marston Marstons HCEO NOE - for a recent £3k CCJ for my unpaid water bill.

[scarlettuk]

Hi all.

 

I've received a Notice of Enforcement from Marstons for a recent CCJ for my unpaid water bill. I was out of work for a while, recently back in full time work and trying to pull my head out of the sand.

 

The notice states that if I don't pay or make a payment arrangement by 23rd June an officer will call. I tried calling the water company (United Utilities) first, and they referred me straight to Marstons. I called Marstons, made an offer to pay, first instalment on the 25th when I get paid and they have advised that an officer will still need to visit "to make sure that I can't pay the full amount".

 

I asked the woman on the phone if this was necessary, as the letter stated I had to make a payment or an arrangement by the 23rd, which I have tried to do, and she said that it's just part of the process. I don't want someone to visit as it adds an extra £200 plus onto the debt.

 

Does anyone know where I stand with this? I have every intention of repaying the debt, but could really do without them adding to it.

 

Thanks in advance.

[fkofilee]

Id complain to Marstons, its NOT Required as youve done what they had requested....

[email protected]

[BankFodder]

Please will you post the letter which you received. Remove the identifiers, of course.

Thank you.

 

Also, I suggest that you read our customer services guide before dealing with anyone on the phone

[Bailiff Advice]

Scarlett,

 

I am pleased to see that you are managing to now address this matter and that you had submitted a payment proposal. I am sorry to have to tell you but the operator that you spoke with at Marston Group was indeed telling you the truth (regarding the need to make a personal visit).

 

The fees that can be charged by an enforcement agent are outlined in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and below I have provided a link to the statutory Explanatory Memorandum that supports the fee scale.

 

You will see under paragraph 7.3 that if payment of the full amount is not paid that in every case the enforcement Agent is obliged to attend the premises in person on behalf of the creditor in order to 'secure' the debt.

 

This provision is only applicable in cases of a County Court judgment that has been transferred to the High Court for enforcement. In such cases, the Enforcement Agent has personal liability to the creditor.

 

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

[scarlettuk]

I'm usually reluctant to deal with this kind of thing on the phone but needed to do something with it. I've typed the letter below verbatim:

 

Notice of enforcement

This notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent's office

Please read this notice - it is important

Name of Debtor: Me

Address: My home

Date notice issued: 12 June 2015

Enforcement agent reference number: XXXX

 

About this notice

You have been sent this notice of enforcement because you have not paid money that you owe

 

Who you owe money to: UNITED UTILITIES WATER PLC

The amount you owe them: £3xxx

Their ref/account no. (if applicable): xxxx

 

Enforcement details

Details of the court judgment or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable:

High Court Writ of Control based upon Judgment obtained against you by United Utilities on 3rd March 2015 in the XXX County Court transferred to the High Court for enforcement.

 

Sum outstanding

Debt: £3xxx

Interest: £0.00

Compliance stage fee: £90.00

Total sum outstanding: £3xxx (as at the date of this notice)

 

Page 2:

When to make a payment

You must pay, or agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent, by:

Date: 23rd June 2015

Time: 17:00

 

If you do not pay

If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit you and may seize your belongings - this is called 'taking control'. The belongings may then be sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs will be added to the amount already owed.

 

Possible additional fees and expenses of enforcement

If the sum outstanding remains unpaid or you have not agreed a payment arrangement by the date and time above you may be charged the following (enforcement agent to details further possible fees and expenses)

 

First enforcement stage £190 + 7.5% of sum to be recovered exceeding £1000.00 + VAT

Second enforcement stage £495.00 + VAT

Sale or disposal stage £525.00 + 7.5% of sum to be recovered exceeding £1000.00 + VAT

Plus other expenses for Locksmith, Storage and Sale, along with any costs the court may allow

 

The bottom bit just shows how to pay and contact details for CAB, etc.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think that you may have uncovered a problem given that the wording on the Notice of Enforcement appears to contradict with the Explanatory Memorandum. I am going to make some enquiries this afternoon with the Ministry of Justice.

 

What payment proposal did you put forward?

[scarlettuk]

Thanks Bailiff Advice. I proposed to pay £200 per month. This is why I was questioning it - I have done what was required in the notice. Perhaps Marstons need to update their forms...

 

If I don't pay what I propose then I'm prepared to accept that they'll send the boys round, but in the meantime I have done what was asked, and have every intention of paying.

[BankFodder]

Thank you for typing the letter. However, it would be helpful if you would post the original or else email it to us on our admin address.

 

I am very concerned by the apparent conflict if what Bailiff Advice has said is correct. If you can scan the letter, I can make some direct enquiries.

[scarlettuk]

Thanks BankFodder. If I e-mail it privately, do I still need to obscure personal info?

[BankFodder]

No - you don't. It will be in confidence - except that Martson and also the Advisory Group may see it - but this will not change anything or cause you any prejudice whatsoever.

[BankFodder]

Can you confirm that this is definitely enforcement by HCEO?

[scarlettuk]

As far as I'm aware. I'm just e-mailing the letter to the admin address BankFodder.

