Bailiff discussion thread

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

no case has ever been made in any court to challenge them.

You have raised a valid question, and I will answer it.

The reason why it never reached court is because the bailiff company always settles the claim just before the hearing takes place.

The bailiff company cannot afford a county court judgement against its name, otherwise it will cost them their credit license renewal, and without consumer credit license - which is a licensed activity under Section 21(1) if the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - the company is unable to trade in debt recovery because they commit an offence under Section 39(1) of the Act.

HMCTS will never ever allow a Formal Complaint (or Parliamentary Ombudsman intervention) about bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines to reach Judicial Review. This is why complaints about bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines are always quietly settled without a formal reply letter, and the case returns to HMCTS control and is closed. On many occasions, the fine is never paid by the defendant, incase he questions why the case has closed without him getting a formal reply to his complaint.

If HMCTS had a JR application made agasinst it about the question whether any official binding of a defendant to pay the fees of the enforcement contractor exists, it would certainly lose the Review. This is because it not compatible with Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, Section 76 of the Courts Act 1980 and Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003.

In fact, nothing on the statute book requires a defendant to pay bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines.

If HMCTS lost a JR, it would be destructive. It would open the floodgates and require HMCTS to refund to all defendants who have paid bailiffs fees on court fines – provided their goods have not been sold – and the taxpayer cannot afford such a large payout.

This is a double-edged sword for HMCTS, and I expect they are fully aware this. If any new legislation were to be laid before Parliament that prescribes statutory bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines, it will raise the question of what previous legislation required dependents to pay fees before that legislation was made - and an inquiry would reveal there isn’t any, and this would result in floodgate claims.

This means we will not be seeing any new legislation in the foreseeable future that will prescribe statutory bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

You want evidence?

Read up ,

then read this: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...538#post284538

...and take off those rose coloured specs.

I asked you for evidence the OP is liable for the bailiffs fees, and everytime you go to lengths to critisise me on this forum.

That is because you haven't got any evidence.

I would have a lot more respect for you if you did not make these feeble attempts to hide your blushes.

Not sure i am bothered about the amount of respect you have for me, personal remarks like this are just a waste of everyone's time.

I wish i had a quid for everyone that came on here with some unproven or daft idea and said OK show me evidence it doesn't work.
It doesn't work like that i am afraid, it is your idea you have to show evidence it does work, not the other way around.
People are paying the fees every day, no case has ever been made in any court to challenge them.
Your idea you prove it.

Just followed the link and of course it is to statement you made on the same subject, proof indeed, but only of your inflated ego.

D

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

You want evidence?

Read up ,

then read this: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...538#post284538

...and take off those rose coloured specs.

I asked you for evidence the OP is liable for the bailiffs fees, and everytime you go to lengths to critisise me on this forum.

That is because you haven't got any evidence.

I would have a lot more respect for you if you did not make these feeble attempts to hide your blushes.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Not going to happen pepsie, and neither will your copied post you made on CAG Land saying I "made a very rude comment to the cag founder".

You even complained to an admin about it being posted on this forum, and I see its still there, so do you ever wonder why?

That is because it says a lot about you. You are a sh!tstirrer, and you were caught. You make blind comments about people that are not true.

You still ought to explain why you made that comment about me.

Why do you feel it necessary to introduce elements into this debate that have no relevance. Is your case so weak that you have to try and cloud peoples opinions by making these derogatory remarks.

The facts still remain that you have no proof of you allegations, and until you do it is unwise for people to follow your ideas.

You are not the first to come onto these forums with an agenda and try to use the members on her to prove a point. It is not what this forum is about, as Labman says do it on your own website, if people want to buy into it then they can do it there.

The people here will look into your claims, and if they have any merit they will decide if they are worth including in the authorized guides, you cannot or at should not be able to short cut the process because you think you know better than everyone else.

As for the allegation of being a stirrer, i think we are looking at a classic case of pot calling kettle burned arse, as we say up here.

D

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

It takes two letters to HMCTS to achieve that, and both letters must be marked 'Formal Compliant' and a cc to the bailiff company marked 'for information only'

The first response is a scripted reply "contact the bailiffs", the second letter gets no official reply letter, but the fees dissappear and HMCTS closes the case.

