Magistrate Court fines.....Compliance fee of £75 and Enforcement fee of £235 are legally due.

[Bailiff Advice]

Today I have had the misfortune to be made aware of yet another person who took internet advice after receiving a Notice of Enforcement and was led to believe that if he made payment direct to the Magistrate Court that he would be able to avoid bailiff fees. This person took the advice and paid the court direct and;.....as it always the case.....he received a letter from the court to advise him that his payment had been forwarded direct to Marston Group.

 

He too has now found himself in a position where an enforcement agent has made a personal visit...and the debt increased by way of an enforcement fee of £235. He now owes £310 (to also include the Compliance Fee of £75). This inaccurate advice is costly debtors many thousands of pounds and given that the debt is for an unpaid court fine....the enforcement agent is permitted to force entry.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, all debt streams (council tax arrears, unpaid local authority penalty charge notices and unpaid magistrate court fines) may only be enforced by way of the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act and the fees that can be charged are those under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

Worryingly, the debtor has been advised today (by the person responsible for this highly inaccurate advice) that the Magistrate Court have supposedly given him the wrong advice. He claims that the warrant 'ceased' when the payment was made to the court and that the debtor can rely upon section 52.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. Not true:

 

Section 52.8 was substituted under The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 !!!!

[Bailiff Advice]

I will try to keep this simple.

 

The starting point is Schedule 13 (not Schedule 12) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. Schedule 13 outlines amendments made to various legislations.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13?view=plain

 

 

The relevant amendment concerning Magistrate Court fines can be found under item 46.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/paragraph/46?view=plain

 

 

This part amended Section 76 of the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 as follows:

1) Section 76 (enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid) is

amended

as follows.

 

2) In subsection (1) for “issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum”

substitute

“ issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum ”.

 

3) In subsection (2)(a)—

 

a) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”;

 

b) for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum”

substitute

“ pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ”.

 

4) In subsection (2)(b) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”.

As is made clear under item 3(b) the amount that is payable once a warrant of control is issued is defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007.

Edited January 16, 2016 by silverfox1961
Inserted working link

[Bazooka Boo]

Suitably noted BA ty! (bookmarked for future Reference)

 

2nd link no page found??

[Bailiff Advice]

Given the degree of misunderstanding and misinformation about the enforcement of unpaid court fines, in July 2014 I published on this forum a copy of a letter from the Ministry of Justice. I would just like to re-iterate that this letter is one that I copied from the very same internet site who are continuing to mislead debtors with inaccurate information (about whether or not bailiff fees are applicable to warrants for unpaid court fines).

 

It is important to note that the person who had published this letter did not provide details of the actual questions raised under his FOI request. That is most unfortunate.

 

Secondly, it is important to note that the Ministry of Justice has not treated his request as a Freedom of Information request.

 

 

 

I am replying as a policy official working on civil enforcement policy.

 

I am not able to provide advice or comment on any legal points you have raised. I hope that it may be helpful, however, to set out the provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and underpinning regulations that apply to enforcement agents which may address some of your issues.

 

By virtue of section 62 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money is exercisable only by using the procedure in Schedule 12 to that Act ("the Schedule 12 procedure"), and warrants of distress are renamed warrants of control so that the Schedule 12 procedure must be used for what were previously warrants of distress for recovery of unpaid fines and are now renamed as warrants of control (see also the amendment of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1981 by paragraph 46 of Schedule 13 to the 2007 Act).

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 make provision for the recovery of fees and disbursements from debtors by enforcement agents in relation to the procedure for taking control of goods under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Regulation 4(3) provides that the enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before completion, of that stage.

 

Regulation 5 sets out the stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered where enforcement is other than under a High Court writ (and so covers enforcement under, for example, a warrant issued by a magistrates' court).

