CT bailiff fees

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

You know what, that document I posted earlier shows precisely HOW the fee levels were arrived at.

In very simple terms it is cost of enforcement at each level - multiplied by rate of recovery.

SO if the average is successful collection at enforcement stage is from 1 in 5, and the cost plus 10% profit margin of each attempted collection is £11 - the fee is set to cover all 5 attempted collections - thus £55

Its around page 105 in the PDF



There is also a fair bit of discussion about how the sum collected is allocated (if that might help with other threads) Read arounbd page 115 where it is discussing the old set up vs the options for the new setup

The order of payment is not defined in the existing Fee Structures, and therefore is normally a matter resolved through contracting between creditors and EAC/ HCEAC, or resolved with consideration to the commercial pressures on a case by case basis. In any case the existing absence of an order of payment mechanism leads to a lack of clarity, and divergent practices in an area that affects both EA/ HCEO behaviour and Debt and Fee Recovery Rates (and in fact causes the divergence between the two recovery measures).

NEW (recommendation)



ALSO in that document at PAGE 173 / 174 are the old fee structures with the old £24.50 fee (plus all the other fees allowable) detailed.



I realise it is an old document however it does appear to be the original calculations that went through the consultation stages to arrive at where we are now.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

It might be an idea for BeagleyBailiff to create a thread sticky to house that PDF actually for ease of future reference.

[Crazy council]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Honsestly, there would be a lot less problems with CT and baillifs if the accuracy rates of charges of CT, benefits, discounts and false accounts were done properly. But, my research between 2005-2011, shows that converting accounts to baillifs stage, is nothing to do with collecting more money, in fact, it collets less in some cases. Its to do with an accounting rate that they are mesured on per year,

A lot of badly performing councils realised that if accs were passed to baillifs, they are accounted as suscesfull within that accounting year, regardless of whats paid.

my complaint to cipfa in 2010 breacks down what i knew by then. http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/counci...laint-to-cipfa

then see the figures http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/council-tax

using them 2, you can get an understanding of how these work through the Councils accounting systems. Shocking when you understand it.

Re Baillif fees for CT ------- this has to change, it has to be considered different to debts that you choose. ie

I choose if i want to have HP, loans, credit agreements etc ect. So, if i get behind and charged extra by baillifs,..... that is a risk i have chosen to take.
But
CT, you dont get to choose, so the bailiffs fees should be different,

But, IMO , legislation or rules need to be placed in relation to what level of accuracy council officers have to achieve on accounts before they send them to LOs and Bailiffs. That would sort the system out. MESURE COUNCILS ON THE RETURN RATES AND COSTS OF ORIGINAL AMOUNTS OF LOs.

If there is a baillif on here, that has collected for councils, i would be very interested in a private chat about what they know about how hard it was to return an account to the councils within the financial year...

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Ok, what are the anomolies that need ironing out?

There are a few which have come to light, but there are a lot more which remain to come to light. Someone should go through some of the threads and start a list.

The issues I'm thinking of are things like there is no paperwork between enforcement stage and control of goods agreement, so no visit form to prove a visit (even some (not all) the EA companies have realised they need one of these); the one mentioned above whereby a car taken under control does not need to be released until 'the prescribed period' has expired - when you look up the prescribed period it takes ages to find it, and it seems to be lurking within the omnipresent Schedule 12 and states one year - you can't have a situation where a car remains clamped for a year with nothing happening to it.

There are plenty more but there's little point listing all I can think of as more still will occur to me, and more will appear once the LO's go out and start being enforced in coming weeks from councils. I will start a private list though, this can then be put up for people to add to. It would be good for someone to go through the existing threads as well as they'll be quite a few in those already I'm sure. It would be a time consuming and rather boring job though!

I'll read the pdf properly as I know one of the aims was to get uniform fees, surely that couldn't have been arrived at to get the same fees right across the board in such a simple way? If it does, I think incorporating it into an existing sticky for easy location and referral is a very good idea. I'll try to find time to chew, swallow and digest over the next day or two - I like to read these things a few times to let them sink in a bit, and my hours of a really clear head are limited.

It gives you an idea of the anomalies I'm talking about, though others will have their own views as well.

[BeagleyBailiff]

Re: CT bailiff fees

It might be an idea for BeagleyBailiff to create a thread sticky to house that PDF actually for ease of future reference.

Added at end of here:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...379#post422379

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

You know what, that document I posted earlier shows precisely HOW the fee levels were arrived at.

In very simple terms it is cost of enforcement at each level - multiplied by rate of recovery.

SO if the average is successful collection at enforcement stage is from 1 in 5, and the cost plus 10% profit margin of each attempted collection is £11 - the fee is set to cover all 5 attempted collections - thus £55...