The bailiff company also closes the case as well, and sends this reply if the defendant contacts them again.

[miliitant]

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

just my opinion on different points of views on statutory obligations in regards to what a baliff can charge and what he cant in fees

why not send a letter to HMCS or the ministry of justice to get a reply in black and white and post it on this thread to put this debate to bed

i for one would like to know the legal standing on this issue, be it the correct one

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Sorry, I am doing a tomtubby - answering a post before I finished reading it. I missed the above comment.

Means enquiry hearings are for the making of a costs order - since no costs order has been made against the OP, there is no need for him to make an application to be means tested.

I hope that wasnt you who wrote that guide...... If so, I suggest you seek advice on the subject before writing about it.

How very boringly predictable! I'm not going to say more save one thing, I have had my say very clearly and have more productive things to do. However, the fact you think contract law is simple, particularly with regards to this, shows a huge gap in your knowledge, and no, I won't enlighten you, I have said my one thing.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Not going to happen pepsie, and neither will your copied post you made on CAG Land saying I "made a very rude comment to the cag founder".

You even complained to an admin about it being posted on this forum, and I see its still there, so do you ever wonder why?

That is because it says a lot about you. You are a sh!tstirrer, and you were caught. You make blind comments about people that are not true.

You still ought to explain why you made that comment about me.

[pepsie]

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

I have not logged into this site properly for some time. This has caused me to do so and I will keep my feelings brief.

Pepsie, Davy B and myself have a VERY long history of success with bailiff issues. Bluebottle is also keen on all aspects of law and has an eye for attention to detail.

My reply on the thread promotes following the advice of this site and explains why, so I won't repeat it - read it for yourselves.

I was disgusted last night by the personal abuse on here by Happy Contrails and feel that his theory has no place on a site where we seek to actively help people. He has his own site where people are encouraged to donate a fee of any monies recovered / saved. LB would be wealthy if they did the same. I did not think LB promoted external profit making sites, and am surprised to see it allowing HC to continually promote his site at the expense of this one and at the expense of respected posters on this site.

The issue is too complex for any amateur as it actually falls on the finer details of contract law. However, as the contract is between HM Court Service and the bailiff companies, anyone ignoring 'fees' would be foolish in my opinion, unless solid evidence to the contrary is provided. No amateur will adjudge the rights or wrongs of the 'fees' - a court will. Contract Law is too complex.

Fees (call them what you will) are awarded for enforcement for non-payment of fines. They cannot therefore be included in the original fine as no court can predict future need for enforcement. Attendance fees can be charged once and only for actual attendance, the £85 admin fee can be charged anyway. Simple!

If the OP is on benefits, then getting a Means Enquiry Hearing should stop bailiff action. Simple. If they are not, they can still request a hearing and the court will call the person to attend.

HC is splitting hairs over ridiculous things and has no place here where, in my opinion, he is here to promote his forum and stir up trouble here (again!!!) He makes money from his site and has an interest in attracting people from here. People Google sites and choose which they want - if they want HC's theory (and I agree it works in theory, but have not seen evidence of it in reality) then go there, otherwise come here.

Sorry, but I feel HC should not be here. His interests lie elsewhere!

*****star post there Labman you have said all that many have concluded but have avoided saying to keep the water calm.
If we are having a vote on your last sentence....mine goes in favour of HC leaving on the next flight.

Pepsie

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

If the OP is on benefits, then getting a Means Enquiry Hearing should stop bailiff action. Simple. If they are not, they can still request a hearing and the court will call the person to attend.

Sorry, I am doing a tomtubby - answering a post before I finished reading it. I missed the above comment.

Means enquiry hearings are for the making of a costs order - since no costs order has been made against the OP, there is no need for him to make an application to be means tested.

I hope that wasnt you who wrote that guide...... If so, I suggest you seek advice on the subject before writing about it.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Labman, you are just incredible.


I dont need LB to 'promote' anything. DWB's traffic source is almost exclusively search traffic. Traffic that is fresh, not recycled forum traffic.

I see nothing complex about contracts. The HMCTS contract is all plain Queens English.

Tell me what you dont understand and I'll try to explain it for you.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

What he said

D

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

I have not logged into this site properly for some time. This has caused me to do so and I will keep my feelings brief.

