HCEO Discussion

[Indebt]

I personally think that if you left the country and genuinely had no idea that your employer was trying to contact you and subsequently issued proceedings, then It doesn't sit comfortably with me that you can move abroad and not know anything about proceedings and then find yourself in this situation. Are you aware of the county court that issued the original judgement?

I certainly agree with PT that you should contact the creditor and try to find out what has gone on. I would also explain your financial circumstances and ask if he is prepared to accept a repayment plan. If he is, would you ask him to email his terms over to you straight away so that you can show the bailiff when he turns up. This is very important because HCEG have no incentive whatsoever to accept a repayment plan. They only earn real money when they escalate the matter. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that their agents are employed on a commission basis which means that the more fees they are able to add onto the account, the more money the individual will earn from commission.

If you are able to telephone HCEG and when they tell you that they cannot accept a repayment plan because the creditor wants the money in total immediately (and this is what they normally say) then you will be able to tell them that you have it in writing from the creditor that he will accept the repayment plan that you offered. Without having this in writing, HCEG will simply go back to the creditor and presaude him that they can get the money in full for him.

Regarding the figures, they appear to be correct. If you wish to apply for a set aside, you would be better off engaging a solicitor. It will cost you solicitor fees plus court fees. What might be an idea is to try to get a consultation with a solictor (which can be done for around £150 if you shop around and the CAB may have a list of those who offer the service) Get the situation explained to you and then you can weigh up whether it is worth it. You are likely to still end up owing the original debt and as you can't pay it straight away, the CCJ listing is likely to remain on your file.

I think it would be worth seeking a solicitors opinion on this and then you will be in a better position to make an informed decision.

It is vital that you speak with the creditor on Monday though as the clock is ticking.

[Henti]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

I think BA mentioned earlier that the HCEO cannot accept an arrangment to pay at compliance, so it is not really a matter of them being awkward about it.

If the creditor wanted to accept some kind of plan, he would have to withdraw the instruction altogether.

The HCEO could initiate a controlled goods agreement on his first visit, and if this arrangment was consensual, he would not be able to charge the larger second stage enforcment fee, (so the compliance and the first sage fees wold be due).
I think it wold be unlikely that the second stage fee would be avoided if he had to make or was instructed to commence an arrangment without any security, but that would be a decision for the creditor to make. .

I agree that if it were me I would attempt to get hold of the creditor. The statutory remedies are to apply for a set aside, or stay, bearing in mind that only a stay will halt enforcment.

[Milo]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

I think BA mentioned earlier that the HCEO cannot accept an arrangment to pay at compliance, so it is not really a matter of them being awkward about it.

If the creditor wanted to accept some kind of plan, he would have to withdraw the instruction altogether.

The HCEO could initiate a controlled goods agreement on his first visit, and if this arrangment was consensual, he would not be able to charge the larger second stage enforcment fee, (so the compliance and the first sage fees wold be due).
I think it wold be unlikely that the second stage fee would be avoided if he had to make or was instructed to commence an arrangment without any security, but that would be a decision for the creditor to make. .

I agree that if it were me I would attempt to get hold of the creditor. The statutory remedies are to apply for a set aside, or stay, bearing in mind that only a stay will halt enforcment.

With judgments passed to High Court Enforcement companies, it is usually always the case that the creditor signs an agreement confirming that if payment is made to them (the creditor) after the Notice of Enforcement has been served, that the creditor will be responsible for the enforcement agent fees. In fact, I understand that legal proceedings have been taken against creditors for precisely this reason.

It is indeed the case that if a Controlled Goods Agreement is signed that the enforcement agent should only apply the Compliance Fee and Stage One fee. The Stage two and Sale Stage fee should not apply.

It is certainly the case that questions need to be asked about the repairs to the vehicle. Common sense alone should dictate that damage or over £2,000 should be covered under the companies insurance policy.

[Indebt]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

My comments have nothing to do with when the CGA may be entered into. More that HCEG will be reluctant to accept one, without something to back up an offer (such as an agreement in writing from the creditor)

For the benefit of the OP, HCEG have no incentive to accept a Controlled goods agreement (CGA) as it will mean they earn peanuts in comparison to what they can potentially earn. The enforcement agent sent out to visit you will earn commission off a figure of around £265 if he allows you to enter into a CGA.

