Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


mounsey44

foot in door by HCEO for vets bill - made to pay +£4000 on the spot - HELP!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1788 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

The difference between the judgment and the notice should be £111.75. That's the transfer costs associated with high court transfers. There ay be a few pence of interest too.

 

I would be wary of a charge back, as the debt will then be outstanding again, and you may find they just apply to court for a warrant to gain entry, as they will claim prior peaceful entry so they have the right to re-enter. Sounds far fetched, but I have seen it done on a charge back case.

You will also find that they will robustly defend the chargeback in the first place as chip and pin. So it's not fraud and they may also state that its not "under duress". The bailiff had give the choice of removal or payment. That's what they are there for, and more and more banks are refusing to call that duress.

 

Im not looking to take back the debt or the GENUINE enforcement costs through the bank...just the charges that were taken for services that never happened.. That amounts to £1,444.81 thats a lot of money to add to an already big debt.

Not at any time did I agree to pay for things that never happened! He told me the charges were solicitors cost! Thats a lie...outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to write asking for a complete breakdown of the fees you were charged to include dates & times where applicable.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where I live you might get the three hits from some of the characters around here, debtor hits you you hit the floor, ambulance hits 90mph, while you are on the deck your van is on bricks as the local scrotes hate bailiffs and will have the wheels away.

 

That is the problem with HCE though the fees are higher. Don't the HCEO EA's want to get their claws into CCA debt, and Student Loans?

 

Or the debtor tries to hit the bailiff, the bailiff doesn't get hit, the debtor gets put to the floor, the plod gets called, the debtor get 6 months. And the wheels stay on the van but the debtors whole vehicle is taken along with his household goods to settle a debt that he could have paid/made an arrangement on/taken back to court.

 

Violence never work, and it will only make matters worse. Fine, so a debtor and his mates kick off and I run off with rail between legs. How long do you think it will be before we are back mob handed with a court order to force entry, the police with us and a number of vans to remove. All of which may be considered exceptional costs due to debtor actions and this then add a few k to the bill.

 

The costs associated with enforceing are high. Insurance, vans, wages, office staff etc etc. And we are a damn sight more effective Tha cc bailiffs who don't generally "enforce".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to write asking for a complete breakdown of the fees you were charged to include dates & times where applicable.

 

I already have. This was the reply.

 

How can they put in writing, fees for services that never happened? It amazes me!

Surely as he visited on the 20th July, and it was settled in full on this date they would realise that it is impossible for the extra fees to have been incurred?

 

Thank you for your email dated 24/07/15 in relation to a breakdown of the charges.

Please see below for a breakdown of charges for your account:

High Court Writ - £2468.88

Compliance Stage (Administration Fee): £90.00 inc VAT

1st Enforcement Stage : £228.00 inc VAT + if the debt is above £1,000, there is a 7.5% = £228.00 plus £133.18

2nd Enforcement Stage: £594.00 inc VAT = £594.00

Sale or Disposal Stage: £630.00 inc VAT = £630.00 there is a 7.5% fee of the amount above £1000> = £130.81

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you acknowledge the Notice of Enforcement they sent? Did it comply with the 7 days clear rule?


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been back over your thread & you say at the beginning that the Notice of Enforcement arrived after the visit. Do you still have this letter & importantly do you still have the envelope or if not can you remember how it arrived?


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Been back over your thread & you say at the beginning that the Notice of Enforcement arrived after the visit. Do you still have this letter & importantly do you still have the envelope or if not can you remember how it arrived?

 

 

 

Yes, I still have the letter. But not the envelope. But I do remember it was sent by second class post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot see the Notice of Enforcement very clearly. What date is the notice dated and what is the date (and time) by when payment must be made?

 

Sorry, the date of notice is the 6th July 15

The date/time to pay was 17.00 on the 19th July.

 

I told HCEO it had not came. He said take it up with Royal Mail.

