Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

[labman]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

HC,

Sorry, trying to clarify things in my own head here.

Does that mean the Bill of Rights Act is basically useless now, unless one can prove ones ancestry?

Also, you mentioned you'd looked at your case files. How many cases have you got solid written evidence about? Are they accessible to us?

Apologies if this seems a bit interrogating, it's not meant in that way. I'm just trying to establish 100% fact which can be proven if asked, in case, for example, this information should end up in a Sticky or similar.

Thanks,

Labman

[Guest]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

1. Yes

2. I have an archive of documents from connections and victims. Publishing them on their own would be meaningless unless a poster asks a questions what merits me referencing it.

The stickies do need constant updating, cleanup, removing dupication and non relevant material. Thats something I cant do on my own.

[labman]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Your input is very much appreciated as you know. It's good to know there's solid case evidence to back up everything, as there obviously needs to be to direct posters in the right direction.

It's an ongoing problem keeping things up to date, but that will be sorted.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Just doing some digging.........In my Bungling way............Sparkie



Provisions of the Act


The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for (at the time) all Englishmen. These rights continue to apply today, not only in England and Wales, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well.[citation needed] The Act set out that there should be:

• no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
• no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
• only civil courts, not Church courts, are legal
• freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
• no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[7]
• no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
• no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
• the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
• "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
• no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was also declared to be an abdication of the throne.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights-1689#ixzz1kqxy7RF5

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Happy Contrails[/

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980: Enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/76

The HMCTS contract text refers to contracted bailiffs as, "Civilian Enforcment Officers", or "CEO's", on page 31 of the HMCTS enforcement contract.





and confirms the HMCTS official advice to be correct.





Source: http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov....ms/ex345_e.pdf



See also: Recover unlawful fees paid on a MAGISTRATES COURT FINE. http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=32512

If you are to advise the public about the fees being charged for the enforcement of unpaid court FINES, then you really should make sure that you disclose to them the correct information.

You have exhibited and highlighted the words "Civilian Enforcement Officers" from Schedule 4. For reasons that are unclear, you have failed to disclose the full sentence which is as follows:

"At this stage it is not possible to quantify the degree to which the compliance agenda will reduce warrant volumes to both IN HOUSE CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (CEOs and Contractors).

You have also exhibited a copy of the EX345 which CORRECTLY states that Civilian Enforcement Officers do NOT charge fees and this is of course correct as CEOs are employees of HM Court Service !!

I recollect that you have been corrected on this point MANY times before.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
HC

A further point is that the Contract is between HMCS and the CONTRACTOR/Approved Enforcement Agency (AEA) and this is confirmed under the heading of Definition under clause 2.1 (as exhibited by you).

As you have been told MANY times before, the private sector bailiff companies are referred to as Authorised Enforcement Agents and are NOT Civilian Enforcement Officers ( who, as confirmed by your own document are employees of the Court!!

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

A further point:

As you now have a copy of the Contract ( obtained under FOI) you should pay particular attention to the following paragraphs:

The Role of Authorised Enforcement Agents:

6.18: Over time, the role of the private sector is expected to decrease. However, they will continue to remain an important and significant partner to HMCS. Contracts are currently being revised to reflect the projected changing workload. This revision will also simplify fee structures, improve control and audit functions and ensure continuous improvement throughout the lifetime of the Contract. To ensure the effectiveness of these partnership arrangements, the following approach should be adopted:

6.17 Civilian Enforcement Officers will remain an integral part of enforcement. They will continue to primarily execute arrest and community penalty breach warrants.....

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

To mislead the debtor even further, you have exhibited and highlighted under the heading :Financial the following:

"The Department shall pay the charges as set out in the Contract"

By underlining this sentence, you would "appear" to give those reading this forum the "impression" that HMCS pay Marston Group/Philips the fee of £85 (admin fee) and £215 (attendance fee). This is not correct.

You need to read ITEM 14 of the Contract ( Invoices for Financial Arrest and Breach Warrants).

With the closing of many courts, there are now only a small number of In-House Civilian Enforcement Officers now employed by the Courts and therefore, AUTHORISED ENFORCEMENT AGENTS (Marston Group/Philips etc) can enforce some of these warrants which permit the AEA's to arrest the debtor and take him or her straight to court or prison.

The debtor is not charged a fee and instead, for these ARREST AND BREACH WARRANTS the CONTRACTOR submits an invoice to HMCS every 4 weeks!!!

