High Court Enforcement Officers Charges.

[Peterbard]

I have noticed that a firm of HCEOs seem to have added application costs in a writ of control to the debt.

Then the application fee is added in their charges (charging twice). As it is already added to the debt, it then also adds to their later stage fees, which are based on a % of the debt.

 

Could it be that most people dealing with them are struggling to manage the debts they have without perusing the details of these bills?

 

I think this is what the op actually said.(above)

As I have attempted to explain. It is understandable to interpret the court charge as being charged twice because it appears once in the sum owed to the debtor and once in the breakdown as part of fees/ disbursements.

This does not mean it has been added twice.

 

What I attempted to show was that although the payment to the court appears in the original debt owed under the writ, it is enforced and added to the costs account so it will appear in that column, along with other charges like fees in the breakdown.

 

In fact, it will only be charged once.

 

My first post on here speculated that this was a mistake that is easily made when trying to reconcile the breakdown of recovered money. I still think this may be the case here, as the original post(above) fills all the parameters for it to be so.

[lookinforinfo]

If there has been no double charge Dodgeball, why is the OP apparently being reimbursed?

[Bailiff Advice]

As the firm have now admitted "error" on the double charging, I think it safe to reveal that they are Penham Excel. They have furthermore said they are going to look into previous cases,

 

As this can be a tedious process, I could suggest that anyone who has had dealings with them, checks their bills. The "error" occurs when the writ of control is issued, with the issue fee noted on the writ. I doubt if many people actually get a copy of this writ, but what they might find is that their "debt" on their notification and onwards incorporates this fee, even though it is added again in the billing - double charging and admitted.

 

If anyone has raised this issue earlier with them, or this only occurs on larger debts, were shall we say the double charge is less noticeable, then I would suggest that rather than a mere error, this is warrants a police investigation.

 

As I had said in my post number 10, if it is the case that you have been overcharged, then you should be due to be refunded the sum of £117.75 and additional 'interest' charges of £8.81. Thankfully, you now have a cheque for £126.56 on it's way to you. Well done.

 

I was very surprised to read a post from you on another thread yesterday where you said this:

 

I have just caught Penham Excel trying to charge double application fees on a writ of control. At £117.75 that is not a bad earner. It seems common with them and really amounts to fraud that can only really be delved into with a police investigation and a forensic analysis of their accounts. We need numbers, anyone similarly ripped off should complain to the HCEOA at HCEOA.org.uk

 

 

In my post number 10, I mentioned that I have looked back at fee breakdowns for 16 cases that I received enquiries about in the past couple of months, and in all cases, the execution costs have only been applied once.

 

You have now revealed the name of the enforcement company (Penham Excel). I can confirm that I have now looked back at fee breakdowns for 2 cases from this company and I am pleased to see that in neither case has there been double charging as in your case.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?264307-Dealings-With-Penham-Excel-Bailiffs&p=5041918&viewfull=1#post5041918

[Peterbard]

No idea. It may be because there was a double charge in the OP case. or it may be that it is easier just to pay the amount than it is to explain the technicalities. You can see how much trouble i am having here,

 

The point is, we do not want people complaining about being charged twice when it is not so, and just because the charge is listed as a cost, that is just the way it works.

 

I have seen similar things many times before on customer accounts, that is why it rang a bell.

[Peterbard]

To try and illustrate further.

Say a debt is £100 and a court fee is £50, the writ will say amount due to creditor £150.

 

The receipt (breakdown) given to the debtor on request will say.

 

the amount paid to the creditor as per writ £150 ie including court fee.

 

Fees and costs say £130 fees plus admin cost of £50. (court fee) =£180

 

This looks like a double charge but it isn't of course because the £50 is paid to the creditor out of the costs.

[Time Traveller]

Not sure what Dodgeball is trying to illustrate here. First two lines OK, the "debt" becomes £150.

Add Admin cost £130, OK the total amont to pay becomes £280

What Penham Excel have done is to add court costs again, making it £330 in Dodgeball's example. That is double charging.

 

My problem is that it took a referral to the HCEOA to get an admission out of Penham Excell. Also it only became apparent to me on getting copy of the Writ of Control. This should be a difficult "mistake" to make as we are filling in pro forma boxes here, and only five at that. I could just guess I have been lucky, on the other hand this is just one of five issues raised, all of which question what we might describe as their credibility.

