Bailiff companies operate solely on commission, receiving payment only upon successfully collecting both the court fine and associated fees, termed "Payment in Full" (PIF). If only the fine is paid, without covering the fees, bailiffs receive no compensation.

When a fine is paid directly to the court online, it nullifies the enforcement authority, rendering the fine uncollectable. The Court Service, therefore, cannot reject such payments, as they extinguish the enforcement power, rendering the fine unrecoverable.

Upon payment to the court, the Court Service claims the entirety of the sum before any commission is allocated to the bailiff company. This prioritization is in line with the fees regulations, granting the creditor (the taxpayer) precedence over funds paid into court.

In instances where debtors settle fines online post-issuance of a warrant, the Court Service may send a letter indicating that the funds will be "forwarded to the Authorised Enforcement Agent to credit against the money owed." This communication can be misleading, as it insinuates the continued existence of enforcement authority.

The Compliance Stage fee and Enforcement Stage fee, totalling £310, are prescribed in Table 1 of the Schedule to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This fee is split between the bailiff company and the individual bailiff, with respective shares of £220 and £90, irrespective of the number of visits made.

Letters from the Court Service misinterprets regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, which dictates the apportionment of "proceeds of enforcement" between the bailiff and creditor. However, this regulation applies solely to funds raised from the sale of debtors' goods, not to money paid into court.

Payment into court without the bailiff taking control of goods nullifies enforcement authority, as defined by section 62(1) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which specifies "enforcement" as the act of taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money.

The implication that funds paid into court constitute "proceeds of enforcement" is misleading and lacks legal basis. There is no provision enabling the Court Service to distribute public funds to commercial entities under the pretext of "proceeds of enforcement."

To take control over debtors' goods, bailiffs must adhere to one of the methods outlined in Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (ways of taking control of goods).

Despite the absence of enforcement power, some bailiffs may resort to aggressive tactics, such as threatening locksmith intervention, in pursuit of their commission.

---

Examples