The command on a writ is to take control of the debtor’s goods and sell them. Attempts have been made to do so and goods cannot be controlled legally. It is not possible to complain on those grounds. Adding an ES2 would only mean that more monies recovered would have to be divided pro rata, leaving the creditor with less money.

It is important to understand the role of an EA. He is engaged at crisis point of any debt when all other attempts at recovery have failed. His job is to take control of goods in order to obtain funds to pay the debt. I think you are doing the right things by communicating with the council and the welfare department at Marstons. Ultimately, it will be their decision as to whether your car is returned. I don’t think there’s anything in legislation covering proxy blue badge holders so it will be down to a decision made by either the council or Marstons.

Legally no. As I’ve said previously, you’ve made life difficult for yourself by not responding or attempting to deal with the penalty for 6 months. You haven’t acted promptly, in fact, the only time you’ve acted is when your car was under threat. The blue badge may influence the council but as you have an asset in the car, the other issues aren’t likely to have much influence at this crisis point.

The bailiff is doing his job and will not get paid unless he recovers any money. Marstons have to weigh up the prospects of hefty removal and storage costs that will not be recovered if the car is deemed exempt (or they are instructed to release it by the council). The fact that they have continued with removal is worrying for you. There is little you can do between now and Monday but if you are considering borrowing the money and paying the debt off, the quicker you do it, the better as storage charges are not cheap.

The problem you have is that you have been aware that this penalty was due since August of last year. The rule of thumb in this country is that you should act promptly if you want to challenge anything or wish to ask for time to pay etc. In legal matters, acting promptly can be deemed as acting within a few days. The first thing the council will ask is how could you afford to go abroad when you can’t afford to pay the PCN? Secondly, they will want to know how your parents coped without you or your car for an extended period while you were abroad? Has the bailiff removed the vehicle or was his threat a ploy to force you to pay?

You haven’t done yourself any favours by waiting for 2 months to reply to Marston. Bailiffs may not clamp a vehicle that is displaying a blue badge. Was your vehicle displaying one at the time it was clamped? I would contact the council directly and furnish them with all the information that you provided in post #1, asking that they instruct Marston to remove the clamp and await the outcome of your universal credit applications/fraud investigation. It seems that your parents are heavily dependant on you and your car and this may just be enough to enable the clamp to be removed.

Paragraph 66 is relevant because the EA has breached Schedule 12 by using force against a person. It follows that the option is there (as prescribed) to initiate proceedings against the creditor. It is pointless comparing EAs with bus drivers or any other industry as they are bound by their own specific, strict rules and regulations. That said, I personally couldn’t see the point of pursuing a creditor. As in all scenarios, there are always at least 2 sides to any story and we do not know for example if the debtor was still holding the EAs car keys when the first altercation occurred. The case clearly isn’t “open and shut” because the EA still hasn’t been charged with anything. Issuing a complaint (EAC2) sounds good on paper but people need to understand what they are letting themselves in for - It is not a complaint as such as it can lead to a court hearing where the losing party will almost certainly be ordered to pay the winning Side’s costs. The best course of action here is is to await the police investigation and then see what the solicitor who is keen on acting has to say. I think everyone is in agreement that pursuing Equita is a non-starter.

You may wish to have a read of paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. My interpretation is that there is no ability to go after Equita although there is an option to bring proceedings against the creditor - In this case the council.

Just a word of warning. Andrew Wilson has previously been chairman of the HCEOA. The whole thing is a complete farce. Bailiff companies will drag things out as long as possible. They will never back down or uphold a complaint save for one of their agents murdering a debtor. Your only redress is through the courts and even then, they hire specialists in the field and will only drop hands at the 11th hour. That’s the situation you are in so it depends how strongly you feel.

I’m sorry but he cannot force entry into a private dwelling that is registered as a business address. However, re-reading post #1, the OP has stated that the EA visited a “unit” which suggests that he can force entry into the premises. If there is anything of value inside then ignoring the bailiff is risky. As I stated above, it is debatable whether the EA will remove and store goods for the relatively small amount of £600. He would be mindful of the thin ice he is on in terms of the way he has applied ES2 and that the agency could end up with a hefty bill. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee this so we have to assume that goods are vulnerable and act accordingly. Only the OP can tell if there are goods at risk. If there are no goods of value (or the valuable goods can be moved elsewhere) then provided no vehicle is outside, there is little the EA can do. The biggest worry is that technically he can re-visit at any time over the next 10 months or so.

