The point I was making was that someone employed by Marstons as an enforcement agent, can also be directed to execute an arrest warrant and this is often the case. Clearly, he cannot have a warrant of control [to act as a ‘bailiff’] and a warrant of arrest at the same time for the same offence against the same person – ‘dual process’ is not permissible. I noted this because your previous post stated [incorrectly] that bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain or detain individuals and that only a constable could. The fact is that the three Approved Enforcement Agencies contracted by MoJ to deliver services to HMCTS, including Marstons, also execute warrants of arrest, detention and committal. They can assign those arrest warrants to any of their authorised employees, including enforcement agents. s.125A of the Magistrates’ Court Act states: (1) A warrant to which this subsection applies may be executed anywhere in England & Wales by a civilian enforcement officer. (3) The warrants to which subsection (1) applies are any warrant of arrest, commitment, detention ….. s.125B states (1) A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may also be executed anywhere in England & Wales: d. by an employee of an approved enforcement agency who is authorised in writing by the agency to execute warrants. Accordingly, Marstons can authorise any of their employees, including certificated enforcement agents, to execute a warrant of arrest! In terms of volumes, it is no exaggeration to say tens of thousands – I believe the current figure for all types of arrest warrant dealt with by the Approved Enforcement Agencies is around 150,000 with Marstons responsible for some 60,000 per annum in three regions, S West, N West and N East of England. While this is not much help to Sprouting, he should at least be aware that Marston’s employees CAN execute a warrant of arrest against his uncle. Considering his circumstances, it is unlikely they would, provided they are given the full facts and that these can be evidenced.

I think my username makes it fairly clear I am a bailiff and have been for over 40 years. I only post advice when I am confident it is correct and do not post 'opinions' or make judgments. - I simply seek to correct errors which may guide someone in the wrong direction to prevent further detriment. I have personally undertaken many arrests before being ''elevated' to a desk, the first in 1989 for unpaid general rates. I have bailed individuals or arrested them and transported them to either a court or a police station for custody and transported several unfortunates directly to prison. The Ministry of Justice contacts Approved Enforcement Agencies (AEA) (currently Marstons, CDER and Jacobs - I don't work for any of them) to provide enforcement services to execute warrants of control and warrants of arrest (financial arrest warrants, with and without bail, community penalty breach warrants, which long ago were the preserve of the police and committal warrants - arresting and transporting straight a defendant to prison). That I'm afraid is an absolute fact. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that between the three AEAs, they execute tens of thousands of arrest warrants each year. In the last round of tenders for the contracts, the three companies were required to employ [TUPE] the court employed civilian enforcement officers [who only undertook arrest warrants and were also civilians!]. Prior to that contract, arrests were undertaken either by the CEOs or the AEA. In some regions, the vast majority of arrests were undertaken by AEAs and have been for the past 20 odd years since the transfer of responsibility [for arrest warrants] from the police to the magistrates' courts under the Access to Justice Act 1999. s.93 of that Act dealt with authorising AEAs and The Approval of Enforcement Agencies Regulations 2000 set out the detail. Those Regs have since been superseded by Schedule 4A to the MCA 1980 which was inserted into that Act by the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004. AEAs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State for Justice and persons employed by the AEA are 'authorised' to execute warrants of arrest under section 125B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Schedule 4A to the Act sets out powers of entry, search and the use of force to undertake an arrest. However, as noted, local authorities have long since issued arrest warrants to 'bailiffs' since at least the early eighties. In short, it is not factually correct to say that "Bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain, or detain individuals. This prerogative solely belongs to a constable on duty, identifiable by proper uniform or presentation of a warrant card." While the EA is not acting as an EA when arresting people, it is EAs in the vast majority of cases [and not constables] that are dealing with arrests. Some of the AEAs will employ persons who do nothing but arrests and do not act as EAs at all.