 

The enforcement power under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is for the amount outstanding which is defined in paragraph 50(3). The amount outstanding is the sum of these -

 

(a) the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt;

 

(b) any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

 

 

The regulations under paragraph 62 (costs) are the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 referred to above

 

Paragraph 50(2) of Schedule 12 states that " Proceeds are any of these -

 

(a) proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods

 

(b) money taken in exercise of the power ".

 

Regulation 4(2) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides for the enforcement agent's fees to be recovered out of proceeds.

There are no other provisions for recovery.

 

 

Paragraph 17 of Schedule 12 provides for an enforcement agent, if necessary, to use reasonable force to enter premises or to do anything for which entry is authorised.

 

Paragraph 18(b) of Schedule 12 sets out as a qualifying condition for the use of force that the enforcement agent is acting under an enforcement power conferred by a warrant of control under section 76(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 for the recovery of the sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction. Paragraph 18© sets out a condition that the enforcement agent is entitled to execute a warrant by virtue of section 125A (civilian enforcement officer) or 125B (approved enforcement agencies) of that Act.

 

Paragraph 27 of Schedule 12 provides that the enforcement agent may take other people on the premises and they may assist him in exercising any power, including the power to use force.

 

An enforcement agent can secure a vehicle other than on a highway under Regulation 17 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, and can secure a vehicle on a highway under Regulation 18 of those Regulations"

 

 

Regards

 

Enforcement Reform

Ministry of Justice | 4th Floor post point 4.37 | 102 Petty France | London SW1H 9AJ

[brassnecked]

Under TCE, once passed to bailiff, £75 on top of fine, after that £235 on visit, as BA points out no way to avoid fees.

[Bailiff Advice]

The reason why this thread needed to be started was because the person responsible for misleading the debtor (a notorious failed McKenzie Friend) has suggested this evening that the debtor should take legal proceedings against Marston Group.He has advised him that he would need to pay the following:

 

His Consultation fee of £35

 

£100 for him to 'draft the paperwork including court statements'

 

£500 payable to the solicitor for court representation

 

Further to the above, the debtor has been told that the case may be arranged under a 'no-win no fee scheme' and that the McKenzie Friend would:

 

'Examine the case in detail'.

 

Assess the potential value of the claim.

 

Propose it to a solicitor, who then signs it off for the 'no win, no fee' scheme.

 

Finally the McKenzie Friend has informed the debtor that he (the MK) will pay a premium fee to the insurer who then 'guarantees your legal fees if you lose your claim".

 

Anyone considering taking such advice needs to be aware that NO insurance company would ever entertain underwriting such an utterly worthless case.

[brassnecked]

He's setting him up for the rip off. (Rip Off Laura Lee Hot Wax Records 1972)

[mikeymack2002]

Is it possible that there is another option to enforcement of fines? I ask this because of what is written here at the end of page 3 see here https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-03.aspx or has this now changed since the implementation of the new regs?

 

 

Also a pilot scheme was set up a few years ago and a report produced see here >> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/205165/fine-payment-work-process-study-8-10.pdf

 

 

Did anything come of this? If so is this something in the background or was it discontinued in favour of the new regs?

[Bailiff Advice]

In answer to your above post, legislation (in this case, Section 76 of the Magistrate Court Act 1980) was amended under Scheule 13 to provide that a warrant of control in respect of a Magistrate Court fine may only be only enforced by following the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 and its supporting legislation.

 

As the what happened to the Pilot Scheme, it was not taken forward.

[Peterbard]

In answer to your above post, legislation (in this case, Section 76 of the Magistrate Court Act 1980) was amended under Scheule 13 to provide that a warrant of control in respect of a Magistrate Court fine may be only enforced by following the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 and its supporting legislation. As the what happened to the Pilot Scheme, it was not taken forward.

 

Yes this is referred to in section 62 of the act also.

 

Bizarre to see some arguing about the finer points of discontinued regulation, although not unusual.

 

I would certainly like to know the name of that insurer.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Bizarre to see some arguing about the finer points of discontinued regulation, although not unusual.

