The new bailiff regulations came into effect on 6th April 2014 and a most welcome change was that with the exception of CCJ's £600 that are transferred to the High Court each debt type (council tax arrears, unpaid road traffic debts and magistrate court fines) now has fixed bailiff fees (Compliance Fee of £75 and Enforcement Fee of £235).

To bring the enforcement of unpaid magistrate court fines into line with the new regulations it was necessary to amend the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 and this was achieved under a series of amendments outlined in paragraph 45 of Schedule 13 of the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. On the same date (6th April 2014) the Magistrate's Courts Rules 1981 were also amended to provide that the person owing the court fine would in future be referred to as a 'debtor'.

Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Enforcement of fines and others order for payment) outlines the procedure that must be followed when a warrant of control (previously a warrant of distress) is enforced by a bailiff/enforcement agent.

As a consequence of Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the associated Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 coming into effect on 6th April 2014 the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has brought the rules up to date.

The changes are outlined in the new Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 which were laid in Parliament a few days ago.

The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 were laid in Parliament on 12th January and outline a series of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014….the most important of which features under Rule 10 in relation to the enforcement of Magistrate court fines. Details are outlined below.

Rule 52.2 (Enforcement of fines and others order for payment) has been substituted to read:

The final paragraph of the note to Rule 52.1 has been substituted to read:

Rule 52.7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014

The above rule has been renamed: Information to be included in a warrant of control

Rule 52.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014

Rule 52.8 has been substituted and renamed: Warrant of Control: Application by Enforcement Agent for extension of time, etc

Rule 52.8 outlines the procedure that must be followed in respect of an application to court by an enforcement agent to:

This rule also outlines the court procedure that must be followed by an enforcement agent in relation to Regulation 10 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014[/url] to recover ‘exceptional disbursements’.

Rule 52.9 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014

Rule 52.9 has also been substituted and is renamed: Warrant of Control: Application to resolve dispute

Rule 52.9 outlines the court procedure that must be followed in relation to Regulation 50 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulations 15 and 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 in cases where goods have been sold and there is a dispute regarding either the co-owner’s share of proceeds or a dispute about the amount of disbursements recoverable.

The application to the court may be made by either the enforcement agent, defendant or co-owner of the goods. There is a fee to pay for this application.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/13/article/10/made?view=plain

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee's Guide to the Criminal Procedure Amendment Rules 2015 was posted on the Justice.gov website on Friday and states the following:

Dare we hope that this will finally put an end to other FMOTL type forums advising debtors that they do not have to pay magistrates court fees, on the strength of 52.8.

I somehow doubt it.

(Not that the previous regime did any such thing in any case.)

Using your argument here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made?view=plain

see 4(2)(1) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.

My understanding of "PROCEEDS" are that the goods have been sold if not "sold" then no proceeds no fees?

 

My understanding of "PROCEEDS" are that the goods have been sold if not "sold" then no proceeds no fees?

In fact you need to look at the following regs:

Paragraph 50(2) of Schedule 12 states that " Proceeds are any of these -

(a) proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods

(b) money taken in exercise of the power ".

Using your argument here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made?view=plain

 

 

see 4(2)(1) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.

 

 

My understanding of "PROCEEDS" are that the goods have been sold if not "sold" then no proceeds no fees?

This is wrong and off topic, however proceeds are funds generated through an " enforcement power", not just the sale of goods.

Ba beat me to it

Who is authorised to exercise that power?

Who is authorised to exercise that power?

Wandering even farther off topic here mark, but it is the EA of course. But receiving payment is not exercising the power before you ask, anyone can do that(on the EA or authorities behalf). What is important is who has the account when it s being enforced.

NOw back to the subject of the procedure rules, uncomfortable as it may be for some.

What are the chances of more EA's applying to shorten the time scale under

52.8.—(1) This rule applies where an enforcement agent wants the court to exercise a power under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, or under regulations made under that Schedule, to—

(a)shorten or extend a time limit;

Dare we hope that this will finally put an end to other FMOTL type forums advising debtors that they do not have to pay magistrates court fees, on the strength of 52.8.

I somehow doubt it.

I very much doubt and the reason is this:

I joined this forum in 2006 and around that time, the DCA (Department for Constitunial Affairs) as it was then...entered into contracts with four companies to enforce court fines. Instead of the previous regime whereby different Magistrate Court Committee's had agreements with various companies to enforce these fines the DCA insisted that each company would only be able to charge debtors a set fee to enforce such debts and the fee schedule and the procedures that had to be followed regarding enforcement was clearly outlined in the Contracts. The contracts were of course updated over the years.

