Jump to content

E Munch

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

E Munch last won the day on January 11 2019

E Munch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About E Munch

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It will be good news if they do make it mandatory as at the moment, although almost everyone involved, including most debtors, the advice sector and the enforcement industry themselves want the filming to happen, the ICO has expressed concerns over the widespread use of this intrusive data processing. At the moment the legitimising purpose for such filming from Article 6 of the GDPR is "legitimate interests" and this means there needs to be a balancing exercise between the rights of the data subject and the enforcement agent. It the debtor (or another data subject that is caught on camera) doe
  2. As others have said and the OP understsands there is specific wording to say that an EA can only entrer premises via an unlocked door or other usual means of entry (for instance in a commercial building access may be via a loading bay which is not really a door.) There is no talk in the regulations of gaining accces over a fence to a garden to get to the outer door of the house and no case law which has examined if the usual means of access applies to, for instsance, a small ornamental garden fence that could be stepped over. I think if it wass a 6 foot fence with a locked gate it
  3. Has anyone seen the judgement in Rooftops South West Limited, James Slocombe, Paul Howell and Marcus Davis v. Ash Interiors (UK) Limited, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Claire Sandbrook [2018] EWHC 2798 (QB) ? Could it please be made available here? Apparently the judge commented about Claire Sanbrook (the third defendant in this case) purporting to exercise control over Direct Control Bailiffs Ltd (or their agents) from Florida.
  4. People are confusing two things here. 1. There is the ablilty or otherwise to charge the fees for entering the different stages of the Schedule 12 process and 2. the ability or otherwise to take control of goods if the Notice of Enforcment has not been sent to where you usually live. The two fees involved so far are as below. You can see from the description of the stages in regulation 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 that the stage has a specific start point and from regulation 4(3) that the whole stage fee is due before all the parts of the stage have taken
  5. I know the report is in the public domain but by giving so much detail of the circumstances of the case this thread is also infringing the privacy of persons concerned.
  6. Oh yes thanks for passing that on. I'd not seen that. For anyone that cares to read it on the Gov.uk website it is at this link. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/approved-enforcement-agency-update
  7. Section 4 just explains at what point in time the binding of the debtor's goods starts. I think you are missing the point of 5(2) which means even after the goods become bound an innocent purchaser can acuire good title notwithstanding the binding provided the purchase is (a) in good faith, (b)for valuable consideration, and © without notice. So even after one of the trigger points menioned in section 4 they can fight off (at least in legal terms) the EA's claim to the vehicle.
  8. There is a statutory scheme for third parties to claim goods that have controll taken of them. It does not involve nor require a statutory declaration nor an offical complaint. See part 85.4 and 85.5 og the Civil Procedure Rules. The wording gives the procedure and the timescales and can be found at this link and are pasted below:- https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-85-claims-on-controlled-goods-and-executed-goods Procedure for making a claim to controlled goods 85.4 (1) Any person making a claim under paragraph 60(1) of Schedule 12 must,
  9. This seems to be talking about the binding effect of an enforcement ower in accordance with section 5 of Schedule 12 to the TCE Act 2007. If so then there should be no problem. The wording is pasted below and you will note that there is provision in sub-paragraph 2 to protect genuinely innocent purchasers of bound goods so long as they did not know about the binding. If Ethel and Albert are as innocent and ignorant of the binding as you suggest you have the wording to assist them and hopefully you can dial down the anger and angst. Effect of property in goods being bound 5(1)
  10. Which companies do you mean? Are they ones not showing as in liquidation now? I can only see 8 companies of which he's been a director that have been put into liquidation and those are all Members Voluntary Liquidations which are not connected to lack of money, it is just a method of bringing a company to an end when it has fullfilled its function. A declaration of solvency has to be filed in such liquidations (Insolvency Act 1986 sections 89 and 90.)
  11. Equita are part of the Capita group and JBW are owned by Outsourcing UK
  12. The OP is saying when the vehicle was sold the purchaser or someone they sold it to has not re-registered it and is clocking up new penalties in the Bradford area. Answering some points raised by the OP:- 1. There are four methods of taking control of a vehicle [Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 13(1) (a) to (d)] In this case there are two possibilities. It could be just immobilised using a clamp and if so it must be left for 2 hours before being removed. I know of nothing to say it must be treated differently at night and it sounds like an urban or i
  13. If the debtor was not required to pay the costs of enforcement action against them, who should do so?
  14. Ah yes I'd not seen that thread. I'm glad you noticed the error, too. I gather the ICO has conceded it was their error.
×
×
  • Create New...