 

I would certainly like to know the name of that insurer.

 

Reference to an insurance company underwriting court claims on a 'no win, no fee' basis are as fictitious as claims that cases are referred to a solicitor. It is more likely that this 'solicitor' is a female 'Professional' McKenzie Friend'.

[Bailiff Advice]

Suitably noted BA ty! (bookmarked for future Reference)

 

2nd link no page found??

 

I will try to keep this simple.

 

The starting point is Schedule 13 (not Schedule 12) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. Schedule 13 outlines amendments made to various legislations.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13?view=plain

 

 

The relevant amendment concerning Magistrate Court fines can be found under item 46.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/.../46?view=plain

 

 

This part amended Section 76 of the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 as follows:

 

1) Section 76 (enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid) is

amended

as follows.

 

2) In subsection (1) for “issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum”

substitute

“ issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum ”.

 

3) In subsection (2)(a)—

 

a) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”;

 

b) for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum”

substitute

“ pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ”.

 

4) In subsection (2)(b) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”.

 

As is made clear under item 3(b) the amount that is payable once a warrant of control is issued is defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

 

The 2nd link does not work. As a period of 24 hours has elapsed since making the post I cannot edit it.

 

Could a moderator replace the 2nd link with the following one:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/paragraph/46?view=plain

[Peterbard]

Wonder what they think they mean by"sign it off for a no win no fee scheme", solicitors dont just sign something of for a NWNF insurance they seek one out.

In a case like this no underwriter would ever consider such an arrangement. It is all amateurish nonsense.

If anyone is advising their client that there is one in place just to gain the business, it is fraud plain and simple

[Bailiff Advice]

Wonder what they think they mean by"sign it off for a no win no fee scheme", solicitors dont just sign something of for a NWNF insurance they seek one out.

In a case like this no underwriter would ever consider such an arrangement. It is all amateurish nonsense.

If anyone is advising their client that there is one in place just to gain the business, it is fraud plain and simple

 

As I said before, there will not be an insurance company. Far more worrying though is that as outlined in post number 6 above, the debtor is this case is being asked to pay £100 to the failed McKenzie for him to 'draft the papers' and a further £500 for a 'solicitor' to provide 'court representation'. In case anybody is remotely tempted by such a proposal they need to be aware of some facts:

 

Only in very rare cases will a McKenzie Friend be allowed to address the court or speak on behalf of the claimant.

 

A McKenzie Friend cannot cross examine witnesses.

 

Whilst the claimant is free to pay whatever fees they like to a McKenzie, the fact remains, that if the court claim is successful, those fees cannot be recovered.

 

Any practising solicitor representing a claimant in court would never ever use, or rely upon documentation prepared by another person. Why?....simply because to do so would leave him or her wide open to a claim under his indemnity insurance.

 

A solicitor may only represent a claimant in court if he or she is a practising solicitor. That means that they are either working in a solicitor's practise (and therefore covered under the firms indemnity insurance) or alternatively, working in private practice themselves with their own personal indemnity insurance.

 

After starting this thread the Guru posted to confirm that he does refer cases to another McKenzie Friend (a female by the name of Sarah) but that she is supposedly a 'practising' solicitor working from Lincoln's Inn'. It is possible that he is correct, but there is a strong likelihood that he also uses the services of a lady with the same first name (Sarah) but that she is from an entirely different area of London altogether (Stanmore to be precise). Crucially.....on her own website, she states that she is a 'former' practising' solicitor. She further confirms that she nows works as a McKenzie Friend and that she 'drafts' documentation for court. She trades as a Limited Company.

 

PS: She also confirms that her fees are a modest £60 per hour.

[silverfox1961]

The 2nd link does not work. As a period of 24 hours has elapsed since making the post I cannot edit it.

