Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

[Milo]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Interestingly, we have a friend in a neighbouring village who is a retired Circuit Judge and I had been discussing this subject with her a couple of weeks ago. She send me a lovely email last night and effectively what she said was not surprising given her position as a member of the Judiciary.

She said that the courts are "clogged up" with people who commit criminal offences and that the statistics demonstrate that a large proportion of those convicted fail to pay their fines and ignore correspondence from the courts. The result being that the government are sitting on bad debts from criminal impositions of approx £500 million pounds and private companies have been used for many years to collect these debts for the government and that it is absurd to even think for one moment that the cost of this should be borne by the tax payer.

Although she is now retired she said that she would love to be presiding in court with a "no win, no fee" claims management company attempting to turn non payment of a criminal offence into a "pathway" to sue the government on the flimsy ground that he or she had been forced to pay fees to the enforcement company for collecting a debt that is due to the government.

There is little that I can add.

[PlanB]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

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.

:amen:

[bluebottle]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Interestingly, we have a friend in a neighbouring village who is a retired Circuit Judge and I had been discussing this subject with her a couple of weeks ago. She send me a lovely email last night and effectively what she said was not surprising given her position as a member of the Judiciary.

She said that the courts are "clogged up" with people who commit criminal offences and that the statistics demonstrate that a large proportion of those convicted fail to pay their fines and ignore correspondence from the courts. The result being that the government are sitting on bad debts from criminal impositions of approx £500 million pounds and private companies have been used for many years to collect these debts for the government and that it is absurd to even think for one moment that the cost of this should be borne by the tax payer.

Although she is now retired she said that she would love to be presiding in court with a "no win, no fee" claims management company attempting to turn non payment of a criminal offence into a "pathway" to sue the government on the flimsy ground that he or she had been forced to pay fees to the enforcement company for collecting a debt that is due to the government.

There is little that I can add.

A question I would ask is, "How much of the £500 million is legally enforceable?". Given that Capita/TVL and DVLA have been found to have secured convictions on questionable and, sometimes, fabricated evidence, not to mention the mind-boggling and, quite frankly, bizarre decisions by Justices of the Peace, it does raise this question. I have seen Clerks of the Court turn to JPs and tell them that they cannot impose a penalty because the law doesn't allow it. The sooner the judicial system gets rid of JPs, the better.

[bizzybob]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

A question I would ask is, "How much of the £500 million is legally enforceable?". Given that Capita/TVL and DVLA have been found to have secured convictions on questionable and, sometimes, fabricated evidence, not to mention the mind-boggling and, quite frankly, bizarre decisions by Justices of the Peace, it does raise this question. I have seen Clerks of the Court turn to JPs and tell them that they cannot impose a penalty because the law doesn't allow it. The sooner the judicial system gets rid of JPs, the better.

Crapita TVL, and DVLA fines and penalties should be decriminalised and put into the civil category, with no more enforceability than a random invoice from a Private Parking Contractor, they are as much cowboys as the likes of Parking Eye, in fact the TV Tax should be abolished and the BBC made into a subscription, say £40 per year with a scrambled PIN locked signal. DVLA should be banned from imposing these random penalties as most are due to THEIR incompetence.

[Milo]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Crapita TVL, and DVLA fines and penalties should be decriminalised and put into the civil category, with no more enforceability than a random invoice from a Private Parking Contractor, they are as much cowboys as the likes of Parking Eye, in fact the TV Tax should be abolished and the BBC made into a subscription, say £40 per year with a scrambled PIN locked signal. DVLA should be banned from imposing these random penalties as most are due to THEIR incompetence.

In fact there is an MP who is seeking a Private Members Bill on this very subject in a few weeks time. He is asking for TV Licence evasion to be a County Court issue ( and one that could lead to a CCJ being issued) as opposed to it being a criminal offence. Sadly, I think that he may find serious problems with such a proposal regarding the use of the County Courts.

A very good subject for another thread.

[bluebottle]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

Probaby, Milo, the best way to address the issue of TV Licence evasion is to fund it from Income Tax revenue as a number of our European neighbours do. The other thing that has to be done, in the short-term, is to remove the private sector from running TV Licensing, i.e. Capita.

[Milo]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

There is something very serious going to happen regarding court fines in the very near future.

The government are looking to get the private sector to take on the entire court fine role.

This is a mammoth task and my worry is that as we speak, HMCTS lawyers are looking at ways to allow COSTS to be added to the amount of the fine.