[BankFodder]

No - you don't. It will be in confidence - except that Martson and also the Advisory Group may see it - but this will not change anything or cause you any prejudice whatsoever.

 

Thank you received.

Please note that although I will raise this as a concern, for the moment you should deal with as per normal procedure and that although I am going to raise the issue, it is unlikely to have any impact on the course of events.

 

Can you confirm that this is HCEO.

 

Thanls

[scarlettuk]

As far as I can see it's HCEO. The letter states:

 

High Court Writ of Control based upon Judgment obtained against you by United Utilities on 3rd March 2015 in the XXX county court transferred to the High Court for enforcement.

 

Really appreciate all your help. Thanks.

[BankFodder]

.Ta. I missed that bit

 

I've responded to you by email to explain a little bit more fully what my position is and what I intend to do.

[scarlettuk]

I appreciate that your checking may not change this, and I do intend to deal with it appropriately in the meantime, i.e. making the payments as promised.

 

However, in the long run, that statement in the letter about making a payment arrangement during the compliance period might just knock off the first enforcement fee that they'll no doubt add at some point in the future. I can live in hope!

[caledfwlch]

BA, what do the regulations say, where the Debtor makes an offer, based on what they can afford (and can prove it) but refuses to allow entry to "secure goods"?

[Bailiff Advice]

It is certainly the case that with such debts (Judgments over £600 passed to the High Court) that in order to accept a payment proposal that the EA should visit the debtor on behalf of the creditor and that is why each case where a payment arrangement is made will incur the 1st Enforcement fee of £190 plus vat. However, it would seem that this contradicts with the wording on the statutory Notice of Enforcement. I am currently awaiting a response to my enquiries.

 

This is not a fault of Marston's. Also, we must remember that the 'command' on the writ specifically provides that the EA has a duty to the creditor to attempt to seize goods.

 

PS: Bankfodder....I will email you some info on this subject later today.

 

caledfwlch said:

BA, what do the regulations say, where the Debtor makes an offer, based on what they can afford (and can prove it) but refuses to allow entry to "secure goods"?

 

Good question and I will answer later today if you don't mind. I have so many enquiries today it is simply manic.

[ploddertom]

I note what has been said and have no comment to make on what has been said with regards as to how this is done but to be honest there are other ways to address this issue which I am surprised no one has mentioned.

[brassnecked]

Would a Stay be appropriate PT, BA and BF? submitting the payment proposal, and it's kick in date as justification

[ploddertom]

Doubt wherther a Stay is applicable in this case but a Variation Order is a possibility. A lot depends on who the OP wants to pay.

 

Regardless of the paperwork issued there is nothing to say the OP has to deal with the attending Officer and it would be a very serious mistake for them to grant the Officer entry to the home (unless of course they have no goods at all worth seizing).

 

Providing anything of value outside is removed and made safe then really it renders the attending Officer powerless - he is not going to make numerous visits just to be ignored. Have to remember of course that as the Writ has been issued it prevents sale, transfer or disposal of any assets as all goods are bound.

[HCEOs]

I would be surprised if Marston didn't accept the payment arrangement offered but yes, they do have a duty to attend and seize (take control of) goods in accordance with:-

 

1. The Explanatory Memorandum to The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (No. 1) which reads "Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Curt case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage". This is to ensure that goods are levied against to protect the creditors interest.

 

2. The actual Writ of Control clearly orders the enforcement agent that "YOU ARE NOW COMMANDED to take control of the goods of the claimant/defendant authorised by law and raise therefrom the sums detailed in the Schedule, together with fees and charges to which you are entitled" .

 

Both of these are at odds with the wording on the Notice of Enforcement and we hope this (along with many of the other statutory forms) will be amended in the first year review.

[scarlettuk]

I'd rather pay UU directly, but I don't know whether applying for a variation would just be more stress and bother. I don't want to feel "judged" for being stupid. I know that I shouldn't have let it get this far, but we can't live by what-ifs. I have no intention of letting the EA into the house, and I believe they don't have the right to force entry. I have nothing of value left outside, and not much inside to be fair. My partner is at home full-time with our small children and also knows not to let anyone in.

 

Although I've made a verbal offer to Marston's, I suspect it would be prudent to put it in writing. The lady I spoke to on the phone indicated that UU would be likely to accept the offer, so, unless I'm being naive, as long as I keep on paying what I've promised, that should be an end to it.

 

All your advice is, as always, invaluable.

[ploddertom]

No one is going to "judge" you, we may ask a lot of questions to find out what has happened to establish how it has got to this stage. It can be difficult if you have never been in this situation before and we can help guide you through it.

 

Applying for a Variation Order puts any payment proposal on a more formal basis & is a simple process to apply for, I have to say your offer is more than generous. Like everything though would this level of payment expose you to any hardship? If not then a lower level may be better.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Both of these are at odds with the wording on the Notice of Enforcement and we hope this (along with many of the other statutory forms) will be amended in the first year review.

 

This is just one of many amendments that we hope to see under the 'One Year Review'.