 

Could a moderator replace the 2nd link with the following one:

 

/QUOTE]

 

Done

[Bailiff Advice]

Wonder what they think they mean by"sign it off for a no win no fee scheme", solicitors dont just sign something of for a NWNF insurance they seek one out.

In a case like this no underwriter would ever consider such an arrangement. It is all amateurish nonsense.

If anyone is advising their client that there is one in place just to gain the business, it is fraud plain and simple

 

I will try to keep this simple.

 

The starting point is Schedule 13 (not Schedule 12) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. Schedule 13 outlines amendments made to various legislations.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13?view=plain

 

 

The relevant amendment concerning Magistrate Court fines can be found under item 46.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/paragraph/46?view=plain

 

 

This part amended Section 76 of the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 as follows:

1) Section 76 (enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid) is

amended

as follows.

 

2) In subsection (1) for “issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum”

substitute

“ issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum ”.

 

3) In subsection (2)(a)—

 

a) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”;

 

b) for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum”

substitute

“ pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ”.

 

4) In subsection (2)(b) for “warrant of distress”

substitute

“ warrant of control ”.

As is made clear under item 3(b) the amount that is payable once a warrant of control is issued is defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

In addition to amending legislation to bring magistrate court fines in line with other debt streams, it was necessary to also amend the wording on the Warrant of Control.

 

The revised warrant of control for unpaid magistrate court fines has the following wording:

 

Directions

 

1. You may take goods belonging to the defendant to the value of the money owed

and any amounts in respect of costs of enforcement related services

which are recoverable in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

2. The goods may not be sold without giving at least 7 days clear notice unless the court has ordered otherwise or the goods are perishable.

3. If the goods are sold you must pay the money owed to the address at the top of this order. You must give the court a statement of any costs on the attached sheet.

 

Conditions

 

1. If the money owed

and the costs are paid

, you must not take control of and sell the defendant’s goods.

2. You must not take goods which are exempt under regulations made pursuant to Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

[mikeymack2002]

Is there going to be any further clarification as regards to exempt goods any time soon? I.E goods on credit and the like? Any news on the annual review or hints at what the contents may contain?

[Peterbard]

As I said before, there will not be an insurance company. Far more worrying though is that as outlined in post number 6 above, the debtor is this case is being asked to pay £100 to the failed McKenzie for him to 'draft the papers' and a further £500 for a 'solicitor' to provide 'court representation'. In case anybody is remotely tempted by such a proposal they need to be aware of some facts:

 

Only in very rare cases will a McKenzie Friend be allowed to address the court or speak on behalf of the claimant.

 

A McKenzie Friend cannot cross examine witnesses.

 

Whilst the claimant is free to pay whatever fees they like to a McKenzie, the fact remains, that if the court claim is successful, those fees cannot be recovered.

 

Any practising solicitor representing a claimant in court would never ever use, or rely upon documentation prepared by another person. Why?....simply because to do so would leave him or her wide open to a claim under his indemnity insurance.

 

A solicitor may only represent a claimant in court if he or she is a practising solicitor. That means that they are either working in a solicitor's practise (and therefore covered under the firms indemnity insurance) or alternatively, working in private practice themselves with their own personal indemnity insurance.

 

After starting this thread the Guru posted to confirm that he does refer cases to another McKenzie Friend (a female by the name of Sarah) but that she is supposedly a 'practising' solicitor working from Lincoln's Inn'. It is possible that he is correct, but there is a strong likelihood that he also uses the services of a lady with the same first name (Sarah) but that she is from an entirely different area of London altogether (Stanmore to be precise). Crucially.....on her own website, she states that she is a 'former' practising' solicitor. She further confirms that she nows works as a McKenzie Friend and that she 'drafts' documentation for court. She trades as a Limited Company.

 

PS: She also confirms that her fees are a modest £60 per hour.

 

In addition to amending legislation to bring magistrate court fines in line with other debt streams, it was necessary to also amend the wording on the Warrant of Control.

