Old EON CCJ - paying to CES HCEO - now sold to Azzurro, paying them too!! - is this legal? is the old EON writ still enforceable?

[Pifko]

Hello everyone, I was told to come here from Reddit. This site is fantastic.

 

I have a family member who ran up an energy bill with eon, and it had seemingly escalated to a High Court Order with an external collection agency. They set Court Enforcement Services onto her for some reason in the past year (before she was paying Rossendales), but she could hardly pay the amount requested each month.

 

I made a complaint on her behalf to eon, and they just sold the debt to another company (Azzurro) without saying a word.

 

Now the problem is that eon seemingly didn't tell Court Enforcement Services that they had sold it.

CES have been carrying on taking money from her each month, even though the debt has been sold.

 

Azurro has sent out papers, with eon saying they sold the debt and also a new High Court Order that transfers the debt from eon to Azzurro.

We sent the eon letter to the enforcement agent she pays, but he came back saying it doesn't matter as eon haven't called it off.

I don't believe this at all.

 

Can anyone give me some advice as to how I should help her deal with this issue?

I assume CES's threats of enforcement don't hold any weight?

 

What about CES's 'costs' they have been deducting from the debt over the last year since this new High Court Order?

Can she get that back?

 

CES has been taking her money, sending it to eon and then eon have been sending it to Azzurro.

I have never seen anything so stupid in a long time.

 

What are the legal implications to what CES are doing?

She even has a direct debit with Azzurro now, as she has really been trying to improve her credit lately.

She can't pay two companies for the same debt.

 

Edit: To add to this, she has just been to CAB and they have given her something to say to the enforcer if he contacts her again.

It seems like they are saying CES cannot do anything, but I really don't know whether we can trust CAB.

 

I'm thinking the enforcer will probably just turn up to her door at some point regardless.

 

I could be wrong.

[AndyOrch]

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

I have moved your thread to a more appropriate forum.....hopefully you will get a response here.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

the CCJ was quite legally sold on 

the new owners also have the required High Court Order that transfers the debt from eon to them a year ago.

so everything looks to be in order there to me

 

the issue that puzzles me is why she setup a separate DD direct to Azzurro.

did she simply get confused.?

 

has she actually stopped paying the CES HCEO?

 

paying this off quicker doesn't improve her credit rating as the CCJ still shows for 6yrs regardless to its status but it doesn't harm her either to pay it quicker by 2 payments.

 

As Azzurro already have a high court  order in place I cant see Azzurro being able to anything if she stops payment to them, though it might be cheaper and without fees to get Azzurro to cancel the HCEO [if she is still paying the HCEO] and continue paying them direct?

 

im not 100% sure with regard to HCEO enforcement if the new owners have to issue a new writ to gander payment via the HCEO or if the original writ simply continues regardless as they have transfer of ownership agreed via the high court. that's beyond my knowledge sorry.

 

I also don't think being able to claim back HCEO charges levied in the last year either holds any water, though overall there is certainly no harm in send CES a request for a breakdown of all fees and whilst you are at it send one to the rossers too, I wouldn't trust either of them.

 

sorry but I cant find any definitive info if the writ gets transferred too so it is thus still enforceable when a ccj is sold and the buyer also updates the high court or if they need a new writ.

 

HTH

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pifko]

Thank you for your reply.

 

She is going to pay Azzurro as they have been sending her letters asking for money.

She ignored them for a while, because even she was confused.

 

CES seem to be collecting on the same debt, the money is even eventually ending up with Azzurro.

The debt with Azzurro is half the price because of the charges CES have added, so what will happen if she carries on paying CES? Will Azzurro be returning the money to her eventually?

 

What does she do here?

She has to speak to the CES enforcer tomorrow.

 

I'm still confused who she should be paying, sorry if some of what you said went over my head a little.

What do you recommended here? 

 

Edit: CES make it sound like they are taking their orders from eon still.

Should she contact eon yet again?

eon have been terrible so far obviously.

 

"As Azzurro already have a high court  order in place I cant see Azzurro being able to anything if she stops payment to them, though it might be cheaper and without fees to get Azzurro to cancel the HCEO [if she is still paying the HCEO] and continue paying them direct?"

 

My apologies, this went over my head.

