Privatisation of Magistrate Court Fines......UPDATE

[Bailiff Advice]

I have written on the forum over the past few years about the Ministry of Justice's plans to privatise the courts fines collection departments and in January a press announcement was released that (wrongly) stated that BT were the preferred bidder for this large contract. The article was not accurate.

 

Today, it has been confirmed that the preferred bidder is the large US firm Concentrix. It should be stressed however that the Ministry of Justice have not as yet signed a contract.

 

A link to the press article is below and for ease of reference, I have copied an extract of the article:

 

An outsourcing company that has been criticised for sending threatening letters to people legitimately claiming tax credits is the preferred bidder for a £675m government contract to collect court fines.

 

Concentrix, a Belfast-based firm owned by a US conglomerate, has already begun advertising for staff to chase people who owe money to the courts, even though it has not yet been officially named as the winning bidder for the Ministry of Justice contract.

Many tax credit claimants, particularly lone parents, have accused the firm of going on a “fishing expedition” as part of an existing contract with HM Revenue and Customs to clamp down on possible fraudsters.

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/26/concentrix-ministry-justice-bailiff-contract-threatened-tax-credit-claimants?CMP=twt_gu

PS: I am not around for most of the day and will post further information later on.

Edited June 27, 2015 by silverfox1961
copyright

[daverules]

An outsourcing company that has been criticised for sending threatening letters to people legitimately claiming tax credits is the preferred bidder for a £675m government contract to collect court fines.

 

Last year the National Compliance Enforcement Service, the current state-owned collection service, raised £518m in fines, penalties and confiscation orders.

 

Is this correct, they are going to pay more than they actually collected last year?

 

Regards to all.

Edited June 29, 2015 by citizenB
restored quote box

[josephbloggs]

I wonder if they will tender out the bailiff collection to marstons/collectica or set their own new bailiff company up and do it all themselves...

[ploddertom]

 

An outsourcing company that has been criticised for sending threatening letters to people legitimately claiming tax credits is the preferred bidder for a £675m government contract to collect court fines.

 

Last year the National Compliance Enforcement Service, the current state-owned collection service, raised £518m in fines, penalties and confiscation orders.

/QUOTE]

 

Is this correct, they are going to pay more than they actually collected last year?

 

Regards to all.

 

Think you may find the amount outstanding in unpaid fines is a lot more than that. The figure quoted only appears to what they did get.

[daverules]

Many thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

Of course though if the private company only manages to collect the same as last year there

is going to be a large deficit.

 

Regards

[caledfwlch]

Bad enough to outsource to a private firm, but to an American one?

 

Do they not realise that the only loyalty a US firm has is to the US, so the FBI etc are going to pretty much have full access to electronic UK Court Records etc, whatever this firm has access to.

 

Now, if the point of this was to attempt to collect fines at a fair and affordable rate, as an alternate to deploying the Bailiff's and thus hitting defaulters with even more fees they cannot afford to pay, exposing them to arrest, custodial sentancing etc then Ok, maybe not such a bad idea. If they will be in control of Enforcement including the right to deploy Bailiffs, then this is a very nasty ****storm waiting to happen.

 

Grief, imagine the likes of Scotcall or Lowells having access to Forced Entry Enforcement and powers of Arrest (if given an arrest warrant)

 

Concentrix are basically a Software/Tech Support company which used to belong to IBM but was sold off. They have no experience of Debt Collection, its as bad an idea as giving a french software company the contract to perform medicals. And their handling of Tax Credits for HMRC makes it pretty clear they are totally unfit as a company to come anywhere near our Justice System.

 

Another area of problems, they are based in Belfast, so staff wont even have a basic understanding of Bailiff's since they havent existed in NI for nearly 45 years, its a totally alien concept to them, and they wont understand how horrific Enforcement can be etc.

 

There is an article on the HMRC Fiasco in the Independent if you google - their staff told the paper that they arent given anywhere near enough training, just told to make multiple decisions per hour - one estimated that 6 out of every 10 letters send accusing the claimant of Fraud were completely bogus.

[ploddertom]

It could be that all those in arrears may be subject to the same procedures we have in place now. Future "customers" may be taken in hand as soon as Judgment is passed & may not be able to leave until a proposal is successfully made to pay, any defaulters being jumped on immediately.

[unclebulgaria67]

In 20 years time the world will be run by a few dozen large global corporations, who will have dealings with many things you come into contact with. Governments will contract out to them, because the economies of scale and financial wealth, will mean that smaller companies and public bodies cannot compete. It is happening already, but will be much more the case in the future. Both Labour and Tories have encouraged this and it is not healthy.

 

Is there anything government would not privatise ? Army, Police ? I seem to remember Theresa May suggesting neighbourhood policing could be run by private companies.