 

If one questions credibility, one can't fail to wonder this is a useful error, as they lose nothing in refunding (it wasn't theirs to take in the first place.) and make on those who don't spot errors. Hence the message check, these charges carefully, if your debt has grown between CCJ and Writ of Control, there should be no further court costs (issue fee).

 

Ideally these firms should be beyond reproach, but how many of us have that experience?

BTW does anyone know if Writs of Control are public documents? and if so is access more or less having to peruse the files in the court service.

[Peterbard]

Well, firstly you presumably have two documents. One which says what the bailiff will collect under the writ. and the other which is a receipt issued from the bailiff wich says what they have collected.

 

If you issue an invoice for a sum(at the beginning of a transaction) and then you issue a receipt the sums (once the transaction is completed)t, naturally there will be the same sum on both documents, it does not mean that you have been charged twice.

 

Whether the amount falls in the amount due under the writ or under costs is irrelevant,

Perhaps if you put your paperwork up (duly redacted) we can properly what you have received, if you want to continue the discussion further.

 

On your original post you said that because the costs were charged under fees it had been charged twice, it means no such thing,. Not that it was so in your case, I do not know.

But just being under the charges column proves nothing.

 

The bailiff is fully authorised to collect costs for the debtor as well as for themselves

. See the long post above.

[Peterbard]

How. Would a writ show what"would have been added", when nothing had been recovered when it was issued.

 

It would show what is owed, it wouldn't say where the money came from.

 

It could have come from sums due under the enforcement or fees, of course. Both are recoverable under the writ

[Peterbard]

Perhaps if we saw the paperwork.

[Peterbard]

All this has been addressed before. I can't see the problem with producing the documents, they may clarify and also serve in helping others to know what to look for.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

My problem is that it took a referral to the HCEOA to get an admission out of Penham Excell. Also it only became apparent to me on getting copy of the Writ of Control. This should be a difficult "mistake" to make as we are filling in pro forma boxes here, and only five at that. I could just guess I have been lucky,

 

BTW does anyone know if Writs of Control are public documents? and if so is access more or less having to peruse the files in the court service.

 

As I have said before, well done for pursuing this with the HCEOA and it's good news that you are to receive a refund of £117.75 plus interest of £8.81. Fortunately, I have not come across the same overcharge but will ensure that I look out for it in the future.

 

The Writ of Control is the enforcement officers instruction to collect the debt and is addressed to him/her. There should be no problem in requesting a copy from any enforcement company.

[Time Traveller]

Dodgeball, the difference between what is due and overcharging is admitted now by the company. There is no confusion here, in your previous illustration, £280 would have been due, yet a demand for £330 was made, placing the court issue fees in the account twice.

They also say they will examine previous accounts, that I am sceptical about.

 

alreadyexists, the problem here is locating previous accounts - somehow honesty and integrity do not seem to be words many would associate with bailiffs. That's why I asked if writs were public documents - so previous accounts could be located.

[Bailiff Advice]

That's why I asked if writs were public documents - so previous accounts could be located.

 

I see what you mean now. I don't believe that there is a public register of Writs of Control.

 

I would expect that in light of your complaint, the HCEOA would advise their members of the need to ensure that such a charge is not duplicated by other companies.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is almost always the case, that a debtor receiving a Notice of Enforcement in relation to a County Court judgment that has been transferred to a High Court enforcement company will be unfamiliar with the fees and charges that can be added.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, if a creditor wishes to use a High Court company instead of a County Court bailiff to recover his Judgement, he will be required to pay a court fee to have his judgement 'transferred up' to the High Court. The court fees amount to £117.75. These fees are recoverable and will be added onto the Writ of Control (Form 53).

 

The enforcement company will write an initial letter to the debtor. This letter will be entitled; Notice of Enforcement and at this stage, a Compliance fee of £90 can be legally charged.

 

If it is the case that an additional amount of £117.75 is included as well, then this is wrong and must be questioned immediately.

[Peterbard]

The amount outstanding on the NOE would be inflated

 

Are we talking about execution fees now?

 

There is no notice given at the enforcement stages one or two, what would he have to check?

 

Just a point