You have continued to confuse both Civilian Enforcement Officers (employees of HMCS) with Authorised Enforcement Agents who are private sector bailiffs.

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

My FINAL point on this subject is to provide an extract from paragraphs 12-14 of the recent Judgment in the Court of Appeal case between JBW Group Ltd and the Ministry of Justice dated 16th Janaury 2012.


"The vast majority of the work under the contracts consists of the enforcement of warrants of distress issued by the magistrates for the non-payment of fines. The bailiff may levy financial distress, which involves securing payment without confiscation of goods; or he may levy confiscation distress, which involved confiscating and selling goods.

For that work the contractor had to identify in the tender the fee he proposed to charge to execute the warrant and it is a term of the contract that he will not exceed that sum. In practice the costs of recovery are born by the defaulters because the bailiff who executes a warrant of distress is entitled under the terms of the warrant to take sufficient to cover not only the unpaid fine but also the costs of recovery"




"In addition to executing distress warrants, the bailiff will sometimes be required to execute clamping orders. There is a fixed fee in relation to enforcing these orders. Again, the costs are generally borne by the defaulters, but the financial arrangements are different than in the case of distress warrants"


"Finally some courts also require bailiffs to effect arrests pursuant to financial warrants and breach of community penalty warrants. In this case the fees, which are fixed by the contract, are paid directly by the MoJ through the Court Service."

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Many debtors visit forums to raise a question as to the fees that can be charged by a bailiff enforcing an unpaid court fine and from the many responses on this forum it would seem that the debtor may well be led to believe that they should consider making contact with the police with a view to making an allegation of FRAUD against the bailiff company.

Not only is such an allegation very serious indeed but..... a forum such as this could possibly find themselves at risk from action by either a private sector bailiff company or even; HMCS.

The debtor must of course be responsible for his own decesions but I hope that in posting the various posts that I have that the debtor may at least have a balanced view.


Thank you.....

[Guest]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Thank you milo, I await the lawyers letters.

[Milo]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

I have just been reminded of this thread..... which although from 2012 is highly relevant.

From reading page one you will see that a previous poster by the name of "Happy Contrails" had started a new thread following a Freedom of Information request that he had made to the Ministry of Justice which he "claims" supported his theory that a bailiff enforcing an unpaid court fine cannot charge fees to the debtor.

For reasons that are completely unclear he choose to mislead the public by witholding vital parts of the response from the Ministry of Justice and in so doing, "attempted" to convince the public that his "theory" about bailiff fees for enforcing an unpaid court fine are correct.

You will see that I responded to his post on 17th February 2012 to correct his misunderstanding of the response to his Freedom of Information request.

His last post later that same day was to thank me and to advise that he would wait for the response from the lawyers.

He no longer posts on this forum and instead, joined another forum where he continues to make the same mistakes as he did in this thread.

Sadly, on Friday one particular poster believed what he was reading and took the posters advice.....paid the court fine to the court online....told the bailiff that he has no legal basis to request fees.......refused to speak with the bailiff 7 days later when he returned for the balance due.......and was shocked to find the locksmith drilling out the lock on his front door !!!

The debtor ended up paying £300 in bailiff fees together with further fees of £190 to cover the fees for the locksmith !!!

[labman]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Yes, I heard about this. It is absolutely terrible. The poster was banned from LB for using LB members as guinea pigs. Thankfully we realised the dangers in the advice being given, but there is little one can do about the site he runs, nor about the site to which he contributes owned by another ex-LB member.

Thanks for highlighting this. It's not good to be 'in conflict' with other sites, but we've had quite a few come here now having learned the hard way from folllowing poor advice on other sites.

[bluebottle]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Yes, I heard about this. It is absolutely terrible. The poster was banned from LB for using LB members as guinea pigs. Thankfully we realised the dangers in the advice being given, but there is little one can do about the site he runs, nor about the site to which he contributes owned by another ex-LB member.

Thanks for highlighting this. It's not good to be 'in conflict' with other sites, but we've had quite a few come here now having learned the hard way from folllowing poor advice on other sites.

Not only that, said person uses papers written for LB on their own site.

[Amethyst]

Re: Mythbusted - Defendants dont pay fees on COURT FINES without an Order - HMCTS

Does the title of this thread need amending to make clear that it is a discussion thread as opposed to advice do you think? I'm happy to keep the discussion on here but would hate anyone just to read the first couple posts pre discussion and make decisions based only on one sided arguments.