HCEO’s What has been your experience?

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "10/07/2015 - 13:48":

I agree with you Luke. In my case the tenant/ guarantor are seen to be getting away with it. It sends the wrong message out to these people. Better they lose something and learn a lesson. Mind you perhaps we are also learning lesson. I have to ask myself "would I have embarked on this course of action if I knew that in a few short months that the HCEO's fees would be almost the same as the original debt ?" IF, a big IF, the HCEO' s manage to get any payments it will take TWO years to cover their fees before I even get a penny of the original debt ! So to answer my question - NO I would not. Better, I think to go back to court and get an attachment of earnings even if its for a meagre amount at least it would be something positive and not such a waste of money that a few of us are feeling at the moment.

I'd go one step further, Mike (and to make it a tad more 'commercially viable' for David) and say I would pay out more, for the costs of the seizure itself, just to have their tatty possessions seized and dropped at my house. At least I'd have their flat screen TV and PlayStation rather than them!

Is this something you would consider extending to, David?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "10/07/2015 - 14:02":

hello mark this the company I am dealing with

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "10/07/2015 - 14:59":

In case it didn't quite come across, David, I was deadly serious.

I wouldn't see you out of pocket for the seizure and I'm sure there's no legal hurdle as the writ gives you this power, it's that under normal circumstances (e.g. no extra payment from me to you to cover the cost of the seizure itself) it wouldn't be commercially viable.

I think there'd be a reasonable uptake on such a proposal.

I have a CCJ against an ex tenant for unpaid rent he is a self employed window cleaner with no visible assets, however he receives housing benefits and working tax credits, my question is can I apply for an attachment of earnings against these benefits ?
Jack.

Reply to the comment left by "Jack Craven" at "11/07/2015 - 11:19":

Hi Jack

Unfortunately no. If he was still your tenant then you could ask for a "third party payment" or £3.70 per week off his rent arrears, but this is not available in relation to former tenants (only current tenants).

The magistrate's court has to power to deduct from a person's ongoing benefits (e.g. JSA/ESA) for fines and council tax, but such a power does not extend to private landlords.

Reply to the comment left by "Mike Amapola" at "10/07/2015 - 14:33":

It is good to see many people share their enforce CCJ experience; I have tried county court bailiff, waste money, and now HCEO, I haven’t get penny back, they want to me to indemnify their shortfall. It is like try to get blood out of stone. Looks like our better chance to get a little money back is through an attachment of earnings. If I had known this, I would go straight to an attachment of earnings. And also only let to people have a jobs, no benefits.

why are the council on tenants side this must be against landlords human rights who have no money to pay mortgage mass murder said he is lonely in prison which against his human rights who is having a laugh needs sorting out

I've often wondered why LAs seem to take this stance by default. Even brand new staff very quickly get into the assumption that the landlord is the evil enemy.

Apologies for the delayed response but I have been out of the office.

I have had my staff look into the various matters and several things immediately spring to mind.

The first is managing expectations. As I have already stated on here and in various articles, whilst our eviction services are a hugely successful the enforcement for rent arrears against former tenants can often be a difficult and challenging process. Not impossible certainly but difficult nonetheless.

I would estimate that HCEOs have a 1 in 5 success rate in these matters, which as already mentioned makes it a commercial decision to go this route. Given that the cost if unsuccessful is just £135 it is a relatively cheap option and often worth the expense when considering the sums owed are usually £2.5k upwards.

It is clear that much frustration can be labelled at the system that for some of the creditors here does not do enough to satisfy them and essentially enable them to recover their money owed. We are bound by the law though and cannot operate outside this.

I must also advise that on occasions enforcement is not possible due the legal issues as highlighted in one of the cases above.

In Wanda's matter, the debtors family is claiming to be potentially vulnerable in accordance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. This was put forward after our attendances where they appear to have no assets of value in any event.

Prior to receiving this claim, the creditor, quite understandably, did not want to pay the costs of removing a tatty untaxed and unused vehicle knowing that at sale it would not cover the costs involved and the other vehicle is not registered to the debtor. This matter is now further complicated as it now appears that the creditor also has an attachment of earnings already being enforced rendering our complete enforcement involvement unlawful.

In Tony's matter, the debtor appears to be a benefit cheat who has a builder boyfriend funding her lifestyle. Whilst the creditor would like us to enforce against the boyfriend and force entry to a residential property neither of these options are lawful.

Again, I can fully appreciate the creditors frustrations but at this stage the debtor has at least started making payments towards the debt which given the lack of assets is a positive step.

In response to Luke's suggestions about just taking goods to cover the costs of removal this is again unlawful in accordance with the regulations. An HCEO could face legal action if the goods removed were done so in 'spite' and do not make any contribution towards the sums owed. We are not in the business of revenge. Further, the actions seen on a recent TV show I would say were unlawful and the HCEO could be sued by the debtor.

Further, goods seized must legally be sold by auction or by private treaty (for unusual goods) and cannot be delivered to the creditor as suggested.

Coming to Mike's post on HCEO fees, prior to April 2014 most HCEOs had agreements with their clients regarding how the sums recovered were split between the creditor and the HCEOs fees. We had a 50/50 split but some smaller firms took all of their fees first which sounds like what is happening in the case mentioned. Whilst lawful, this is wrong in my opinion and if Mike wants any guidance please feel free to contact me personally by email.

Since April 2014, the sums recovered have to be split pro-rata in accordance with the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This means that the creditor gets a much greater percentage of what is collected.

In terms of our own service, I am of course concerned that my staff have not met with the expectations of our clients. I agree and understand that it may be difficult to separate being abused and shouted at by debtors and then having to deal with clients straight after. This is further complicated by the expectations of litigants in person, which as mentioned already, need to be managed more carefully.

Given this I have taken on board what has been stated and we are looking into further customer service training and the possibility of splitting operational staff into debtor and client facing departments. I will also look into options for further enforcement action in cases that in the first sense appear unenforceable.

I'm grateful for the points raised and hope that I have explained why some of the issues are outside of our control. Moving forward, I shall improve our client facing services immediately.

As always, please feel free to contact me directly on dc@thesheriffsoffice.com. (Please note that responding to my newsletter is a different email address and your email may get lost within the many thousand Out of Office messages during this holiday period).

Regards, David.