[caledfwlch]

It could be that all those in arrears may be subject to the same procedures we have in place now. Future "customers" may be taken in hand as soon as Judgment is passed & may not be able to leave until a proposal is successfully made to pay, any defaulters being jumped on immediately.

 

A great idea, but highly unlikely unless Court Staff point to a free phone as the company is based in Belfast and I cant see them cutting into potential profits by putting an admin officer in every court.

[caledfwlch]

Is there anything government would not privatise ? Army, Police ? I seem to remember Theresa May suggesting neighbourhood policing could be run by private companies.

 

British and American "Private Military Contractors" or Mercenary **** who get off on killing people as they used to be known have been operating alongside Her Majesty's Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for years.

 

Some Police Forces have contracted out both the running of Custody Suites and mobile detention vans for mass arrests on Friday/Saturday evenings. I could well see May ressurecting some of the old New Labour Plans too - such as giving Bouncers and Security Guards the right to apply for a dispensation from their local Court (or Police Chief Constable, I forget which) so that they can give out Fixed Penalty Notices and so on to members of the public.

[Bailiff Advice]

I received a lot of messages over the weekend requesting further information on this 'privatisation' plane so here goes:

 

 

The Courts Act 2003 and the Fines Collections Regulations 2006 laid the basis for a system whereby magistrates’ courts were no longer responsible for enforcing court fines ( I stress the word 'enforcing'). Previously, under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 the clerk to the court (now the Justices’ Chief Executive) was responsible for the enforcement of fines and he had a range of statutory powers at his disposal (for instance; issuing a warrant and using court bailiff to seize good, set up an attachment of earnings, attachment of benefits, etc, etc. Put simply....the court imposed the fine and but it was the Clerk to the Court (now the Justice's Chief Executive) who was responsible for collecting payment.

 

A most important change was introduced in 2006 and this meant that the enforcement of fines was given to a Fines Collection Officer and taken away from the court and the position now is that it is the Fines Collection Officer who issues the Further Steps Notice and decides which method of enforcement will follow if the debtor fails to pay.

 

There is very little detail about the proposed privatisation in the public domain but it is my understanding that the winning bidder will take over the entire enforcement of court fines after the fine has been imposed up to the warrant stage. In other words, they will replace the currently role of the Fines Collection Officer.

 

Presently, once a fine has been issued, a Notice of Fine/Collection Order is sent to the debtor and if there is a 'default' the Fines Collection Officer will issue a Further Steps Notice. As strange as it may seem....the regulations only provide for one FSN during the lifetime of the fine)!!! The regulations do not provide for a monthly statement or reminders to be sent and there is no online facility allowing debtors to check the balance of their fines.

 

Under the proposed 'privatisation', the role of the Fines Collection Officer will be taken over by the new company and they will be responsible for collecting payment once the fine is imposed and up to the point of a warrant being issued.

 

The new company will also be responsible for upgrading the computer systems in the court. This will obviously costs many millions of pounds.

[brassnecked]

Fertile ground for a massive own goal, and mess especially when the computer goes wrong, and payments go astray.

 

The reasoning behind this is crystal clear, the computer upgrades will cost millions, and if it goes wrong as most government IT systems do, they don't want the flak that will follow, when that TV License fine payment(s) is lost, misplaced or otherwise not allocated to the account; and a debtor goes to jail as a result.

[Bailiff Advice]

I was having a look back at my old emails earlier today and there is one from the Serco press office in 2011 outlining the reason why they were purchasing Phillips Collection (now Collectica). Serco stated that purchasing Philips Collection Services would put them in a strong position to address the growing opportunity for public sector fines and enforcement services.

 

The Serco tagging scandal brought these plans to an end.

[mikeymack2002]

Are we talking of the same company that was featured in post 1 how can they be serious?

[Bailiff Advice]

Are we talking of the same company that was featured in post 1 how can they be serious?

 

No MM.

 

The company in the first post is called Concentrix and the Ministry of Justice have confirmed that they are the preferred bidder for this contract (although no contract has yet been signed).

 

For the avoidance of doubt, no bailiff /enforcement company bidded for the contract.

[HCEOs]

I can see Concentrix buying an enforcement company very soon and Marston seem best placed for that.

[mikeymack2002]

Any reason for no EA company putting in a bid or is there something in the background happening? If the collection of fines go to this company will it have an impact on how the EA's currently collect the fines?

 

 

Because if the current collection activities are so valuable then what happens to those that are currently under the control of a warrant? Then a question would be is this why the current system of collection demands payment in full so that they can get as much funds from defaulters' as soon as possible? This way it will protect the income of the EA company currently doing the collections?

 

 

I think I have written this right if not sorry as having a bad day....

[Bailiff Advice]

Any reason for no EA company putting in a bid or is there something in the background happening? If the collection of fines go to this company will it have an impact on how the EA's currently collect the fines?

