Magistrate Court fines...Making payments to the court once a warrant has been issued......BEWARE !!!

[tomtubby]

A couple of weeks ago I started a STICKY about the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court FINES and the changes that have been made under the new bailiff regulations introduced on 6th April.

 

In brief, prior to the new regulations on 6th April the enforcement of court FINES was outlined under section 76.1 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.

 

A significant change was that on 6th April section 76.1 was amended by Section 46 of Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

Most importantly, the new section 46 confirms that the "amount outstanding" includes the amount to which the warrant had been issued and the enforcement agents fees as outlined in the new regulations (£75 Compliance Fee and £235 Enforcement Fee).

 

The warrant of control (previously known as a warrant of distress) will not be satisfied unless the 'amount outstanding' (which includes fees as outlined above) is paid.

 

Under the new regulations it provides that from any 'part payment' made (either to the court, paid on-line, or paid to the enforcement company or agent) the 'Compliance fee of £75 must first be deducted and the balance split on a 'pro rata' basis.

 

An example of how the payments are 'split' is shown below.

 

Unfortunately two months after the new regulations took effect, some internet sites are continuing to wronlgy advise debtors to pay the amount only of the court fine in CASH into a 'drop box' (ATM type machine) located in the court foyer and that 'apparently' this will avoid the debtor paying enforcement agent (bailiff) fees.

 

This information is incorrect given that the new regulations specifically provide that all proceeds (including money) must be 'split' on a pro rata' basis. This means that the warrant will only be satisfied when the 'amount outstading' (which includes enforcement agent fees) is paid in full

[tomtubby]

Example of how payment is 'split'

 

 

Amount of court FINE: £450

 

Compliance fee of £75

 

Amount outstanding: £525

 

 

 

Payment made to the court: £450

 

Compliance fee deducted £75

 

Net payment made to court £375

[tomtubby]

How are the Magistrates Courts dealing with payments that are made direct to the court?

 

What is very worrying indeed is that the very same websites advising debtors to make payment of the amount of the fine in cash into the 'drop box' (ATM type machine) are the very same sites displaying a copy of the HMCTS Contract issued to Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Excel Enforcement and Swift Credit Services.

 

Those same websites would therefore be fully aware of Section 6.29 of the Contract which states as follows:

 

"The Department (Secretary of State for Justice) will not accept full or part payments on any account where any warrant or clamping order is with the Contractor.

 

Should a Defaulter attend a court and offer to pay whilst a warrant or clamping order is outstanding, the court will direct the Defaulter to contact the Contractor concerned".

 

 

Note:

 

Given the new regulations it is my understanding that if payments are now received by the courts (either by phone, online or by deposits into the ATM 'drop box') the Magistrates Courts are forwarding the whole payment to the relevant enforcement company so that they may distribute the payment in accordance with the 'pro rata' allocation in the new regulations.

Edited June 11, 2014 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

If a debtor receives a Notice of Enforcement regarding an unpaid Magistrate Court FINE he will be charged a Compliance Fee of £75 and if contact is made within the strict time frame outlined in the letter he can either pay the amount outstanding or ALTERNATIVELY can seek a payment arrangement.

 

If payment (or a payment proposal) if not made within the time frame a personal visit will be made and the enforcement agent is LEGALLY permitted to charge an Enforcement Fee of £235 to the debtor. Trying to negotiate a payment arrangement at this stage is very difficult indeed.

 

By paying the court fine only to the court will NOT avoid bailiff fees and INSTEAD will almost certainly ensure that the debtor misses the opportunity to make a payment proposal and ensure also that the debtor is charged £235 Enforcement fee.

[tomtubby]

All Acts of Parliament (such as the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007) are written by legal draughtsmen in a way that is difficult for the vast majority of the public to understand. This is the main reason why (unless I am making a Sticky) that I rarely provide a link to the legislation in any post that I make.

 

In this particular thread I have tried to outline the position regarding Magistrate Court FINES as simply as I could. Despite this I have received a number of enquiries over the past day as it would seem that this thread had caused a great deal of confusion to some people. Firstly, as mentioned in my first post the relevant amendment that has been made is outlined in Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 and NOT in Schedule 12.

 

The link below is to a separate thread that I started which features as a STICKY and where I have provided precise details of the relevant legislation.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?425571-Taking-Control-of-Goods-2013-Enforcement-of-unpaid-Magistrate-Court-fines-a-definitive-guide

[tomtubby]

Duplicate post.

[tomtubby]

I am reposting this thread as a matter of public interest given that in this past week there have been three individual cases brought to my attention which outline the serious consequences of paying a Magistrate Court fine to the fine in the mistaken belief that the distress warrant (warrant of control) supposedly dies.

