Bailiff discussion thread

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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:

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Seriously.
If LB is going to condone this template then the Bailiff guide needs to be seriously re-written, as both cannot be true.
So it is make your mind up time Celestine in my humble opinion.

If it were me i would way up the opinions based on KNOWN track record.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

If there is a statutory liability on defendants to pay bailiffs fees £85/£215 then, just tell us all why you think so.

No need to critisise me unless you can show evidence to the contrary.

The reasons are contained within the previous posts.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

If there is a statutory liability on defendants to pay bailiffs fees £85/£215 then, just tell us all why you think so.

No need to critisise me unless you can show evidence to the contrary.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

You can write essays and make your plaudits if you like, but it won’t change the fact there is no legislation that prescribes a liability for defendants to pay the demanded £85/£215 bailiffs fees. Tomtubby spent a long time referring to the so-called "Contract" that allowed a bailiff fee to be charged.

That was until I published a copy of that contract - the HMCTS Enforcmements Services Contract.

To save your blushes, and of others, I am not going to criticise you or TT for getting your facts wrong, you both clearly had strong views on this subject, but unfortunately as you can now see, it is not what Parliament intended. I was already aware what result BB would come back with from his enquiry with HMCTS, because I see the same answer dozens of times a month in managed fee reclaims cases.

I don't personally do managed fee reclaims, but I speak with many that do, all whom use a procedure that was researched and developed by me personally.

For the benefit of the OP, I will now explain what is going to happen next when he gets a reply after sending the above template challenging the bailiff’s fees on the court fine.

Answering a written formal complaint, court staff will always stop short of committing themselves by saying there is a liability to pay the bailiffs fees. This is in case the complainant decides to contact a solicitor, so they just quote the rules generically as "Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011". If the OP contacts a solicitor, he will be told that these rules (as it says at the top) clearly say they only apply to the "Enforcement of Fines and Orders for Payment".

The schedule of bailiff fees are not an Order for Payment, nor it is a fine, therefore this regulation does not apply. It only applies for the costs of distress on the defendants goods for which the sum due is recovered from the proceeds of sale.

The policy is designed for defendants who are too scared to stand up and challenge the bailiffs fees, or those gullible enough - including some 'professional' advisers - to be deceived into believing a liability for fees actually exists.

This policy is one stop short of committing an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Counsel opinion confirmed there will not be any statutory bailiffs fees for unpaid counrt fines being laid before Parliament for the forseeable future, because it is not compatible with existing regulations requiring defendants to be means tested as to his ability to pay.

The bottom line is, a printed schedule of bailiffs fees on headed paper does not constitute a fine or an order for payment, therefore , in light of this information, I believe it would be unwise for forum advisers to mislead defendants, here and on CAG, into believing they have a liability to pay the bailiffs fees when there is a legally tested route to challenge them.

You seem to be having a problem understanding the points raised so I will not repeat them again, most of what you say is simple rhetoric and not worth investigation in my opinion, I don't think the advisers you refer to are scared or gullible, i think they just understand the situation better than you appear to.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Here is part of the alternative view, by Tomtubby, (she definitely does have superior knowledge)

You can write essays and make your plaudits if you like, but it won’t change the fact there is no legislation that prescribes a liability for defendants to pay the demanded £85/£215 bailiffs fees. Tomtubby spent a long time referring to the so-called "Contract" that allowed a bailiff fee to be charged.

That was until I published a copy of that contract - the HMCTS Enforcmements Services Contract.

To save your blushes, and of others, I am not going to criticise you or TT for getting your facts wrong, you both clearly had strong views on this subject, but unfortunately as you can now see, it is not what Parliament intended. I was already aware what result BB would come back with from his enquiry with HMCTS, because I see the same answer dozens of times a month in managed fee reclaims cases.

I don't personally do managed fee reclaims, but I speak with many that do, all whom use a procedure that was researched and developed by me personally.

For the benefit of the OP, I will now explain what is going to happen next when he gets a reply after sending the above template challenging the bailiff’s fees on the court fine.

Answering a written formal complaint, court staff will always stop short of committing themselves by saying there is a liability to pay the bailiffs fees. This is in case the complainant decides to contact a solicitor, so they just quote the rules generically as "Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011". If the OP contacts a solicitor, he will be told that these rules (as it says at the top) clearly say they only apply to the "Enforcement of Fines and Orders for Payment".

The schedule of bailiff fees are not an Order for Payment, nor it is a fine, therefore this regulation does not apply. It only applies for the costs of distress on the defendants goods for which the sum due is recovered from the proceeds of sale.

The policy is designed for defendants who are too scared to stand up and challenge the bailiffs fees, or those gullible enough - including some 'professional' advisers - to be deceived into believing a liability for fees actually exists.

This policy is one stop short of committing an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Counsel opinion confirmed there will not be any statutory bailiffs fees for unpaid counrt fines being laid before Parliament for the forseeable future, because it is not compatible with existing regulations requiring defendants to be means tested as to his ability to pay.

