I have just been informed that the first of three statutory instruments....The Taking of Control of Goods Regulations 2013......which will underpin the Government's package of reforms to bailiff law will be laid in Parliament today.

I will post a link later and I will also post further information that I received today.

PS: The Taking Control of Goods Regulations will be implemented in April 2014.

The following was released a few moments ago by the Ministry of Justice:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/contents/made

Thanks TT, will read it up later

I have not had time to read the Regulations but taking a quick glance I am amazed at Regulation 6. This cannot be right as this will simply mean that bailiffs will "seize" vehicles and other items that do not belong to them knowing that the only option is that the owner will have to pay legal fees by applying to court......

More later....

Payments into court by third party: underpayments49.—(1) Any underpayment to be determined by reference to an independent valuation under paragraph 60(5) of Schedule 12 must be undertaken by a qualified independent valuer.

(2) Any underpayment determined by the qualified independent valuer must be paid within 14 clear days after provision of a copy of the valuation to the applicant.

Does this mean what it looks like? Third parties paying to redeem their goods seized for another's debt?

Brassnecked

My understanding is the same as yours and if correct, this will be the biggest mistake that the Ministry of Justice could ever make. This clause has the potential for bailiffs to seize cars like never before.

I hope to goodness that I am wrong....in particular given that there will NOT be a complaints body ....

Brassnecked

 

My understanding is the same as yours and if correct, this will be the biggest mistake that the Ministry of Justice could ever make. This clause has the potential for bailiffs to seize cars like never before.

 

I hope to goodness that I am in particular given that there will NOT be a complaints body ....

It could mean a car belonging to a randomer will be taken and sold and the third party may have to discharge the debt to reclaim it, or engage in expensive litigation to get it back, all within 5 days, very iffy imho

I can see the "law of Unintended consequences" kicking in, and a major backlash against the Enforcement industry, as a whole when tehy take and sell a Motability car totally ultra vires their power, but looking at the clause they would be quite entitled to do so.

I don't think they will be able to sieze 3rd parties goods because the TC&E Act 2007,part 3 (which is also projected to come into play at the same time) has excellent clarification on what is required to conduct a lawful levy.To impound a vehicle,or anything else for that matter,the act states that a bailiff must comply with schedule 12,section 13.

I don't think they will be able to sieze 3rd parties goods because the TC&E Act 2007,part 3 (which is also projected to come into play at the same time) has excellent clarification on what is required to conduct a lawful levy.To impound a vehicle,or anything else for that matter,the act states that a bailiff must comply with schedule 12,section 13.

I will have to read and cross reference the sections to see how and why mistakes will inevitably be made, this also removes the Sunday prohibition on bailiffs/HCEO, they can now call any day of the week.

In addition to the release of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 I also received the following from the Ministry of Justice:

Taking Control of Goods Regulations will be implemented in April 2014. They will be followed by regulations - which we intend to lay in the autumn - that will specify the fees an enforcement agent is allowed to charge as well as a further instrument which will set out the requirements an individual must meet, including certification and training, before they can work as an enforcement agent. This latter instrument will also include details of the complaints processes which will be available.

These instruments will be implemented alongside the Taking Control of Goods Regulations in April 2014.

It has been necessary to lay the Taking Control of Goods Regulations ahead of those regarding fees and certification. It is crucial that the procedural detail is settled in law first, as it will inform the detail of the fee and certification regulations.We cannot, for instance, compel enforcement agents to undertake mandatory training before setting out the detail of what they must be trained on. With the Taking Control of Goods Regulations in place, we will continue to work with stakeholders to finalise the content of the Fees and Certification Regulations, as well as the supporting guidance, to ensure the new regime will be robust enough to end abuses while continuing to allow the civil justice system to function effectively.

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 set out the procedure that enforcement agents must follow when taking control of goods and, if necessary, selling them to recover a debt. They contain rules which will provide important protections for debtors, including,amongst others:

-the introduction of a 7 day notice of enforcement, designed to encourage early payment where possible or an additional opportunity to seek advice where a debtor is in difficulty;

-restrictions on the days and hours that enforcement action can take place as well as how and when an enforcement agent may access a property;

-restrictions on the goods an enforcement agent can take, ensuring those needed for the basic domestic needs of a debtor and their family are protected;

-mandatory information to be given to the debtor when they enter a controlled goods agreement, ensuring they know what goods are under the control of the enforcement agent and the terms of the agreement and;

-how the sale of goods, if necessary, will take place and how a debtor can pay the debt to prevent this.