 

Case one:

 

One debtor believing the information to be true decided to file a Form 4 Complaint against the individual bailiff who subsequently visited his daughter's property in connection with a court fine for using a TV without a licence. The daughter has made payment of the court fine only to the court and complained after being pursued for the balance by the bailiff. His Form 4 Complaint was thrown out this week and the Judge made clear to the debtor that the amount payable under the warrant includes bailiffs fees (of £310) and that if a payment had been made to the court this is merely a part payment against the warrant.

 

 

Case two

 

This case concerns a single mother with a court fine of £750. The bailiff visited the debtor to request payment of £1,055 to include enforcement agent fees of £310. She too was advised to pay the amount of £750 in cash into the ATM 'drop box' and believed that the distress warrant was 'dead'.

 

She received further messages from the bailiff to advise her that enforcement agent would continue enforcing for the balance due under the warrant of £310 and advised her that under the new regulations a compliance fee is first deducted (which is correct) and that she has therefore only made a part payment of the warrant. She ignored the bailiff and yesterday she received an enforcement visit and her car has been clamped. She is given to believe that paying the amount of the fine only to the court means that the warrant had 'died'....and supposedly 'no longer exists'.

 

 

Case three

 

Sadly, this case is very serious indeed. The debtor also believed that making payment of the court fine only to the court would mean that the warrant itself had ceased. In his case the bailiff visited the property to enforce the balance due under the warrant (of £310) and in doing so clamped a vehicle. The debtor decided to use a device to saw through the wheel clamp. It would seem that last night police visited his property. He was given the option of paying a sum of £40 in relation to the damaged clamp failing which; he would be reported for criminal damage. The debtor refused to make payment and was advised that he will now be reported for criminal damage and that he may have to attend the Magistrate Court. The police also confiscated the damaged wheel clamp as evidence.

 

The debtor stated that when he was initially contacted by the bailiff in April he sought advice from the Citizen Advice Bureau and they informed him that the bailiff charges of £310 were correct and that he should pay. He choose to ignore their advise.

[*RainbowTears*]

I am reposting this thread as a matter of public interest given that in this past week there have been three individual cases brought to my attention which outline the serious consequences of paying a Magistrate Court fine to the fine in the mistaken belief that the distress warrant (warrant of control) supposedly dies.

 

Case one:

 

One debtor believing the information to be true decided to file a Form 4 Complaint against the individual bailiff who subsequently visited his daughter's property in connection with a court fine for using a TV without a licence. The daughter has made payment of the court fine only to the court and complained after being pursued for the balance by the bailiff. His Form 4 Complaint was thrown out this week and the Judge made clear to the debtor that the amount payable under the warrant includes bailiffs fees (of £310) and that if a payment had been made to the court this is merely a part payment against the warrant.

 

 

Case two

 

This case concerns a single mother with a court fine of £750. The bailiff visited the debtor to request payment of £1,055 to include enforcement agent fees of £310. She too was advised to pay the amount of £750 in cash into the ATM 'drop box' and believed that the distress warrant was 'dead'.

 

She received further messages from the bailiff to advise her that enforcement agent would continue enforcing for the balance due under the warrant of £310 and advised her that under the new regulations a compliance fee is first deducted (which is correct) and that she has therefore only made a part payment of the warrant. She ignored the bailiff and yesterday she received an enforcement visit and her car has been clamped. She is given to believe that paying the amount of the fine only to the court means that the warrant had 'died'....and supposedly 'no longer exists'.

 

 

Case three

 

Sadly, this case is very serious indeed. The debtor also believed that making payment of the court fine only to the court would mean that the warrant itself had ceased. In his case the bailiff visited the property to enforce the balance due under the warrant (of £310) and in doing so clamped a vehicle. The debtor decided to use a device to saw through the wheel clamp. It would seem that last night police visited his property. He was given the option of paying a sum of £40 in relation to the damaged clamp failing which; he would be reported for criminal damage. The debtor refused to make payment and was advised that he will now be reported for criminal damage and that he may have to attend the Magistrate Court. The police also confiscated the damaged wheel clamp as evidence.

 

The debtor stated that when he was initially contacted by the bailiff in April he sought advice from the Citizen Advice Bureau and they informed him that the bailiff charges of £310 were correct and that he should pay. He choose to ignore their advise.

 

Its very sad indeed Tomtubby & as you stated, the last case you presented will have serious implications for the Debtor.

 

The thing is Debtors who are in these kind of situations are often in dire straits. They often have no money to pay off their debts & once the EA is on the case their debts increase due to the EA costs.