At that time (2006/7) whenever a debtor posted a question on this forum regarding bailiff enforcement in relation to a court fine one individual poster would openly state that the bailiff was committing fraud. On endless occasions the individual would openly accuse me of assisting the bailiff (to commit fraud) and the threads would frequently be closed by the moderators. The individual would simply rejoin the forum under yet another user name (about 15-20 names) and continue posting the very same nonsense.

As a result of the frequency of references to 'fraud' a question was raised by Lord Lucas in the House of Lords seeking clarification as to whether fees could be added. The response confirmed that yes....fees could be charged to debtors by bailiffs when enforcing distress warrants. Given that it was not the answer that he wanted...he ignored it and continued with his individual 'theory'.

A year or so later, the Court of Appeal in the case of JBW Group v the Ministry of Justice again confirmed that bailiff fees are legally charged to debtors. That person refused to accept the Judge's comments in the Judgment and instead, preferred to reply upon a comment from Counsel for JBW instead!!! He failed to read the judgment properly. He was then banned from this forum in 2012.

He then joined the LB forum where once again...he claimed that bailiffs were committing 'fraud' and that debtors should call the police and furthermore, even take legal proceedings against the Ministry of Justice. That individual wanted the LB forum to allow him to post links to his 'template' documents. This was not permitted by LB and he was banned from that forum as well a few months later.

He then joined another forum (which is well known to most of us on here). Despite the domain name being registered in his name he 'claims' that he does not 'own' the forum and given that it is hosted overseas (again in his name) he is able to continue to post utter nonsense about his individual 'theory' (because that is what it is) surrounding court fines without any moderation at all.

So far, not one debtor has confirmed that they have received a refund and instead, every day more and more posters are displaying letters received from the Magistrate Courts stating that the website owners 'theory' is incorrect. Despite the individual stating openly that he sees 'dozens' of these same letters he still continues selling the same 'templates' to unsuspecting debtors and giving incorrect advice.

As far as I am concerned the individual is associated with the Freeman on the Land movement and it will not matter one bit what is stated in legislation. He will continue to consider that his 'theory' is the right one.

Yes and it must be remembered that these rules have been redundant since last year and the amendments are catching up with the situation introduced by the implementation of the TCE.

EDIT, This is the case with many aspects of the legislation echoed elsewhere.

What are the chances of more EA's applying to shorten the time scale

Over the past few months many enforcement companies have been badgering the 'powers that be' to outline the court procedure in relation to these 'powers' and it was generally accepted that the amendments would not be made until April. There has been a fair amount of 'pressure' from many sources (including John Kruse) to bring these amendments out sooner and now that they are out possibly applications will be made to court. It is known that the Ministry of Justice is closely monitoring all court applications to ascertain whether the correct procedures are being taken etc. Once again....only time will tell and I would again reiterate that importance of dealing with a bailiff letter at the Compliance Stage to avoid a visit and goods being removed.

With reference to the above post #12 BA would it be best for all to concentrate on their particular skills/knowledge and to save energy and stop the referencing to other boards as it detracts from what people want to do and that is help

A poster can take advice from anywhere and by whatever means they chose? That is their choice, if the advice is wrong seek professional advice from a qualified Solicitor.

It solves nothing the petty arguments of they said this they said that, its not good confusing things further.

Wasting time energy and effort is counterproductive!

Yes and it must be remembered that these rules have been redundant since last year and the amendments are catching up with the situation introduced by the implementation of the TCE.

The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Rules) 2015 also state that the amendments take into consideration regulations 6, 9, 13, 22, 25, 28, 29, 41 and 47 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and regulation 10, 15 and 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

For clarity who can issue the Warrants of Control? The bench or the Fines Officer or both? If the latter what other powers are bestowed upon them in regards to the new regulations?

Obviously the EA does not have the right to an audience with the bench. If they wish to so they now need to make an application and comply with the amendments/regulations is this correct?

With reference to the above BA would it be best for all to concentrate on their particular skills/knowledge and to save energy and stop the referencing to other boards as it detracts from what people want to do and that is help

 

 

A poster can take advice from anywhere and by whatever means they chose? That is their choice, if the advice is wrong seek professional advice from a qualified Solicitor.