Regarding the various posts that Marstons cannot execute an arrest warrant and only the police can, this is simply not the case. Marstons are one of three Approved Enforcement Agencies approved by the Lord Chancellor and appointed under contract by the Ministry of Justice to execute warrants of control and warrants of arrest, detention and commitment in the seven regions of England & Wales (Marstons deal with N West, N East and S West regions of England). Warrants of arrest include Financial Arrest Warrants issued with or without bail in respect of unpaid fines. Prior to issuing the arrest warrant, the court will have issued a warrant of control to seize goods which had [obviously] failed. The next step is to bring the defaulter (debtor) back before the court to deal with the unpaid fine. Where a warrant with bail is executed and the defaulter does not show up at court for the hearing, the court then issues a warrant without bail. In both cases payment of the sum due will result in the warrant being withdrawn. In brief, the person executing the warrant of arrest has the same powers [of arrest] as the police. Under Schedule 4A of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, they can force entry to execute the warrant and can undertake a search of the person. They can also use reasonable force to undertake the arrest. A warrant of arrest cannot exist at the same time as a warrant of control for the same imposition (fine) so, if this is an arrest warrant, then there is no interest in, or authority to seize goods. The fact that civilians can undertake arrests on warrants issued by the magistrates court has been set in statute since 1952 (s.50(1) Magistrate's Courts Act 1952) and is currently the case under s125(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980: "A warrant of arrest, warrant of commitment, warrant of detention, warrant of control or search warrant issued by a justice of the peace may be executed anywhere in England & Wales by any person to whom it is directed or by any constable acting within his police area." While this establishes the fact that Marstons can and do undertake warrants of arrest, it remains a matter for the person executing the warrant as to whether or not to execute it based on the circumstances of the defaulter. Either way, the matter will not simply disappear and at some point the court will have to decide on a final outcome. By the way, civilians may also execute warrants of arrest and committal in respect of unpaid council tax....

I don't think s.66 of Schedule 12 is of any help as it is a remedy where the EA breaches a provision of the Schedule - not where an EA does something which is not about the Schedule or executing the warrant, such as assaulting someone..... it's more about, for example, not sending the Notice of Enforcement or using force to re-enter without having given notice. While the alleged assault may have occurred during the attendance in relation to the warrant, can an employer be liable for something an individual does which is not part of the process. For example, if a bus driver has a road rage incident, gets out of the bus and assaults another driver, is the bus company liable for his actions as he's paid to drive a bus..... I doubt it. I don't think any legal action against the creditor will succeed as the local authority contracted the EA's 'employer' to execute the warrant in accordance with Schedule 12, nothing more. Also, as he is 'self-employed', the findings in Kafagi seem fairly persuasive anyway. It seems to me the only recourse is criminal proceedings against an individual for his [alleged] criminal offence. While a complaint about the EAs conduct while he was dealing with a warrant may result in apologies and reparations, I simply can't see any further liability on their part for this particular type of incident which is not part of the process for executing a warrant of control.

In respect of "granted this guy is on the register as self employed but Equita are still vicariously liable", it is likely they will claim they are not. This was the finding in the Kafagi v JBW Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 115] case. The Court of Appeal ruled that because of the regulatory regime in Taking Control of Goods and the structure of the relationship between the enforcement agency and the self-employed EAs, the agency was not vicariously liable for the acts of its self-employed EAs. Lord Justice Singh agreed with the JBW’s defence that the self-employed EA was at liberty to conduct the collection of a debt in whatever legal manner he saw fit, without control from JBW (who were the contracting company); he could ‘cherry-pick’ the work he wanted to do and could share that work with another person (even though that other person may not be known to JBW or the client). In terms of applying the enforcement stage fee, the trigger is "... the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions....". While it is clearly unethical to apply the fee by just posting something through the letterbox without even trying to make contact or take control of goods, the regulation failed to stipulate any action required. It would have been better to word it in the same way as the trigger for the sale stage by stating, "... the first attendance at the premises for the purpose of taking control of goods...". That way, simply posting a notice without trying to make contact would fail in being able to apply the fee. If no one was in, then fair enough but this is clearly a postman job to get around as many properties as possible and add fees without doing any actual work!

A couple of points. The enforcement agency are only obliged [legally] to send one Notice - the Notice of Enforcement giving you 7 clear days [most simply set it as 14 calendar days which more than covers the requirement]. In cases where a creditor places the case on hold pending the outcome of a late witness statement (appeal), it would be good practice, where it is rejected, for the agency to send a letter/text/e-mail advising they are resuming, but not a legal requirement (and perhaps too costly when thousands of cases are dealt with?). The onus would be on the debtor, knowing their challenge has failed, to resolve matters with the agent. The warrant itself does not have a 12 month lifespan, it's the process which is time barred. The agent must take control of goods within 12 months of issuing the Notice of Enforcement or 12 months from when any [compliance stage] arrangement is defaulted on. If a default happens after 6 months, for example, the 'life' of the warrant would then be 18 months. Finally, the agent/agency must 'give' notice but there is nothing which prevents them continuing to enforce where the debtor claims not to have [or really didn't] receive Notice.

