Unpaid Speeding Fine - Bailiffs Chasing

[will smith]

Hi Will Smith here, new to the site (be gentle) hoping to find some advice on a specific situation, thanks in advance

 

I received a speeding fine last January, and was unable to accept the fixed penalty because i had no driving license to send in (it was lost in the post to DVLA when returned for an address change some time before)

 

I then moved address in March 09 having not dealt with the fine. In November 09 I received a phone call from a bailiff explaining he was at my old address to collect the fine which was now over £300. He wouldn't accept installments and told me to ring Milton Keynes Magistrates and that the warrant he had expired in two days.

 

I am now about to call them but wanted to know as much as possible first, such as do I have a leg to stand on if I did not receive the court notices having moved address? Or the fact i could not send in my license because the DVLA lost it?

 

I know that the fine will be a fair few hundred now and expect to pay a lot but could any of the above help me to have it reduced?

 

many thanks for any help given

 

will smith

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome,

 

I'll move this thread to a more appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[tomtubby]

Hopefully the warrant has expired and the case has gone back to the court.

 

They can reissue a Distress Warrant and if this was the case then I am sure that you would have heard from the bailliff by now.

 

The debt would revert back to the original amount and may possibly have been written off in any event.

 

It is advised that you call the court asap and ask them for details.

 

If written off, they this will be the end of matter . If not, then you can ask the court if you can complete a Means Enquiry Form and pay the original fine by way of monthly payments.

[RaeUK]

Hi Will. I'm sure that there are some things you can do which will be helpfull. Someone with a better understanding will pass this way.

In the first instance, have you any paperwork at all regarding this? A breakdown of costs? How much the original fine was?

Rae.

Edited January 6, 2010 by RaeUK
Beaten to the keyboard by Tomtubby :)

[will smith]

thanks for the help, i just tried calling them but no one picked up.

 

incidentally, i just this second received a phone call from a woman claiming to be from a "third party mail forwarding company" saying she had mail for me, and asked for confirmation that i lived at this address. I wonder if that is actually the tracing agency that the bailiff mentioned in his last phone call? He said the court would use these and the costs added to the fine.

[Nintendo Pü]

Yes, that is the MO of a tracing company, they normally do this when tracing consumer debtors, they just wanted to know where to send your letter, If the letter is not genuine then mark is Gone Away and return it.

[Nintendo Pü]

I know that the fine will be a fair few hundred now and expect to pay a lot but could any of the above help me to have it reduced?

 

 

Bailiffs cannot increase the fine by adding his fees.

 

The official advice on bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid magistrates court fines: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf On page 3 under Magistrates courts. It says …are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. This confirms the bailiff is swindling you by pretending he can charge his fees on to you without a contract or a Court Order.

The law - Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 - only provides for HM Court Service to set up a fee agreement between itself and its enforcement contractors. The agreement allows a bailiff to deduct his fee out of the fine you pay. Without a costs order under Section 93 of the Courts Act, the bailiff cannot lawfully increase a fine by adding his fees.

The poster on this thread successfully had all bailiffs fees removed unchallenged after telephoning the magistrate's court and quoting the above information: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/229873-help-philips.html#post2547500

If a bailiff defrauds you with his fees, or is pretending to have a Section 93 Costs order then he commits an arrestable offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. It is called fraud by false representation.

[will smith]

thanks for the info!

 

i will ring the court back and see what they say

[tomtubby]

NINTENDO.

 

 

The official advice on bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid magistrates court fines: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf On page 3 under Magistrates courts. It says …are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. This confirms the bailiff is swindling you by pretending he can charge his fees on to you without a contract or a Court Order

 

 

You are posting this same advise on ALL of your posts concerning unpaid Magistrates Courts but the EX345 refers to Civilian Enforcement Agents (CEO's and NOT...certificated bailiffs.

 

The Contract between HMCS and Marston, Philips, Swift and Excel Enforcement Ltd clearly provide that Certificated Bailiffs have been contracted by HMCS to undertake enforcement of these fines.

 

There is a huge difference between CEO's and Certificated Bailiffs.

[Nintendo Pü]

NINTENDO.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/133418-newlyn-impersonating-bailiff-supported-6.html#post2683316

 

and now this.

 

There is a huge difference between CEO's and Certificated Bailiffs.

 

A bailiff or person, regadless whether is employed or contracted from a private company, collecting a fine ordered by a court, acts in the capacity of a Civilian Enforcement Officer.

 

Constructive comment is good in public forum, but yet you rebuke my advice e.g. - public authorities having a liability under the Data Protection Act - with factually inaccurate advice is not necessary.

[tomtubby]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/133418-newlyn-impersonating-bailiff-supported-6.html#post2683316

 

and now this.

 

 

 

A bailiff or person, regadless whether is employed or contracted from a private company, collecting a fine ordered by a court, acts in the capacity of a Civilian Enforcement Officer.

 

Constructive comment is good in public forum, but yet you rebuke my advice e.g. - public authorities having a liability under the Data Protection Act - with factually inaccurate advice is not necessary.