I think you meant CES can't do anything, not Azzurro?

I'm not sure what CES are following here.

 

I think you are saying the new HCEO overwrites whatever HCEO CES are following?

Sorry for my stupidity here!

I have never had to deal with anything like this myself.

 

I also forgot to thank Andyorch for the title change and movement of the topic. Cheers, bud.

 

Sorry for all the replies.

I keep remembering details.

 

She will be paying Azzurro directly.

They sent a copy through the mail of the new High Court Order which merely says (looking at it now) that Azzurro are legally substituted in place of eon. Again, sorry I am a bit of "newb" with this kind of stuff.

 

I just wanted to add that I misinterpreted HCEO for some reason. Yes, there is no officer seemingly on the case for Azzurro.

There is an officer still on her back from Court Enforcement Services from when the debt still stood on eon's back.

 

From your reply DX, we should probably just pay Azzurro as they are the legal debt holders?

What we would like to know is how do we get the CES HCEO off of her back?

 

Do we need to get eon or Azzurro to remove them from the equation, do we simply fight it ourselves with a letter of complaint to CES, or do we do something else entirely?

 

This is where the main confusion lies.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Pifko

[brassnecked]

The HCEO sent by CES might be pursuing fees only, how much was the original debt, I think Bailiff Advice might be able to advise a course of action if she looks in on this.

[Pifko]

I think it was over £2000 originally.

She probably has the documentation somewhere, but she definitely incurred charges when it was over at Rossendales due to missed payments and visitations.

 

I think she just got a letter from CES one day and all of a sudden they were collecting it.

I guess it transferred from Rossendales as were not doing a good enough job for eon, we really do not know.

Being that CES are sending it to eon and then to Azzurro, I would certainly think it is not just fees.

 

This is why I am trying to help her out, she has made a few mistakes and we have been working together to try and get it all sorted. It's a shame it couldn't be simpler as she has been doing really well with her debts recently.

 

Even CAB was no help as they said they have never seen such a thing before.

I really don't think she should be taking their advice, which is to just ignore a HCEO regardless if CES are in the wrong. 

 

[dx100uk]

I would as a matter of priority get a copy of this sent out to 

CES

and

Rossendales

 

"From:
My Name
My Address
.
To:
Acme Bailiff Co
Bailiff House
.
Ref: Account No: 123456
.
Dear Sir
.
With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges. 
.
This includes:
a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.
b - the reason for the fee.
c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.
d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificated .
e - the date of the Certification.
.
This is not a Subject access request GDPR . You are obliged to provide this information.
.
I require this information within 14 days.
.
Yours faithfully
.
Ripped off customer"

 

.............

 

has she continued to pay CES as she should under the writ/agreement?

Azzurro are mere debt collectors/debt buyer and ARE NOT BAILIFFS.

and have absolutely zero legal powers

safe to ignore totally all their threats.

 

but would it be cheaper for her to pay the debt buyer than the HCEO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pifko]

Thanks, I will get that done for her tomorrow.

 

I thought something was up with Azzurro with how nice they were being to her.

Actually asking her if she could afford repayments. Heh.

 

So are you saying she should continue to pay CES and the writ will still stands of as now even though the debt has been sold?

Should we not try to contact eon?

Could eon call off CES entirely as they set them on her in the first place?

[dx100uk]

yes.

no

no.

 

until oneway or another it is confirmed the existing writ & arrangement to pay through CES is not invalid or dead or WHY ..she must continue to meet that arrangement else even more fees will no doubt be added.

 

now if is live or not, will comeout in the wash as you gather the correct data.

 

no one with expert knowledge is rushing into confirm or deny my assumptions, they must all be busy or continuing like some do to argue here or on othersites about something they feel is more important than helping our users..., sadly that seems to be a current trend at present.

 

Azzurro are a debt buyer and they most probably haven't a scoobies how our legal system works and have simply in their eyes bought a debt to make a profit out of it but are now finding out this case is somewhat complex.

 

I will also say its very rare for a utils co. to sell a judgement debt on..so this probably points to they know something is amiss, but want rid of it, so said to Azzurro, here pay us this, the debt is yours and have runaway. under that premise it might be worthy to send EON an SAR too.

