Are Court Enforcement Services Ltd fees legal, or not? business EON debt/CCJ- The Discussion Posts

[Bailiff Advice]

 

This does not negate the fat that the bailiffs did deliberately lie to extract a fee which was far in excess of what they can legally charge, although they must have been acting honestly with respect to the name on the writ (I would hope?).

 

The fees that can be charged by a High Court Enforcement Agent are very much misunderstood. That is why, whenever I receive an enquiry about the fees (which is far too often) I provide a copy of the following statutory Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and refer the individual to clause 7.3 which states as follows:

 

 

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 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 
Enforcement 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.

 

 

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

[Bailiff Advice]

 

 

....If the stage is being escalated from ES1 to ES2 within the initial visit, the trigger point for this would be that no CGA has been entered into and there was a clear refusal by the debtor to either pay in full or by instalments supported by a CGA

 

This is in direct conflict with the Fees regulations which state:

 

 

....The enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage will also apply.

 

 

The Guidance from the High Court Enforcement Officers Association mirrors what is stated on the statutory Explanatory Memorandum which I have detailed above which states this:

 

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.

 

PS: It is always the case that a person should not read legislation in isolation. Explanatory Memorandum's are a vital additional tool (as proved here).

[unclebulgaria67]

The OP should be checking whether EON obtained a CCJ against their company in error. If they did, then EON need to urgently set aside the CCJ and pay the OP the money back, as well as compensation for what has happened.

[Whitely]

The fees that can be charged by a High Court Enforcement Agent are very much misunderstood. That is why, whenever I receive an enquiry about the fees (which is far too often) I provide a copy of the following statutory Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and refer the individual to clause 7.3 which states as follows:

 

BA, not sure what that has to do with the OP being overcharged - the 2nd enforcement stage should not have kicked in as the OP paid without delay. The fact this wasn't even his debt makes it even more serious. I would love to see who's name was actually on the warrant.

[ploddertom]

BA, not sure what that has to do with the OP being overcharged - the 2nd enforcement stage should not have kicked in as the OP paid without delay. The fact this wasn't even his debt makes it even more serious. I would love to see who's name was actually on the warrant.

 

Regardless of the fact it was not the OPs debt there has been no proof they were overcharged - only yourself has suggested that but not suggested why or how, reading the initial post suggests payment was not made without delay and would hazard a guess was after 20/30 minutes but again I am guessing at that. Pointless guessing at things you don't know and even worse to criticise others. There is a fine line between 1st & 2nd Stage Enforcement.

 

But I do agree that more needs to be known as to who was on the Writ, but it is E.ONs problem to resolve as at present they provided all the info and CES carried out their request.

[Whitely]

Regardless of the fact it was not the OPs debt there has been no proof they were overcharged - only yourself has suggested that but not suggested why or how, reading the initial post suggests payment was not made without delay and would hazard a guess was after 20/30 minutes but again I am guessing at that. Pointless guessing at things you don't know and even worse to criticise others. There is a fine line between 1st & 2nd Stage Enforcement.

 

But I do agree that more needs to be known as to who was on the Writ, but it is E.ONs problem to resolve as at present they provided all the info and CES carried out their request.

 

The second stage kicks in when no CGA can be agreed. A CGA was not required in this case as the OP was prepared to pay in full - any delays were down to the EA faffing about by obstructing the viewing of the warrant and when the OP offered to go to the business premises to get cash the EA refused. Any delays were down to the EA.

 

So the OP was overcharged firstly by £495 for the 2nd enforcement stage fee. They were also overcharged with the VAT - the creditor is VAT registered and would be required to pay the VAT as the EA is providing the service to them. The creditor then reclaims the VAT from HMRC.

 

Plus let's not forget, the OP has technically been overcharged over £3k as the debt was not even theirs in the first damn place.

[Peterbard]

I think that Plod is right, there is a very fine line indeed. It is essentially down to the bailiff's judgment when he considers negotiation in regard to the proposed CGA has failed, and when the more aggressive second stage needs to commence.

This can challenge later of course and I am sure the bodycam would be of great assistance.

[Whitely]

In all fairness though, the argument is moot - the debt was not the OP's so everything needs to be refunded.

[Whitely]

It's my understanding that a recent High Court detailed assessment ruled that charging for both stages in a single visit was 'fleecing the public' and ruled in favour of the debtor.

[Peterbard]

It's my understanding that a recent High Court detailed assessment ruled that charging for both stages in a single visit was 'fleecing the public' and ruled in favour of the debtor.

 

Do you have a venue or citation for this, please? It is in direct contradiction to the regulations.

