Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

[Milo]

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

A very good idea. The thread would be far more accurate if it were something along the lines of:

Court Fines and bailiffs fees. A discussion thread.

[labman]

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

It is a very difficult situation when posts may appear vitriolic against other sites. LB does not do that.

However, this particular site, along with the related forum, have cost people we know of, hundreds, possibly thousands of pounds. I have personally had pm's from people who have come to LB having found, to their cost, the fact that advice given on the other site/forum has been incorrect. We know of others who have ended up losing cases in court.

Despite several requests for solid evidence or proof the methods suggested work, not one shred has been produced.

I think therefore, if you're willing to let this stand, it would be good for people to see for as long as it remains prominent, but as you rightly say, it needs a caveat of some sort to stop people being misled.

The reason LB was not keen to promote the methods in the first place was, if I remember correctly, because it thought they were theoretical arguments with no solid backing. For as long as that remains the case, I doubt the site would want to promote the theories. If proof of their validity comes to light, then I imagine LB would give this serious consideration;

Changing the title to make it a discussion, or considering closing it after Milo's post would, in my opinion, be the best way forward.

This is in no way an attempt to stifle free speech, it's an attempt to stop LB members or visitors losing money due to misguided advice. Purely my opinion of course, others may think differently.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Is there solid, verifiable evidence on either side of this argument ? ... ie that we can see, verify and publish (depersonalised naturally)

[Guest]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Another possibility would be to scrap this thread altogether and create an information thread illustrating the historic context of these charges and their validity in law. I am sure that Milo could start this off, and start the subject from scratch.
The problem with continuing this thread is that it would be in danger of feeding the slanging match that is going on currently between the two parties.

[labman]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Amethyst - In answer to your question, yes there is an answer. Could I suggest that you look at the sticky in the Bailiff Working Group - second one down headed 'Magistrates' Courts Fines and Bailiff's Fees.'

This sets every thing out with the full historical context. It was posted in public in the Bailiff Stickies until the software changeover. The reason it was removed from public view was that feedback suggested most just wanted telling, not a lengthy, in-depth explanation. It was written by Milo, but posted up on her behalf by me, with thanks accredited.

Instead we posted the fact we believe they are payable and asked people to pm me (should probably be changed to site admin now?) to ask for the full explanation if they wanted it - see under Fees here (LINK)

There is no reason for it not to be public again, it was before. It was just a case of simplifying things to make the guide as user friendly as possible. The people challenging this are very very few and far between. Since posting, just one person has asked for a full explanation which they duly got. It is very easily moved back to be a sticky in the Bailiff Section though - it's all there ready and waiting. :beagle:

[bizzybob]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

The definitive situation that once the bailiff has called the fees are payable needs to be emphasised imho

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

I've read that thread and not sure it helps in any massive way. Just so the 'issue' is clear in my mind.

The bailiff is entitled to charge fees, including the cost of removing the goods and the cost of selling them. That's agreed and not argued ?

The bailiff is entitled to enforce payment of its fees even though the debt may have been paid in full with the original creditor (eg. bailiffs come knocking for council tax, you ring the council and pay them off, bailiffs can still continue enforcement for the fees you avoided/tried to avoid by paying the council direct) - That is what is argued over?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...y_debtor_fo_11

The legislation governing the administration and enforcement of Council
Tax dictates that any costs and fees (including bailiff fees) are
collected first prior to any Council Tax debt. So in cases where debtors
attempt to pay debts outstanding, exclusive of any bailiff fees incurred
up to that point, the effect of this is that the fees are paid in full and
part of the original liability order debt remains outstanding. This is why
bailiffs then proceed for an amount "equal to their fees", in fact they
are proceeding to collect the remainder of the original debt as the fees
have, by then, been paid in full.

So, unless payment in full is made of all Council Tax outstanding, plus
all costs and fees incurred up to the point when the payment is made, the
"liability" is never settled.


