they were underpaid for the work done

 

There is, therefore, an inherent incentive for enforcement agents to engage in, and charge for, unnecessary enforcement activities or to rapidly escalate enforcement action.

and

The current availability of discretionary fee arrangements has also provided incentives for unscrupulous behaviour.

it is not easy to diagree with Outlawla's interpretation. After all there could have been some attempt to curb the unscrupulous behaviour rather than just give in to them and pay them a lot more couldn't there?

[Bailiff Advice]

You need to read Paragraph 7.1 in full to understand WHY the fee scale has been implemented:

 

It states as follows:

 

The various fee structures applicable to enforcement by taking control of goods do not provide adequate remuneration for all aspects of the work carried out by enforcement agents. There is, therefore, an inherent incentive for enforcement agents to engage in, and charge for, unnecessary enforcement activities or to rapidly escalate enforcement action.

 

The current availability of discretionary fee arrangements has also provided incentives for unscrupulous behaviour. Such arrangements allow the enforcement agent to charge “reasonable costs”, which are not specified in advance and are not clearly defined, making these charges prone to abuse. With little clarity and transparency to these fee structures, it is difficult for debtors to check whether they have been charged the correct fees and to challenge these if they have not.

 

As a result of these factors, there have long been calls to introduce a transparent fee structure, relevant to all debt types, alongside the introduction of a simplified and transparent enforcement process. This Statutory Instrument will introduce such a fee structure.

 

As you will see from the above, the previous low fees of £24.50 for 'attending to levy' (where no level was made) together with egislation providing for 'reasonable costs' that were unspecified lead to unscrupulous behaviour. It was well known that bailiffs used to misinterpret the fee scale to suit themselves and the drafting of the legislation at that time made it possible.

 

New regulations, together with updated fees have been in force for the past 9 months and it is the case that the level of complaints being made to the courts about bailiffs has significantly reduced and claims in county courts have reduced to almost nothing.

[outlawla]

You have to put much of the blame on local authorities for bailiffs, pre-April 2014, being creative in applying fees and charges.

 

The pressure put on them by councils was not just the obvious 'fee commission' which Harrow were exposed for, but for additional services they were expected to do on a free of charge basis (amounting to the same).

 

Attachment of earnings, 14 day enforcement letters etc., were expected as freebies and probably why local authorities were notorious for letting them get away with making up their wages with excessive and inappropriate enforcement/van fees.

 

East Riding of Yorkshire Council's service level agreement (Item 7 of Appendix A), details among several free services it expected, was for its bailiff contractor to provide an automatic number plate recognition vehicle in its enforcement area.

[Coughdrop]

Little point living in the past. We work with what we have now.