I realise it is an old document however it does appear to be the original calculations that went through the consultation stages to arrive at where we are now.

The fees quoted are just used for example purposes. As are the collection rates. These are not true figures.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I beg to differ doubleslap, see page 175 onwards.

Responses to these Questionnaires were filed by the 7th November 2009, also see Figures at page 90 which have come from those RFI's. There's also reference throughout the document to the figures given in the RFI's where they take an average of the actual figures submitted.

For example:

''The cost allocation exercise was performed using the above principles. Where they were provided, each company’s own estimates of resource utilisation were used to allocate that company’s costs to the activity lists. For company’s that did not provide resource utilisation estimates, the weighted averages were used.''

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Easy way to have it answered fully is to send an FOI to the MOJ asking them (as that is who the report was produced for)

[MissFM]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Further related questions/areas of concern=

It seems to me unfair (morally wrong) that the collection fees are allowed to dwarf the original debt, thereby transforming it from hard to find but maybe within the realms of possibility to might-as-well-be-£-a-million. Is there anything in the legislation that addresses this point? ( ie that enforcement fees should be in some sensible proportion to the original debt)

Another worry - is there anything in the legislation that ensures that a fair price is achieved for debtors seized goods?

We see it so often with repossessed homes - they are under-marketed and sold at a huge loss, with the debtor absolutely shafted and no redress (and the repossessors quids in).

If there is no onus to get the best return then the system is horribly open to fraud...

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Further related questions/areas of concern=

It seems to me unfair (morally wrong) that the collection fees are allowed to dwarf the original debt, thereby transforming it from hard to find but maybe within the realms of possibility to might-as-well-be-£-a-million. Is there anything in the legislation that addresses this point? ( ie that enforcement fees should be in some sensible proportion to the original debt)

Another worry - is there anything in the legislation that ensures that a fair price is achieved for debtors seized goods?

We see it so often with repossessed homes - they are under-marketed and sold at a huge loss, with the debtor absolutely shafted and no redress (and the repossessors quids in).

If there is no onus to get the best return then the system is horribly open to fraud...

Sadly the answer is no. It is accepted practice the goods are taken and sold at auction where they are likely to achieve roughly 10-15% of their true value. It is preposterous. I have heard a rumour, but only a rumour that the MOJ are looking at some revisions to the reforms in October which would be good (depending what they do).

As for your first point re enforcement fees dwarfing the original debt, I agree that with issues such as Council Tax it can dwarf the debt, equally we saw many cases pre-April 6th where fees escalated even further than they can now. Similarly with other fines.

The realist (which I hate being) also states that these people have often had several chances to come to some sort of acceptable agreement and totally ignored the chances. If people don't engage, the enforcement companies are bound to take the attitude they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the fine. They don't take the next humane step of asking why they are burying their heads in the sand and trying to pretend it isn't there and will go away.

However, we live in the real world and do nobody any favours by not being realistic.

It was interesting yesterday that my stepson arrived as I was having a funny five minutes over my finances (or lack of) and was frantically trying to conjure money out of nowhere. He lives solely off benefits and was astounded to see the proof on paper that he is better off on benefits than I am claiming no benefits at all. I think (again being a realist), had I not gone through what I did with bailiffs a few years ago I may well now be saying I could not afford to pay Council Tax. As it is I did go through what I went through, totally transformed my notion of priority spending and how much was needed for what and learned to live within what we have, albeit by a matter of a few pounds and sometimes pence every month.

I wonder how many people who cannot pay their fines would benefit from some money management education possibly in exchange for a reduction in their fine (rather like attending a drink driving course reduces your disqualification period).

[MissFM]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Thank you for answering that Wombats. It's deeply unsettling, though x

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Thank you for answering that Wombats. It's deeply unsettling, though x

It's the same with repo'd vehicles, houses, etc....

[Milo]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I was fascinated by the tomtubby/jasondwb spat and wanted to try to draw my own conclusions .

You may wish to draw your own conclusion from the following:

Highly inflammatory comments by that person against me (as tomtubby) are an everyday occurrence. I do not respond, as to do so would be like pouring petrol on a fire started by a Pyromaniac. Instead, it is far better to starve him of the oxygen of publicity on which he so desperately depends.

For at least six months that person has 'claimed' that he has a 'police crime reference number' against me. For the avoidance of doubt...in those 6 months I have never received a letter, a phone call, an email or a visit from a police officer. In fact....I was the one who contacted the police !!!

The above is 100% true.

I do not intend to make any further comment on LB on this matter. My credibility is intact.

Thank you.

PM. Admin, please feel free to edit if necessary.