Perhaps they hope to find an alternative interpretation DB

I welcome that.

Start with this from the taking control of goods fees regulations:

Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

4.—(1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.

Notice this regulation does not refer to trigger points , it just stares plainly that fees will apply when the stage is reached.

The stages for none HCEO enforcement is itemised here

(4) For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant stage of enforcement is determined according to regulation 5 or 6 as appropriate.

©the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale

Again perfectly plain."The first attendance to take goods to place of sale"

There is no reason why "attendance "in subsection "c" would mean anything different that the mention of the same term in subsection (b) Enforcement stage), Leaving aside for a minute that goods must be under control before they are taken, which they most certainly must(only controlled goods can be taken for sale). The goods in any case would have to be identified and listed, in order for any sale to be arranged, this is a requirement.. Also the EA would have to be aware that goods were suitable for sale before he attended, how would he do that on first attendance.

The purpose of the Civea guidence is to maintain a situation where EAs can say if and when sale stages begin. It is very handy for them to say the sale has started at enforcment, it enables them to apply more pressure and saves them another visit. In fact the act is designed to prevent that very thing. The stages are separated and each is triggered by an attendance, as per section 5 The start of each enforcment stage is thereby set in stone and not open to interpretation.

Start with this from the taking control of goods fees regulations:

 

The purpose of the Civea guidence is to maintain a situation where EAs can say if and when sale stages begin. It is very handy for them to say the sale has started at enforcment, it enables them to apply more pressure and saves them another visit. In fact the act is designed to prevent that very thing. The stages are separated and each is triggered by an attendance, as per section 5 The start of each enforcment stage is thereby set in stone and not open to interpretation.

I have to agree absolutely with your proposition DB, CIVEA and EA's will want any fee trigger to apply at the earliest stage they can get away with.

In Capita/Equita/Ross 'n Robbers infested Council enforcement, this will possibly be when they send the Compliance Stage letter giving them £75, I would think they will be looking to preload all the fees as in £75 +£235 + £110 Sales Fee, and give the debtor the bill at Enforcement Stage, as they did their upfront fee fraud pre April 2014. They may do this by asserting this is the potential bill even if debtor does try to set up an agreement at Compliance EA's will try to engineer a visit to garner the £235 as a matter of course, and even assert the Sales fee is applicable imho.

I have to agree absolutely with your proposition DB, CIVEA and EA's will want any fee trigger to apply at the earliest stage they can get away with.

 

In Capita/Equita/Ross 'n Robbers infested Council enforcement, this will possibly be when they send the Compliance Stage letter giving them £75, I would think they will be looking to preload all the fees as in £75 +£235 + £110 Sales Fee, and give the debtor the bill at Enforcement Stage, as they did their upfront fee fraud pre April 2014. They may do this by asserting this is the potential bill even if debtor does try to set up an agreement at Compliance EA's will try to engineer a visit to garner the £235 as a matter of course, and even assert the Sales fee is applicable imho.

Completely illegal if you look at section 3 of the regs it says

(3) The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.

Completely illegal if you look at section 3 of the regs it says

 

(3) The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.

Yes it is unlawful, but since when has that botherd a bailiff/EA?

I feel that CIVEA guidance breaks the spirit and the black letter of the Regulations regarding Sales fee.

Brassnecked, I don't think you are right about the motivation of CIVEA in posting the advice although I agree the advice is unhelpful both for EAs and for debtors and advice groups. They don't even get the name of the fee correct, it should be the Sale or Disposal Stage fee not Sale fee. The advice is as follows for anyone that has not seen it:-

3.1 Regulation 5 draws a sharp distinction between the various stages.

3.2 A sale stage fee becomes applicable when there is a step-change between the

enforcement and sale stages. A "step-change" requires a positive action, the

best example of which will be the calling of a removal vehicle (and therefore

incurring a liability to a third party contractor).

