Discussion re Distress Warrants

Hi everyone, a nice new place to discuss matter, please, please keep it friendly, I'm watching and I will eliminate anyone not being nice.

[Guest]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Just a suggestion Saph, and not entirely in my own interests.
Wouldn't this discussion be better in the working groups or on VIP.

If it is found that these fees are challengable and a change to the current advice is recommended, we could then amend it without causing confusion to people who are just coming on here for advice and do not understand the legal processes we would be discussing.

I am sure that the parties involved thus far who do not have a vested interest, would welcome an opportunity to examine the subject objectively and decide whether it should be adopted as policy or disregarded.

Just a thought.

D

[Sapphire]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Good idea Davy, I'll have a chat with Cel and Curly and see what we can do.

[Sapphire]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Sorry, its been decided that its better here for the time being.

[labman]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

For what it's worth,I don't think there's anything to discuss at the moment. Charges are being made (£85 Admin and £215 Attendance - a one off ONLY on Attendance). They are made as a result of a contract between HM Courts Service and the Bailiff Companies. They have been being charged for some length of time and there is no case law to state they are unlawful.

The argument against this is the contract cannot be imposed on someone who was not party to it being made. Theoretically this is sound, as per Private Parking Companies where this is in part one of the arguments against them. However, my view is that if it was unlawful it would have been plastered all over the press and made very public by now. Greater minds than ours will have looked at this in detail, but the charges remain.

Until such time as there is solid evidence that courts are dropping these fees whenever they are challenged, I feel it would be totally wrong to advise LB members to do anything other than play safe, as per our current Bailiff Guide.

That's my view for what it's worth,and I can't see there's anything to discuss at present.

[Guest]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Perhaps so, however some may not be convinced and want to see a civilized analysis.
For my sake I agree with your statement.

D

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

i have found this, which seems to agree with Davy and Labman..

The law that sets the statutory bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid countil tax is Regulation 14(2) (amended) and Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which provides for a fee of £24.50 to visit you.

It is common in council tax recovery for bailiffs to try and charge you hundreds of pounds in bogus fees and for work he has not done. It is fraud and you have a right to complain.
The law only makes you liable for the statutory fees, and if you have signed one, a Walking Possession fee £12 if the bailiff has taken control of your goods.. All other fees are "costs", which, the bailiff has to prove he has actually incurred in seizing, transporting and selling your goods. This is called "distress".
Schedule 12 and 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 defines rules for "taking control of goods", and no costs or other fees are payable by you if the bailiff has not taken control of your goods.
Bailiffs often charge something called a Head H fee. This is a redemption of goods fee payable when you collect goods the bailiff took your goods to pay the debt. If no goods were physically taken (no distress has been made) then you have no goods to redeem and no costs are due. The Head H fee is not a statutory fee. It was invented by bailiff companies as a way to increase fee income.
Another policy practiced by bailiffs is charging hundreds in bogus fees without even doing any work then sending demands through the post without even turning up.

[miliitant]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

i think where the confusion is that a baliff collecting for council tax and magistrates court fines are two total seperate entities with different regulations on enforcement

thats my take on it but as i know nothing on baliff law, i am shooting from the hip

[Guest]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Hi
I contacted Phil Evens regarding this matter, people on here will know his qualifications so I will not labor the point, this was his reply.

Hi Davy,

You are at the heart of a very interesting debate about the legal basis of the fees that MoJ authorise its contracted bailiffs to charge. There is a clear legal basis for fees being added to the debt but for all other types of bailiff action those fees are set by Parliament. So far as I am aware, whenever MoJ has been pressed on this issue, it dodges it. But whatever the merits of the debate, if anyone refuses to pay the fees that MoJ has authorised, they would not get any legal redress until the issue was won in the High Court, at least, and so my personal view is that they should be paid – unless someone wants to finance legal action.

Best wishes,

Philip

Prrety much echos what Tomtubby and the rest of us have been saying, I think.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

Hi
I contacted Phil Evens regarding this matter, people on here will know his qualifications so I will not labor the point, this was his reply.

Hi Davy,

You are at the heart of a very interesting debate about the legal basis of the fees that MoJ authorise its contracted bailiffs to charge. There is a clear legal basis for fees being added to the debt but for all other types of bailiff action those fees are set by Parliament. So far as I am aware, whenever MoJ has been pressed on this issue, it dodges it. But whatever the merits of the debate, if anyone refuses to pay the fees that MoJ has authorised, they would not get any legal redress until the issue was won in the High Court, at least, and so my personal view is that they should be paid – unless someone wants to finance legal action.

Best wishes,

Philip

Prrety much echos what Tomtubby and the rest of us have been saying, I think.

D

TBH, I have to agree with Phil. There is something decidedly dodgy about the issue, evidenced by the MOJ failing to provide a straight answer whenever they have been challenged. I have a gut-feeling it will challenged and the MOJ will do everything possible to prevent the matter being litigated in an open court. However, it only requires an MP or a civil servant with a conscience to put their head above the parapet and blow the whistle on it and the MOJ's premise for allowing their contracted agents to impose these charges will collapse like a house of cards.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to approach Phil about this, Davy.

[pepsie]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

This is my first comment on the debate and given davyb's post, it takes me to hold on to the belief the fees, unless taken all the way to the High Court to prove otherwise, should be paid first and argued later. Thank you for taking the time to follow this through davy.

Pepsie

[ploddertom]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

I think we suspect we know what the answer will be given the Judiciary appear to side with their own.

[bluebottle]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

If the whistle gets blown and it gets into the public domain, the proverbial will hit the air conditioning and those MPs who allowed this to happen will be asked some very searching and awkward questions. As is being found with PPP and PFI projects, the private sector has been and is still ripping off the taxpayer. It does make one wonder if the civil enforcement industry will take not only take the rap for this, but bear the financial burden of reimbursing those who have been intimidated and deceived into paying these fees as it appears it was the civil enforcement industry who demanded these fees when privatisation of unpaid fines enforcement was first mooted. They must not be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains or escape justice, no matter what form it takes.

[labman]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

I am pleased the advice in the bailiff guide is proven to be spot on. The reply echoes exactly what I put in the first post on this thread, and on the thread which prompted me back here after a lengthy break.

The bailiff guide is correct until someone takes this further and proves otherwise through case law set in the High Court.

Frankly that is all I am concerned about - we are giving the best advice at present to our site members. We can all watch with interest now for a High Court case.

[bluebottle]

Re: Discussion re Distress Warrants

I am pleased the advice in the bailiff guide is proven to be spot on. The reply echoes exactly what I put in the first post on this thread, and on the thread which prompted me back here after a lengthy break.

The bailiff guide is correct until someone takes this further and proves otherwise through case law set in the High Court.

Frankly that is all I am concerned about - we are giving the best advice at present to our site members. We can all watch with interest now for a High Court case.

... or a whistleblower to blow the lid off it all.