 

The notice arrived the 21st July - 2nd class post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that 2nd Class via Royal Mail & can you remember if it had a stamp or franking machine mark on it? In my view the Notice is non-compliant in that it did not give sufficient time to engage with them & they jumped the gun by arriving early. I note again the Authorised HCEO is Simon Williamson & there do appear to be more complaints about any Writ he is involved with than any other.

 

I appreciate this may not seem like a good thing but the fact is now that you have paid in full, you no longer risk the knock at the door. This now lets you gather all the info you need. I am still struggling with how on a first visit he can have charged 1st & 2nd Enforcement Stages + Sale Stage. Think there is a lot of mileage in this one yet.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or the debtor tries to hit the bailiff, the bailiff doesn't get hit, the debtor gets put to the floor, the plod gets called, the debtor get 6 months. And the wheels stay on the van but the debtors whole vehicle is taken along with his household goods to settle a debt that he could have paid/made an arrangement on/taken back to court.

 

Violence never work, and it will only make matters worse. Fine, so a debtor and his mates kick off and I run off with rail between legs. How long do you think it will be before we are back mob handed with a court order to force entry, the police with us and a number of vans to remove. All of which may be considered exceptional costs due to debtor actions and this then add a few k to the bill.

 

The costs associated with enforceing are high. Insurance, vans, wages, office staff etc etc. And we are a damn sight more effective Tha cc bailiffs who don't generally "enforce".

These particular people I am talking about have nothing worth taking, as in third hand goods, and a broken TV or two, and are no strangers to plod or prison so don't care either way. but yes it isn't good practice to clout a bailiff.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These particular people I am talking about have nothing worth taking, as in third hand goods, and a broken TV or two, and are no strangers to plod or prison so don't care either way. but yes it isn't good practice to clout a bailiff.

 

I'm trying to work out what real relevance this and posts made byyourself & Grumpy have in helping the OP. If you want to discuss this type of thing then take it to the Bear Garden.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was that 2nd Class via Royal Mail & can you remember if it had a stamp or franking machine mark on it? In my view the Notice is non-compliant in that it did not give sufficient time to engage with them & they jumped the gun by arriving early. I note again the Authorised HCEO is Simon Williamson & there do appear to be more complaints about any Writ he is involved with than any other.

 

I appreciate this may not seem like a good thing but the fact is now that you have paid in full, you no longer risk the knock at the door. This now lets you gather all the info you need. I am still struggling with how on a first visit he can have charged 1st & 2nd Enforcement Stages + Sale Stage. Think there is a lot of mileage in this one yet.

 

Im pretty sure it was a franking machine mark. The HCEO didn't seem at all surprised when I said it had not come either.

I was actually amazed that they put it in writing that all these charges happened on the same day. It's impossible from enforcement to sale in the space of that time scale....that was the amount he asked for as soon as he knocked..without knowing if I had it or not. It is obviously pre planned. Just wondering how they get away with it. As the lies are on paper too....amazing.

My main concern now is trying to get it back..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as you have proof of the breaches of timescales by the EA, you should put in a complaint.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its entirely possible that it can go from just the £90 to full fees. When he knocked on your door, it was already on enf2. It would only have been on enf1 if you had contacted them for an arrangement.

If you refused point blank to pay but he got access and saw assets so he can then start the sale stage fee s its the act of starting the removal that incurs that fee.

If as you say, he had that full balance outstanding from the moment he knocked your door, then ya, that's wrong.

You will need to prove that though. Unless you can get a copy of the bodyworn video the EA had.

You really should be complaining id the notice expiry date was after the EA visited.

You should also complain that the notice arrived AFTER the EA's visit.

I cant see you getting very far without relevant proof but if you have spare time, then it cant hurt to try. Just be careful of EAC2 complaints as costs orders are being made when complainants lose these now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already stated, we have only heard one side of the story. But based on this I would state the following.

