It is my understanding that under the new regulations the fees incurred cannot be included under any Attachment to Earnings Order. The reason being that the enforcement power has ended, so fees cannot, therefore, be collected. Exactly is the same way fees can no longer be collected at Committal stage, as the enforcement power has ended. Enforcement Agents can set Attachment to Earnings Orders, but being unable to collect their own fees I would have thought will not make this action common place. Obviously if the debt is still being enforced under Schedule 5 as had a levy in place prior to 6th April, then the Enforcement Agent could collect their fees under the Attachment to Earnings Order. Right or wrong?

Great, thanks, will get on with the Land Registry now. Cheers.

Cheers both for your replies, appreciate the info. Where abouts on the Land Registry would I find the info regarding tenants in common?

Hi Just a brief enquiry to see if anyone could provide any help/advice on this subject please. * Parents jointly own a property; * They seperate and subsequently divorce; * One parent remains in the property, but property remains in joint ownership as neither can afford to buy the other out, and there is a child still in school resident. Agreement that no sale of property to split the proceeds would take place until that child becomes 18; * One of the parents sadly dies before the child turns 18 and unfortunately has no Will. What is the legal position with the property? Does it automatically transfer to the other parent even though they are divorced, or do the children have a right to half of the property? Thank you in advance for any help/advice you can provide. Cheers.

TT, further up the OP has confirmed debt returned by Enforcement Agents as insufficient goods. Summons that the OP has therefore had is a Committal Summons. Council will be applying for OP to be sent to Prison for non-payment.

The Council cannot refuse payment of any kind, if an individual chooses to pay direct. However, the Council appear to advise that it is best to pay the Enforcement Agent direct, and there is nothing wrong with this. Because of the way the fees are paid now £75 Compliance Fee first then pro-rats for the £235 Enforcement Fee. Don't forget the debt inclusive of the fees is to be treat as a whole. I still read online "just pay the Council direct, there is nothing that the Enforcement Agent can then do about fees", but this is wrong. The Council will be the ones left with a debt after the Enforcement Agent invoices them for the fees, so that sort of advice is just making it worse. At the end of the day, if you have legally and legitimately been charged the fees, then the Enforcement Agent is entitled to those.

How many companies are visiting after 7 clear days though? I would have thought a large number of clients would be requesting a longer period for Compliance anyway?

You don't need an FOI to tell you that, it's in the regs....

I agree, 100%.

You need to read the posts above which quite clearly advise you when the new fees and regulations apply.

It would be very silly of an Enforcement Agency to send out this letter on a case where there is already a Levy in place. They would basically be delaying the charging of the Attending To Remove Fee and other fees that they charge under Schedule 5. Wouldn't be to their benefit anyway.

Wrong! If there is no Levy in place then they certainly can charge the new Enforcement Fee of £235. Only cases where there is already a Levy in place prior to 06th April, will they continue under old regulations.

I was referring to the main regulations, which some haven't even bothered to understand themselves yet. They have only been out since July and in my opinion are quite simple and understanding. Transitional Regs are more difficult to understand. No question. But still, if time spent reading and understanding,, asking questions, it is much better than guessing and making assumptions. Otherwise from Monday there is going to be some dreadful advice given.

Understand what you are saying TT, but at the end of the day, if you don't know how to advise during the transitional period then you are best keeping quiet and allowing others who do know, to advise accordingly. That was my point. Making guesses or incorrect statements isn't going to help anyone, least of all the debtor. The regulations themselves are quite easy to understand and follow if people just read them.

TT my post was aimed at BN.

But on another thread where there was clearly a levy in place, you told the debtor that from 6th April, she will be charged £235 Enforcement Fee, potentially £110 Sale Fee etc, which isn't true. You have me confused on your postings.

Have you got a copy of or somewhere where I can find the above by Jacobs? It's all down to whether a Levy/Walking Possession is in place, and with either of those, then old rules continue on any future default after 6th April. Cases which have the standard £42.50 charged will be transferred to the new regulations with the £42.50 acting as the Compliance Fee and the new Enforcement Fee of £235 being charged on the first visit.

Exactly why I've said before, people should be refraining from passing on advice that is potentially wrong at the moment. Just don't do it. It doesn't help anyone, least of all the debtor.

Not strictly true. Only cases where there is no levy or walking possession in place will move to the new regulations on default. The cases with levies and walking possessions in place on default after 6th April, will continue to be dealt with under the existing regulations.

Rubbish. He cannot charge the new fees under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations. There is obviously already a Levy and possibly a Walking Possession in place. Therefore, this case will continue to be dealt with and fees continues to be applied under Schedule 5.

That's exactly right TT as I understand it. Where there is currently a Levy or Walking Possession in place, those debts will continue to be collected under their current regulations. Where there is no Levy or Walking Possession in place but 42.50 charged, that will effectively act as the Compliance Stage. Next stage would then be the new Enforcement Stage and 235.00 charged if they fail to make an arrangement or keep to an existing arrangement.

Where have you read this re the Controlled Goods Agreement? I'm intrigued as from when I've read in the regulations it quite clearly lists the specifics that the Enforcement Agent must do when making a Controlled Goods Agreement: "a list of the goods of which control has been taken with a description to enable the debtor to identify the goods correctly, including, where applicable— (i)the manufacturer, model and serial number of the goods; (ii)in the case of a vehicle, the manufacturer, model, colour and registration mark of the vehicle; and (iii)the material, colour and usage, and (where appropriate) any other identifying characteristic of the goods". From that wording it is clear in the regulations that you can't just list "all goods".

Agreed TT

I agree on some debts they will be because of the extra 7.5% charged on debts over £1500, but wouldn't agree on all debts that it would make them extortionate. There will be quite a number who are better off. No doubt.

Playing devils advocate here. But say you are a joiner, would it be fair to say you don't need that particular van, you need a van? And could you also say it's not the van that's the tool of the trade, it's actually your hand/machine tools you use to carry out your job that should be classed as a tool of the trade?