Umm intresting reading

[mikeymack2002]

Scoop has a good story tonight http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2697.html&query=bailiff+and+warrant+and+council&method=Boolean

 

 

This is re: JBW at para 3 see the argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story from here http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Edited June 25, 2015 by mikeymack2002
added ore info

[mikeymack2002]

In a later case JBW spoke of the debtor being responsible for paying the fees, I was wandering what people think of the highlighted section on page 2 of the new attachment?

 

 

Info from here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:moQgBtmUxsUJ:www.monckton.com/court-appeal-gives-important-ruling-scope-service-concessions-implied-contracts-procurement-cases/+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[mikeymack2002]

The reason for me posting the links earlier was to try to understand the costs involved prior to the new regs and the contracts. I know that the new regs have taken over from the previous fees structure but....

 

 

Is it right the way I have viewed this. The contractor would pay xx for each enforcement then charge a debtor xxx which obviously is greater than what they paid HMCS, ( as they are a profit making business) who in the old days set the amount they the then Bailiff charged the defaulter/debtor?

 

 

Also I thought the new regs only allowed reasonable costs incurred? No way does it cost £75.00 or so to post a letter? Or to set up an account, I will post arguments about this later...

[mikeymack2002]

Sorry BA I totally have to disagree with your comments on the other thread. Reason: The EA company already have these in place and it is part of their business structure, specifically because the company has already got the items listed in place. Simply using your argument to state it is a fair price to pay is totally wrong. I can see yet another Rev: Green case (fees) argument sometime in the future.

 

 

A debtor is NOT responsible in any circumstances for the day to day running of a company nor are they responsible for paying for the costs of the running of the said company. This therefore this makes a mockery of the new fees scale already. In my view this is not a reasonable cost and therefore a penalty.

 

 

You know me well enough to know this particular post is not aimed at you in any shape or form, nor is it a complaint it is just an observation.... Right across the enforcement/debt industry it s a REASONABLE costs that is allowed, not profiteering from the less fortunate among us....

[mikeymack2002]

TBH I am expecting to get a big kicking in my butt for post #9 but to have someone else agree with my observations is warmly accepted. Thank you for that.

I know BA will understand what I am trying to say but the new fees structure is nothing short of profiteering on a massive scale. BA has stated many times that the sheer amount of LO's fines and others is really significant. This IMHO is well say no more.......

 

 

How can these "letter fees" be justified for anything other than a penalty that a debtor/defaulter. We now live in a very modern age so much so that a computer can make a file and print a letter in a matter of seconds.

 

 

Having worked in the printing trade for a while we would receive a CD full of information to print and place in envelopes all the letters for the company. We would process 1.000's of them a day. Cost to print and post was next to nothing. Imagine if you will that a bank was to charge every single customer £75-00 to open a bank account simply because of the costs time and postage involved, we would be in an uproar would we not? So why should an EA company get away with it?

[mikeymack2002]

BA , I was not referring to that case in particular, you know that, I was stating to use the words that the REV. complained about the fees, I am also showing that the fees are wrong and extortionate. Yes the Statutory fees have been agreed and in place for over a year we know that. But why and whom decided that a debtor must pay such a high level and why or if this figure can ever be challenged? If not then this is a penalty.

 

 

 

 

If the figure can be challenged is there anything happening in the "background" to have this reviewed and lowered to a more reasonable level?

[mikeymack2002]

Totally lost in translation to the above post care to explain more pm If you wish

[mikeymack2002]

I assume we are talking about HIM then? If so enough said then

[mikeymack2002]

One of my questions has now been answered that was who set the fee schedule prior to the new regs coming in. More on this later...

 

 

Ok I know this "story" has had some comments that are different, but having re-read some of the original case I have the following observations as always. I am going to break down if allowed too and ask very specific questions on some areas if you all do not mind that is?

 

Questions

 

1. In (2) at line 13 - 15 quote "Thus £20 was provided ‘for preparing and sending a letter advising the debtor that a warrant is with the bailiff and requesting the total sum due’" Why was this then increased in value to £75-00 under the new regs when for many years £20-00 was sufficient?

 

 

2. Continuing to page 3 at indent 1 plus paragraph 2 can someone explain in more detail then at the second coma of indent 1 at page 3 please?

 

 

3. Continuing on page 3 final paragraph before point 4 what are the views please?

 

 

4. Finally since the fees structure was agreed by the Council and bailiff company (their contract) not that with the debtor could the unfair contract law come in to play since the debtor had and could not query the fees that were charged at that time (pre new regs) argument is in the sentence on line one on page 4...