Bailiff discussion thread

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

Re: Urgent advice needed re marstons distress warrant

Correct, there arent.

[Guest]

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.]

[Guest]

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

[Sapphire]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Sapphire]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[labman]

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!

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff discussion thread

What he said

D

[Guest]

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.