You Paid A Fine Online, Then A Letter Saying The Money Is Given To Bailiffs

The law does not provide for any public money to be given to a commercial enforcement company

---

HM Court Service recognises the substantial cost and risk associated with collecting unpaid court fines, which has led to the decision to transfer this risk to the private sector. Marston (Holdings) Limited, also known as marston recovery, has taken on this role at no cost to the Government, assuming all related risks. Recovering court fines is particularly challenging within the enforcement industry due to the nature of the debtors and the potential for violence, necessitating additional costs for insurance and bailiff training.

When a court fine is paid online without the bailiff taking control of goods, the law states that once the "amount outstanding" is settled, the enforcement power ceases, which does not absolve you of the fees; the law still mandates them. However, there needs to be enforcement power to recover these fees or even engage a locksmith. You might encounter a bailiff working on commission who is frustrated by the loss of potential earnings and may resort to threats involving the police, arrest, or locksmiths. Despite knowing the enforcement power has ended, the bailiff, who stands to earn only £90 from the £326 fees, must weigh the risk of facing lengthy court proceedings for breaching Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 (The 2007 Act), which would cost him more than the £90 commission.

The bailiff benefits significantly from Paragraph 59(2) of Schedule 12 of the 2007 Act, which states that the bailiff is not liable for actions against debtors unless he has been notified of the payment. Therefore, the debtor must provide clear notice and outline the consequences if the bailiff continues to harass or pursue the debt without enforcement power. If the bailiff proceeds with enforcement without being informed of the payment, he becomes fully liable, and any defence claiming ignorance of the payment is invalid.

When money is paid directly to the Court Service after bailiffs have been instructed, they send a letter stating that the "warrant is still active" or that the money has been "forwarded to the Approved Enforcement Agent to credit against the money owed."

There is no contractual or legislative basis for public money to be given to commercial bailiff companies or to be apportioned. Apportionment only applies to the proceeds of enforcement. This policy was introduced following complaints from bailiff companies to the government that the court service was accepting fines and bypassing the bailiff and his fees. The Court Service cannot refuse money tendered as payment of court fines because doing so causes the enforcement power to end, rendering the fine unrecoverable. In an act of appeasement, the Court Service created a letter stating that fines paid into court online after the issuance of the warrant have been given to the bailiff company. The Court Service has taken no further action since this letter. It is now up to individual bailiffs to decide how much risk they are willing to take in threatening enforcement to secure their £90 commission from the £326 fees.

---

An example letter from HM Court Service

The information below outlines the legal provision for collection of the outstanding fees.

Section 76(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 empowers the court to issue a warrant of control for the purpose of levying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction. The bailiff’s costs and charges of levying the sums are recoverable, and this is recognised by section 76(2) (a) of the 1980 Act, which empowers the court to issue a warrant of commitment where on the return to the warrant of control it appears that the money and goods of the defaulter are insufficient to satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum. Those costs and charges can themselves be enforced as part of the execution of the warrant. Rule 54 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 makes provision concerning the execution of the warrant and paragraph (11) of that rule provides for the warrant not to be executed, or (as the case may be) to cease to executed in the event of prior payment. The provision makes it clear that the person charged with execution of the warrant is to refrain from executing it if the debtor either pays to the person charged with enforcement the amount or having paid it to the court show a receipt for that payment, and also pays the amount of the costs and charges up to the time of payment. Payment only of the judgment sum without payment also of the costs and charges of the warrant will not require cessation of execution, and execution may therefore continue for the costs and charges outstanding. The retention of the fee by the bailiff company is a contractual one and is covered by section 13.1 of the contract between the Bailiff Company and HMCTS.

Regards

(name)
Fines Officer
NCES Cumbria and Lancashire | HMCTS | PO Box 64 Colne Road| Reedley| BB10 2NQ
Phone: 01282 610007 Mobile: 07818 290958

---

Another example:

Unfortunately when the payment of £123.00 was received on 13/12/2018 the court could not accept your payment as once the Warrant of Control has been issued the Approved Enforcement Agent is ordered to collect the money owed and any costs of carrying out this Warrant. Payment of the order itself to HM Courts and Tribunals Service will not change this situation and they will continue to enforce against you for collection of the whole amount.

---

This article clarifies the legal stance on paying a court fine online after a warrant has been issued but before the bailiff has taken control of goods.

In the meantime, follow these steps to safeguard yourself from baliffs.

If a bailiff threatens you with force, consider a pay-and-reclaim strategy.

In certain situations, you can seek an injunction to prevent the bailiff, who lacks enforcement power, from harassing or troubling you.