Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Bailiff Advice

Government Minister's statement regarding court fines, bailiff fees, 'pro rata' distribution and paying the court direct

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1352 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

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'.

 

Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post.

 

By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month:

 

In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied.

 

In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied)

 

In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement).

The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980.

 

Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged".

In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation.

 

By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour party MP; Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) raised a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines.

 

His questions were answered by Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

 

 

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of instances in which enforcement agent fees paid by a defendant were transferred directly by HM Courts and Tribunal Services to enforcement agents in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts transferred in that period.

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

If an offender makes a payment on a financial imposition after a warrant of control has been issued and referred to the EAE, HMCTS transfers the full payment to the AEA to enable them to reconcile their accounts and take the fee owed to them and they then return any balance owed to HMCTS.

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

 

A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-04-19.34637.h&s=%22Warrant+of+Control%22#g34637.r0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see where it says that

 

Its the last paragraph of the explanation.

Comments are funny.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also clear that the MOJ do not even differentiate between payments made to the court and those made to a bailiff after a warrant has been issued, as they do not even make a record of them.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

 

not sure what it is you are after ?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA: To help clarify your thread can you please confirm the following for other readers that may not fully understand the 'forced entry protocol'.

 

 

1. For a Magistrate fine can they force entry?

 

 

2. For a TEC Warrant (PCN) can they force entry?

 

 

3. For a CCJ can they force entry?

 

 

4. For a High Court Writ/warrant can they force entry?

 

 

Secondly: If a debtor pays the amount remaining balance of the fine plus the compliance fee of £75 but before the enforcement fee is added to the court directly what happens then?

 

 

Finally if the debtor pays the outstanding balance and compliance fee to the court within the seven days and the court fails to notify the EA they have been paid. Can the EA still attend the debtors property and add the enforcement stage fee?


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not sure what it is you are after ?

 

Trying to find where TCE says £75 can be retained as Bailiff Advice said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,2,3,4 have nothing to do with this thread MM.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'.

 

 

Oh sorry


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to find where TCE says £75 can be retained as Bailiff Advice said[/QUOT

 

Probably best explained here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/memorandum/contents Althou9ght here is confirmation in the regulation and section 50 of the TCE

 

 

Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline

significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in

order to try and recoup the entire debt. It was therefore decided that enforcement agents

should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of

proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above is a response to a consultation and section 50 TCE about judicial appointments, so where is bit about the £75 as I can't see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

n it is the explanatory memoranda and is legally enacted in the same manner as the rest of the instrument.

 

1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice and is laid

before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought explanatory memoranda were just put to parliament as a bill goes through so isn't legislation really. I don't think you're going to answer the question. Thanks for trying though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked for an explanation regarding the EAs entitled to retain fees and it was provided ?

 

As usual when it is not what you want to hear you resort to silly abusive comments.

 

Sorry the memorandum is issued with the enacted legislation or SI so it would hardly be of use to the house , as it is already past the consideration period.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this for you http://www.legislation.gov.uk/help

 

Explanatory Memorandum

An Explanatory Memorandum (EM) sets out a brief statement of the purpose of a Statutory Instrument or Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland and provides information about its policy objective and policy implications. It aims to make the Statutory Instruments or Rules accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. EMs accompany any Statutory Instrument or Draft Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament from June 2004 onwards and any Statutory Rule laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly (or UK Parliament during the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly) since June 2004

 

So do you think they are likely to put incorrect info in there ?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked for an explanation regarding the EAs entitled to retain fees and it was provided ?

 

 

No, I asked where in the TCE it says £75 can be retained. I didn't ask for an explanation. I haven't had an answer to the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been shown how the legislation applies. This has been confirmed by the under secretary of state, and just about every magistrate court in the country.

 

You are not in pursuit of clarification, you are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His questions were answered by Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

 

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

 

You have been shown how the legislation applies. This has been confirmed by the under secretary of state, and just about every magistrate court in the country.

 

You are not in pursuit of clarification, you are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.

 

Shailesh Vara stated something incorrect. The TCE doesn't state what they claim, an appalling and amateur error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shailesh Vara stated something incorrect. The TCE doesn't state what they claim, an appalling and amateur error.

 

The ASS made an error, the memorandum supplied by the MOJ is in error, every court and bailiff in the land made the same error. But you got it right. Likely. Oh i forgot JK and every other knowledgeable source.

 

If you have any evidence of the act functioning otherwise lets see it, otherwise stop embarrassing yourself and change the subject


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our resident troll appears to have made another return visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
=Dodgeball;489611

 

You are looking for a loophole where there is none. I am not going to play.

 

Please ignore him DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still can't see where in TCE this is said can you give a link please?

 

In light of another serious incident yesterday, (which I believe that you are familiar with), I will on this occasion only respond to you. I would not otherwise do so. If you are going to use my answers (or anybody else's) to provide a running commentary elsewhere, I will cease responding.

 

For interested viewers, the serious incident that I refer to above was featured on the internet yesterday:

 

Background

 

A debtor had an unpaid court fine. He confirmed that he had forgotten to pay the debt to the court (even though the court agreed an exceptionally good payment arrangement of £10 per fortnight). A warrant of control was authorised and sent to Excel Enforcement to enforce. The debtor believed that paying the court direct (minus bailiff fees) would lead to the warrant being cancelled.

 

As in all cases, (and as confirmed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice) his payment was forward to Excel Enforcement so that they could deduct the Compliance Fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a a pro rata basis. As there was still
a sum due under the warrant
, an enforcement officer visit the debtor's premises.

 

Unfortunately, the visit was not a pleasant one and led to a
two hour ‘standoff’
that involved police attendance. During the visit, the debtor paid a fee of £35 to speak with your ‘Guru’. As is usually the case, that money appears to have been wasted. The debtor had to pay the bailiff the amount due under the warrant (of £310) and he confirmed that he is now unable to pay his rent or council tax that are both due to the paid this week.

 

The person who he paid the fee of £35 to commented as follows:

 

They are trying to pretend the money paid to the court is "proceeds of enforcement" when the law defines this to be sums raised
from the sale of
the debtors goods.

 

Your comment was similar:

 

The plain fact remains that the power of schedule 12 applies only when goods have been
taken control of and sold.
You can't escape it.

 

 

Both of you are wrong, and these inaccurate and misleading comments are leading the incidences as outlined here.

 

Taking your comment into consideration, if it was to be the case that the Schedule 12 procedure only applies in cases where goods have been taken into control and sold, then this would eliminate over 99% of all cases (council tax, road traffic debts and court fines). This is because, goods are only actually removed and sold in less than 0.1% of cases.

 

PS: I am not around for much of the day so will respond to any queries later on.

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...