HCEO’s What has been your experience?

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "16/07/2015 - 06:48":

Thank you for making the time to deliver such a detailed and professional response David.

I'm sure some of the critique felt harsh but you have handled it to perfection in my opinion.

Well done sir, now we know why you're the CEO.
.

Thank you Mark.

Clearly there's some work to do but I'm confident that we offer the most successful enforcement service in this market and taking on what has been said we will improve it further in the areas mentioned.

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "16/07/2015 - 06:48":

Very helpful response. So in summary, you are improving your company's customer service, but the reality is that there is only a slim chance of recovering former tenant debt via HCEOs, and the law does not allow the recovery in many instances for the reasons stated, e.g. if the debtor claims to be "vulnerable", or has very few assets, or denies you entry.

In view of the above, while I accept that HCEOs may be very effective in a small minority of cases, e.g. rich debtors (or in relation to commercial premises), for the vast majority of residential former tenant debts, use of HCEOs may not be appropriate or worthwhile.

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "16/07/2015 - 08:15":

Robert,

We've had this discussion many times on many different posts.

Each case must be judged on it's merits and it is not always the fact that assets are the key to successful enforcement. Many, not all, but many debtors will want to clear any judgment against them for future credit purposes.

So, I'll say it again, it's a commercial decision to use an HCEO. Does the risk of losing £135 outweigh the chances of recovery?

In all honesty, we too are out of pocket if we are unsuccessful as the costs in transferring up, tracing, management of the case and an enforcement officer attending an address on several occasions far outweigh the £75 fee charged.

It is important that the Landlord do their homework and consider the costs versus likely recovery.

Regards, David

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "16/07/2015 - 08:50":

Hi David

Would it be fair to say that if the debtor and/or guarantor is a NINJA, ie No Incone No Job or Assets it is usually a lost cause and they should probably not have been granted a tenancy in the first place?
.

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "16/07/2015 - 08:50":

Hi David

I know we've had this discussion before, but I am just desperately hoping something changes and enforcement options can become more effective, and I don't want landlords to waste money on the ineffective options. I agree with you that HCEO enforcement can be effective in SOME cases, and it is a business decision of the landlord's, so I am simply reinforcing the point as to when it is more likely to be effective, and when it is less likely to be effective, so that the landlord's business decision becomes one based on probable recovery rather than "a hope and a prayer". Of course they can spend the £135 regardless of the chances of recovery, in the hope that it achieves something, but they need some idea of the chances of recovery prior to making that decision. I'm glad to say that your post did help to clarify that, but I think my post also summarised that in a nutshell. There will of course always be exceptions.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/07/2015 - 08:55":

Hi Mark

You are probably right about "NINJAs" in terms of enforcement, but to say they should not have been given a tenancy in the first place? Are you suggesting that the 3 million or so working age unemployed (not to mention the elderly and disabled) should ALL be made homeless and never granted a tenancy again (until they get a job and some assets? - I guess that is not what you mean, but saying they should not be given a tenancy in the first place is a bit harsh, they have to live somewhere!!!!

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "16/07/2015 - 09:17":

Yes I agree Robert, but an expectation for the private sector to shoulder the associated risks with this category of society is equally unacceptable.

Some landlords make a profit from this sector and good luck to them, but it's not for me. The risks and effort are too high for me to have an appetite to house this sector and many landlords feel the same way. Those who see things differently must accept the pros and cons of their business model, one of which is that recovery of debt is highly unlikely from NINJA tenants.
.

Thank you for your detailed response, David.

From a customer point of view, and knowing what I know now, I will have to seriously reconsider whether to bother using HCEO again in future. I am about to attempt the first forced sale of a guarantors house to clear a debt, so this may be my new route to success.

I think if you were to advertise a "1 in 5 success rate" many others would re-evaluate whether to pursue HCEO enforcement too. I'm not saying you've ever been misleading, but the TV show puts a hugely positive spin on HCEO...the very place I discover TSO in the first place.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/07/2015 - 09:37":

Aside from the business model, we have a Court system that is meant to offer redress and it doesn't deliver. If you cannot service the debt you should be made bankrupt and have everything taken away, even if only a fraction of the total is covered by the removal. It is the whole money cycle that is broken otherwise. You wouldn't get away with not paying HMRC or your Council tax etc. You would be made accountable.