 

So as they have no money to pay the debts, they in turn have no money to pay for proper legal advice. Yes they can go to the CAB but that's not as simple as it seems (often long queues, waiting on calls back, not open or not enough advisors etc etc).

 

So they turn to the Internet. In some cases the Debtor comes across the right site that gives the proper free advice in what to do.

 

And in other cases the Debtor comes into contact with a site that gives appalling incorrect advice.

 

But as the Debtor doesn't know any difference, they truly believe in what they are being told, as the "advisors" spout of legislation & legalese like they are some kind of expert in these matters!!

 

In turn these Debtors then find themselves in a much worse situation as per your examples Tomtubby! Let alone the fact they can also end up out of pocket to the tune of owing thousands! (As per latest failed Form 4 complaints)

 

It's a truly sad situation, for those debtors....

 

It's a shame the "sites" responsible don't take responsibility for their actions!!

[tomtubby]

As I have stated on another thread, in answering queries on the forum I try to provide a detailed response without the need to refer the debtor to links to legislation. This merely confuses debtors.

 

To quote legislation is very simple and to post a link is merely a 'cut and paste' exercise. There is no skill involved.

 

The real skill is in understanding the legislation. Sadly, this is where MANY websites are failing their viewers.

[wonkeydonkey]

As I have stated on another thread, in answering queries on the forum I try to provide a detailed response without the need to refer the debtor to links to legislation. This merely confuses debtors.

 

To quote legislation is very simple and to post a link is merely a 'cut and paste' exercise. There is no skill involved.

 

The real skill is in understanding the legislation. Sadly, this is where MANY websites are failing their viewers.

 

You have summed the situation up perfectly TT.

 

People will always listen to what they WANT to hear but few listen to the warning bells their sub conscience is giving out and seek to research the given advice on these forums.

 

Rainbow Tears ...spot on with your analogy

[slow2742]

What cracks me up in the case of debtor 3 is that he has posted numerous correspondences from HMCTS advising him to provide proof of his wife's vulnerabilty. Nobody there has advised him to do this.

 

If he eventually does and bailiff action is withdrawn, then that forum no doubt will chalk it up as a 'victory' - yeah right!

[wonkeydonkey]

Looked in on the thread you refer to, other than some damned good advice from Mark 1960, (representing the home side) it has just gone around in circles. with the only relief being the usual digs at TT and myself.

[unclebulgaria67]

In the case of debtor 3 with the clamp taken off a wifes car that had nothing to do with the debtor, it is a bit odd that the bailiff company concerned have apparently not showed the debtor a live warrant from a court. The debtor in question has said that they are willing to pay the bailiff their fees, if they provide evidence of a live warrant from the court, that they can use to collect their fees. Surely it is not difficult for the bailiff company to do this and would save a lot of messing around.

 

If you search online for FMOTL disputes with bailiffs, it would seem that bailiffs are carrying out their work, often without the correct documentation from the courts. All they seem to have is photocopies of some document which they claim is from a court, which does not have a court seal or a wet signature. Surely it cannot be difficult for a bailiff and court to work together to ensure that bailiffs have original documents with them, when they visit to carry out enforcement work ? Because they don't have original court documents signed by a Magistrate, the Police are being asked to become involved with allegations of fraud. Of course the Police don't believe it is fraud, but that the bailiffs are rubbish at administration.

[unclebulgaria67]

Looked in on the thread you refer to, other than some damned good advice from Mark 1960, (representing the home side) it has just gone around in circles. with the only relief being the usual digs at TT and myself.

 

WD

 

Can you confirm that Tomtubby and Wonkeydonkey are not the same person. Because according to the usual source, these CAG user names are used by one person.

[slow2742]

In the case of debtor 3 with the clamp taken off a wifes car that had nothing to do with the debtor, it is a bit odd that the bailiff company concerned have apparently not showed the debtor a live warrant from a court. The debtor in question has said that they are willing to pay the bailiff their fees, if they provide evidence of a live warrant from the court, that they can use to collect their fees. Surely it is not difficult for the bailiff company to do this and would save a lot of messing around.

 

If you search online for FMOTL disputes with bailiffs, it would seem that bailiffs are carrying out their work, often without the correct documentation from the courts. All they seem to have is photocopies of some document which they claim is from a court, which does not have a court seal or a wet signature. Surely it cannot be difficult for a bailiff and court to work together to ensure that bailiffs have original documents with them, when they visit to carry out enforcement work ? Because they don't have original court documents signed by a Magistrate, the Police are being asked to become involved with allegations of fraud. Of course the Police don't believe it is fraud, but that the bailiffs are rubbish at administration.

 

He has stated he is insured to drive his wife's car.