 

if or not excessive fees/over payment have happened/been levied by CES or rossendales or are being again will comeout in the data from them and if so can be queried at a later date and p'haps be returned but for the minute, i'd keep paying CES as already advised.

 

again I stress I cannot find any definitive knowledge that states a debt with a CCJ being enforced via an HCEO writ remains or does not upon debt sale.

though my thoughts and the evidence here lie with it does or elsewhy did Azzurro get the High court transference too, there would be no point otherwise, it was done to keep the writ live.

[Pifko]

Thank you for that, it has really helped anyway regardless of where the others are.

 

I think these charges she has gotten are due to her mismanagement in terms of not working out a plan and thus they have turned up and added charges.

 

As I said, she has gotten a lot better recently with my help.

I think they are justified but I can certainly still request information on such charges.

 

Rossendales are totally out of the picture but she didn't know she was paying CES until last week.

I obviously didn't know this either. I assume she got a letter and was confused by it and ignored it for a while.

 

Not only that but eon kept saying they were being paid by Rossendales and sending to Azzurro.

I am not surprised the poor woman is confused, I would be.

 

So yeah, I asked who the enforcer was working for recently and he said CES.

She sent of a bunch of complaints to all parties but I told her to just leave that be now.

[AndyOrch]

When do you need permission to enforce? Leave is not required for the enforcement of a judgment except where you want to enforce by taking control of goods using a writ of control or warrant of control and:

 

Six years or more has elapsed since the date of the judgment or order.

 

A change has taken place, whether by death or otherwise, in the parties entitled or liable to the execution under the judgment or order.

 

The judgment or order is against the assets of the deceased person coming into the hands of his executors or administrators after the date of the judgment or order, and it is sought to issue execution on such assets.

 

Any goods sought to be seized under a writ of execution are in the hands of a receiver appointed by the court or a sequestrator. Under the judgment or order, any person is entitled to a remedy subject to the fulfilment of any condition which it is alleged has been fulfilled.

 

The permission sought is for a writ of control or writ of execution, and that writ is to be in aid of another writ of control or execution. (CPR 83.2(3)) The leave of the County Court is also needed to levy execution while an attachment of earnings order is in force (section 8(2)(b), Attachment of Earnings Act 1971).

[dx100uk]

I would suspect rossendales were simply acting as bailiffs for eon to enforce the judgement.

she messed up paying.

and eon crossed to the high court and got CES HCEO involved under a high court writ.

 

 

 

[brassnecked]

Definitely needs the info from the bailiffs and HCEO, EON's billing system ia also dodgy so that SAR is worthwhile, might be mainly estimated bills they have enforced on.

[Pifko]

It's taken me a while to get back to this thread, as I have been away working for a few weeks,  I haven't managed to do anything for her bar take your advice and tell her to carry on paying the bailiff.

We just today decided to contact eon to get some clafification.

 

eon said they took the debt back from Azzurro because it was illegally sold

.id I assume this was because CES still had an active writ?

I'm not sure.

Does anyone have any ideas?

eon also said that they had contacted Azzurro in November to tell them to confirm they had took it back.

 

I assume this won't be the end of it though, as she got a letter from Shoosmiths when she cancelled the Direct Debit with Azzurro.

 

We are not sure if Azzurro is working with Shoosmiths or what that means. Does anyone here know?

She seems to be dealing with Azzurro in terms of contact information, but we honestly don't know why Shoosmiths are involved. 

 

Thanks again for this site by the way.

I will certainly be making a donation after I have Christmas dealt with

. Haha!

 

 she has looked and the letters are from Shoosmiths, and it says their client is Azzurro. I am assuming they were hired because Azzurro has no legal powers but Shoosmiths do?

Edit: Email is: [email protected]

So are they part of the same company or what?

I am a bit lost here.

[dx100uk]

Azz are nothing to do with shoos

Just keep paying the writ as she was

[Peterbard]

t's taken me a while to get back to this thread, as I have been away working for a few weeks,  I haven't managed to do anything for her bar take your advice and tell her to carry on paying the bailiff.

We just today decided to contact eon to get some clafification.si

 

eon said they took the debt back from Azzurro because it was illegally sold

.id I assume this was because CES still had an active writ?

I'm not sure.