A HCEO cannot force entry into a residential property, business address or otherwise. Just reading the High Court Enforcemet Officers Association (HCEOA) interpretation of ES2: ”This begins if the person who owes the debt: refuses to make payment and also refuses to enter into an acceptable agreement to pay their debt and fees in instalments”

You really have 2 options here: ”Simply ignoring” the EA does not mean that the problem will go away. As there is commission at stake, your case will almost certainly be priority to the EA. He will return at some stage. You are not legally obliged to talk to him or grant him access to your home. If you have a vehicle then that will be a problem for you as he can take control of it. Likewise anything else of value outside. They probably know that they’re on thin ice so whether they’ll risk committing to towing and storing the vehicle over a £500 debt is anyone’s guess. You should assume that they will and act accordingly. Your second option is applying for a detailed assessment pursuant to CPR 84.16. This is a legal step and you need to be aware of the outlay and risks involved. On paper, you appear to have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. Either way, I would challenge the decision made by the enforcement company, outlining that you weren’t offered the option of entering into a CGA meaning that an ES1 fee alone was impossible unless you paid in full. Ask them to confirm that the complaint process has been exhausted. You can always fall back on a detailed assessment if you are forced to part with more money at any point.

This is ridiculous. Almost child like in its stupidity and totally against the principles of the Schedule 12 procedure. By their own admission, you were not offered the option of entering into a CGA for the balance. You were told if you did not pay in full, the case would escalate directly to ES2. This was incorrect. The purpose of ES1 is to attempt to obtain payment in full or to enter into a controlled goods agreement. Only if those two options have failed should ES2 be considered. You can’t bypass a CGA just because it’s financially beneficial to do so. By their reckoning, there is no incentive whatsoever to offer the option of a CGA because they lose circa £500 if they offer it. The EA should have offered the option of a CGA for the balance. He is at fault for not doing so - Almost certainly motivated by the extra commission he earns from charging an ES2 fee.

Hi. In fairness to CES, if the vehicle is not on the debtor’s drive, it would be difficult for their agent to ascertain whether or not the debtor actually owns a vehicle. Regarding the fees, are you saying the following: 1. You have received around £135 from the £450 collected thus far? 2. You have paid VAT on the fees? CES appear to have charged (in fees) £75 for the compliance stage, £190 for the first enforcement stage and a small amount (7.5%) of £95.75 which is the amount they may recover on anything over the first £1000. VAT would have been added to these figures. You should not have been charged VAT unless you are VAT registered. The debtor would be liable for any VAT payments. On collecting part payment from the debtor, CES were entitled to take their compliance fee in full first. Following on from that, any other monies recovered should have been paid pro-rata. As your outstanding balance is around 5 times greater than that of CES, it would seem reasonable to split payments at a ratio of 5:1. It would be worth asking CES if they have made an enforcement stage 2 visit.

Having reviewed the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations several times, I have seen nothing that prescribes the taking of the compliance fee up front from the debtor. The fact that they all do it does not automatically mean that they are correct in doing so. My interpretation of the regulations is that ALL stages of enforcement should be split pro-rats from proceeds, including the compliance fee. Furthermore, if the creditor is not VAT registered, they should not be charged VAT. Happy to be corrected. Personally, I would exhaust the bailiff avenue before throwing more money at it by way of applying for an attachment. If you can locate the vehicle, you have a good chance with enforcement. One tip - Debtors often change ownership of vehicles on paper by registering a different name on the V5 document. It’s worth noting that for the purposes of enforcement, vehicles become bound from when the writ is issued. In essence, this means change of ownership may not take place. If you locate a vehicle, you can go online and pay to see when the last change of registered keeper took place. It only costs a small amount. You won’t be given details (names etc) but you’ll be able to see when the registered keeper was last changed. If it was after the date the writ was issued, inform CES of this and request they obtain proof of ownership for the relevant time - At the time the writ was issued.