3.3 What will amount to a step-change will be fact-specific, and it is impossible to

cover every factual scenario. The following, however, will not amount to a

step-change:

• a mere intention, or mindset, to remove goods

• that a number of enforcement visits have been made so as to meet some sort of

arbitrary "threshold" for a sale stage fee somehow to become applicable

• that an enforcement agent has been at the scene for a length of time - in other

words, by the sheer lapse of time

• where a vehicle has been immobilised, but before a removal contractor is

contacted

• where a controlled goods agreement has been completed

3.4 The above examples are set out to demonstrate (i) that a sale stage fee does not

become automatically applicable, (ii) that a passive or default approach is not

what the Regulations intend and (iii) that it will require a positive step-change.

I believe (know) it was put there because of concerns that some EAs were simply adding the Sale or Disposal Stage fee when they'd made a couple of visits during the enforcement stage or some of the other events that CIVEA list above had occurred and CIVEA genuinely want to say that was wrong. It was written by a barrister and unfortunately they got the name wrong, ignored that the most definite start of the stage is a new visit and started talking about "step changes" which is a new phrase introduced by the barrister.

To my mind, rather than listing examples of bad reasons, they should have specified the two very definite "step changes" that definitely indicates the enforcement stage has ended and the sale or disposal stage has begun, as they cover the vast majority of situations where charging it is valid. The situations are to my mind:-

1) When a visit is made following an earlier visit on which control had been taken of goods. The earlier visit had been part of the enforcement stage and would usually be where a controlled goods agreement had been entered into. The visit that starts the sale or disposal stage is made to go to remove the controlled goods unless the debtor pays.

2) Where goods are actually removed to a place of sale.

It was important to the MoJ not to require that goods have to be removed as if that was the case EAs would be incentivised to remove goods as soon as they turned up rather than allowing a reasonable time for the debt to be paid. This would be against the intention of the government and hopes of the advice sector that the Schedule 12 procedure would lessen the impact on co-operative debtors on the doorstep.

Yes I agree. I wonder why the barrister chose to introduce the term "step change" when the sale disposal stage is so well defined within the regulation ?

As said earlier there is the option or the EA to remove goods at the enforcment stage to secure. In this case the fee would be due on removal from the place of storage to the place of sale, the debtor should be notified of this event.

Yes that's how I see it DB. If control is taken by instant removal to a place of storage rather than sale that is part of the enforcement stage and the sale or disposal fee is not incurred.

You could, however, have a situation where control is taken by immobilising a vehicle where it stands and after 2 hours the clamp removed and the then controlled vehicle is removed to a place of sale. That would seem to trigger the sale or disposal fee without there being a need for a separate visit though I suppose the EA could walk away from the vehicle and then walk back to is to show a separate attendance.

The easier to understand occurrence would be for a separate visit being made after some time had elapsed since the controlled goods agreement had been entered into. The debtor would have been given a payment arrangement which they either defaulted upon or never started.

Yes that's how I see it DB. If control is taken by instant removal to a place of storage rather than sale that is part of the enforcement stage and the sale or disposal fee is not incurred.

You could, however, have a situation where control is taken by immobilising a vehicle where it stands and after 2 hours the clamp removed and the then controlled vehicle is removed to a place of sale. That would seem to trigger the sale or disposal fee without there being a need for a separate visit though I suppose the EA could walk away from the vehicle and then walk back to is to show a separate attendance.

The easier to understand occurrence would be for a separate visit being made after some time had elapsed since the controlled goods agreement had been entered into. The debtor would have been given a payment arrangement which they either defaulted upon or never started.

Yes I agree about the clamp also although this is not universally held opinion, i have heard informed sources say that recovery after the two hours is still classed as enforcement, I suppose that this is one of the issues which will have to be sorted by case law at some future time.

Practically speaking i do not see how sale can be started at first stage of enforcement in any case. The four methods of taking control it seems to me end with goods being left either in the possession of the debtor or immobilised or in safe storage, so their would have to be another visit.

