Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've just taken another look through the stuff they sent me in response to the CPR request, the notice of assignment isn't the original , it's on a plain sheet of non letterhead paper, in fact it could have easily been typed up by Overdales, or anybody really.  On the other side of the paper are standard Lowell terms and conditions that are only half on the page. Should this be part of my defence?
    • I agree with my site team colleague above. We need to know all the facts including which company you are dealing with and an explanation of the problem. It really is too difficult to start giving speculative advice on some speculative problem that you have laid out as a generalised scenario
    • Moorcroft are sending a rep round to my house this week. What is the best way to handle this? Ignore and not answer the door or engage with them? I haven't acknowledged anything since I started on this journey and defaulted on my cards in December 2022
    • Very sorry but with the best will in the world, I don't think we can at all understand what the situation is here. Please can you try rewriting this on a word processor and maybe send a copy of what you have written to a friend and working out together so that the story is complete but as brief as possible. Maybe a list of dates as well. If you can do that and then repost your story we can have a look
    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Utility Bill CCJ HCEO Enforcement - Charged VAT on top of fees?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 894 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon,

 

I have a friend who has been subject to an HCEO attending. He charged them £318 in fees to visit on top of what was owed (around £800). On the break down this says £75 compliance stage,, £190 first enforcement stage, then VAT of £53.

 

Surely no VAT should be paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hceo's can charge vat 

whats the debt?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debtors are not, therefore, charged VAT on High Court Enforcement Fees, but in some circumstances do pay the VAT charged to the Claimant.  HCEOs do not benefit from VAT being charged in any way and, like all registered businesses, undertake the collection of VAT on behalf of HMRC as an accepted burden of running a commercial business.

 

 

WWW.HCEOA.ORG.UK

Welcome to The High Court Enforcement Officers Association's Website

 

 

why did he not defend the CCJ??

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Utility Bill CCJ HCEO Enforcement - Charged VAT on top of fees?

He didn't defend it because he owed it.

 

What you've posted there says that debtors pay the VAT charged to the claimant, ie the creditor. I would assume that includes the fee for instructing the HCEO and that type of thing. That would make sense as the claimant would have paid that upfront.

 

However, there's nothing that says VAT is charged on the actual enforcement fees when the HCEO visits, in fact what you've posted says that quite clearly:

 

Quote

Debtors are not, therefore, charged VAT on High Court Enforcement Fees

 

Obviously the claimant wouldn't have paid this upfront so I can't see why or how it would be added. To be clear, I'm asking about the enforcement stage fees - compliance stage, 1st enforcement stage, 2nd enforcement stage, sale stage. Where does it state that these fees attract VAT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

owing a debt is no reason to ignore a court claim, he had several options:

defend the claim

fill in the admittance form setting an affordable £PCM

entering into consent order...

 

all of these would have avoided the HCEO involvement because the debt is above £600......

 

there is no right of forced entry on consumer debt so if/if not vat is allowed by HCEO's is somewhat irrelevant...why is he even bothering to communicate with them?

 

was this a default judgement and when?

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is irrelevant 'bolting the stable door' stuff and has nothing to do with the query. The debt has been paid.

 

What I'm questioning is the VAT that was added on top. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the HCEO can charge VAT on top of the enforcement stage fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aw no...silly boy for paying it.....

 

as for the VAT i can see here this:

 

 

and just to be clear this was a domestic util bill not commercial.

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, domestic, to EDF.

 

Well according to that link to that thread, no VAT should have been added as EDF will be registered for VAT. But even so, a link to post by a CAG member is hardly an authority, especially when it says the opposite to what the HCEOA link says

 

Quote

Debtors are not, therefore, charged VAT on High Court Enforcement Fees

 

It seems to me that VAT can only be added to fees that have been paid by the creditor, ie to instruct the HCEO and the costs of issuing any writs. No VAT can be added to court fees such as transferring to the High Court, that's certain. So for example, it may cost £100 to instruct the HCEO and £66 to transfer to the High Court (I think that's the cost). VAT can be added to the £100 (£20) as this is a service addressed to the claimant, so £120 including VAT, plus the £66, a total of £186 paid upfront by the claimant (the person owed the money).

 

If the claimant is VAT registered, he can reclaim the £20 VAT from HMRC and the debtor pays the remaining £166. However, if the claimant is not VAT registered, he can recover the full £186 from the debtor.

 

Enforcement fees play no part in this. they are a separate charge that is not a service addressed to either the claimant nor the debtor. It is a statutory charge that covers all actions of a particular enforcement stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hceo company or a one man show?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.GOV.UK

Guidance on the meaning of business for VAT purposes and how it applies in the operation of the tax

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that link says VAT is only applied to fees under the relevant Sheriff's Fees Order:

 

Quote

The total fees and allowable expenses payable in respect of services provided by the different people involved are set out in the relevant Sheriff’s Fees Order.

 

 I assume that means the fees set out here:

 

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

This Order makes provision for the fees payable in the sheriff court, to the sheriff clerk or the auditor of court (as appropriate).

 

Nothing about enforcement stage fees there either, so the question is still unanswered - where does it say VAT can be added to enforcement fees listed under the 2014 regulations?

 

It seems various sources are saying the should not be applied but the link provided earlier to advice on this site says it can be applied and recovered from the debtor. And indeed VAT was applied to my firend's debt. But no-one is able to provide a source to back up that assertion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may consider that it is not relevant...but it is. Roughly when was the debt being enforced?