[Whitely]

Do you have a venue or citation for this, please? It is in direct contradiction to the regulations.

 

The Strand, 23rd June. DCBL were the bailiffs.

[Peterbard]

The Strand, 23rd June. DCBL were the bailiffs.

 

Gosh last week. I will see if there are any reports available.

[Whitely]

I'm sure the HCEOA will have the details.

[Bailiff Advice]

I'm sure the HCEOA will have the details.

 

I notice that this case was very briefly referred on another forum a couple of days ago but as is always the case, evidence was lacking. Such a judgment and ruling would be most beneficial to the OP. Could you please see if a copy of the judgment can be made available on the forum.

 

DCBL as a company are not HCEOA members.

[Whitely]

I notice that this case was very briefly referred on another forum a couple of days ago but as is always the case, evidence was lacking. Such a judgment and ruling would be most beneficial to the OP. Could you please see if a copy of the judgment can be made available on the forum.

 

DCBL as a company are not HCEOA members.

 

I didn't think any companies were members of the HCEOA. It's an association for individual HCEOs.

 

I'll see what I can do about the DA decision.

[Peterbard]

It's my understanding that a recent High Court detailed assessment ruled that charging for both stages in a single visit was 'fleecing the public' and ruled in favour of the debtor.

 

There is a difference between charging the first and second stage fees in the same visit, which is perfectly allowable under the legislation, and the bailiff charging stage two fees before stage one had been attempted, which is contrary to legislation.

[Whitely]

There is a difference between charging the first and second stage fees in the same visit, which is perfectly allowable under the legislation

 

Well that is certainly the way bailiff companies have interpreted it up til now, and we all know their solicitors will make a legally bland interpretation. Perhaps this ruling will clarify matters.

[Peterbard]

Well that is certainly the way bailiff companies have interpreted it up til now, and we all know their solicitors will make a legally bland interpretation. Perhaps this ruling will clarify matters.

 

Very revealing statement.

 

In truth, the courts clarify, and they do so very well.

The problem comes when people with a biased view or little or no comprehension attempt to interpret the court's findings.

[Bailiff Advice]

Well that is certainly the way bailiff companies have interpreted it up til now, and we all know their solicitors will make a legally bland interpretation. Perhaps this ruling will clarify matters.

 

It will only clarify matters if a judgment is made available and even more so, if a transcript is as well.

[Whitely]

looking at the argument put forward for succeeding in the detailed assessment, I think it is safe to say that it did not happen.

 

I think that it may be helpful all round if nobody referred to "cases that they have recently dealt with" in the absence of supporting evidence.

 

I didn't realise the argument had been posted anywhere.

[Whitely]

My apologies. It was your comment about "fleecing the public" that made me assume that the detailed assessment did not happen.

 

That's mild compared to some comments made by Judges.

 

It clearly states in legislation that ES2 can be triggered from the FIRST attendance at the premises - 6(1)© of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations.

 

As you've said though, the EA has high motiviation to proceed to this stage too quickly. The single visit will suddenly cost nearly £700 plus any uplift - and here we are thinking the new regs were meant to stamp out this kind of fleecing.

 

I don't have all the details of the ruling I mentioned, and I understand the EA co may be appealing the decision, so they're certainly worried about it.

[Peterbard]

With all due respect, you are now talking about an alleged appeal on an alleged judgment on an alleged case.

[AndyOrch]

With all due respect, you are now talking about an alleged appeal on an alleged judgment on an alleged case.

 

Precisely...hence the split to the original thread...pages of posts which was of no use to the OP:wink:

[Peterbard]

If there was any case .My bet is s that the,EA wrongly applied the second stage. Someone then either through self interest or stupidity took the judgement to mean what it did not. Lets face it, it would be far from the first time this has happened .

[Bailiff Advice]

If there was any case .My bet is s that the,EA wrongly applied the second stage. Someone then either through self interest or stupidity took the judgement to mean what it did not. Lets face it, it would be far from the first time this has happened .

 

A short while ago John Kruse wrote about the importance of having legal rulings to clarify misinterpretations of the 2014 regulations. I have always tried to ensure that whenever I refer to legal cases that evidence is provided. The latest posting about a supposed court 'victory' regarding a 'detailed assessment' against a High Court enforcement company (DCBL I believe) has come from a forum owner. He claims that the case had been brought against a company by his client. We must no lose sight of the dreadful misinformation that person wrote about two of his previous clients cases (Bola & Murgatroyd). Thankfully for the public, I provided the evidence. Both cases were certainly not as reported. In fact, far from it.