What usually happens is that when debtors ask to pay in installments (by way of a CGA), the enforcement agent states that the creditor will not accept payments by installments and that the amount must be paid in full today, otherwise goods will be removed. Having stated this, the enforcement agent will then add another £495 to the debt, in the form of the second stage enforcement fee. As stated in my previous post, I have strong suspicions that DCBL agents operate on a commission basis. This is because, second to DCBL, they appear to implement the highest number of sale fees, in many cases, no removal vans were ever sent to site and no goods were actually controlled. In your case, a sale fee would cost you another £600. With VAT added, that could see you ending up being around £1,700 out of pocket from a single visit.

Trust me-I've seen this scenario pan out several times. HCEO will not accept any claim that the fees added were unlawful and he will invite you to ask for a detailed assessment, if you wish to challenge them. In a recent case involving HCEG, they only backed down and refunded fees after they had unsuccessfully tried to get a debtors claim struck out. In that case, it cost the debtor solicitor fees in order to be represented in the strike out hearing. Although he got a lot knocked off the final account, he also had to pay out for legal representation. On top of that, he had suffered a very unpleasant visit from HCEO, suffered the stress of the subsequent proceedings and also had to miss work in order to attend the strike out hearing. If anybody thinks it would be to the OP's advantage not to get a bit of cover by approaching the creditor, then I despair.

My advice to you would be to get something in writing from the creditor that a repayment plan is acceptable. It will ring fence you from unlawful fees as the bailiff will not have an answer to it. You can inform them at compliance stage and again when the bailiff visits. Of course, in the alternative, you could do absolutely nothing and hope that the lovely bailiff will play the game when he visits and only charge you the stage 1 fee.

With regards the damage, it is worth noting that an insurance claim will cost the company a lot of money in future premiums as all previous claims have to be declared at renewal

Finally, repayment plans are discussed between creditor and bailiff at the outset of enforcement. The bailiff is taking instruction from the creditor and will need to be aware of whether a repayment plan is acceptable or not and if so, how long will the creditor be prepared to allow? This does not mean the repayment plan has to be done directly through the creditor-It is obviously taken out through the enforcement company by way of a CGA. Of course the creditor will not have to withdraw enforcement before a repayment plan is instigated. The repayment plan is administered by the EA.

[Milo]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

In a recent case involving HCEG, they only backed down and refunded fees after they had unsuccessfully tried to get a debtors claim struck out. In that case, it cost the debtor solicitor fees in order to be represented in the strike out hearing. Although he got a lot knocked off the final account, he also had to pay out for legal representation. On top of that, he had suffered a very unpleasant visit from HCEO, suffered the stress of the subsequent proceedings and also had to miss work in order to attend the strike out hearing. If anybody thinks it would be to the OP's advantage not to get a bit of cover by approaching the creditor, then I despair.

Two questions. Why did this debtor issue a court claim when the correct procedure should have been an application for Detailed Assessment?

Secondly, you state that the debtor attended the 'strike out' hearing and that he got 'a lot knocked off the final account' but that it cost the debtor 'solicitor fee and legal representation' (at the strike out hearing). Surely the court ordered High Court Enforcement Group to repay these legal fees?

[Indebt]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

Two answers:

1. A claim was issued because the visit had been particularly nasty and several breaches of legislation had occurred. The unlawful fees were just a part of the overall claim and would have been assessed if that were the only issue. Your friend representing HCEG denied that breaches had occurred. Hence the strike out hearing.

2. As you really should know, there is no automatic right to costs at strike out hearings. My personal opinion is that it was an abuse of process for HCEG to apply for the strike out and that they should have had to pay the other sides costs. However, no costs order was awarded.

[Milo]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

Two answers:

1. A claim was issued because the visit had been particularly nasty and several breaches of legislation had occurred. The unlawful fees were just a part of the overall claim and would have been assessed if that were the only issue. Your friend representing HCEG denied that breaches had occurred. Hence the strike out hearing.