As you say immobilisation is in Schedule 12, para 13(1) as a method of taking control. It is one of four possibilities and removal to a place of storage is another. Only one has to happen for the goods to be in control. The sale or disposal stage includes all activates up to the completion of the sale. This would mean if the sale had taken place you'd have to be in the sale or disposal stage whether or not it had started with a visit. At what point it started if there had been no separate visit to start the removal would be open to debate but I think removal to the auctioneers premises would be considered part of the sale or disposal stage as opposed to removal to a place of storage being part of the enforcement stage still.

As you say immobilisation is in Schedule 12, para 13(1) as a method of taking control. It is one of four possibilities and removal to a place of storage is another. Only one has to happen for the goods to be in control. The sale or disposal stage includes all activates up to the completion of the sale. This would mean if the sale had taken place you'd have to be in the sale or disposal stage whether or not it had started with a visit. At what point it started if there had been no separate visit to start the removal would be open to debate but I think removal to the auctioneers premises would be considered part of the sale or disposal stage as opposed to removal to a place of storage being part of the enforcement stage still.

Yes. the idea that was forwarded stated that collecting the vehicle after the two hours required in immobilisation on the highway should come under enforcment and therefore not trigger the fee. The reason being that the sale section implies that some action should also have been taken to arrange sale(not possible within the two hours). I think when you base an argument on what is implied you are on dodgy ground, not that i do not think he may be correct, I am just a little dubious.

Regulation 18 of Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 gives more details about clamping. 18(6) says at the end of 2 hours the EA MAY remove the car to storage as opposed to must. They could remove it instead to a car auctions, fill in the entry sheet for a sale more than 7 clear days ahead and send a notice of sale to the debtor. There is nothing more to be done then until the sale has taken place.

If there is ever a decision that a separate visit is crucial even where removal is for the purposes of sale they'll just have to drive round the block and come back again which would be not so good for the planet especially if they are in a diesel vehicle!

Regulation 18 of Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 gives more details about clamping. 18(6) says at the end of 2 hours the EA MAY remove the car to storage as opposed to must. They could remove it instead to a car auctions, fill in the entry sheet for a sale more than 7 clear days ahead and send a notice of sale to the debtor. There is nothing more to be done then until the sale has taken place.

If there is ever a decision that a separate visit is crucial even where removal is for the purposes of sale they'll just have to drive round the block and come back again which would be not so good for the planet especially if they are in a diesel vehicle!

I dont think there is any requirement for the EA to stay with the car while it is immobilised, so i would think that the removal of the clamp could be regarded as another visit.

I should address this which was brought to my attention little while ago, it is apparently being put forward as justifying the charging of fees at enforcement stage, it is from the fees regulations.

32.—(1) Where control is taken of goods of the debtor under paragraph 13(1)© of Schedule 12 or controlled goods are removed to storage or for sale, the notice under regulation 30(1) must also contain the following information—

Not sure why people think that this say any such thing, but to clarify.

It is about the notice which must be given when good are removed, either at enforcement stage for storage or at sale stage for the purposes of sale.

As far as the contention that this in some way relates to a sale fee being due at enforcement stage is TBH a little odd.

The section states that the notice must be sent when goods are being taken control of(not yet under control) are taken for storage, OR. controlled goods are being taken for sale or disposal.

The two relavant terms here are the word OR and the difference between controlled goods and just goods.

In the case of "goods" being taken under control by placing in storage in section 13©, OR in the case of "controlled goods" being taken for sale which will have, at the previous stage, been taken under control, this comes under section 5 of the TCoG fees regs. Which incidentally says :

(b)the enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;

©the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal (including application of the proceeds and provision of the information required by regulation 14).

The fees are set by legislation.

Even I you have a £1 you could be charged 75 compliance and if it goes to a physical visit then £235.

I understand your pain.

However there is no relationship between what a bailiff charges in frees and what you owe in council tax.

The fees are calculated and prescribed in legislation, they charge the same whatever the amount due, and are not calculated as a percentage of sums owed.(accept HCEO)

Also sale stage fees cannot legally be brought unless good are taken under control. The bailiff does not have possession of the property in goods until this legal procedure is completed.