 

Unfortunately the bailiffs from "Can't Pay" have a history of forcing entry to residential premises illegally as was highlighted so dramatically on one of their shows. The EAs in question I believe the debtor posted on CAG about it.

 

Court Enforcement Services are a new entrant to the HCEO market and will likely not have their own staff so instead sub work out to other self employed Enforcement Agents. As their HCEO is Simon Williamson who was originally behind the show it is no surprise that a TV face has been used.

 

They promote themselves as the 'ethical' enforcement company and it's run by ex Drakes/Marstons Directors. Rightly, they would not want this kind of enforcement action linked to their profile so a complaint to them will probably see this particular EA removed from their list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its entirely possible that it can go from just the £90 to full fees. When he knocked on your door, it was already on enf2. It would only have been on enf1 if you had contacted them for an arrangement

 

That is not how the fees should be calculated.

 

The first attendance MUST be at Enforcement Stage 1.

 

Stage 2 is only applied for additional enforcement work undertaken after the completion of ES1 and where the debtor does not enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement or breaches it. This fee covers all work up until the Sale Stage process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not how the fees should be calculated.

 

The first attendance MUST be at Enforcement Stage 1.

 

Stage 2 is only applied for additional enforcement work undertaken after the completion of ES1 and where the debtor does not enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement or breaches it. This fee covers all work up until the Sale Stage process.

 

That is how I understand the process.

 

It is therefore of great concern that Grumpy as a bailiff himself, does not understand this......if the way he or indeed the company he is employed by, are enforcing the way he describes is it not the case debtors are at a disadvantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of practice, if as described, is extremely frustrating for most HCEOs.

 

A lot has been done over the years by many to improve the standards and our perception, which I believe they have, and then idiots like this come along and take us back.

 

As said earlier, if this was as described then there are likely grounds for a compliant against the EA's certificate. We do not need people like this in the enforcement industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES, Fee one is chargeable if the debtor enters into a controlled goods agreement or breaches one. This can be done by contacting the EA and requesting a payment arrangement during the NOE stage.

 

Where the debtor fails to contact on the back of an NOE, then the option for a controlled goods agreement has gone. We are there to then enforce by the removal of goods, and if there are insufficient goods, we may then, and only then, revert to an controlled goods agreement.

 

That is the wording in the regulations and how it is currently worked across the board.

As a HCEO(an actual hceo?) you should know that its been tested at that and found to be the correct method.

 

We can only hope that it is something that is looked at by the review, as yes, its seems wrong, but it is following the wording to the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not how the fees should be calculated.

 

The first attendance MUST be at Enforcement Stage 1.

 

Stage 2 is only applied for additional enforcement work undertaken after the completion of ES1 and where the debtor does not enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement or breaches it. This fee covers all work up until the Sale Stage process.

 

Thank you for that. That's what I thought, but then got double minded after some of the comments here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Court Enforcement Services are a new entrant to the HCEO market and will likely not have their own staff so instead sub work out to other self employed Enforcement Agents.

 

 

The Register shows he workd for another Enforcement Co & wonder if they are happy that he possibly puts his Bond at risk by moonlighting.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YES, Fee one is chargeable if the debtor enters into a controlled goods agreement or breaches one. This can be done by contacting the EA and requesting a payment arrangement during the NOE stage.

 

Where the debtor fails to contact on the back of an NOE, then the option for a controlled goods agreement has gone. We are there to then enforce by the removal of goods, and if there are insufficient goods, we may then, and only then, revert to an controlled goods agreement.

 

That is the wording in the regulations and how it is currently worked across the board.

As a HCEO(an actual hceo?) you should know that its been tested at that and found to be the correct method.

 

We can only hope that it is something that is looked at by the review, as yes, its seems wrong, but it is following the wording to the letter.

 

You clearly have little understanding of the regulations and if you are using that method of applying fees then it won't be long before you or your company are reprimanded.