 

Civilian Enforcement Officers are employed by the Magistrates Court and are civil servants and as the EX345 has confirmed... they cannot charge any fees ( in much the same way as a bailiff working for the County Court.

 

Marston;s contract is with a firm of certificated bailiffs. They are NOT Civilian Enforcement Agents...there is a vast difference.

 

The wording on the actual Distress Warrants also states that fees can be charged.

[Nintendo Pü]

 

The wording on the actual Distress Warrants also states that fees can be charged.

 

Correct - if a magistrates has signed a Section 93 order.

 

No Section 93 order and the bailiff commits an offence under Section 40© of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

[welsh1]

Information released:

On conviction in the magistrates' courts, a person can receive a financial penalty which is payable to the magistrates court.

 

When a person does not pay the financial penalty, a distress warrant may be sent to an approved private enforcement company [also known as bailiffs] to deal with. If this happens, the person who must pay the fine will also have to pay additional fees to the private enforcement company.

 

The information we have released is a list of fees charged for distress warrants by the three private enforcement companies who have been approved to enforce magistrates' court warrants, on behalf of Her Majesty's Court Service.

 

The list covers seven regional contracts, which were let to three companies after a competitive tender process. The contracts are due to expire in March 2008 with the option to extend for a further year. The companies are:

 

Drakes Group Limited: four contracts

Philips Collection Services Limited: two contracts

Swift Credit Services Limited: one contract

Bailiff fees for magistrates court distress warrants [PDF 29kb, 2 pages]

 

 

Does this help clear things up,i got it of HMCS web site so it is two years old,but i can find nothing to contradict it.I know the contracts for the listed companies have expired,but new contracts were issued according to tomtubby.

 

Hope it helps:)

[Nintendo Pü]

This is a contract between two parties, but its not legislation, this means a fine payer does not have to pay them unless ordered by a court.

 

I think given the number of fine payers who have complained to various contracts managers at their magistrates courts, and had all bailiffs fees removed is testament to that.

 

I dont know what legislation says a bailiff, by virtue of having a certificate forms a fee contract between himself and a debtor.

[welsh1]

This is a contract between two parties, but its not legislation, this means a fine payer does not have to pay them unless ordered by a court.

 

:confused:Yet again i am confused,on that paragraph i posted there was a link to the scale of fees that the courts have told the bailiffs they can charge.

Surely this means that when the court hands the fine to the bailiff to collect, they have in effect already"ordered"what fees the bailiff can add,by giving them a list of fees for different steps in the process,they have "ordered" them to collect plus the fees.

 

This is making my head hurt now:-|

[Nintendo Pü]

To make a costs order against a debtor, a magistrate or Judge needs to award one under Section 93 of the Courts Act. There is no other way a fines bailiff can charge his fees on to a debtor.

 

The contract sets fees for collecting fines, but these are deducted from the money the bailiff collects, and the balance is paid to court.

 

If a fine payer is being charged fees by a bailiff then he should ask to see a copy of the Section 93 order. If none then he does not have to pay them. Theres no legislation prescribing statutory fees for collecting unpaid court fines.

[welsh1]

T.

 

The contract sets fees for collecting fines, but these are deducted from the money the bailiff collects, and the balance is paid to court.

 

Please bear with me,so you are saying that all the bailiff has to do is knock on the door,show you how much is outstanding,you think you are being clever, and only pay the court amount, and tell him to come back next week for the rest.

 

The bailiff then goes to the court and gives them the money he has collected MINUS his fees.

A week later he is knocking on your door,asking for the money you said you would pay him,as it is the courts money:cry:

 

I think my head is going to explode soon:-o

[tomtubby]

Correct - if a magistrates has signed a Section 93 order.

 

No Section 93 order and the bailiff commits an offence under Section 40© of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

In almost every thread concerning an unpaid court fine you are continuing with this argument concerning a "Section 93 Order" and saying that unless the bailiff can produce a section 93 Costs Order signed by the Judge then he does not have to pay court fees.

 

The following is the OPSI (statutory regulations) supporting the 2003 Court Act to which you refer so often and Section 93 DOES NOT provide for a Magistrate to sign a Section 93 Order at all...it provides for the Lord Chancellor to agree fees. The following is from the "official document":

 

Fees, costs and fines

Fees

 

The Act will provide a single unified power for the Lord Chancellor to set the level of fees in the Supreme Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts, where another power does not take precedence. This power is subject to the consent of Treasury and it replaces the previous separate powers for each tier provided under section 130 of the SCA 1981, section 128 of the CCA 1984 and section 137 of the MCA 1980. It also incorporates and replaces the separate power in relation to family proceedings in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, section 41.

 

It will allow the Lord Chancellor to set different fees and different levels of fees for different tiers of court and for different types of business and to provide for exemptions, reductions and remissions of fees. It is anticipated that separate fees orders will

be made for civil proceedings and family proceedings.

 

When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied. Any fees orders made under the new unified fee setting power will be subject to negative resolution.