2. As you really should know, there is no automatic right to costs at strike out hearings. My personal opinion is that it was an abuse of process for HCEG to apply for the strike out and that they should have had to pay the other sides costs. However, no costs order was awarded.

I am confused.

Can you please elaborate on who the 'friend' of mine is who represented High Court Enforcement Group? Initials may help.

As I have said on here and other forums for many years, taking legal proceedings is extreme risky and so far, there has been NO evidence provided on the internet or elsewhere of a successful claim.

By 'successful', I naturally do not just mean that the debtor has had some fees removed. A 'successful claim would of course be where the court orders the defendant to repay all the claimants legal costs as well.

I have also said many time before, disputes should be made to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association.

It is imperative that debtors are not misled into believing that an enforcement agent has 'breached legislation'. That may well be your personal 'opinion' and does not mean that it will stand up in court (as has been demonstrated).

Also, debtors need to be warned before considering taking legal proceedings that enforcement companies will ALWAYS instruct highly EXPERIENCED solicitors to represent them in court. None more so, than High Court Enforcement companies.

[Indebt]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

I don't think that dragging a thread off topic by discussing the merits of court claims will be in any way beneficial to the OP do you?

Should you wish to start a discussion thread, possibly in the Lamp Post, I will be more than happy to assist in rectifying your confusion.

[Milo]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

I don't think that dragging a thread off topic by discussing the merits of court claims will be in any way beneficial to the OP do you?

Should you wish to start a discussion thread, possibly in the Lamp Post, I will be more than happy to assist in rectifying your confusion.

I don't believe that I have ever even visited, let alone posted in the Lamp Post. Also, it is my understanding that it is hidden from view to ordinary members of the public. That is not at all helpful to visitors who may well be interested to know the answers to my above question. I am sure that the OP would not mind.

Perhaps you could send me a PM with the identity of the person who represented the enforcement company.

[Indebt]

Re: High Court Enforcement Group Limited

You know damn well who that person is. I shall not be PM'ing you anything.

If and when Admin on here state that it is acceptable to answer your off topic questions, I will do so.

I would also like to draw to your attention that in my posts to the OP, I have urged him to deal with the issue now and have highlighted the negatives of getting involved in litigation, which I have always stated should be a very last resort.

[Indebt]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Legal Proceedings:

Are not normally risky, provided that the claim is reasonable. If a claim is considered unreasonable then it is likely that the claimant will expose himself to the prospects of a costs order. other than that, it is highly unlikely that costs will be awarded in small claims of under £10k

I remember 1 particular successful claim that you commented on, where the debtor had bought an internet package and acted as a LIP. He had his day in court but was awarded very little plus court fees and wages for the day. Many genuine claims are settled outside of court, as was the case with HCEG that I mentioned.

What people need to understand is that these visits can cause great post traumatic stress to the victim, sleepless nights, waking up at night, outbursts of anger and frustration and being reduced to tears. Claims (in my experience) are instigated more often for a sense of justice than they are for a desire to make money. By way of example, a debtor this morning is attending a bailiffs application for the renewal of his certificate, as we speak. The debtor has taken a day off work to do so, he has travelled far to be at the issuing court and he has spoken with fellow victims of the same bailiff. He is also issuing a claim against both the bailiff and his company. Does anyone, anywhere deny this man his right to seek justice? Milo, you really need to understand how many of these victims feel before claiming that they shouldn't litigate. Why do you think these companies settle out of court if their cases are that strong?

It is far more risky to take a P85 claim to court, where the losing side generally have to pay the other side's costs.

In the case I refer to,again, it was not about money. The debtor was a wealthy man. It was about principle. He had been wronged, the bailiff had breached legislation and had overcharged him by more than £1,000. I know of no failed court cases where legislation has been breached.

Debtors that I am involved with are not "misled". They are given legal advice and are told of what risks, if any, they may be taking. Nobody is persuaded to issue proceedings, as has been claimed elsewhere, if anything it is the other way around, where they have to be persuaded that litigation is not a good idea. Lengthy conferences take place before decisions are made as to how to proceed. This internet myth of poor, ignorant debtors being pushed blindly into proceedings is nonsense.