 

There is always an option for a controlled goods agreement. It does not end at the expiry of the NoE.

 

The first attendance to a debtors property will always incur ES1 fee whether they wish to enter into a repayment plan or if they have not responded to the NoE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YES, Fee one is chargeable if the debtor enters into a controlled goods agreement or breaches one. This can be done by contacting the EA and requesting a payment arrangement during the NOE stage.

 

Where the debtor fails to contact on the back of an NOE, then the option for a controlled goods agreement has gone. We are there to then enforce by the removal of goods, and if there are insufficient goods, we may then, and only then, revert to an controlled goods agreement.

 

That is the wording in the regulations and how it is currently worked across the board.

As a HCEO(an actual hceo?) you should know that its been tested at that and found to be the correct method.

 

We can only hope that it is something that is looked at by the review, as yes, its seems wrong, but it is following the wording to the letter.

 

 

I am sorry Grumps but your above post is simply not true. Recently I have spoken with a lot of enforcement agents and it is very worrying that so many of them enforcing CCJ's transferred up to the High Court are completely unaware of the REASON for the Enforcement Stage One. By far the best explanation is that outlined under section 7.3 of the Statutory Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 which states as follows:

 

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

 

 

7.3 While the fee structure applies across debt streams, there are two separate fee levels – one for High Court Enforcement and one for non-High Court Enforcement, with the High Court level containing higher fees. This reflects the findings in the 2009 independent report 5 that High Court Enforcement has a higher cost base
due to the personal responsibility
of a High Court Enforcement Officer (who has writs addressed directly to them) and the fact that they enforce higher value debts.

 

The personal liability of the High Court Enforcement Officer has also necessitated the need for High Court enforcement to have first and second enforcement stages with the associated fees. The fee structure for High Court cases also introduces an incentive to enter into, and adhere to, an affordable controlled goods agreement.

 

Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor
in every High Court case
in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage. If the enforcement agent is then unable to enter into a controlled goods agreement (and has to take control of goods in another manner) or a debtor defaults on a controlled goods agreement, the enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage fee will also apply.

 

For non-High Court debt there is no such obligation and therefore we have introduced an incentive to enter into an agreement without taking control of goods at the (earlier) compliance stage which avoids triggering the enforcement stage with its larger fee.

 

From the above you will see that if a controlled goods agreement is required, there is a STATUTORY REQUIREMENT that the EA MUST attend the debtors premises to complete the Controlled Goods Agreement (or remove goods).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You clearly have little understanding of the regulations and if you are using that method of applying fees then it won't be long before you or your company are reprimanded.

 

There is always an option for a controlled goods agreement. It does not end at the expiry of the NoE.

 

The first attendance to a debtors property will always incur ES1 fee whether they wish to enter into a repayment plan or if they have not responded to the NoE.

 

You clearly have little understanding of the regulations and if you are using that method of applying fees then it won't be long before you or your company are reprimanded.

 

There is always an option for a controlled goods agreement. It does not end at the expiry of the NoE.

 

The first attendance to a debtors property will always incur ES1 fee whether they wish to enter into a repayment plan or if they have not responded to the NoE.

 

This gets worse..I asked if I could pay this debt off in instalments.. I was told an outright no. This was not an option.

Why on earth did this HCEO act like this? Callous, horrible man.

It seems he had an amount in his head and was getting it no matter what :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that will depend on the likelihood of you being able to make payment. This decision will be based on your assets, financial circumstances or ability to find a way which may include borrowing from friends or family.

 

On his occasion you managed to pay the debt and as far as the Enforcement Agent, his company and the client are concerned it is a job well done.

 

If I'm honest, as far as this aspect goes the EA did his job. EAs will always push for full payment in the first instance. This is 'enforcement' after all.

 

 

What date did the Notice of Enforcement have on it, what date was the postage on the envelope and when was the expiry date and time of the Notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...