HCE HCEO Certas energy CCJ - debt recovery letter

[baz4iow]

Hi,

I’ve recently received a letter from a high court enforcement company regarding an old energy debt.

I’ve spoken with the company regarding the debt but would like some advice on the following as I’m confused.

Firstly

- The letter states that they are to claim the debt in full, if the debt cannot be paid in full then a payment arrange can be made.

 

On the reverse it also states (and I’ve asked and received email confirmation) that they will only enter into an arrangement once an Agent has visited the property

“In order to establish for himself whether payment in full can or cannot be made.

If satisfied payment in full cannot be made, he would discuss an arrangement and ask you to enter in to controlled goods agreement.”

Obviously this will increase the debt and they will get a fee, Is this right? 

Secondly - They compliance fee has had VAT added to it. From what I have seen this is a fixed fee??

Lastly - I have an email from the Creditor to confirm they are happy to proceed with a payment arrange that I’ve proposed so long as it’s paid via the HCE company.

As they work on behalf of the creditor surely the have to follow their instruction? 

Any my advice would be great.

[brassnecked]

Does the energy supplier have a CCJ for this, as it looks like they are coming out to Enforce and Take control of your goods?

 

Moved to Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry Forum, as you will get better advice there.

[baz4iow]

They have a CCJ for it for the debt. I’m trying to address the debt but want to avoid their attendance fee (which is just racketeering to me). I’m assuming that I do not have to allow entry to the property? We also have a vulnerable disabled (learning difficulties) living within the property. 

[brassnecked]

Make sure all doors are locked, and they cannot force entry, move any motor vehicles away.  Who was the debt to and how much was it, what is the total the HCEO is asking for at the moment?

 

Others will be along soon to help you explore options.

[baz4iow]

Original debt was to Certas energy for £880 and is now £1038 so they are asking for the full amount

[dx100uk]

did you know that Certas energy had gotten a CCJ against you?

tell us the history of the debt please

 

the fees etc will be correct as its above £600 HCEO can be used and there are no fixed fees like court bailiffs 

no you do not invite them in, and no you dont 'have' to prove you can afford what you say.

the 'meeting' is a rouse to gain extra seizure of goods powers.

 

[baz4iow]

I was aware that Certas had obtained a CCJ against me, however at the time I was working away so couldn’t represent myself.

 

I was paying £150 a month towards the energy bill but they wanted to up monthly DD and at the time we couldn’t meet what they wanted.

 

This meant the account was passed to their in house collection team and that we had to make any subsequent orders on a pro forma basis.

 

With the cold winter we had to cancel the monthly DD and put that towards an order of fuel (it does or cooking, hot water and heating).

 

When we went to re-instate the DD they insisted on full payment of the account which we couldn’t do.

 

I thought I’d we let it go to court we could represent and put forward a payment schedule but as I said above i was working away at the time of the court hearing

[dx100uk]

and you didn't learn from all your past dealing with debt and bailiffs?

 

how long ago was this CCJ and why oh why didn't you come here for help?

 

stick in an n245!!

 

dx

[brassnecked]

And get a court imposed payment set up, they can't argue with that once Court have agreed paymernts.

[baz4iow]

I’ve sent in the N245 form and guess who visited Today!

He called me and said that he spoke to my Brother in law at the house

(who has Autism with severe speech and language issues) and that he was going to enter the property.

 

I said that without a signed controlled goods agreement he couldn’t and the fact a vulnerable person was the only one home he wouldn’t be allowed.

 

He got very Shirty and said if I don’t pay in full by the end of the month he would be back with a warrant from the court to enter the property.

 

I’ve opened the letter up that was left and the total is now £2091, nearly £1000 more in fees and VAT!!!

 

Also the guy that visited isn’t listed as a HCEO

but the person who is registered/listed is named on the notice of enforcement.

[dx100uk]

did you tell him you've filed the n245...

 

dx

 

[baz4iow]

No I didn’t tell him that I filed for the N245, should I have said to him? I was concerned he would attempt to obtain entry if I said anything about submitting the form

 

How do I deal with the extortionate fees that have illegal VAT and the fact that he isn’t hceo registered but acting in behalf is someone that is!!! DX100uk, your right I should have learnt my lesson from past dealings with these companies and their subordinates 

[dx100uk]

what were you told...

there is no forced right of entry on civil consumer CCJ debt.

 

if your n245 is successful as far as i'm aware that rolls everything back. inc all fees.

 

as for the registration that's not my bag.