 

The revised warrant of control for unpaid magistrate court fines has the following wording:

 

Directions

 

1. You may take goods belonging to the defendant to the value of the money owed

and any amounts in respect of costs of enforcement related services

which are recoverable in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

2. The goods may not be sold without giving at least 7 days clear notice unless the court has ordered otherwise or the goods are perishable.

3. If the goods are sold you must pay the money owed to the address at the top of this order. You must give the court a statement of any costs on the attached sheet.

 

Conditions

1. If the money owed

and the costs are paid

, you must not take control of and sell the defendant’s goods.

2. You must not take goods which are exempt under regulations made pursuant to Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

Thanks for this , I knew I had seen this mention of section 62 on a warrant somewhere but couldn't find a copy of the current wording. You would think that it would be difficult to ague that fees are not due on court fines, want to bet.

 

Notice also the word "may" on the instruction to the EA, as opposed to must attend. The mention of the schedule also, which puts it in exactly the same context as other enforcement streams.

[Bailiff Advice]

Today I have had the misfortune to be made aware of yet another person who took internet advice after receiving a Notice of Enforcement and was led to believe that if he made payment direct to the Magistrate Court that he would be able to avoid bailiff fees. This person took the advice and paid the court direct and;.....as it always the case.....he received a letter from the court to advise him that his payment had been forwarded direct to Marston Group.

 

He too has now found himself in a position where an enforcement agent has made a personal visit...and the debt increased by way of an enforcement fee of £235. He now owes £310 (to also include the Compliance Fee of £75). This inaccurate advice is costly debtors many thousands of pounds and given that the debt is for an unpaid court fine....the enforcement agent is permitted to force entry.

 

If a defendant makes payment direct to the court after a warrant of control has been issued and passed to the enforcement agent, then it is always the case that the court will write to the defendant to confirm that the payment has been received and informing them that their payment has been forwarded to the enforcement agent.

 

In all of the letters that I have seen, the letters make reference to the important legal case of R v Hereford & Worcester ex parte McRae where the Court held that a distress warrant cannot be withdrawn once it is with the bailiff.

 

Of significance, in his judgment Lord Justice Simon Brown stated that:

 

“....once the warrant was issued the court was functus officio (in other words had finished its job and had no more to with it) .

[mikeymack2002]

The CAB say this

 

 

Magistrates court

 

'Once a warrant of control has been issued by the magistrates court, you generally can't apply for it to be withdrawn. Magistrates' courts have no power to postpone or delay bailiff action once a warrant has been issued. In practice, some courts will withdraw a warrant in exceptional circumstances, for example if they agree you are a vulnerable person.

If you're dealing with bailiffs who have been authorised by the magistrates court, it's a good idea to get advice on whether you have any options for stopping the bailiff action.'

 

So with this in mind are there any definable options regarding this statement? Info from here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/stopping-bailiff-action/applying-to-court-to-stop-bailiff-action/

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks for this , I knew I had seen this mention of section 62 on a warrant somewhere but couldn't find a copy of the current wording. You would think that it would be difficult to ague that fees are not due on court fines, want to bet.

 

Notice also the word "may" on the instruction to the EA, as opposed to must attend. The mention of the schedule also, which puts it in exactly the same context as other enforcement streams.

 

There has been so much discussion in government departments about the words 'shall', 'will', 'must' and 'may' etc. In respect of bailiff enforcement, there would have been outrage if legislation was issued stating that an enforcement officer 'must' attend debtors premises. The mere thought is frightening (and in particular with vulnerable debtors).

 

Taking your first point, we must not forget as well the amendments made under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 (link below).

