HCEOs
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by HCEOs
-
I'm afraid that will depend on the likelihood of you being able to make payment. This decision will be based on your assets, financial circumstances or ability to find a way which may include borrowing from friends or family. On his occasion you managed to pay the debt and as far as the Enforcement Agent, his company and the client are concerned it is a job well done. If I'm honest, as far as this aspect goes the EA did his job. EAs will always push for full payment in the first instance. This is 'enforcement' after all. What date did the Notice of Enforcement have on it, what date was the postage on the envelope and when was the expiry date and time of the Notice?
-
You clearly have little understanding of the regulations and if you are using that method of applying fees then it won't be long before you or your company are reprimanded. There is always an option for a controlled goods agreement. It does not end at the expiry of the NoE. The first attendance to a debtors property will always incur ES1 fee whether they wish to enter into a repayment plan or if they have not responded to the NoE.
-
This kind of practice, if as described, is extremely frustrating for most HCEOs. A lot has been done over the years by many to improve the standards and our perception, which I believe they have, and then idiots like this come along and take us back. As said earlier, if this was as described then there are likely grounds for a compliant against the EA's certificate. We do not need people like this in the enforcement industry.
-
That is not how the fees should be calculated. The first attendance MUST be at Enforcement Stage 1. Stage 2 is only applied for additional enforcement work undertaken after the completion of ES1 and where the debtor does not enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement or breaches it. This fee covers all work up until the Sale Stage process.
-
As already stated, we have only heard one side of the story. But based on this I would state the following. Unfortunately the bailiffs from "Can't Pay" have a history of forcing entry to residential premises illegally as was highlighted so dramatically on one of their shows. The EAs in question I believe the debtor posted on CAG about it. Court Enforcement Services are a new entrant to the HCEO market and will likely not have their own staff so instead sub work out to other self employed Enforcement Agents. As their HCEO is Simon Williamson who was originally behind the show it is no surprise that a TV face has been used. They promote themselves as the 'ethical' enforcement company and it's run by ex Drakes/Marstons Directors. Rightly, they would not want this kind of enforcement action linked to their profile so a complaint to them will probably see this particular EA removed from their list.
-
It would appear that this completely unqualified individual is now offering legal services to judgment debtors whereby he claims to be able to "Stop your High Court Writ" for £125. Having read many of his posts here in the past and on his various websites and forums it is clear that this person has little to no understanding of this area of law and is no doubt costing genuine judgment debtors looking for help. In the past we have had sight of his assistance and whilst on the most part it is just worthless nonsense on several occasions it has actually cost the debtor considerable sums that would not have been payable without Jason's involvement. A new page on his website laughably states: Coming soon end of July 2015. How it works. 1. Complete a fact-find to see if your writ or circumstances qualify for this service. 2. Complete a short online questionnaire 3. Payment 4. Sign and take (or post) your documents to court 5. Kibosh! Your writ - and the enforcement power - is stopped! Where possible, I will also get your original county court judgment set aside as well! It will be interesting to see what the SRA make of this.
-
The whole point is that he either needs to dispute the debt and make an application for a stay of execution and set aside or pay it, either in full or in instalments. This and every other forum are the first to moan about enforcement action but will happily advise a judgment debtor to evade what is owed by hiding assets. Rant over.
-
Pre April 2014, most HCEO's had agreements with their clients on the way the sums recovered would be split. This will probably account for the differences you've been told. I would add, that some clients have a minimum pay out amount meaning that they are only paid when the sum reaches a certain amount. This varies from client to client and may also be a factor.
-
It's not about power, it's about a financial incentive to recover what's due under the judgment. It won't be long before the CCBs are disbanded and all judgment enforcement is issued through HCEOs. They have long been ineffective and with the new government looking for cuts it makes absolute sense to give all creditors the enforcement service they deserve.
-
The fact is that a normal bailiff company with Certificated EAs cannot enforce a judgment. To do that you have to be either a County Court Bailiff or an HCEO (using a Certificated EA). As the CCB's are pretty much useless it makes absolute financial sense to use an HCEO.