There has been particular concern about vulnerable debtors. While these Regulations introduce safeguards for the vulnerable by, for example, preventing the seizure of goods when only a vulnerable person is present, you will note that the Regulations do not actually define “vulnerability”. This is in line with responses to our consultation paper and the widespread concerns that to do so would risk reducing assessment to a tick box exercise. It is our view that vulnerability is best assessed on a case-by-case basis by qualified enforcement agents who understand the most appropriate actions to take once a vulnerable individual has been identified. We will ensure that an enforcement agent is able to do this through the mandatory training which will be addressed in the next part of reforms.

A curate's egg then, good in parts perhaps. we will have to wait and see.

The regulations are made under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which says in paragraph 10 :

"An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

The regulations are made under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which says in paragraph 10 :

 

"An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

As is the case now, but still they levy third party cars, and other shenanigans,

I don't think that schedule 12 is actually in force yet.

If a car is parked on the debtors property,bailiffs argue that it is reasonable to assume it belongs to the debtor.Bailiffs will quote case law from a judge who stated that he didn't think that a DVLA check would "reliably take the enquiry any further forward".He was countering Dr Martins (LGO) determination that in every case,a bailiff should make a DVLA check.

On a positive side-If this case law is now setting a precedent then it would be very hard for a bailiff to prove that a debtor owns a car,even if the V5 has him/her as the registered keeper

It is quite possible for a keeper not to be the owner, viz a Motability or car on a personal lease contract.

Back to the thread subject. There is lot of wealth held by the less well off - accumulatively of course due to the large numbers. The normal situation is that 'the poor' do not have good Title. These new regulations allow the State to get around that issue and so to tap this (accumulative) pool of wealth.

Note that I say wealth, that is not the same as money, not at all.The two do not overlap (not since we went off the gold standard long long ago).

This is Chicago School economics run riot UK style. It is appalling. Chicago School economic run riot always leads to 'social unrest and dissent'.

It is quite possible for a keeper not to be the owner, viz a Motability or car on a personal lease contract.

A motability car would be registered as an invalid vehicle, and a leased car would be flagged up when an HPI check is made. Bailiffs can not immobilize a vehicle with £0.00 VEL and registered as an invalid carriage, they can immobilize a vehicle that is on "finance" but must release it as soon as proof is provided that it also belong to a third party, the Finance Company in this case.

A cehicle purchased with a personal loan, and not secure on such vehicle can be seized and sold at auction.

"A cehicle purchased with a personal loan, and not secure on such vehicle can be seized and sold at auction."

Exactly so, but the bailiffs still try it on with Motbility and vehicles on a disabled taxation class £0.00 VED.

Exactly so, but the bailiffs still try it on with Motbility and vehicles on a disabled taxation class £0.00 VED.

If a bailiff immobilises one of these could very likely wave goodbey to his/her certificate......there is no harm in trying to bluff, after all the "target" of the bailiff does owe money to somebody for a valid reason.

If a bailiff immobilises one of these could very likely wave goodbey to his/her certificate......there is no harm in trying to bluff' date=' after all the "target" of the bailiff does owe money to somebody for a valid reason.[/quote']

In theory, but a bailiff is an inveterate incorrigible liar, greedy for fees which is why he will try it on. I know of one who threatened to seize an electric wheelchair , saying the debtor could always use a manual one to get around, when he realised the adapted car that was driven directly from a wheelchair as in up the rear ramp, and chair clamped behind steering wheel was exempt from seizure.

 

As it happened the case was returned on vulnerability grounds, and the bailiff got diddly squat.

In theory, but a bailiff is an inveterate incorrigible liar, greedy for fees which is why he will try it on.

As hard as it seems please do not tar all with the same brush.

As hard as it seems please do not tar all with the same brush.

Why not, bailiffs tar all debters with the same brush

 

 

 

Why not, bailiffs tar all debters with the same brush

How do they, do you personally know and have had dealings with all Bailiffs?

As hard as it seems please do not tar all with the same brush.

danmcr, there are many bailiffs out there who do the job correctly, due to the nature of an advice site we will usually encounter the not so good and downright awful ones, so no offence intended to the good ones who we rarely see or hear about.

Something that would assist an Enforcement Officer greatly and would also prevent a great deal of the argument above would be for the DVLA to allow real-time registered keeper checks on vehicles.

At present it takes most HCEOs 24-48 hours and those using manual requests much longer.

Another and possibly even more sensible option would be to allow the enforcement industry to reverse-check vehicle registrations. This way the debtors details could be put into the DVLA database and in return it could provide details of vehicles registered to that debtor. This would surely improve the recovery of LA, government and court fines/judgment debts.