Hoping I have misunderstood but does the new control of goods act remove the ability to dispose of assets before an EO makes peaceful entry and levies?

I have gotten the impression that once a warrant is issued to the bailiffs for council tax etc the court takes automatic ownership of your goods despite not knowing what you have and a bailiff not having visited and made entry?

Warrant or a LO?

Warrant or a LO?

For LO and for CCJ Enforcement

Caledfwlch, I guess your question stems from this extract from Schedule 12 of the TCG-

Part 2

The procedure

Binding property in the debtor's goods

4(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.

(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given.

I cannot help you as far as S2 and S3 are concerned as I do not know who the person is who has the duty of endorsing it, nor do I know when that person has to endorse it. No

doubt some one else will answer that one for you.

As for S4, if S2 and S3 do not apply then the goods are not considered bound until the Notice of Enforcement has been received by the debtor and the regulations attaching to that Notice have been complied with.

Notice of enforcement

7(1)An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice.

(2)Regulations must state—

(a)the minimum period of notice;

(b)the form of the notice;

©what it must contain;

(d)how it must be given;

(e)who must give it.

With every aspect of the new regulations the STARTING point will always be Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 (link below).

Prior to 6th April the High Court regulations had for many many years provided that goods 'are bound' etc etc. The new regs have elaborated on this and included all other debts types as well.

I am sure that I am not alone in saying that the regs are not written in a way that is easily understood (and in fact this very point was made by the Lords when the TCEA was being debated). In fact, it was stated in the HoL that it was written in 'gobbledygook'!!!

In simple terms with Magistrate Court fines and CCJ's enforced by a High Court Officer goods of the debtor are 'bound' from the date on which the warrant of control had been 'endorsed'. Again, to keep it simple....this would be a few days before the Notice of Enforcement is sent to the debtor.

With council tax the 'binding' effect of goods takes effect at a different time and would be when the Notice of Enforcement is given.

Again, to keep it simple.....if the debtor received a Notice of Enforcement and quickly 'sold' his or her vehicle to 'a friend' or 'family member' as soon as the letter arrives from the Enforcement company then such 'a sale' can be open to challenge. It does not appear that a challenge would apply if the sale had been made:

'in good faith'

and:

'for valuable consideration'

Keeping with the 'simple' theme. If a debtor received a Notice of Enforcement for council tax arrears in the post and then 'sold' his 2010 plate VW Golf to a 'friend' for £2,000 it would be open to challenge. If the 'sale' however had been for £6,000 and proper supporting documentation and evidence of payment etc provided then an enforcement company would be hard pushed to say that such a price had not been 'valuable consideration'.

For debtors the 'binding effect' will almost always be applicable to a motor vehicle.

For businesses the 'binding effect' is far more significant.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

Good to see that it only really applies to cars then though presumably that is only because it is impossible to know what goods and what potential value they have belongs to a debtor without peaceful entry.

Got to wonder though if such a law is compatible with the ECHR. Not even a convicted criminal can have their goods "bound" unless Police can prove they are the proceeds of crime.

insolvency practitioners can try and demand a third party repays money given by a bankrupt, even when that money was repayment of a debt, I could see EO's trying the same thing on if they discover the debtor had x amount of cash that is no longer in their account.

If someone sells their goods to a family member and they take the stat dec route, exactly what would an EO do?

What court action would they need to take?

Or can we look forward to situations where the EO was unable to make peaceful entry but saw through the window a huge tv, which on the next visit is missing, can they then contact the police and have the debtor arrested on suspicion of theft and their home searched for the tv, since its now bound even without a levy?

As cash is an asset surely this now means a debtor taking money from their account and spending it is also technically theft of a bound good?

I can see these new regs leading to a big increase in attacks on bailiffs as the lunatic new fees make a debt so impossible to pay people feel their backs against a wall and take it out on the thugs in fake police uniforms at their door

And let's make no mistake, the use of body armour with chequered police style squares is clearly and unarguably an attempt to look like some sort of policeman and thus convey an authority the wearer does not have. Most normal people with no knowledge of their rights will assume from such uniforms that the wearer has a power of arrest if you don't pay for example.

There is absolutely no possible other reason for them to wear it, if purely for protection it would not have those squares, a symbol instantly and only recognisable as the symbol of an attested Police Constable.

"As cash is an asset surely this now means a debtor taking money from their account and spending it is also technically theft of a bound good?"

Good point CaledIf that is the case paying the rent and or mortgage in preference to handing the bank card and PIN to the bailiff so they can take all the cash as well as the goods to be sold, might be an offence.

the Enforcement system is a crock and needs to be abolished before debtors are cast in jail as of old. It is only a matter of time before a beleagured debtor kills themselves in front of a bailiff/EA, or even tries to take them with them.

In simple terms with Magistrate Court fines and CCJ's enforced by a High Court Officer goods of the debtor are 'bound' from the date on which the warrant of control had been 'endorsed'. Again, to keep it simple....this would be a few days before the Notice of Enforcement is sent to the debtor

To clarify, the endorsement of a Writ is the date and time the HCEOs office receives it.

Efficient HCEOs will have the NoE sent out the same day.