I am aware of the rivalry of two commercial internet websites, where one pushes litigation and the other doesn't because it has no ability to do so. I would add that I find it strange that a person who claims to have been advising for so long, recently claimed that she had only ever advised on litigation once and that, that was for a form 4 complaint. The bailiff industry has been the most corrupt industry for years, prompting a complete overhaul in 2014 yet that advisor has never seen fit to issue proceedings. I can only think that she has led a very sheltered life during her years of advising.

You stated that readers may be interested in your above question. However, I think your confusion has got the better of you. The only question that you asked was regarding the solicitor and I fail to see how any reader would benefit from that answer.

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

There are some misunderstanding regarding HCEO enforcement which should be addressed.
Why for instance would you think the HCEO needed written permission to enter a CGA, usually a phone call, if that.
Why would you think the EA would be better of if the debtor signs a CGA as he would not.
He gets the first stage fee for attending, not for anything to do with a CGA.

If anything he is better off if he doesnt, he can then move on to stage two ?
What is a HCEG ?
I

[Indebt]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Sadly, the only misunderstandings are, as usual, your own.

Nobody has suggested that the HCEO needed permission to enter into a CGA, it is just another example of your complete inability to read.

I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to you but feel free to continue to stalk me.

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Legal Proceedings:

Add not normally risky, provided that the claim is reasonable. If a claim is considered unreasonable then it is likely that the claimant will expose himself to the prospects of a costs order. other than that, it is highly unlikely that costs will be awarded in small claims of under £10k

I remember 1 particular successful claim that you commented on, where the debtor had bought an internet package and acted as a LIP. He had his day in court but was awarded very little plus court fees and wages for the day. Many genuine claims are settled outside of court, as was the case with HCEG that I mentioned.

What people need to understand is that these visits can cause great post traumatic stress to the victim, sleepless nights, waking up at night, outbursts of anger and frustration and being reduced to tears. Claims (in my experience) are instigated more often for a sense of justice than they are for a desire to make money. By way of example, a debtor this morning is attending a bailiffs application for the renewal of his certificate, as we speak. The debtor has taken a day off work to do so, he has travelled far to be at the issuing court and he has spoken with fellow victims of the same bailiff. He is also issuing a claim against both the bailiff and his company. Does anyone, anywhere deny this man his right to seek justice? Milo, you really need to understand how many of these victims feel before claiming that they shouldn't litigate. Why do you think these companies settle out of court if their cases are that strong?

It is far more risky to take a P85 claim to court, where the losing side generally have to pay the other side's costs.

In the case I refer to,again, it was not about money. The debtor was a wealthy man. It was about principle. He had been wronged, the bailiff had breached legislation and had overcharged him by more than £1,000. I know of no failed court cases where legislation has been breached.

Debtors that I am involved with are not "misled". They are given legal advice and are told of what risks, if any, they may be taking. Nobody is persuaded to issue proceedings, as has been claimed elsewhere, if anything it is the other way around, where they have to be persuaded that litigation is not a good idea. Lengthy conferences take place before decisions are made as to how to proceed. This internet myth of poor, ignorant debtors being pushed blindly into proceedings is nonsense.

I am aware of the rivalry of two commercial internet websites, where one pushes litigation and the other doesn't because it has no ability to do so. I would add that I find it strange that a person who claims to have been advising for so long, recently claimed that she had only ever advised on litigation once and that, that was for a form 4 complaint. The bailiff industry has been the most corrupt industry for years, prompting a complete overhaul in 2014 yet that advisor has never seen fit to issue proceedings. I can only think that she has led a very sheltered life during her years of advising.

You stated that readers may be interested in your above question. However, I think your confusion has got the better of you. The only question that you asked was regarding the solicitor and I fail to see how any reader would benefit from that answer.

I agree about the stress caused by prolonged bailiff action, I do find it difficult however to reconcile this with your usual advice to, "sit it out".

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Proceedings in enforcement matters are a very bad idea,just look at costs awarded so far against debtors. Section 85 is good because it compels creditors to take responsibility for its contractors actions, before formal proceedings . If as.seldom happensband the case progresses to cort and costs are considered the debtors using the correct procedures prior to commencement will be a major mitigating factor.
As proven in a recent action where the debtor won the case but still incurred significant costs.