The bottom line is, a printed schedule of bailiffs fees on headed paper does not constitute a fine or an order for payment, therefore , in light of this information, I believe it would be unwise for forum advisers to mislead defendants, here and on CAG, into believing they have a liability to pay the bailiffs fees when there is a legally tested route to challenge them.

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

HI there is a thread on here about majistates court fines and bailiffs

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...s-Courts-Fines

The advice needed is at point 6 i believe

Incidentally this needs to be re-written if the advise given on here by HC is to be believed as it is contradictory.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

HI this is the salient point

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.

You see what is being said, there is no legislation that sets these fees, that is the problem.
The fees can and have been set as purely commercial arrangement between the courts and the Bailiff firms.
Unfortunately there is no legal reason why this cannot happen.

As said it may not be fair but i would agree with TT in saying that refusing to accept these fees will only result in further charges.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

• Here is part of the alternative view, by Tomtubby, (she definitely does have superior knowledge)
  
  
  
  Happy Contrails has stated that he has a document that is "restricted" and which "apparently" confirms that fees cannot be charged by APPROVED ENFORCEMENT AGENTS (as opposed to CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS who are employees of the Magistrates Court.
  
  He will not provide any details of this "so called" "restricted" document.
  
  Secondly, he has argued that he is in possession of a Contract that provides that the bailiffs enforcing these unpaid court fines are referred to in the Contract as CIVILIAN ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. I was able to provide sufficient information on this forum that Happy Contrails was referring to an OLD CONTRACT when making his allegation.
  
  Thirdly, he made a Freedom of Information request and "apparently" we are told that HMCS have refused to provide the information to which the request relates. Once again, he refuses to provide any evidence whatsoever.For all we know, he may have received confirmation that fees can be charged. Unless he provides some evidence, we dont know.
  
  Next, he states that he has been given a copy of a Distress Warrant and despite him being able to remove ALL personal information he once again, refuses to provide a copy. Instead, he is demanding that I provide a copy of one that I have.
  
  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 ordinary parking 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 long before 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.
  
  If anyone is of the opinion that the charging of such fee or the amount of such fee is disputed, they should address their concerns in writing to the issuing court and all correspondence should be marked for the attention of the Justice’s Clerk (this position means that the person in this role must be a solicitor or barrister with 5 years training).
  
  
  
  It would appear that Happy Contrails is now “cutting and pasting” copies of my posts on this subject on other forums. I would hope that he would therefore do the same with this post.......
  
  
  
  D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

HI Had to log off for a while , i see the thread has had a bit of tidying up, just as well.

For the record, my original comment was that this is not a universal view, which it most certainly is not, i indicated a whole thread that contains that will confirm this.

The way i understand it is that there are no legal charges available to court employed bailiffs ,but there are arrangements made with commercial bailiffs where they can and do make charges.
Now these arrangements may or may not be legal, but they do exist and until a court says they are illegal they are,can be, and have been enforced.

Puff i do not claim to posses superior knowledge, so i will not be requiring a PM.
The point is that HT has the habit of giving advice on here and elsewhere, when the subject matter is to say the least unproven, as i said earlier unwise possibly dangerous.

D

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

After speaking to HMCTS yesterday and conducting some further research, I can find no legislation that definitely states that bailiff companies can charge fees for enforcing unpaid court fines or what those fees are. Unlike CT and PCNs where fees are enshrined in law, I can find no equivalent for the enforcement of unpaid court fines. .

Thank you BB for clearing that up.

I must admit that I agree with Pepsie on that point.

I wont comment on that, but you now owe me tea and biccies - and that PM.

[bluebottle]

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

After speaking to HMCTS yesterday and conducting some further research, I can find no legislation that definitely states that bailiff companies can charge fees for enforcing unpaid court fines or what those fees are. Unlike CT and PCNs where fees are enshrined in law, I can find no equivalent for the enforcement of unpaid court fines. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Marstons are treading on very dangerous ground legally in demanding the payment of fees, no matter what claims they may make to the contrary.

[pepsie]

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

I quite agree.

Lets see what HMCTS came up with, and if I am wrong, at least I can update DWBco.uk with the new informaton.

There was no need for davyb/pepsie to rebuke my advice in this way without showing any evidence to the contrary, and then start a flame war.

HC I ask you do the same as I did Puff...then show me where I have even commented on the OP's post let alone 'rebuked' your advice ?

Pepaie

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

BB, any news on your findings with HMCTS.

Is there an obligation on defendants to pay bailiffs fees on unpaid court fines?, if so, what legislation provides it?

We need to advice the OP whether or not he has a liability for them.

[bluebottle]

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Going by what the OP has said in the initial post in this thread, this needs to be reported to the HMCTS Enforcement Manager for the area in which they reside. Marstons are well out of order. If they have not gained entry and/or seized any goods, their grounds for imposing charges are very shaky indeed.