 

I feel sorry for his poor wife while he is carrying on listening to the bogus advice he is being given. Even a helpful CAB member has tried to interject with a voice of reason this afternoon to be told by the debtor that maybe all CAB advisors should get their training from said forum. I almost choked laughing at that post.

Edited June 29, 2014 by slow2742

[unclebulgaria67]

He has stated he is insured to drive his wife's car.

 

I feel sorry for his poor wife while he is carrying on listening to the bogus advice he is being given. Even a helpful CAB member has tried to interject with a voice of reason this afternoon to be told by the debtor that maybe all CAB advisors should get their training from him. I almost choked laughing at that post.

 

Being on the wifes insurance does not mean the car is joint property. If you owned a car that you allowed a neighbour to drive occasionally so put them on your insurance, you would not be happy if a bailiff seized your car while with the neighbour, due to the neighbour having an outstanding fine.

Edited June 29, 2014 by citizenB
edited name out as requested

[ploddertom]

WD

 

Can you confirm that Tomtubby and Wonkeydonkey are not the same person. Because according to the usual source, these CAG user names are used by one person.

 

I can answer that one as I am probably one of the few who has actually spoken to both and I'll definitely confirm they are 2 differnt people, that is unless they are good at different regional accents and use Out of Area telephone codes.

[wonkeydonkey]

WD

 

Can you confirm that Tomtubby and Wonkeydonkey are not the same person. Because according to the usual source, these CAG user names are used by one person.

 

I can put hand on heart and swear I am not Tomtubby...nor am I bipolar, a benefit cheat etc etc... I have nothing but admiration for TT, we have never met but we do speak on the phone and exchange emails if and when I have need of her input to help folk.

 

P.S. I have two legals in the family and both have stated they have gained more understanding of the new regulations from reading TT posts than anything else they have read. My brother in law is a QC and he summed it up by saying..'she has such in depth knowledge and gives such solid advice, I think she has missed her vocation in life'

[slow2742]

Being on the wifes insurance does not mean the car is joint property. If you owned a car that you allowed a neighbour to drive occasionally so put them on your insurance, you would not be happy if a bailiff seized your car while with the neighbour, due to the neighbour having an outstanding fine.

 

If he and his wife were to get a divorce, then it would be very much seen as a joint asset in the eyes of the divorce courts. Probably the same thing here so the neighbour analogy isn't the same?.

[ploddertom]

In the meantime we are so widely off track here let's call a halt to the "name" calling and get back to the job in hand.

[slow2742]

I can put hand on heart and swear I am not Tomtubby...nor am I bipolar, a benefit cheat etc etc... I have nothing but admiration for TT, we have never met but we do speak on the phone and exchange emails if and when I have need of her input to help folk.

 

I wouldn't even have dignified that question with a response. There's enough rubbish being spouted over there so why people believe yet another mistruth is beyond me.

[unclebulgaria67]

If he and his wife were to get a divorce, then it would be very much seen as a joint asset in the eyes of the divorce courts. Probably the same thing here so the neighbour analogy isn't the same?.

 

Unless you are an expert in the law regarding divorce settlements you cannot state this with any confidence.

 

From what I know of these settlements, it very much depends on what each party has contributed and not just financial.

 

A bailiff seizing a car owned by a wife in respect of a outstanding sums owed by her husband, would be getting into a grey area of law.

[unclebulgaria67]

I can put hand on heart and swear I am not Tomtubby...nor am I bipolar, a benefit cheat etc etc... I have nothing but admiration for TT, we have never met but we do speak on the phone and exchange emails if and when I have need of her input to help folk.

 

No offence meant to either TT or WD. But the person who keeps stating this has done so for a long time and I have always wondered why. I think they have a lively imagination.

[wonkeydonkey]

No offence meant to either TT or WD. But the person who keeps stating this has done so for a long time and I have always wondered why. I think they have a lively imagination.

 

No offence taken UB:-)

[*RainbowTears*]

Sadly "such sites" when corrected about the appalling advice & misinformation they spout, the only way they can deflect is to attack!!

 

Hence why CAG, TT & WD (+ others) are constantly brought up in threads, where there was no need too! It's disgusting that it happens!

 

But with some people there's no helping them at all!!

 

The best thing you can do is leave them to it as they will never listen to reason & will always twist things to their own advantage.....

 

I do feel so sorry for the Debtors/people in need who find their way there. But they don't know any different as I stated on another thread the other day.

 

I personally feel TT & others here on CAG do an amazing job of helping us all understand the new regulations regarding EA & the like, as well as getting the "correct advice" out there. Their time & efforts are given freely to any in need.

 

That's what counts!!