Mischief pays twice: as private agents will be able to increase the extra charge from the debtor.

Mischief pays twice: as private agents will be able to increase the extra charge from the debtor.

The appearance of the private enforcement agency may change the amount of the fee that the debtor will have to pay. At each change, the debtor will increase by 12%. This can spur the debtor more quickly with the payer.

The appearance of the first private performers affected not only the participants representing the active side, but also the debtors.

The common problem for both sides was those documents that are already in execution in the state executive service. In particular, collectors faced with the impossibility of transferring the already finished materials of such productions to private performers.

For example, the collector, who had previously worked with the state, was able to identify the debtor's property and impose an arrest on him. But then he decided to continue the case with a private performer. It would seem a simple question! In the presence of such a desire, the pledged materials should simply be transferred to the "trader" to continue charging. However, this did not happen as it seemed. The current legislation does not provide for such a transfer.

The only possible way to do this is to withdraw a document without a performance and transfer it to a private performer. What can this mean in practice?

First of all, the "private trader" will be obliged to re-conduct the same procedure as previously performed by the state executor (sending inquiries, notices, revealing, arresting and describing the property). But before this, at the time of returning the documents on the application, the state must withdraw the arrest of the debtor's property in full. That's what the law requires.

Given that between the withdrawal of the property and the acceptance of the document by a private performer will take some time, this may be enough to allow the debtor to hide his property by re-writing it, for example, to third parties.

A similar situation will be in the case if the collector wants to change the private performer to another "private". The imposed seizure of the debtor's property will also be lifted, and the new performer will be forced to start carrying out all actions from the very beginning.

Another problem affects the debtor himself. And it does not mean that the private executor will be more actively enforceable, but that the amount of debt will increase.

To date, in the case of enforcement through the state executor, the debtor, in addition to the obligation to pay the principal amount of the debtor's debt, will additionally still have to pay an executive fee of 10% of the amount of debt and expenses for execution of executive actions (up to 2% of the amount of the debt ) Thus, its initial debt is increased by 12%.

"Private" will also have to pay 12%. He also levies from the debtor the costs of carrying out an action (up to 2% of the amount of debt) and an additional 10% of the amount of debt as his principal remuneration.

This amount of tax for many debtors is already customary, since it was established more than 15 years ago. In essence, 10% of the reward for a private performer remains the same.

The real surprise for the debtors was that in the case of transferring the executive document for further work to the "private operator", the debtor still has to pay 10% of the state fee. That is, he will pay one and the same amount (12%) twice.

In rough rounding, the initial debt grows by a quarter (by 25%).

And that's not all! In case the payer is not satisfied with the work of a particular private executor, he may decide to transfer the performance of the next, and then the debt may increase by another 12%. And so to infinity.

Although some lawyers consider it controversial to allow a private executor to charge his basic remuneration and costs incurred in the event that the executive document is transferred to another performer. However, in practice for the debtor this will mean the need to defend its position in court (and in the situation of the debtor, the result may always be ambiguous).

The only thing that remains for the debtor is to try to make a decision before the payer decides to change the performer. It's even better to do this before the payer goes to the performer, and it does not matter to which one - public or private.

Aleksey Solomko

(translated using google translate)