Really ? Irrespective of the number of warrants served ? That is preposterous. You need to revisit fixed and variable costs/overheads (and appropriate tax relief). Say for example, and for ease of numbers, that it costs your business 500,000 gbp p.a to run the back office and bailiffs etc. And you only get 5 warrants to enforce in that financial year. Your stance would put the total claimable fees per warrant at 100,000 gbp (assuming all were satisfied and ignoring the profit element). If you got 500,000 warrants it would put the total claimable fees per warrant at 1 gbp per warrant (assuming all were satisfied and ignoring the profit element). Are you proposing a floating fee that goes down if you get moire warrants to enforce ? I think not. Sure there are costs of entry into the market place and critical mass issues - but they are there for all businesses to deal with. Yours included. Your suggestion would kill off the smaller, and so more agile and innovative, companies and reduce the field to just behemoths. And we all know that that leads to only to oligarchic pricing and customers being screwed And your industry has many vulnerable customers. You get your business model wrong, and that includes you agreeing bad bargain contracts, and the consequences are yours. Across the industry as a whole outrageous charging is endemic (look at the Council parking tickets forum !) there is no 'one spreadsheet solution'. It is not a case of one size fits all. Easy answer to charges conundrum ? Pay all bailiffs of whatever type a fixed salary. That won't stop certain well known companies from pressuring their bailiffs to ramp up the charges of course but it will level the playing field and highlight them, then they can be dealt with.

Where I find the problem is making the distinction between the Certificated Bailiff & the HCEO. I don't see a difference between the two & strongly believe the charges applied should be the same, after alll there is little diffrence to knocking on the door and asking for Council Tax/Unpaid PCN & that of Southern Water's Bill. It is the same goods you are attending to seize & remove. The HCEO is in the same position as the Certificated Bailiff when the debtor refuses you entry. There is one firm who make charges akin to telephone numbers yet the attending officer receives nothing like the £750 demanded for a visit, they use blanket charging and have lost on more than 1 occasion when challenged, which is very akin to the Certificated Bailiff either blatatntly overcharging or going for multiple fees. I can't put a figure on what the charges should be but as the person attending is basically no more than an unqualified collector of monies then the £75 per hour the local plumber charges looks value for money. Until such time that challenging charges is simplified - preferably to a completely independent body - then the complaints will carry on. They may have put the "Bailiffs & HCEO's" out for consultation but with some of the figures that are being bandied about then in the present climate more are going to resist.

No not every debtor is vulnerable, but remember that allowing charges to spiral many multiples of the original debt as can happen now is also unhelpful. I would suggest that no more than £50 and a maximum of 25 miles at 40 pence per mile for private individuals, is the ballpark. Obviously if it is a corporation and they have funds, then £300 plus mileage, and legitimate true cost of removal vehicle, remember that a Luton 3.5 tonne vehicle is around £75 per day to hire if self drive, plus £8 per hour for a couple of porters, the hourly rate to cover duration and attendance plus two hours for base job and return to base, bear in mind that loading these fees upfront all together is naughty and should only be imposed if HCEO calls subsequently specifically to remove. As to sticking to the point, not all debt is wilful avoidance, and is due to a change of circumstances severely reducing income and ability to pay, that is my point, that any extra makes successful timely discharge of the debt less likely. This is true whatever the cost of enforcement. In modern society with electronic systems, affordable deductions from salary/benefits is an equitable alternative with minimal cost to the creditor if systems were put in place. Sorry if I cannot see the value of your work, but distress is medieval and deserves no part of the system in the 21st century. As an advice worker and Councillor I have seen the results of excessive enforcement demands, and action by Bailiffs and HCEO, and they could well amount to breach of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights, as cruel and inhuman treatment that could be construed as mental torture. There is one underlying issue that is the elephant in the room, you run the risk with excessive enforcement charges coupled with the existing debt, sending the debtor into bankruptcy, at which point it is effectively game over for enforcer and creditor, who may then get diddly squat.

Demand the details 1. What bank was the cheque drawn on 2 The Cheque Number 3. The sort code 4 the name of the account holder.

Providing that you were on private land and not council owned - the clue should be that you have a Parking Charge Notice, not a Penalty Charge Notice. If this was official it would have been issued under the authority of an official traffic act. Just also noticed that Park Solve's website still advertises their Registered Office as being Manchester, yet according to Company data they are based in Borehamwood - naughty naughty naughty! " The company has no known group companies. As of their last financial statement, they had £56 in cash reserves. The company's current net worth is £56" What a thriving enterprise! I'd say your chances of seeing this go beyond begging letters is between nought and zero. Save your money.

It's up to them to to check the trade-in as you are a consumer and not a trader. It's a case of buyer beware and they are the ones that have the experience for that regardless of if you had it checked. They are a trader and despite any excuse they are in a higher position to check the car you gave them before releasing the one you purchased. It's up to them to check it before giving a px price. If you purchased the car with a warranty they still have to honour it dispute or no dispute. I'd have a word with your local Trading Standards. The way their letter is phrased, without being there, it seems as though they are dealing away from premises. You've driven the car a seemingly long way and you couldn't / wouldn't do that with a serious fault and one that could develop at any time. I'd write back and say they had ample opportunity to test the car before agreeing to release the A4. What they schedule with their mechanics is of no concern to you and neither is the acceptance of your vehicle as a px in good faith and as seen. They are talking rubbish so treat it as such.

Well I Had a result I was correct they had not followed procedure, They have now withdrawn the warrant fee, I just goes to show that you should not just accept the first response if it goes against you. if you have done your research correctly be persistent but polite. 1 complaint upheld 2 being checked out. Leakie

Errrm your pass was "only" a week out of date? So how many time had you travelled on it before you were caught?

The "O" of course stands for "Optional" which means it can never be a "Must Have". That is why we suggest that all OSC is reclaimed because BH will always tell you that you must have it which is not correct.