 

This regulation outlines how each debt type had been amended to allow for continued enforcement to be by way of the 'Schedule 12" procedure (and with it the accompanying Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014). For ease of reference the relevant paragraphs are outlined below:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ade?view=plain

 

In relation to magistrate court fines, this is covered under Section 1 of Part 1 as follows:

 

 

Part 1: Amendment of Magistrate Court Rules:

 

Section 1: Magistrate Court. amendment of Magistrates’ Courts Rules

 

(d):Execution of Distress Warrant

 

(cc) for “levy the said sum by distress and sale of the goods belonging to the said person substitute “recover the said sum from the debtor by way of the Schedule 12 procedure"

[Peterbard]

There has been so much discussion in government departments about the words 'shall', 'will', 'must' and 'may' etc. In respect of bailiff enforcement, there would have been outrage if legislation was issued stating that an enforcement officer 'must' attend debtors premises. The mere thought is frightening (and in particular with vulnerable debtors).

 

Yes as you say, there are so many reasons why it would be inappropriate for the EA to attend to take control of goods, many mentioned within the legislation itself, as you say vulnerability or if the debt (including fees) has already been settled for instance, it sounds simple really, Must means that the ea must attend no matter what, may means there is a level of discretion depending on other relavant information. SImple, or so you would think.

[Bailiff Advice]

If a defendant makes payment direct to the court after a warrant of control has been issued and passed to the enforcement agent, then it is always the case that the court will write to the defendant to confirm that the payment has been received and informing them that their payment has been forwarded to the enforcement agent.

 

In all of the letters that I have seen, the letters make reference to the important legal case of R v Hereford & Worcester ex parte McRae where the Court held that a distress warrant cannot be withdrawn once it is with the bailiff.

 

Of significance, in his judgment Lord Justice Simon Brown stated that:

 

“....once the warrant was issued the court was functus officio (in other words had finished its job and had no more to with it) .

 

 

Further difficulty with paying the Magistrate Court direct is the contractual terms in Section 6.29 of HMCTS Contract with Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Excel Enforcement and Swift Credit Services which states the following:

 

 

"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".

[Bailiff Advice]

As I said before, there will not be an insurance company. Far more worrying though is that as outlined in post number 6 above, the debtor is this case is being asked to pay £100 to the failed McKenzie for him to 'draft the papers' and a further £500 for a 'solicitor' to provide 'court representation'. In case anybody is remotely tempted by such a proposal they need to be aware of some facts:

 

Only in very rare cases will a McKenzie Friend be allowed to address the court or speak on behalf of the claimant.

 

A McKenzie Friend cannot cross examine witnesses.

 

Whilst the claimant is free to pay whatever fees they like to a McKenzie, the fact remains, that if the court claim is successful, those fees cannot be recovered.

 

Any practising solicitor representing a claimant in court would never ever use, or rely upon documentation prepared by another person. Why?....simply because to do so would leave him or her wide open to a claim under his indemnity insurance.

 

A solicitor may only represent a claimant in court if he or she is a practising solicitor. That means that they are either working in a solicitor's practise (and therefore covered under the firms indemnity insurance) or alternatively, working in private practice themselves with their own personal indemnity insurance.

 

After starting this thread the Guru posted to confirm that he does refer cases to another McKenzie Friend (a female by the name of Sarah) but that she is supposedly a 'practising' solicitor working from Lincoln's Inn'. It is possible that he is correct, but there is a strong likelihood that he also uses the services of a lady with the same first name (Sarah) but that she is from an entirely different area of London altogether (Stanmore to be precise). Crucially.....on her own website, she states that she is a 'former' practising' solicitor. She further confirms that she nows works as a McKenzie Friend and that she 'drafts' documentation for court. She trades as a Limited Company.

 

PS: She also confirms that her fees are a modest £60 per hour.

 

In response to messages that I have received since writing the above post asking for a link to 'Sarah's' McKenzie website. I cannot provide it at this present time given that over the weekend....her website was removed.

[Peterbard]

I am a bit lost here. I thought it was well known that warrants cannot be recalled by the court ?

 

I wasn't talking about the withdrawal of the warrant of course, my reference was about the sum due being paid in compliance , this would then make the EA's visit superfluous. If section 14 said "must", the EA would have to attend anyway.