These "costs" will cover the administration work undertaken by the private sector "partner" in relation to the "in house" administration of the fine. For instance, to cover the costs of sending notification of the fine, reminder letter, Further Steps Notice and issuing of a summons.

If the debtor fails to pay there will be ADDITIONAL fees as well that will be applied by the private sector enforcement company. !!!

There are some worrying things happening at the moment.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

There is something very serious going to happen regarding court fines in the very near future.

The government are looking to get the private sector to take on the entire court fine role.

This is a mammoth task and my worry is that as we speak, HMCTS lawyers are looking at ways to allow COSTS to be added to the amount of the fine.

These "costs" will cover the administration work undertaken by the private sector "partner" in relation to the "in house" administration of the fine. For instance, to cover the costs of sending notification of the fine, reminder letter, Further Steps Notice and issuing of a summons.

If the debtor fails to pay there will be ADDITIONAL fees as well that will be applied by the private sector enforcement company. !!!

There are some worrying things happening at the moment.

It is another cost cutting exercise for the ruling "Junta", after all there is a cost in trying to recover unpaid fines at Court level...writing and sending a "Final steps notice" for example, as you quite rightly mention.

Hopefully the additional fees will reflect the real cost of doing this work, and they should be set in stone as they are now for TEC recovery and Distress warrants.

I would like these fees to be linked with the RPI rather than the parties having to renegotiate after a couple of years, also, what I would like to see is that "additional costs", such as locksmiths, tow trucks and removal vans are charge "as per invoice" rather than a flat fee.

I believe that who needs to worry are fine dodgers and wilfull non payers....and they bloody well should, because if a bailiff is knocking on someone's door it is nobody'e else fault but the defaulter.

As far as DVLA goes and TVL they should be overhauled in a big way, DVLA because of their incompetence and shoddy record keeping and TVL because they con people in signing pieces of paper and failing to tell them that they will report them to Court. I have known of people visiting a property to be fined for no licence at the premises, just because they answered the door to the TV man

[bluebottle]

Re: Court fine and bailiff fees discussion

It is another cost cutting exercise for the ruling "Junta", after all there is a cost in trying to recover unpaid fines at Court level...writing and sending a "Final steps notice" for example, as you quite rightly mention.

Hopefully the additional fees will reflect the real cost of doing this work, and they should be set in stone as they are now for TEC recovery and Distress warrants.

I would like these fees to be linked with the RPI rather than the parties having to renegotiate after a couple of years, also, what I would like to see is that "additional costs", such as locksmiths, tow trucks and removal vans are charge "as per invoice" rather than a flat fee.

I believe that who needs to worry are fine dodgers and wilfull non payers....and they bloody well should, because if a bailiff is knocking on someone's door it is nobody'e else fault but the defaulter.

As far as DVLA goes and TVL they should be overhauled in a big way, DVLA because of their incompetence and shoddy record keeping and TVL because they con people in signing pieces of paper and failing to tell them that they will report them to Court. I have known of people visiting a property to be fined for no licence at the premises, just because they answered the door to the TV man

There is a lot of truth in what you say, Sir Vere.

Simon Tse, the CEO of DVLA, should be sacked. Putting it politely, he is a oaf and should be keeping a firm hand on the tiller. The reality is he appears more concerned with how much money DVLA can make, rather than ensuring that the government agency he is supposed to be in charge of obeys the law and does not wrongfully accuse motorists of not having paid their Road Fund licence or a valid SORN, or having their vehicle insured or, worse, crushing innocent motorists' vehicles because of the blundering incompetence of DVLA, VEAS/Capita and the motor insurance industry, who should never have been permitted to operate a database that is not always accurate.

I put a question about the MID and DVLA's incompetence to the Information Commissioner's Office a few weeks ago, when I was phoning them about a cold call to my ex-directory landline number. Whilst there is nothing to prevent ICO from fining DVLA, VEAS/Capita or motor insurers, the problem the ICO has is determining the level of compensation that should be paid to motorists who have had their vehicles wrongfully seized and sold or crushed.

As for Capita/TVL, as some of their employees have found to their cost, pulling a fast one is not clever as you will end up either serving a custodial sentence or community punishment for Fraud and/or Perverting the Course of Justice. Next time this happens, the police and CPS need to aim their sights higher and focus on Capita's management, as it is they with whom the buck ultimately stops.