 

I will attempt to answer your first question.

 

The Contract is one where the winning bidder would be required to take over the entire debt collection and management of court fines from the date that the fine is imposed and up to the issuing of a warrant. At present, after a fine is imposed the court send out a Notice of Fine/Collection Order. The regulations do not provide for statements or reminder letters to be sent. The regs also provide that if payment has defaulted that only one Further Steps Notice is sent. The effect of this is that following the Notice of Fine/Collection Order, the debtor is rarely if ever contacted or reminded to make payment. That will change under the new contract (if it is awarded).

 

The new provider will not only be responsible for collecting the fine but most importantly, will be responsible for the huge costs of upgrading the computer systems in the Magistrates Court. This will cost many millions of pounds and only a few companies expressed an interest.

 

The winning bidder will no doubt have some sort of agreement with bailiff/enforcement companies for cases where warrants have been issued.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Then a question would be is this why the current system of collection demands payment in full so that they can get as much funds from defaulters' as soon as possible?

 

The very simple answer to your query is that the reason why payment in full is demanded is because once a Liability Order or warrant for a road traffic debt or court fine has been issued, it provides that FULL payment is due immediately.

 

However, the new regs have introduced a procedure whereby instead of being required to make full payment, debtors can instead outline a payment proposal at the Compliance Stage (this is the period outlined in the Notice of Enforcement).

 

If a payment proposal is not made during this period, then the account is automatically passed to an individual bailiff and his role is to collect full payment (or goods) as the writ commands.

[caledfwlch]

Amusingly, I can see this as not being terribly good for the Enforcement Companies.

 

Concentrix's only loyalty to its shareholders, and making profit for them it's reason for existing.

 

Any Contracts they choose to hand out to Enforcement Agencies are bound to be designed to take a lot of profit from the EA's and put it into Concentrix's account, and accepting that will be the only way the EA's get a contract.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they demanded half the fees the EA's charge.

 

And as much of Concentrix's profit will be determined by how many people pay up, I can see fine collection becoming incredibly aggresive and nasty.

[Roseanne65]

I have written on the forum over the past few years about the Ministry of Justice's plans to privatise the courts fines collection departments and in January a press announcement was released that (wrongly) stated that BT were the preferred bidder for this large contract. The article was not accurate.

 

Today, it has been confirmed that the preferred bidder is the large US firm Concentrix. It should be stressed however that the Ministry of Justice have not as yet signed a contract.

 

A link to the press article is below and for ease of reference, I have copied an extract of the article:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/26/concentrix-ministry-justice-bailiff-contract-threatened-tax-credit-claimants?CMP=twt_gu

PS: I am not around for most of the day and will post further information later on.

 

There was another article regarding Concentrix behaviour following the start of their contract with HMRC that appeared in The Independent in February 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/people-in-need-at-risk-of-losing-tax-credits-after-being-wrongly-accused-of-cheating-10060745.html

 

What you might wish to know is that Concentrix (who block emails sent from individuals and are currently refusing to comply with my Subject Access Request for information, having returned my letters to me with no response) are owned by Synnex Corporation. Synnex is owned by the corporations known as the Big Four. Black Rock, Fidelity (have a look at their logo), State Street and Vanguard. These four corporations own the 8 largest financial institutions in the world. In effect, these four control world affairs.

 

I would also like to point out that Concentrix wasn't initially the front runner for this contract, with BT named in February as the expected contractor.

 

Concentrix has also provided 'customer service' for EA Games, twice voted Americas worst company! In The Independent article, and employee of Concentrix states that they aren't trained for the job!

 

Considering their bungling and downright incompetence when working on behalf of HMRC, it would normally be considered surprising to learn of this new contract.

 

The surprise disappears when you understand the corporate powerhouses behind the company. Just how much freedom of choice did the UK Government have when awarding these contracts?

[brassnecked]

All quite nasty and against the public good imho.

[caledfwlch]

All quite nasty and against the public good imho.

 

As soon as the likes of Concentrix get access to official British Data Systems, the US Government will get access too.

 

US Companies, even with subsidieries abroad only see themselves as loyal to the US Gov, and will gladly grant access.

 

Paranoia? Look how it came out that lots of US Companies are giving the FBI, NSA etc access to their customers information, without bothering to ask or get for court warrants.

 

When things like the Criminal Records Database for CRB checks were coming into being, the US Government was at the time putting lots of pressure on Westminster to grant them unfettered access.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I would also like to point out that Concentrix wasn't initially the front runner for this contract, with BT named in February as the expected contractor.

 

In fact, the press announcement regarding BT being the preferred bidder was not an official one and from memory, HMCS declined to comment.

[citizenB]

Why are we permitting foreign companies to bid for this type of contract anyway?