The matter of charging VAT on fees charged by a High Court Enforcement Officer has been the subject of much debate since 2014 when the current fee scale was implemented. 

Earlier this year a company called JUST (started by Jamie Waller....previously JBW), instigated action in the High Court regarding the charging of VAT on HCEO fees. Their view (and one that I share) is that VAT should never be payable by the debtor. 

The High Court are due to hand down their decision in the Summer and in advance of the decision, and following discussions with both the Ministry of Justice and HMRC, the High Court Enforcement Officers Association issued guidance to all their members in June this year advising that their treatment of fees should be changed as soon as possible, but in any event, by 1st August at the latest. 

In simple terms, where the instructing creditor is VAT registered (such as utility companies etc), VAT should be charged to the creditor and never to the debtor. 

In cases where the instructing creditor is not VAT registered, the HCEOA recommends that a sum equivalent to VAT should be charged to the debtor. 

 

WWW.HCEOA.ORG.UK

Welcome to The High Court Enforcement Officers Association's Website

 

PS: Once the Judgment has been handed down, it may be worthwhile for me to introduce a 'Sticky' on this subject. 

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

This visit only took place this week.

 

Bailiff Advice - the info you've posted above is what I've already seen, however that has been the case for many years in relation to the fees listed under the Sheriff Court Fees Order 2018. (The 2018 order is of course the current version but there will have been earlier versions).

 

That is what HMRC clarified back in 2016, however there seems to be confusion as HMRC refer to these fees under the 2018 order as 'enforcement fees' and I think this is being muddled with the enforcement fees under the 2014 regulations.

 

HMRC only state that the fees under the 2018 order attract VAT as they are fees addressed to the claimant. HMRC have never said that the fees under the 2014 regulations are subject to VAT, and indeed many reputable sources have confirmed that VAT is not to be added to these enforcement fees. The HCEOA are not helping matters by also not differentiating between the 2014 regulations fees and the 2018 fees order. They are 2 separate things.

 

At present, what the HCEOA are implying is that if a claimant is VAT registered, the EA will collect the enforcement stage fees from the debtor of say £190, then send a bill to the claimant of £38 to cover the VAT and the claimant will then reclaim this from HMRC. That seems to be madness and I cannot see how that is what is intended.

 

From what I see, VAT should not be applied to enforcement stage fees as they are not a service addressed to anyone.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your initial post, the impression given was that you had very little idea about the VAT position and were seeking advice for a friend from the forum. 

 

From your above post, you clearly know the position.....but disagree with it.

 

I will not be getting into a debate regarding  this given that as I have stated above, the guidance outlined by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association has been issued in consultation with MOJ and HMRC pending a decision from the High Court which will almost certainly be in quite some detail. 

Edited by Bailiff Advice
  • I agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial post was querying whether VAT should have been added, with the subsequent posts asking if anyone knew of a source that shows VAT can be added to enforcement stage fees. I had already seen various sources that say it shouldn't so wanted to see if anyone else knew any different.

 

From what I've seen, no, enforcement stage fees should not attract VAT, with HMRC clarifying this in 2016, and there being further clarification in 2019, but the HCEO companies simply ignored this advice, even from their own association. So far from disagreeing with that advice, I agree with it. What I'm asking for is solid evidence that states VAT can be added to enforcement stage fees, something is lacking at the moment.

 

The only source I can see is that HCEO companies have been adding it so they must be correct. I even saw an article by John Kruse in 2019 that explained that VAT should not be added. But the position we have now is the HCEOA acting weak and muddying the waters and seemingly forgetting what they advised in 2019.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't...its the CPR stance on VAT /Costs and litigants.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi Darrius.

Answering your question, I hope.

That's because as the law stands it should

 

The VAT act says that if the business is registered has a turnover above the prescribed limit and  that income for busines, they must pay VAT on their income, offset by any payment of output TAX by the person he provides the service for.

This applies to the judement debtor as you say. I am sure that this meant money taken initially by the the HCEO when they were originally approached by the creditor or items acquired by the Hceo in the employ of the court.

However when the under sherif  who is not an employee of the court but a self employed busines  man takes over the enforcement for "valuable consideration"

 

The fees become his income and he is responsible for any tax calculated on that income. Nothing new here.

We all pay VAT and we all cannot claim it back, that is unless we are a registered business.

The only way to get around this is to Zero rate enforcement fees

 

This was explained as being the case before 2014, I see nothing since, that alters the situation. Other than changing VAT requirements in the Act., as in Magistrates court and Council.tax enforcement

 

I have tried many times to get authoritave information from sources who are usually very helpful, why is that?

Answer on a post card please.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The position regarding VAT on debts enforced by a High Court Enforcement Agent has been subject to legal proceedings as outlined above. As a result of this, the Ministry of Justice have just released new Guidance which has just come into force. 

 

I will try to get a new thread started tomorrow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi yes I bet they have

 Also there will be adjustment the VAT Act but not by SI.

I think much of the confusion is because the HCEO we see are the variety taken on by the chancellor under section 2 of the courts act.

High court enforcement officers proper  cannot claim or charge VAT.  As they are employed by the court .

The value is not for a business or trade.

They are salaried.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...