On receipt of the warrant they add £75 compliance stage fee. Before taking control of goods they must give Notice of enforcement to you at relevant premises- which is either a place where you usually live or where you carry on a trade or business. The £235 (minimum) enforcement stage fee can only be triggered by attendance at relevant premises. So you only need pay the fine plus £75. Don’t try not to pay the £75 as this became part of the sum due on the warrant the moment they received it regardless of them sending Notice to the wrong address. it’s not clear whether they subsequently sent you a Notice to your current address but if they really haven’t sent the prescribed notice (not a chase up letter) then they can’t take control of goods or charge the enforcement stage fee

There are no restrictions on the day of the week only the hours. Goods may be seized 365 days a year.

The requirement that the NoE must be "given" does not mean it must be 'handed’ to the debtor. The Regulation makes no reference to it having to be ‘received’ in order for the procedure to have been followed. Under Section 7 of The Interpretation Act 1978, service of the NoE is deemed to have been effected by “addressing, pre-paying and posting it.” It also makes it clear that the word 'give' is also construed as 'post'. S7: "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." According to the Royal Mail, 1st class post should be delivered the next working day and 2nd class, within 2-3 working days. Saturdays are said to be working days as far as Royal Mail is concerned. The 7 clear days, therefore, begins the day after it is expected to be delivered (“in the ordinary course of post”) – because the clear days cannot include the day the period starts or ends. If I post a NoE today (Thursday 26th) by 2nd class post it will be deemed to have been ‘given’ on either Saturday 27th or at the latest by Monday 1st March. Taking the latter as the day the period starts, then the 7 clear days will be Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, Enforcement can then commence on Wednesday 9th March. Using the best practice 14 day period the letter would have stated that if payment is not made by 2359 hours on 12th March we will attend on or after the 13th March – 4 days after the actual 7 clear day period. Even when, during Easter, there are two bank holidays on Friday and Monday, the 14 day rule will provide the necessary days (without any computer having to work out when bank holidays occur) and two days’ grace. Finally, as noted by others, the vast majority of us agreed to provide 14 days’ notice from the date the NoE is posted in order to cover Sundays and any Bank Holidays that might be within any given period. This makes it easier for us and is fairer on the debtor whose mail is not delivered as speedily as it perhaps should be. NB. The reason Sundays and Bank Holidays are not included in the ‘clear days’ despite the fact that enforcement can take place on a Sunday or Bank Holiday is that post is not delivered on these days.

It's not in the new regulations. Section 66 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 preserves the current rules and regulations of the relevant debt recovery action where, before 6th April 2014, goods have been distrained or executed against, or made subject to a walking possession agreement. This means that if goods have been levied for council tax, business rates, parking penalties or a magistrates' courts fine before 6th April, then the new regulations will not come into force in respect of those cases - regardless of whether a walking possession agreement is in force or not. For magistrates' courts fines, of course, there is no such thing as walking possession. So if, for example, you default on an arrangement made under a walking possession agreement for council tax in May, the bailiff may attend and remove or attempt to remove goods and charge the fees he would charge today. The new regs are simply not applicable on these cases. The removal fee would be what it is now, "reasonable costs" and probably a lot more than the future £110.00.

Just following up on the above post - looking at another case on here titled, "Newlyn clamped car in supermarket car park" the debtor says that she was asked to pay £1,300 in respect of two PCNs. That's £650 per case. Assuming the originating debt was £137 the fees for each case (at that point) were £413 including VAT or around £344 ex VAT. Under the new regs, the fee at that point would be £385.00 for both (two compliance fees of £75 and one enforcement fee (control taken at same time) of £235. Expressed another way it would be £441 less (assuming there will be no VAT for debtors to pay in the new world). Even if VAT was payable on parking penalties, the fees would still be £364 less.

