Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

[Guest]

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

[miliitant]

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

may i ask who pays the baliff

does hm court service have a comercial contract with them and does the court service pay them direct out of public funds

[Guest]

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

Yes. HMCTS pays for enforcement.

The contract says the bailiff can retain the fee from the fine, and confirmed on page 2 of the HMCTS letter above.

Fines are not a means to earn money for the treasury, they are a penalty on the defendant.

No public finds are used to pay bailiffs, they are only paid on a successful recovery of the fine.

[labman]

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

No Magistates' Court Fine can, or ever has been able to be increased by the cost of enforcement. The cost is built into the fine.

I wonder if there is a way of finding out what percentage of a fine is comprised of enforcement fees, and whether there would be any way of reclaiming this element if no enforcement action is needed.

[Guest]

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

Section 76 provides enforcement of the adjudged amount - the fine itself , so this element is not reclaimable.

Reclaiming is easy, but only applies to fees charged on top of the fine.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=32512

[Guest]

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



The Contract:

[ploddertom]

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

Maybe I am missing or not quite understanding this properly. I follow what is said about CEO's etc but page 9 of EX350 also makes reference to:
"HM Courts & Tribunals Service is one such organisation that has in place a number of contracts that allow certificated bailiffs to act on its behalf to recover criminal fines by way of distress."

Page 10 follows with this:
"What is the cost to me?
Each debt type has a different fee-charging regime, which allows the enforcement officer’s charges to be added to your debt. Details of these fees can be obtained from the issuing creditor."

Is this the same or covered under another matter.

[Guest]

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

You read it right. The contract uses the term Civilian Enforcemet Officer, but the contract doesnt provide for fees to be charged to the debtor by virtue of being certificated.

CEOs collecting unpaid court fines can charge the costs of distress on the defendants goods to the defendant under Section 52(7)(14) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.

Bailiffs dont fully understand what distress actually is: The Dictionary definition is another term for distraint.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ess?q=distress

Distraint is the seizure of goods to enforce payment of a debt.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nt?q=distraint

This is not compatible with bailiff companies sending postal demands charging hundreds of pounds in fees before even attending the defendants address, let alone seizing goods. This example was sent to a defendant with an unpaid consolidated £250 fine.

[ploddertom]

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

Is this something that needs to be tested somehow?

[Guest]

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

No, because HMCS has now confirmed its Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which only provides for the recovery of the fine adjudged. A bailiff needs a costs order to add his fees, for which the defendant would need to be means tested before an order is made.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
If you want it tested...


If you are a defendant with an unpaid court fine and are arrested to appear before a magistrate. Print this off and read it aloud to the court in answer to your reason why you have not paid the fine.

I, [NAME] stand before you and say as follows.

I have not paid the fine because of the following five reasons.

1. The Court Service bailiff company sent letters to me to recover an unpaid court fine of [AMOUNT OF FINE], and said I must pay [AMOUNT OF FINE AND THE FEES]

2. I understand the legislation that provides for the issue of a warrant of distress, does not provide for anyone to increase the amount I have been fined. It says I pay the amount I have been adjudged to pay.

3. No distress has been made and no goods have been moved, [and in any event, the goods at my home belong [NAME, OR RELATIONSHIP OF PERSON].

4. Advice Leaflet EX345, available from Citizens advice, says on page 5, that enforcement officers do not charge me for the work they do.

5. I understand the enforcement officer works under a contract with Court, but there is no clause in that contract enabling the contractor to recover more than the amount I have been fined.

I have a basic fundamental right under common law, not to be defrauded by the court service contractor. I will pay the fine amount in affordable installments, on the understanding the bailiff company will be made accountable for its actions under criminal and civil law, in the same way that I have.

[Guest]

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

Is this something that needs to be tested somehow?

I've looked though my case files, and testing it in the courts is not possible.

The bailiff company refunds the fees before the claim reaches trial.

Marston MO is wait it out until the day of the hearing, then settle outside court - the call my bluff tactic.

Philips usually cave in sooner, but not before giving a barrage of excuse letters.

Approaching the Court manager with a formal complaint often delivers a speedy refund without having to file a claim.

No claim has ever reached trial.

[miliitant]

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

JAPPY CONTRALILS

QUOTE

I have a basic fundamental right under common law, not to be defrauded by the court service contractor

may i ask where i can get confirmation of that statement in english law

IE

look it up in text

many thanks

[Guest]

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

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...sheading/fraud

[Sparkie1723]

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

Anything in this that could be of assist.....I do know that re 6 the Queen does have to bapproach Parliament every year for permission to keep the armed forces at the ready.......I'm looking at 10 and 12
Could be something or nothing .....Just a thought for the more legally minded
Sparkie

BILL OF RIGHTS ACT [1689]

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

[Extract]
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
9. That 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;
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

[Guest]

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

I asked a mate of mine who is a solicitor about the 1689 Bill of Rights several years ago when a forum poster mentioned it.

Only a man who was a free man in the year of 1689 and his descendants could avail themselves to the Bill of Rights. A free man is someone who is not a slave. If you want to avail yourself to the Bill of Rights 1689, then you must prove your biological ancestor was a free man in the year of 1689.