-
I know it's not what you want to hear but the fact is that due to ignoring Marstons you are now lawfully liable for the fees. You don't need me to tell you that you could have avoided this. Pay them the £1,700 you have and make an arrangement for the balance which will be split pro-rata between Anglian Water and Marstons. If you feel the fees charged are incorrect, you can apply for an assessment of their fees in the High Court but you must ensure you are 100% correct or you could face their solicitors costs in defending it.
-
I can see Concentrix buying an enforcement company very soon and Marston seem best placed for that.
-
As you now know, HCEO complaints are handled very differently to that of the general Bailiff sector. I personally believe the end-to-end process to be effective enough as it is. In my earlier post I advised that whilst initial complaints are dealt with by the company then the HCEOA and after this it goes external, finally landing in the lap of the Senior Master who has the ability to withdraw the High Court Enforcement Officers authorisation (granted by the Lord Chancellor). Clearly the compliant would have to be of significantly serious grounds, like not paying clients or fraud for exapmle, for it to reach these higher stages but this will come down to whether the complainant refuses to accept decisions along the way and appeals them.
-
However, the original questions about complaints related to the actions of any HCEO or their Enforcement Agents. As explained already, complaints are dealt with through a series of escalating procedures initiating with the enforcement company through to the Senior Master in the High Court.
-
The progress of a complaint depends on its seriousness and whether the complainant appeals the decisions reached at each stage. Yes, after the complaint process is exhausted with the company involved the industry regulates itself for the next few parts of the complaints procedure but it is then passed to an external barrister and then to the Senior Master. And as I said before, the complainant may not be a debtor. The spate of TV shows has seen complaints from members of the public due to the actions of various enforcement agents. My point is that whatever the HCEO, whatever the firm, we are all answerable to the public by a robust complaints procedure.
-
I think it is unlikely that that would happen at this early stage but you are right to push the issue of providing as much data as possible to help their cause. Marstons are after getting paid and if they can see it's a waste of time attending your property then they'll look elsewhere. If it's an ex you may want to just tell them where he is or give them details that will help them find him.
-
I don't think they said the debt was for a telephone line it's just that how they have traced him to her address. Clearly it is in mc2507's interest to provide Marston with as much information as possible that shows your ex does not live there anymore, by email if possible.
-
As mentioned above and many times before, if nobody complains, nothing will happen. This is true of any complaint regarding an enforcement agent/officer and like every HCEO company we would have to respond to a complaint made to the HCEOA. A compliant can be made by anybody and not just those involved in the case. Sorry, but is no use just bleating about issues on a forum unless you're prepared to complain yourself. What I would say is that the EAs pictured above have changed their attire slightly for the latest series of the show (no blue and white chequers).
-
All Shergroup & now DCBL writs are issued in her name.
-
Like all of these matters, unless is it raised as a complaint with the HCEOA, MoJ or Senior Master then nothing will happen. This forum has enough members to actively have a say in such issues if you were to raise them.
-
It would appear that the original HCEO behind High Court Solutions, DCBL, High Court Collections and many others has withdrawn his name from most of them in recent months. Instead, the sole HCEO from Shergroup, who lives in the USA, is giving her name out to these companies now. http://www.dcbltd.com/news/detail/?article=32 The EAs from Cant Pay have also left High Court Solutions for DCBL.
-
I would be surprised if Marston didn't accept the payment arrangement offered but yes, they do have a duty to attend and seize (take control of) goods in accordance with:- 1. The Explanatory Memorandum to The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (No. 1) which reads "Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Curt case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage". This is to ensure that goods are levied against to protect the creditors interest. 2. The actual Writ of Control clearly orders the enforcement agent that "YOU ARE NOW COMMANDED to take control of the goods of the claimant/defendant authorised by law and raise therefrom the sums detailed in the Schedule, together with fees and charges to which you are entitled" . Both of these are at odds with the wording on the Notice of Enforcement and we hope this (along with many of the other statutory forms) will be amended in the first year review.
-
Don't forget the £1,350 value....
-
EA's who threaten Bankruptcy
HCEOs replied to caledfwlch's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
The TV show I was referring to related to High Court enforcement and as I am told the creditor was often given feedback by the EA that an SD was the way to go. They would then charge for drafting and serving it and the owners other IP company would try and get the bankruptcy work. This is only hearsay though. -
EA's who threaten Bankruptcy
HCEOs replied to caledfwlch's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Yep, defo £5k from October 15.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS