You can view it here TT - http://postimg.org/image/vzd7x9qtn/ I thought that they had misinterpreted S28, good to hear they've been set straight

My bailiff was back yet AGAIN today, left me another copy of the same letter, think that makes four in the past fortnight now. Pretty damn eager.

No worries. Will remember in future

Yeah, the forum shrinks it on upload. I've added a link to a third party image host instead.

This is the best I can do using my phone as a scanner: He was back again this morning and left another notice. Exactly the same as the above but with todays date EDIT: Attaching the image seems to result in some weird behaviors, half the time its not attached at all and some other times the link is broken and when it isn't the image is tiny, so i've uploaded it here too: http://postimg.org/image/vzd7x9qtn/

For anyone that's interested re bailiffs threats to force entry to residential premises to collect on council tax liability order, at some point this morning the following notice was left for me: "Enforcement Agents Attendance I have re attended your premises today with a view to removing goods under the powers granted within the: Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 pursuant of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Notice has been provided under the powers granted to me as a Certificated Enforcement Agent acting for . The said Notice and associated Enforcement letters pursuant to S12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows, if no payment is received IMMEDIATELY, that I can now apply to the Court for Powers of Entry. Should immediate contact not be made and the Courts grant me Powers of Entry the next course of action will be attendance with a Locksmith to enter your premises and remove goods. Under the powers of the Court this procedure can be carried out even in your absence. Please do not ignore this letter. Make contact with me and this matter can be concluded." [Emphasis original] Usually they wait a week or two between visits, it's only been a few days this time. Some very officious capitalisation in there as well

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/5/section/187/enacted I thought they couldnt do that too because of the above, S187 - Certain Benefits to be Inalienable. Do you remember on what basis the government claimed that didnt apply?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/9/made (4) Where the goods are— (a)auctioned by way of an internet auction site; or (b)sold other than by auction, the enforcement agent may recover from the debtor 7.5% of the sum realised by the sale of the goods. Yes, it is, in theory at least. They could flog debtors goods to a guy on a street corner. These regs don't seem to have been particularly well thought out at all.

The reason is that they and I disagree about my entitlement to the single occupancy discount. I've read that thread, fees dont fuss me, i'm emigrating within a month, the EA can do what they like, i simply don't care If they break in i'll just sit in the corner and read a book and not even acknowledge their presence (apart from filming them for YouTube), my goods except those few i'm taking with me have already been given to family and friends. I'm a web developer so they cant have this computer even if they want it , it'll just be a waste of their time and an interesting new experience for me. I don't intimidate easily. I only mentioned it since uncle bulgaria was wondering if anything about their powers to force entry had changed, Penham Excel think something has... i think they are wrong but if this is something EA's are going to start threatening as a matter of course then it's a problem. A little old lady or vulnerable debtor might not take it quite so nonchalantly as i do, not to mention the abuse of the fees structure.

Indeed, I may well write to the council about it at some point. Gonna wait and see whether they actually go through with applying for the warrant first though. Unless i've misunderstood the regs they won't get anywhere fast even if they do S28(2a) sets a pretty narrow scope. I did wonder if applying the 3rd stage fee improperly was a way of trying to provoke me into contacting them, but think it's more likely it's just a little scheme they've hatched to increase the return they get from their debtors.

Apologies if i'm wrong but what's the issue with using this thread? It's relevant to the subject matter (Taking Control Regs 2013), and i wasn't asking a question, i was replying to a point raised by another member with a pertinent first hand experience. Bailiffs (Penham Excel at least) are now threatening to get warrants to force entry (locksmith) to peoples properties to collect against Council Tax Liability Orders with no prior access/control agreement/contact with the debtor based upon what (as far as I can tell) is a misrepresentation of S28 of the Regs (neither condition in 2a being satisifed). Those same regs are the subject of this thread. Similarly with erroneously (IMO) charging the 3rd stage fee in the circumstances.

Just for reference, the fees charged in total are £387.50; it doesnt include a breakdown but i surmise it is as follows: £18+£24.50 = Compliance stage, they visited 3 or 4 times prior to the new regs so that's caught by the transitional arrangements. £235 = Enforcement stage, which they charged last time they came after the new regs. £110 = Sale/Disposal stage, which they must have charged today to bring the total to £387.50.

It's council tax, residential property. I thought adding on the third stage fee was a bit off too... stretching the interpretation to include a visit where he intends to remove for sale without having first gained a control agreement or prior access, or any contact at all in fact, is taking the mick I think. 5. (1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows— (a)the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage; (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). I assume they are relying on the underlined section and would argue that this visit was for the purpose of removing [transporting] goods as I havent responded thus far... doesnt seem right to me though, they havent even verified that I have any goods for them to take... plus I imagine they would have transported them to a storage facility in the first instance, not 'the place of sale', not sure though. Either way I think it's cheeky.

Penham Excel

Under what provision? Neither of the conditions in S28(2a) being satisfied? Quite , i've never had a threat that wasnt empty from a DCA or Bailiff.... no disrespect to HCEOs intended, no experience with you guys.