I knew Lord Denning and he felt it was archaic in its then form. We have spent so many years trying to modernise it and perhaps we may achieve that now 32 years later. Lord Denning sat in judgment of a great many cases where a debt that was due remained unpaid and while he felt the system of distress and execution was archaic, neither he nor anyone else could think of an alternative to ensure debts due are debts paid. At the end of the day, bailiffs only get issued warrants where opportunities to pay earlier are not taken. While I accept that a small percentage of the 3 million plus debts we deal with involve individuals who we should not be dealing with, most of us in the industry have taken steps to identify such people and return their cases to the creditor. That was not the case 30 years ago so we are making progress. When you can think of an alternative to ensure debts are paid let me know - and let the other 58 civilised countries that also use bailiffs know too! I have used advice on CAG to deal with a particular airline and when they would not pay, I threatened them with enforcement proceedings and the seizure of goods - then and only then did they pay up the nearly £3k they owed me. Without that threat they would have simply added my CCJ to the hundreds of others which are listed as unpaid against them. If I could have contacted the hundreds of the judgment creditors who from the size of debts were just badly treated passengers, I would have made a mint because the airline only pays when faced with the disruption of distress.

Brassnecked - I'm not arguing against the fact that financial difficulty will still be financial difficulty, just that the new fee scale (as far as I can see) won't increase the problem but actually help to cushion it. The problems you highlight are not to do with bailiffs as we don't set council tax rates or have anything to do with benefits or rent levels. By the way, bailiffs didn't start in the 12th century. The first records of bailiffs and bailiff 'laws' goes back to the 6th century and suggestions are that they were around long before that, probably around 1,000 BC.

I've never taken a washing machine and any bailiff that has must have been desperate. And yes, under TCoG Regs 2013 4(b)(ii), washing machines will be exempt from seizure. As far as the new fee scale being even more unaffordable I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, debtors will pay less provided they comply with the first stage. If an arrangement is agreed on receipt of the letter then the debtor will pay £75 of fees. Even if this is not possible, the fee at the doorstep will be £310. I imagine that compares more favourably that some existing situations with visit fees, levy fees, Head H fees, walking possession fees, attending to remove fees and so on. It is not uncommon on council tax for debtors to be paying in excess of £400 in fees after one visit. On road traffic cases, I see considerably higher sums being charged because of the 'reasonable costs' issues which can be several hundred pounds. I'm not saying all bailiffs have been applying every fee imaginable but I really think that overall, the fee situation will be better for debtors rather than worse. In addition we have still to hear on VAT which parking debtors currently pay on top of the fees. I believe this will disappear and be the same for all debt types whereby the creditor pays - if not, then parking debtors would have to pay £90 at compliance rather than £75 - which I'm sure won't be allowed to happen as this is all about harmonising rules and fees across the piste.

As noted earlier, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 have set out the occasions when this can be done after 6 April 2014: Re-entry may occur if on the initial entry there were no or insufficient goods to pay the sum outstanding - re-entry can then be undertaken if (a) further goods become available and (b) where taking control of certain goods on a previous occasion may have been problematic because the goods were in use.

We all know that bailiff law has been complex and confusing which is why all parties have worked to modernise it. John Kruse does say in several publications that a second levy is not permissible USUALLY but always cites the exceptions. I have laid those out earlier and also set out the exception[al] cases referred to by him. In another of his publications (from 2012) 'Sources of Bailiff Law' he clearly states (on page 129) for example: Despite what has just been said, and as has already been suggested, in certain situations a second levy may be permissible and lawful: After a replvy or where one party dies If there is a genuine mistake about the valuation of the goods, or if the value of the item is uncertain and the bailiff wishes to avoid an excessive levy, as a result of which he acts with "tenderness and moderation" towards the debtor by taking a number of small inventories If insufficient goods were found on the premises at the time of first levy If the bailiff agrees to withdraw or postpone the levy at the behest of the debtor. There is ample evidence to show that second levies can and do take place although I would admit they are not that common as most bailiffs will ensure sufficient goods first time round! While I take no offence that you might not believe me, surely John Kruse is a credible source?

