Bailiff discussion thread

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

[QUOTE=Happy Contrails;284460]One Nil to me.

Can we have a new thread to debate HCEO's and their policy on charging "fees" under Item 12 costs of Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEO) Regulations 2004.

My position this only provides for costs, and it should not be used to load fees, and by doing so, this could amount to fraud.

Lets have some HCEO's out here and tell me I am wrong.

I think this is you major problem, it is not about point scoring it is about what is best for the people coming here looking for advice, you are so busy trying to make a name for yourself by suggesting these strange untested theories that you do not seem to care about the effects on the people you test them out on.

And no not even 1-1

D

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

[QUOTE=Happy Contrails;284460]One Nil to me.

Can we have a new thread to debate HCEO's and their policy on charging "fees" under Item 12 costs of Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEO) Regulations 2004.

My position this only provides for costs, and it should not be used to load fees, and by doing so, this could amount to fraud.

Lets have some HCEO's out here and tell me I am wrong.

Here we go.

D

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

With hindsight, I think it needs a poster who has an HCEO fees problem, the fee recovery procedure works well but it involved an automatic Form N1, and the execuses these HCEO companies are quire bizarre.

The HCEO procedure is not as common as court fines, because most complainants prefer to use the dalf-help guide on DWB.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Go on start a thread and I'll keep watching, call it a 'discussion on XXXXXXX' that way we all know what its for.

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

One Nil to me.

Can we have a new thread to debate HCEO's and their policy on charging "fees" under Item 12 costs of Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEO) Regulations 2004.

My position this only provides for costs, and it should not be used to load fees, and by doing so, this could amount to fraud.

Lets have some HCEO's out here and tell me I am wrong. Here is more: http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/#HCEOhighfees

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

Okies I've done my best to tidy this up and move the relevant posts to a new thread so you can all discuss this like ADULTS please, please can you help the OP and DO NOT argue on other peoples threads, if you must have an argument or heated discussion as I prefer to call it then please start a new thread and come out of your respective corners fighting and KEEP IT CLEAN.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Thankyou,,that makes sense (and it must do for me to understand it,,ask BB, I need guiding by the hand)

No it does not make sense, even if there is no statutory liability (which is not proven)to pay a bill, it does not mean that you are not liable, nor does it mean that you cannot be pursued for none payment, you must contact the court and try and make an payment arrangement as per the advise on the bailliff advise thread.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Unfortunately the guide is not right.

The means test is done by way of a paper application and there is no court procedure to make a means enquiry hearing after the warrant of distress has been issued.

The guide author might be confused with High Court - which does prescribe such a procedure, or the author is confused with the issue of a summons for the defendant to appear for the court to answer why he has not paid the fine.

The correct procedure can be seen here: Section 38 of Schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003.

Here is the section you mention , could you highlight the part that you were referring to in your reply.

D

38

(1)

The steps referred to in paragraphs 37(6)(b) and 39(3) and (4) (powers to take further steps) are—

(a)

issuing a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum due;

(b)

registering the sum in the register of judgments and orders required to be kept by section 98;

(c)

making an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions;

(d)

subject to sub-paragraph (3), making a clamping order;

[F35(e)

taking proceedings by virtue of section 87(1) of the 1980 Act (enforcement of payment of fines by High Court and county court).]

[F36(f)

subject to sub-paragraph (4), issuing a certificate requesting enforcement under the Framework Decision on financial penalties;]

(2)

A clamping order is an order—

(a)

that a motor vehicle be fitted with an immobilisation device (“clamped”), and

(b)

which complies with any requirements that are imposed by fines collection regulations under paragraph 46 with respect to the making of clamping orders.

(3)

A clamping order must not be made except in relation to a vehicle which is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 in P’s name.

[F37(4)

A certificate requesting enforcement under the Framework Decision on financial penalties may only be issued where—

(a)

the sum due is a financial penalty within the meaning of section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and

(b)

it appears to the fines officer or the court that P is normally resident, or has property or income, in a member State other than the United Kingdom.

(5)

In this paragraph, references to a certificate requesting enforcement under the Framework Decision on financial penalties are to be construed in accordance with section 92(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.]

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Correct, there arent.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Unfortunately the guide is not right.

The means test is done by way of a paper application and there is no court procedure to make a means enquiry hearing after the warrant of distress has been issued.

The guide author might be confused with High Court - which does prescribe such a procedure, or the author is confused with the issue of a summons for the defendant to appear for the court to answer why he has not paid the fine.

The correct procedure can be seen here: Section 38 of Schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003.

According to you the debtor should just send a letter saying the fees are not due at all.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

The £215 is not due until the visit, have you had a look at the guide, the advice given on the official LB gude is to contact the fines officer at the court and attempt to arrange a means inquiry hearing http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...s-Courts-Fines .

Unfortunately the guide is not right.

The means test is done by way of a paper application and there is no court procedure to make a means enquiry hearing after the warrant of distress has been issued.

The guide author might be confused with High Court - which does prescribe such a procedure, or the author is confused with the issue of a summons for the defendant to appear for the court to answer why he has not paid the fine.

The correct procedure can be seen here: Section 38 of Schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Yes, the matter has been addressed.

There is no statutory liability for the OP to pay the fee of £215, orthe £85 fee.

That is, unless Davyb can show the legislation that gives rise to that statutory liability.

The law says the OP is only liable for costs of distress, but the OPs goods have not been seized, so Rule 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 do not apply in this case.

The OP can challenge the fees on these grounds and he will find that the bailiff will discontinue 'enforcing' payment of the fees of £215/£85, and HMCTS willl accept payment of the amopunt he has been fined and the case will be closed and the OP's liability is discharged.

Thankyou,,that makes sense (and it must do for me to understand it,,ask BB, I need guiding by the hand)

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Yes, the matter has been addressed.

There is no statutory liability for the OP to pay the fee of £215, orthe £85 fee.

That is, unless Davyb can show the legislation that gives rise to that statutory liability.

The law says the OP is only liable for costs of distress, but the OPs goods have not been seized, so Rule 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 do not apply in this case.

The OP can challenge the fees on these grounds and he will find that the bailiff will discontinue 'enforcing' payment of the fees of £215/£85, and HMCTS willl accept payment of the amopunt he has been fined and the case will be closed and the OP's liability is discharged.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

How can the £215 be payable if Billybailiff aint been yet? or am I totally missing the point?

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

FOR HAPPY


You were right hun,

You were the person that knew the legislation best

HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE cups of tea and biscuits winging their way to you

Puff
:tea::tea::tea::tea::tea:

Puff the issue is not about who knows the regulation, it is about whether the fee is payable or not.

D