 

 

It solves nothing the petty arguments of they said this they said that, its not good confusing things further.

 

 

Wasting time energy and effort is counterproductive!

Yes and usually I would agree with you, however the purpose of these hoards is also to try and protect the debtor, their are many threads on here which warn of dodgy CMCs which give wrong advise and disappear with the debtors money for instance, there is no real difference, particularly from those who give advice which can worsen their situation, it is not a matter of differing opinions here, it is a matter of challenging wrong and dangerous advice

With reference to the above BA would it be best for all to concentrate on their particular skills/knowledge and to save energy and stop the referencing to other boards as it detracts from what people want to do and that is help

 

A poster can take advice from anywhere and by whatever means they chose? That is their choice, if the advice is wrong seek professional advice from a qualified Solicitor.

 

It solves nothing the petty arguments of they said this they said that, its not good confusing things further.

 

Wasting time energy and effort is counterproductive!

MM. As you will know, this forum does not mention names of other websites but once again today the website in question felt the need to start yet another running 'commentary' on this thread and its posters. Naturally they have once again provided a link to this thread. Posters on there and visitors may well reflect on the 'background' from 2006 and this is the reason why I had decided to post it.

For clarity who can issue the Warrants of Control? The bench or the Fines Officer or both? If the latter what other powers are bestowed upon them in regards to the new regulations?

The Fines Officers has the power to issue Warrants of Control under schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003.

For clarity who can issue the Warrants of Control? The bench or the Fines Officer or both? If the latter what other powers are bestowed upon them in regards to the new regulations?

 

 

Obviously the EA does not have the right to an audience with the bench. If they wish to so they now need to make an application and comply with the amendments/regulations is this correct?

The power to issue a control of goods order is conferred by section 76 of the magistrates court act by virtue of section 62 of the TCE to the court officer

Yes they must comply with the regulations

Edit and yes as BA says sched 5 of the court act

Again reading these new rules above it appears yet again the EA is still trying to get "the use of reasonable force" back in see 52.8(b)(iii) why will the EA not treat "debtors" as humans and with some respect.

All it appears to me is that they want to use force as a tool. Authorised or not. If not, then applying to the Court to be able to use it lawfully.

The above is an observation and not as a generality against all EA's some abide by the rules some.... well? some don't.

Again reading these new rules above it appears yet again the EA is still trying to get "the use of reasonable force" back in see 52.8(b)(iii) why will the EA not treat "debtors" as humans and with some respect.

 

All it appears to me is that they want to use force as a tool. Authorised or not. If not, then applying to the Court to be able to use it lawfully.

These raft of amendments were only made public a day or so ago and will no doubt be debated by solicitors and enforcement companies over the coming days/weeks. As I mentioned earlier, MOJ are known to be following all court applications to ascertain whether or not they are in keeping with the regulations and the 'intention' of Parliament.

Posting up the new regs will allow a general discussion thanks for posting them.

The information provided is slowly closing loopholes and makes it all the more understandable as to what is and what is not.

This is just more clarification and I would expect even more soon.

The power to issue a control of goods order is conferred by section 76 of the magistrates court act by virtue of section 62 of the TCE to the court officer

 

Yes they must comply with the regulations

 

Edit and yes as BA says sched 5 of the court act

Up until March 2006, the magistrates’ court had responsibility for enforcing the fine under the scheme laid down by the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which set out detailed provisions for enforcement. The system that was envisaged was of fines being imposed and enforced locally.

Under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the clerk to the court (now the justices’ chief executive) was responsible for fine enforcement using a wide range of statutory powers. These powers included using court bailiffs, attachment of earnings and income support, charging orders, the High Court and bankruptcy proceedings to recover the fine.

The enforcement of fines was significantly changed by the Courts Act 2003 and the Fines Collection Regulations 2006.

Decisions regarding the administration and enforcement of fines were transferred from the magistrates’ court to fines officers under s.36 of the Courts Act 2003. Since March 2006, once a fine has been set by the magistrates, they issue a collection order to the fines officer. It is the fines officer’s duty to enforce the fine. The power to issue distress warrants was transferred from the magistrates to the fines officer under sch.5 of the Courts Act 2003, paras.36-38.

The additional power to force entry into domestic dwellings was further given to bailiffs in sch.4A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, an extension of power never debated in Parliament.

Since then the fines officer has exercised what has been seen as judicial discretion in the recovery of fines and the issue of distress warrants.