Does anyone have any ideas?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Did you receive a Notice of Assignment, when e-on sold the debt on. If not the debt would not have sold, this could be their problem. The debt can be perused by the new "owner" but only in association with the original owner(sale in equity).

 

Bailiffs are restricted as to what they can charge, even HCEO, They cannot charge additional charges, no matter how long they hold onto the writ. Do you have a breakdown of charges paid?

                                    

 

Re your first post. EA cannot operate that way. They are ordered to collect a specific sum, the judgement sum.

The judgement sum cannot be updated,  

You need to write the new creditor and ask for the current amount outstanding on your account. Including any fees or payments made out of that account so far.

Also the judgement sum, plus records of fees paid to the HCEO by the creditor.

 

Copy it to the Bailiff office.  

cribbed under the fees regulations 2014

 

DX, perhaps if you notified he right people?

[dx100uk]

eh?

what right people about what?

[Pifko]

I haven't had a chance to send anything off for her to get a breakdown of anything yet.

The new creditor doesn't matter now though, according to eon anyway.

The thing we don't understand is that eon said they took this debt back long before then, but now they are saying November 2019.

I have no idea what they have been doing since July 2018 when Azzurro bought it.

 

That and the fact that Azzurro told her they had contacted eon (took them about a month) and they confirmed with them that they had bought it and everything was dandy. It's one big mess.

Could you guess why the letters say Shoosmiths on them though?

Why are they listed as Azzurro's client and why did the Direct Debit refusal letter have no mention of Azzurro?

It makes my head spin!

 

Haha.

 

Ah, I have dug a letter from eon () out and it says:

"Azzurro Associates Ltd has appointed Shoosmiths LLP to manage your account."

I just don't understand why.

Unless it's to do with the legal side of things like I said.

 

she's been contacting Shoosmiths the whole time.

Can Shoosmiths do anything if she doesn't pay?

 

I only ask because I don't trust these incompetent fools at Azzurro to tell Shoosmiths about the situation.

 

[dx100uk]

I think you are necessarily confusing things and worrying about things here that you don't really need to bother about.

and that's simply because you don't understand how things work.. not your fault.

 

the 'common thread here is shoos solicitors.

they will have been the solicitors that I bet are on the original CCJ that EON attained, ?? go look.

EON would have been pulling their strings mind.

 

eon would have gotten rossendales bailiffs involved because she wasn't paying enough or at all.

as she continued not to pay enough or not at all.... EON then got CES High Court enforcement officers in the case.

this makes sense and is the usual MO for EON on debts over £600.

 

the sale to Azzurro Associates if that ever happened is now immaterial.

 

there is a current live writ which CES are enforcing - she needs to continue to pay CES.

shoos can't do anything they never could so simply ignore them.

 

whats missing here are what fees have been charged by each bailiff company and are were/are they correct and lawful.

 

so my earlier letter needs to be sent to each company.

it would also not hurt to send EON and SAR

then it can be checked that everything to date she has paid - bar what fees the 2 bailiff co's are legally allowed to levy- has made its way to EON. the judgement CCJ owner.

it 

 

dx

[Peterbard]

It seems from reading this that the HCEO enforcement is still live, this would be the case even if tre debt was assigned, but since it wasn't even more so..

But frankly there seems to be some other "stuff" going on, and its all about some third party anyway. 

 

Also if someone has made a deal with the HCEO, they  need to keep to it. If only for the fact that HCEOs dont make deals without taking control of goods. If anyone wants to start talking sense, you know where I am.

 

Peter

[AndyOrch]

The connection between Azzurro and Shooes can be found in the following link.....

 

Azzurro appoints 'Business Leader of The Year' to COO position.

Karen Savage, Solicitor joins Azzurro Associates as Chief Operating Officer.

In her new role Karen will oversee the company’s business operations. She will also assist the company’s CEO in accelerating the company’s external partnerships and origination opportunities, ensuring the alignment of progress towards fulfilling Azzurros strategic objectives.

Prior to joining Azzurro in 2019, Karen was an equity partner at Shoosmiths solicitors founding and leading the commercial recoveries team nationally.

 

https://www.azzurroassociates.com/Home/News

[brassnecked]

No doubt they will be going through the files to see if anything worth chasing.

[dx100uk]

and the group was formed by mr birkhead previously of Arrows. ..