From the above link from 2014, you will observe that I had suggested to the Ministry of Justice (and many other agencies) the need to implement something along the following lines so as to avoid the need for 'third party' claimants to have to make Interpleaders applications to court and to pay into court, a sum of money that could be equal to the value of the vehicle under dispute:

 

 

 

My persistence paid off, and I was delighted to hear that MOJ had taken my criticism on board and had introduced my suggestions

Are you seriously saying that you alone changed the mind of a whole Government Ministry by writing an article for a bailiff trade magazine?

Are you seriously saying that you alone changed the mind of a whole Government Ministry by writing an article for a bailiff trade magazine?

I should take the chip off your shoulder and read what BA has said again.

Whitley

BA and I believe DodgeBall (correct me if I am wrong DB) were invloved with the new Regs,

As well as the Enforcement companies and many other organisations

I should take the chip off your shoulder and read what BA has said again.

"My persistence paid off, and I was delighted to hear that MOJ had taken my criticism on board and had introduced my suggestions"

So under p85 there are no sums to be lodged at court?

"My persistence paid off, and I was delighted to hear that MOJ had taken my criticism on board and had introduced my suggestions"

So under p85 there are no sums to be lodged at court?

There is much more to the CPR than the court hearing, most section 85 claims do not get that far. A section 85 claim gives the debtor to present the evidence of third party ownership to the creditor, if the evidence is credible he is unlikely to risk the issue going further.

Injunctions are not exactly free are they.

So are any sums to be paid under p85?

Apologies off topic.

Apologies if I missed the answer, but can you confirm that no sums need to be paid into court under p85?

Apologies if I missed the answer, but can you confirm that no sums need to be paid into court under p85?

Are you referring to this ?

6) The claimant to controlled goods must make the required payments on issue of the application in accordance with paragraph 60(4)(a) of Schedule 128, unless such claimant seeks a direction from the court that the required payment be a proportion of the value of the goods, in which case they must seek such a direction immediately after issue of the application, on notice to the creditor and to the enforcement agent.

Might be no court fee, but legislation requires payment into the court for a relevant sum.

If this is correct, then it won't be used.

Thought sums of money only had to be paid in if creditor rejected the S85 application and it went to a full Interpleader

Yes indeed it does. I was just wondering how that fits into the assertion that an interpleader is preferable to an injunction. With a p85 application the creditor can simply ignore the evidence (as happened in the case in this thread), then bank on the third party not having the funds to pay into court the required sum. Say a car is worth £7000, even a payment of half of that would be out of many people's reach.

Are you seriously saying that you alone changed the mind of a whole Government Ministry by writing an article for a bailiff trade magazine?

No, my article in a public sector publication (not a 'bailiff trade magazine') was only partly responsible for the implementation of Part 85. It was my additional work 'behind the scenes' that was mainly responsible for persuading the Ministry of Justice to implement an 'initial' procedure to avoid the need for valuable court time being taken up to settle ownership disputes.

In answer to another query that you raised earlier today, sadly, there is the provision in some Part 85 claims (but not others) for a payment to be made into court. However, the reality is that courts very rarely make such an order. For example, in a case that I am currently advising on, the court have stated that they are not willing to make such an order. In another case with a vehicle valued at £5,200, the Judge reduced the 'payment into court' down to £500.

No, my article in a public sector publication (not a 'bailiff trade magazine') was only partly responsible for the implementation of Part 85. It was my additional work 'behind the scenes' that was mainly responsible for persuading the Ministry of Justice to implement an 'initial' procedure to avoid the need for valuable court time being taken up to settle ownership disputes.

I'd like to hear more about that to see how you went about it and what arguments you used. It may assist others who are making other representations, especially with the review still outstanding.

Sadly BA even that £500 would be unaffordable for some.

I'd like to hear more about that to see how you went about it and what arguments you used. It may assist others who are making other representations, especially with the review still outstanding.

I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. The CPR is in place whatever your personal opinions on how it got there.