You cannot sell what you do not posses and you cannot charge for something you cannot do.

However, I would still keep any goods out of the bailiffs reach until any dispute was dealt with or until any enforcement power had been dispelled.

sorry sgntbush crossed posts #,

 

You may also wish to be reminded that some companies have obtained advice from counsel regarding the sale fee. It may well be YOUR opinion that the sale fee may not be added at this stage but I can assure you that some bailiff companies beg to differ and do indeed charge sale fees on subsequent visits.

I am fully aware of the counsels opinion and I'm also aware that some companies are trying to charge the 'sale stage' fee. It was one of the interesting subjects from John Kruse yesterday and he agreed with me that the advice from the HCEOA is a good one.

I did not say it is a good idea to sit it out , as you call it.

What I said , if you are in a dispute, then it is best to keep goods out of the way.

PLEASE RE-READ THE PARGRAPH YOU QUOTED.

Incorrect - HCEOs charge a % after the first £1,000, all other types of enforcement charge a % after the first £1,500

 

Yes indeed, this is why I put accept HCEOs in the parenthesis."they charge the same whatever the amount due, and are not calculated as a percentage of sums owed.(accept HCEO) "

As for when sale fees are due. ask John.

I am fully aware of the counsels opinion and I'm also aware that some companies are trying to charge the 'sale stage' fee. It was one of the interesting subjects from John Kruse yesterday and he agreed with me that the advice from the HCEOA is a good one.

This is nothing new, I remember it being written about some years ago.

If I remember correctly this was about HCEO and not about ordinary bailiffs who half the time do not want to take goods for sale in any case. I don't see what this has to do with this thread which is about council tax.

 

I suggest the troll starts a thread on this. and talks to himself for a few minutes.

Yet again, as with all other threads, we have 'Alreadyexists' attempting (but failing) to 'score points' and taking a thread off topic.

No removing access to goods until a dispute is decided is not the same as trying to avoid fees.

Spelling?

For gods sake grow up.

TCE regs Tcog 2013

Collapse -PART 3 SALE OF CONTROLLED GOODS

36.Part 3 not to apply to securities

Notice of sale

37.Minimum period before sale

38.Minimum period of notice of

I have no idea what you have been reading, but if I were you, I would get someone to explain it to you before you comment.

Nobody mentioned "avoiding fees". "Sitting it out" can mean any one of several things. It is not exclusive to legitimately avoiding bailiff fees.

 

It wasn't a "spelling mistake", it was the use of the completely wrong word.

 

As for the piece of legislation you have posted, ROFL. I think that it's you who needs to get someone to explain it for you - The sale fee begins at the start of the action, not at the end and no sale needs to take place for the fee to be incurred.

You do want to argue about the word though which proves my point.

The other point you miss, is that the section title reveals that only goods which are under control can be sold, the sale cannot commence until goods are under control which contradicts your earlier statement. Are you trying to argue something else only you fail to understand now?

No Bailiff Advice. That is not the case, other than inside your mind.

 

You do not like to be shown to be wrong and take great offence when you are. That is what all your anger is about, no matter how you try to dress it up with your distortions and lies.

Sorry but , if we had a vote, I think you would realise it is in everyone's mind.

As far as I can see you are only permitted to post on here as a source of amusement, and we ain't laughing with you.

As far as the point raised by the OP is concerned(if we can remember that far back), the fee is not related to he amount clamed it is statutory and unrelated.

The authority doe not see a penny, no matter what the bailiffs are permitted to charge, which was the point.

You do not like to be shown to be wrong and take great offence when you are. That is what all your anger is about, no matter how you try to dress it up with your distortions and lies.

I want to comment on this also.

You have a problem with differentiating between what you say and do and what others do, it seems.

The only one displaying anger is you, as indeed you always do and have always done.

It seems that everything you accuse others of, is something you patently do yourself.

If you cannot help this, and it is some kind of diagnosed problem please accept my apologies, but if it isn't you really should see someone who can help you.