 

Any fees orders made under this new power will require prior consultation with the relevant senior judiciary and, for civil business only, the Civil Justice Council. (The Civil Justice Council is an advisory public body established by the AJA 1999, as a continuing body with responsibility for over-seeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system as laid out in Lord Woolf's report "Access to Justice".)

 

The Act also provides for the Lord Chancellor to take reasonable steps to inform persons of the fees they are likely to pay and will enable the recovery of defaulted fees as a civil debt.

.

.

[welsh1]

In almost every thread concerning an unpaid court fine you are continuing with this argument concerning a "Section 93 Order" and saying that unless the bailiff can produce a section 93 Costs Order signed by the Judge then he does not have to pay court fees.

 

The following is the OPSI (statutory regulations) supporting the 2003 Court Act to which you refer so often and Section 93 DOES NOT provide for a Magistrate to sign a Section 93 Order at all...it provides for the Lord Chancellor to agree fees. The following is from the "official document":

 

Fees, costs and fines

Fees

 

The Act will provide a single unified power for the Lord Chancellor to set the level of fees in the Supreme Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts, where another power does not take precedence. This power is subject to the consent of Treasury and it replaces the previous separate powers for each tier provided under section 130 of the SCA 1981, section 128 of the CCA 1984 and section 137 of the MCA 1980. It also incorporates and replaces the separate power in relation to family proceedings in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, section 41.

 

It will allow the Lord Chancellor to set different fees and different levels of fees for different tiers of court and for different types of business and to provide for exemptions, reductions and remissions of fees. It is anticipated that separate fees orders will

be made for civil proceedings and family proceedings.

 

When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied. Any fees orders made under the new unified fee setting power will be subject to negative resolution.

 

Any fees orders made under this new power will require prior consultation with the relevant senior judiciary and, for civil business only, the Civil Justice Council. (The Civil Justice Council is an advisory public body established by the AJA 1999, as a continuing body with responsibility for over-seeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system as laid out in Lord Woolf's report "Access to Justice".)

 

The Act also provides for the Lord Chancellor to take reasonable steps to inform persons of the fees they are likely to pay and will enable the recovery of defaulted fees as a civil debt.

.

.

 

THANK YOU TOMTUBBY:D:D sorry to shout,but i thought i was going mad trying to understand this,having read your post i am now happy.

My little brain works on facts,and i will take your post as the DEFINITIVE answer,because i believe you deal in factual answers.again thank you:D:D

[gstanny]

nintendo and tomtubby are two of the best advisers on this site. i wish they could bury the hatchet and work together, what a team they could be. but working against each other must make the bailiffs and ceo,s rub there hands in glee . get your act together and stop this before we lose one or even both of you as the best advisors on the site if not the net

[Nintendo Pü]

Fees, costs and fines

Fees

 

 

The legislation says:

 

 

It will allow the Lord Chancellor to set different fees and different levels of fees for different tiers of court and for different types of business and to provide for exemptions, reductions and remissions of fees.

 

 

We have never diputed this, it empowers the LC to set a schedule of fees. Nothing about making it legally binding on a debtor - otherwise the bailiff is required to hand the debtor a copy of the fees schedule because as you rightly quoted....

 

The Act also provides for the Lord Chancellor to take reasonable steps to inform persons of the fees they are likely to pay and will enable the recovery of defaulted fees as a civil debt.

 

But as posters have not said any such document has been served, then the fine payer is not liable to pay them.

 

I think you are under an impression that a bailiff holding a certificate forms a contract between himself and his debtor enabling him to charge fees without having a costs order.

 

Looking at your previous posts, you have been advocating that fine payers are liable for pay bailiffs fees. This means you have potentially lost consumers on this forum many thousands in unlawful fees after following your advice - hardly the remit of the consumer forums.

 

There is lots of evidence on these forums that contradict your position. Posters only need to make a complaint to the contract manager at their magistrates court, and the bailiffs fees disappear as is my magic.

 

The legislation, as quoted by you, has answered the question as to why.

[Nintendo Pü]

 

I think my head is going to explode soon:-o

 

I donk think I can add anymore to that.

 

We have to agree to disagree, and let consumers decide from themselves based on the comments presented to them in forum.

[will smith]

an update:

 

I have today received a letter from Marston Group saying that they will send a bailiff if i don't pay £515 in 7 days. It says "Your residence at the above address has been confirmed by our tracings unit....as you have failed to deal with this fine or respond to letters delivered to this and/or your previous addresses, we must inform you blah blah"

 

 

i didn't receive any of their letters. i will ring the court tomorrow and advise of their response. They did not pick up the phone when i tried last week but i now have their direct line and not the 0845 one.

[will smith]

just another update, I now have an appointment at 09.20 tomorrow at my local magistrates court to file a stat declaration.

 

will post an update tomorrow

[tomtubby]

If accepted, this will cancel the fine, any endorsements and any bailiff fees paid.(In your case this wis not applicable).

 

If a Statutory Declaration is accepted, and assuming that the fine and fees had been paid to Marston Group, then the court would repay the court fine and it is the responsibility of Marston Group to repay the bailiff fees.