Yes indeed it does. I was just wondering how that fits into the assertion that an interpleader is preferable to an injunction. With a p85 application the creditor can simply ignore the evidence (as happened in the case in this thread), then bank on the third party not having the funds to pay into court the required sum. Say a car is worth £7000, even a payment of half of that would be out of many people's reach.

Section 85 CPR is the prescribed remedy under the statute(section 60' of course.

Injunctions can and are being stopped and transferred to CPR procedures on complaint made to the court, both as we speak, and have been for a while.

I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. The CPR is in place whatever your personal opinions on how it got there.

It wasn't actually a post directed to you but as I said, with the review long overdue it would be beneficial to see what arguments and structure were used 'behind the scenes', including which departments or people to address it to.

Section 85 CPR is the prescribed remedy under the statute(section 60' of course.

Injunctions can and are being stopped and transferred to CPR procedures on complaint made to the court, both as we speak, and have been for a while.

That's not quite correct. Section 60 only says 'an application to the court'. It doesn't instruct which application to use. I'd like to know your scource for your assertion that injunctions are being stopped 'as we speak'. The OP in this thread used the injunction route to the desired effect.

Interpretation

85.2

(1) In this Part—

(a) 'the Act' means the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 20071;

(b) 'claim to controlled goods' is a claim made under paragraph 60(1) of Schedule 12;

Also section 60 gives information regarding payments into court etc, which i am guessing is not the case on an injunction.

(4)The required payments are—

(a)payment on making the application (subject to sub-paragraph (5)) of an amount equal to the value of the goods, or to a proportion of it directed by the court;

That's looking at it backwards. P85 is explaining which legislation to follow in making an interpleader, which is as you say para 60. However para 60 does not instruct that p85 must be used. An injunction can be used and does not require an arbitrary amount to be paid, nor require the prospect of 'further payments' for the EA's storage costs.

You beat me to it DB...thankyou.

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 must not be read in isolation. It needs to be read in conjunction with its supporting secondary legislation etc. In this respect, if a 'third party' has had his goods (usually a vehicle) removed by an enforcement agent to settle another person's debt, then the correct procedure is to issue a claim under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Thankfully, (and as I have described in posts on this thread) Part 85 provides for disputes regarding ownership the opportunity to be settled without the need for the court to determine ownership.

A genuine 'third party' would have genuine documentation and would have no hesitation in providing copies in support of their Part 85 (4) claim.

That's looking at it backwards. P85 is explaining which legislation to follow in making an interpleader, which is as you say para 60. However para 60 does not instruct that p85 must be used. An injunction can be used and does not require an arbitrary amount to be paid, nor require the prospect of 'further payments' for the EA's storage costs.

And he mention of paying funds into court mentioned in section 60 itself ?

I think you will find that the CPR builds on the requirements of the section in general this is what the procedures do.

Like it or not the TCE expects an ammount to be paid into court to safeguard the creditors. I cannot see a court being aware of this, and not being confined to its application.

You beat me to it DB...thankyou.

 

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 must not be read in isolation. It needs to be read in conjunction with its supporting secondary legislation etc. In this respect, if a 'third party' has had his goods (usually a vehicle) removed by an enforcement agent to settle another person's debt, then the correct procedure is to issue a claim under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Thankfully, (and as I have described in posts on this thread) Part 85 provides for disputes regarding ownership the opportunity to be settled without the need for the court to determine ownership.

 

A genuine 'third party' would have genuine documentation and would have no hesitation in providing copies in support of their Part 85 (4) claim.

Yes I appreciate and agree with that. In the first instance, the third party (or exempt goods claimaint) should use p85. However if the creditor ignores the evidence and the third party has the threat of their car being sold without delay, which is more appealing? Continuing with an ignored p85 with the risk of needing to pay thousands into court plus later storage costs, or an emergency injunction?

Like it or not the TCE expects an ammount to be paid into court to safeguard the creditors. I cannot see a court being aware of this, and not being confined to its application.

Exactly, an amount that could be many thousands plus further amounts.

The second sentence doesn't make sense.

Also i must say, and this will be my last comment on the subject, that I find it somewhat disingenuous taking abut costs, when injunctions have resulted in many thousands of pound in court costs being awarded againsts injunction applicants.