Pepsie, Davy B and myself have a VERY long history of success with bailiff issues. Bluebottle is also keen on all aspects of law and has an eye for attention to detail.

My reply on the thread promotes following the advice of this site and explains why, so I won't repeat it - read it for yourselves.

I was disgusted last night by the personal abuse on here by Happy Contrails and feel that his theory has no place on a site where we seek to actively help people. He has his own site where people are encouraged to donate a fee of any monies recovered / saved. LB would be wealthy if they did the same. I did not think LB promoted external profit making sites, and am surprised to see it allowing HC to continually promote his site at the expense of this one and at the expense of respected posters on this site.

The issue is too complex for any amateur as it actually falls on the finer details of contract law. However, as the contract is between HM Court Service and the bailiff companies, anyone ignoring 'fees' would be foolish in my opinion, unless solid evidence to the contrary is provided. No amateur will adjudge the rights or wrongs of the 'fees' - a court will. Contract Law is too complex.

Fees (call them what you will) are awarded for enforcement for non-payment of fines. They cannot therefore be included in the original fine as no court can predict future need for enforcement. Attendance fees can be charged once and only for actual attendance, the £85 admin fee can be charged anyway. Simple!

If the OP is on benefits, then getting a Means Enquiry Hearing should stop bailiff action. Simple. If they are not, they can still request a hearing and the court will call the person to attend.

HC is splitting hairs over ridiculous things and has no place here where, in my opinion, he is here to promote his forum and stir up trouble here (again!!!) He makes money from his site and has an interest in attracting people from here. People Google sites and choose which they want - if they want HC's theory (and I agree it works in theory, but have not seen evidence of it in reality) then go there, otherwise come here.

Sorry, but I feel HC should not be here. His interests lie elsewhere!

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

When I can be bothered, I will explain from Counsel's opinion why Parliament has not legislated bailiffs fees on court fines.

I have provided evidence for all to see, but you seem to think I havn't - so here it is again.... again.... just for you davyb, Sir.


The law for costs of distress http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...9/part/52/made

The law - Issue the distress warrant http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/76 Note it says - it is for the enforcment for the amount the defendant is ADJUDGED to be paid

The law - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/section/92 - A Costs Order or a Fees Order is required for defendants to be liable for bailiffs fees

And finally, the enforcement services contract - http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/contract.pdf

Now, lets see that legislation that says defenants are liable to pay the bailiffs fees on unpiad court fines.

Still cant produce it? - 2 Nil to me.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

HI again
I just thought i would re produce this heere in case anyone should forget the actual facts of the matter.

As this thread should show, whenever I have responded on this tread, HC's response is to say either: provide evidence, provide a link to your source etc. I have done this many times. Frankly, he has provided NOTHING.

Instead, this poster continually refers to a link on an HMCS website that states that fees cannot be charged. However, that link refers ONLY to CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (who are employees of the Magistrates Court). The private sector companies such as Excel, Philips, Marston Group etc are in fact, APPROVED ENFORCEMENT AGENTS.

He also continually posts links to two enquires on the CAG forum where he "claims" that "fees miraculosly disappeared". This claim is frankly, nonsense. Furthermore, with one of the links he claims that the debt is for a "Bus Lane fine". If fact, the debt relates to an ordinaryparking ticket issued by Reading Borough Council !!!


Two of his posts have been removed by the moderators of this site. In one, he again claims that defendants may have been "defrauded" and that "apparently" the Serious Fraud Office Bribery and Anti Corruption Unit would be looking to investigate.

On the matter of these fees, the question that should be asked is not whether the fees are legal, but why Parliament have not set the fees.

With the EXCEPTION of unpaid court fines, all fees charged by bailiffs are set by Parliament but, the reality of the situation, is that longbefore these Contracts were awarded ( and as far back as the 1980s) "bailiffs" would assist police etc to enforce unpaid court fines and such fees allowed by the bailiffs were set by magistrates courts committees. In 2005, the responsibility for all such committees passed to HMCS.

Until someone successfully challenges the Government on this in the courts, we have to live with it, no matter how unjust it seems. I cannot therefore in good conscience tell someone not to pay the fees, however unreasonable they may seem, knowing that the person may well be subject to further enforcement action and additional expenses.

D