Bailiff companies receive no remuneration from the taxpayer for collecting unpaid court fines. They work on commission and paid only when the recover the court fine AND the fees, in what bailiffs call "Payment in Full", or PIF. Otherwise if the fine by itself is paid, the bailiff receives nothing.

When a defaulter pays a court fine direct to court online, Court Service cannot refuse that money because it revokes the enforcement power and the fine becomes unrecoverable.

When a fine is paid into court, Court Service takes 100% of the money before the bailiff company gets any commission. The fees regulations say the creditor, in this case, the taxpayer, has a first charge over money paid into court before the bailiff gets anything.

HM Court Service tries to protect the commercial interests of bailiff companies when a debtor pays a fine online after the warrant has been issued, by sending a letter saying the money is "forwarded to the Authorised Enforcement Agent to credit against the money owed". It is a ploy to make the recipient believe the enforcement power still exists.

Table 1 of the Schedule of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, prescribes a Compliance Stage fee £75 and an Enforcement Stage fee £235 making £310 in total.

That £310 fee is divided between the bailiff company and the bailiff as £220 and £90 respectively. This is regardless how many times a bailiff attends the property, whether once, or one hundred times.

The letter is a misinterpretation of regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 which sets the rule on how "proceeds of enforcement" is apportioned between the bailiff and the creditor, (in this case, HM Court Service), when the sum recovered is less than the amount outstanding, which is the fine plus the costs of enforcement together. The law further says proceeds of enforcement is money raised from the sale of the debtors goods. As no goods have been sold, there are no proceeds of enforcement and therefore regulation 13 apportionment does not apply to money paid into court.

The law, section 62(1) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 defines "enforcement" to be "taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money".

The letter sent out by HM Court Service misleads the recipient that proceeds of enforcement which is money from the sale of the debtors goods, is the same as money paid into court.

There is no rule of court, or Parliamentary intention enabling HM Court Service to give public money to a commercial company to be apportioned between themselves under a pretense the money is "proceeds of enforcement". Therefore no enforcement power exists when the fine is paid into court without the bailiff taking control of the debtors goods.

To take control of the debtors goods, the bailiff must perform one of the four steps set out in Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (ways of taking control of goods).

This leaves an angry bailiff wanting his commission, it's down to the individual bailiff how far he will go to threaten you with a locksmith to get the money. Some bailiffs move on, others do not take it so well.

---

Examples