Example:

Council Tax debt **1000.00
Liability order court fees **74.00
Total debt passed to bailiff for collection **1074.00
Fees incurred for first and second bailiff visits **42.50
Total to pay **1116.50

Debtor pays **1074.00 in an attempt to stop bailiff action, direct to MCC

MCC notifies bailiff company of a "direct payment" of **1074.00.

Bailiff company will continue to enforce payment of **42.50...plus any
subsequent further bailiff costs (for example a levy fee where walking
possession of goods is taken)if payment of the outstanding balance is not
made.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

The legislation governing the administration and enforcement of Council
Tax dictates that any costs and fees (including bailiff fees) are
collected first prior to any Council Tax debt.

Can someone post the parts of legislation relevant to this point made by MCC (not the guidelines or code of conduct etc or contract terms between council & bailiff) presumably in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/made ?


(unless I'm misunderstanding and fines differ substantially from council tax liability then kick me and send me off on the right route with the relevant legislation that applys to court fines)


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/neil_gilliatt of interest re council tax

[bluebottle]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Just to add to this thread, I have someone ringing me from HMCTS this afternoon. The purpose of the discussion I will be having with the HMCTS official who is ringing me is to establish the route that should be taken to escalate complaints of misconduct by contracted bailiff companies acting for HMCTS and what action debtors should take in cases where contracted bailiffs have done things of questionable legality, e.g. claiming they can seize exempt goods/vehicles, using letterhead warrants to persuade the police to help them gain entry to debtors' home or arrest them when no grounds exist. I will be typing up what HMCTS tell me and make this available to LB.

[bizzybob]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

@ Amethyst "I've read that thread and not sure it helps in any massive way. Just so the 'issue' is clear in my mind.

The bailiff is entitled to charge fees, including the cost of removing the goods and the cost of selling them. That's agreed and not argued ?

The bailiff is entitled to enforce payment of its fees even though the debt may have been paid in full with the original creditor (eg. bailiffs come knocking for council tax, you ring the council and pay them off, bailiffs can still continue enforcement for the fees you avoided/tried to avoid by paying the council direct) - That is what is argued over?"

If for council tax, and there is no levy, or there is a levy on third party goods, or a levy is void , or soley on exempt items then those fees are capped at £42.50 no matter how many times the bailiff calls. If for magistrates court fines then the costs are higher, and fees in the region of £300 are payable at the time of the bailiffs call, I think the nub seems to be that the merry vapour trails guy considers amongst other reasons not to pay the fees in a magistrates scenario to be contractural between HMCS and the Bailiffco, so as debtor is not a party to the contract, they don't have to pay.

This advice on that other site seems to have cost hapless debtors some serious money in fees

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Okay so we're agreed on Council Tax and it's bailiff costs for Magistrate's fines that are the area of contention ?

[Guest]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

I asked Phil Evans about this some time ago, this was his reply;

Hi Peter,

You are at the heart of a very interesting debate about the legal basis of the fees that MoJ authorise its contracted bailiffs to charge. There is a clear legal basis for fees being added to the debt but for all other types of bailiff action those fees are set by Parliament. So far as I am aware, whenever MoJ has been pressed on this issue, it dodges it. But whatever the merits of the debate, if anyone refuses to pay the fees that MoJ has authorised, they would not get any legal redress until the issue was won in the High Court, at least, and so my personal view is that they should be paid – unless someone wants to finance legal action.

Best wishes,

Philip

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

This advice on that other site seems to have cost hapless debtors some serious money in fees

Cheers Bob. Re the other site thing, is there evidence of this?

[bizzybob]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Cheers Bob. Re the other site thing, is there evidence of this?

There is a thread on CAG about it and the dodgy advice

[Amethyst]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

lol ok, I meant more first hand experience type evidence, judgments etc type stuff. I don't tend to think rival sites slating one another serves as evidence.

However things like JBW v MOJ would be more suitable evidence.