[brassnecked]

What HCEO company is this?  They can have a supervisory Certificated HCEO, who controls stuff, and have minions working under them calling as well as Certificate holding bailiffs.  That's why Claire Sandbrook being the Registered HCEO  for DCBL, and her living in the USA so cannot exercise due diligence is such an issue..

[baz4iow]

The company are the HCE Group based in Swansea. I’ve looked at their fees and it appears they have added both stage 1 and 2 at the same time for the first visit?

[brassnecked]

Have they listed any goods like a car or garden furniture and tried to get a vulnerable adult to sign it?  Did your B I L let him in? as there is no right of entry except peaceful entry thgrough an unlocked door or being invited in.

[dx100uk]

Oh dear....how unusual....not.. 

[baz4iow]

He wasn’t able to obtain entry or list any goods. I spoke to Northampton courts earlier as they signed for the papers but they have said it was transferred to the high court but couldn’t tell me which one.

[Bailiff Advice]

On 17/08/2019 at 08:35, baz4iow said:

Hi,

I’ve recently received a letter from a high court enforcement company regarding an old energy debt.

I’ve spoken with the company regarding the debt but would like some advice on the following as I’m confused.

Firstly

- The letter states that they are to claim the debt in full, if the debt cannot be paid in full then a payment arrange can be made.

 

On the reverse it also states (and I’ve asked and received email confirmation) that they will only enter into an arrangement once an Agent has visited the property

 

“In order to establish for himself whether payment in full can or cannot be made.

If satisfied payment in full cannot be made, he would discuss an arrangement and ask you to enter in to controlled goods agreement.”

 

Obviously this will increase the debt and they will get a fee, Is this right? 

 

 

This is a very common situation I'm afraid and the reason why a visit would need to be made (before a payment proposal could be accepted) is outlined under Item 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 which states as follows:

 

Quote

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 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.

 

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

 

 

 

[dottymcdotty]

Please can you state where in the legislation it says that in order to enter a payment arrangement a visit must be undertaken?

the supporting document was sent pre-legislation and I cannot find anything in the actual law that outlines this! 

 

The document you’ve linked to is not statutory guidance but a memorandum and does not hold the same weighting as the enacted law....

 

Can you advise the part of the law that states a visit is a must?

Particularly where the client has already written to and instructed the agent to accept the payment arrangement pre-visit? 

[Peterbard]

How about here within the explanatory notes, who by the way take the form of a SI, and are law.

 

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.  

 

Hope that helps, you are wrong in the regards to VAT also, a HCEO is within his wrights to charge them to the debtor, as he himself is billed, by the exchequer. 
 
 

[Peterbard]

Lol sorry BA. Great minds.

[Peterbard]

I had an idea that this nonsense would come up, I think thr OP needs to look into the earlier rules.

 

However this guidance does pass through parliament, and is included within the legislation courtesy of Gov,com

 

In truth, it is the reason for the HCEO adopting the two tiered approach, or one of them. So the question is trite.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Dodgeball

[dottymcdotty]

Thanks so to follow on ... what would you suggest the OP does?

 

What routes ref returning the case to court would be appropriate in this instance?

 

are you not suggesting to submit the N244- would doing that be futile for the OP in your view?

 

Is it incorrect to suggest putting the N244/45 in to stay the writ and vary the order?

 

Would it be appropriate to put it to the courts for an assessment of fees in this case?

 

It seems the fees allocated aren’t in line with the fed outlined in correspondence and are about £200 over the permitted calculated fees as per the regard quoted above.

 

are people generally not successful when putting N244/45 forms back to court and what happens to the bailiffs fees when they do?

 

im sure the OP is open to balanced information on both sides. 

Thanks /)

[Peterbard]

I do not know what you mean by "balanced information", sorry. What I give are facts not opinion, o if opinion is proffered I will mention it.

 

Applications to stay and to vary a judgement are often successful, and the procedure is well detailed on here.

 

The rest is not advisable, the matter should be addressed with the EA before any action is considered . If no attempt is made to avoid a court hearing, it may have a negative impacts on the debtors costs bill.

 

EAs do fiddle fees of course and HCEOs are the worst(in my opinion)

As far as I know , wins are rare,.People are often goaded into taking action on fictitious causes of action, then end up with outrageous costs bills.

I know that the adviser mentioned here has had no winning cases, and several costs bills awarded against his "clients". I suppose it depends on the facts of the case, and the ability of the sol.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dodgeball
typos