Ancient case law if often misquoted by some parties and in this instance, I rely on the assertion of John Kruse as to the relevance of both quoted cases. As you may know, John Kruse is a well known champion of debtors' rights and undoubtedly one of the most learned people regarding bailiff law. In his publication 'Distress & execution' he cites these cases under the heading, "However second distress is permissible where...." I quoted only two cases but there are several others including Lee v Cooke (1857)27 LJ Exch 337 where a second levy was justified where the debtor's violent obstruction prevented completion of the first. Hutchins v Chambers was referred to in Quinlan v Mayor & Burgess of LB of Hammersmith & Fulham [1989] at the Court of Appeal where, essentially, Quinlan had frustrated the first levy by claiming goods were exempt. For fine detail on Hutchins and Rawlence you will have to look elsewhere or ask Mr Kruse.

Case law will become redundant on 6th April but no doubt new case law will emerge and I imagine similar arguments from old case law will arise to create such rulings. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 provides re-entry to seize goods under similar conditions to the old rules. 24(2)(a) and (b). Re-entry may occur if on the initial entry there were no or insufficient goods to pay the sum outstanding - re-entry can then be undertaken if (a) further goods become available and (b) where taking control of certain goods on a previous occasion may have been problematic because the goods were in use on the previous occasion.

For clarity there is nothing in the Magistrates' Courts Act, Rules or CPR that forbids a second levy to recover the sum due on a warrant. While there are limited reasons for other debt types, there is no prohibition on subsequent levies to clear a fine and costs. For example, if several goods from the original levy were later proved to be exempt, then it is reasonable to levy further if the remaining goods were insufficient to cover the sums due. In council tax cases (currently as least), there are two reasons which enable a second levy to be undertaken: 1. If an error was reasonably made in estimating the value of goods seized on the first occasion, and 2. where completion of the first levy was frustrated by the actions of the debtor. For rent (which is linked to parking penalties), there is a further reason (on top of the two c tax ones) which is: 3. where there are insufficient goods at the property on the first occasion but other goods are later brought into the property. There are other [case law] opportunities to re-levy including: 1. Circumstances at auction - In Rawlence & Squarey v Spicer [1935] demonstrators (linked to the debtor) made threats, harassed bidders and made ridiculous offers. 2. The bailiff acted out of moderation or tenderness (Hutchins v Chambers [1758]. Make an orderly queue to submit sarcastic comments on the last one...... Anyway, a second levy on a magistrates' fine is not prohibited.

The fees applied for this type of debt involve a single fee for administration (at the letter stage) and a single fee for attending. They have already attended and so the only other fee they would be able to charge would be for an actual removal. There is no fee for a levy per se, and as it is a criminal fine, they can force entry if you refuse to let them in - they don't need to have gained a prior peaceable entry. The magistrates have no authority to recall the warrant from the bailiffs unless there has been an error in the hearing/sentence.

Clearly I am out of my depth and must accede to your superior knowledge. I shall bow out and leave it to you......

No offence but the goods listed are really not worth removing. I would say that the table and chairs come under basic needs and unless you have another table and chairs, these would be exempt from seizure. I don't usually give advice on what to do; I usually just provide an honest opinion regarding the legislative situation. However, in your place I would offer to pay the balance due in two payments with half up front. Considering the likely outcome of a removal they would probably accept. That said, that's just my opinion and you need to make your own mind up. I can't really second guess what the bailiff will do whether you make an offer or not.

I should add that the bailiff can force entry (re-entry) to remove goods which were impounded on the premises. This is clear by the fact that a walking possession agreement was entered into. It would be necessary for the bailiff to give you warning of the date they intend to remove goods and if they arrive and cannot gain entry on that date, they may use force to re-enter. The only flaw I can see if the application of the £24.50.

The relevant legislation is Section 52(4) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended): "Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges, shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum." In simple terms, as previously noted, this means that any costs or charges due in bailiff fees must be paid before the outstanding arrears. If the council receive payment direct, they MUST, by law, discharge the bailiff fees. So if you pay just the council tax arrears and not the fees, you will actually be paying the fees!

Once a levy fee has been applied, the only fees which can be added are either a fee for an actual removal or a fee for attending to remove where no removal takes place. As I see it the fee on 23rd January of £110 can only be the fee for attending to remove where a removal did not take place (that could have been at the old address). They cannot charge £24.50 today (which is the value of a first visit fee for attending to levy where a levy does not take place). You cannot avoid paying the balance. If you pay direct, the Regulations clearly state that any part payment made against a liability order must first pay the [bailiff] fees. If the council accept your payment against this debt, it must, by law pay the bailiff fees and the balance is always the original debt/arrears. The post regarding allocation is not relevant.