Given the seriousness of this thread, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain on this section of the forum. Sadly, this is not the first time that I have taken issue with documentation from DCBL. There is a long thread on here regarding this firm and their letters regarding private parking debts (more later). This firm are also behind the TV series....Can't Pay...We Will Take it Away. Yesterday, I was contacted by a gentleman who had received a letter from DCBL the previous day. The letter was received by post and was on headed notepaper from DCBL and clearly stated at the top of the letter (beside the word DCBL) the words: Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers. The letter referred to a 'debt' in excess of £10,000. Interest of 8% (since May 2016) had also been added. The letter stated the following: Unless we receive immediate proposals from you regarding the repayment of this debt, the recovery process will commence 7 days from the date of this letter. We may also make arrangements for a representative to call upon you to open up lines of communication. The person receiving the letter knew about the 'debt' and knew that it was heavily disputed. More importantly, he was adamant that court proceedings had not been undertaken against him and that a judgment had not been obtained. He intended writing to DCBL. Before being able to, he had a visit at his home from a High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL. It is fair and accurate to state that an argument broke out. The 'debtor' called the police. Astonishingly, the police refused to attend stating that they were satisfied that DCBL had authority to attend his premises to enforce the debt. The High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL refused to leave the premises unless he received payment. Under duress, the debtor borrowed a sum of £2,000. DCBL yesterday confirmed the following: That the debt had not been subject to court action. That a judgment had not been obtained by the creditor. That they were enforcing a 'pre judgment' debt. That the 'High Court Enforcement Officer' was attending as a 'Debt Collector' Members of the public receiving letters such as these will no doubt be hoodwinked into believing that the debt was legally due and that a court order exists. They would be wrong.

There has been advice given that the Schedule 12 procedures, which limit the exemption on trade goods to £1350 does not apply to County Court Warrants This is completely incorrect, The TCE and Schedule 12 procedure applies to all enforcement action. The assertion relies on this: In this case the section of the County courts Act : 89 [F1(a)any of that person’s goods except– (i)such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation; Was repealed by Schedule 13 of the TCE : "72 Omit sections 89 to 91" The TCE applies to all county court enforcement in all areas of course.

My mother owns a property which she frequents periodically as she lives mainly in her pub. She was alarmed to find out that the Gas provider had gained access to her premises via a warrant, to read her meter. They allegedly sent her three letters, but she has not received one and did not contact her by telephone. What is the current law surrounding Warranty o Entry? I did read this extract: Magistrates have become used to issuing warrants to authorize utility companies to enter domestic premises. The procedure under the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 (as amended) (“the 1954 Act”) enables the applicant utility company or its agents to enter a building or part of a building when reasonably required in the conduct of their business. Typically, they may seek a warrant to effect entry to fit a prepayment meter for domestic property or disconnect the supply in commercial premises where previous gas or electricity bills have been left unpaid. In the article it was argued that by so doing the applicant local authority circumvent settled practice in the county court, offend the principle of proportionality, and potentially invite the magistrates to misapply the law. http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Warrants-Entry Thanks in advance

One of the most common enquiries that we receive relates to the subject of Magistrate Court fines and whether or not the bailiff/enforcement agent is required to have in his possession a copy of the distress warrant/warrant of control. In almost all cases; the confusion arises from incorrect (and misleading) information on a small number of websites heavily connected to the Freeman on the Land or other such movements. These websites frequently ‘claim’ that companies enforcing magistrate court fines create ‘doctored or counterfeit’ warrants and debtors are encouraged by the websites to pay a fee to download a template letter which they are told to send to various Magistrates Courts around the country. In November a debtor wrote to HMCTS regarding this subject. He received a lengthly response from them which he posted on a forum in November. The following is taken from the HMCTS reply. For ease of reference, in post number two I have broken down their response into separate headings. In this post I have extracted from HMCTS's response the relevant case law: "It is not necessary to generate a distress warrant at the time of its issue; the relevant details can be produced (and provided to the debtor) subsequent to its issue (or indeed subsequent to its execution) but such relevant details should be recorded at the time of issue" "Pursuant to section 125A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 where a warrant (whether a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress) is executed by a civilian enforcement officer, a written statement indicating the name of the officer, the authority by which he is employed and that he is authorised in the prescribed manner to execute warrants, must, on demand of the person arrested, committed or detained or against whom distress is levied, be shown to him as soon as practicable. Section 125B applies to approved enforcement agencies and makes similar provision". "Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010, rules 52.7 and 52.8, set out the procedure for the execution of magistrates’ court distress warrants. The distress warrant must identify the person to whom it is directed, the person against whom it was issued, the sum for which it was issued and the reason that sum is owed, the court or fines officer who issued it and the court office for the court or fines officer who issued it (rule 52.7(1)". "A person to whom a warrant is directed must record on it the date and time at which it is received (rule 52.7(2)). Pursuant to rule 52.8(2), the person executing the warrant must explain to the debtor the order or decision that the warrant was issued to enforce, the sum for which the warrant was issued and any extra sum payable in connection with the execution of the warrant. In addition, if he has the warrant with him, he must show it to the debtor or if the debtor asks, arrange for the debtor to see the warrant, if that person does not have it and show the debtor the written statement of that person’s authority required by section 125A or 125B of the 1980 Act"

Can someone clarify what fees are included in a Magistrate warrant ? I have read that the fees mentioned on a Magistrates warrant relate to court fees only and not any baliff fees. This then causes a problem for bailiffs when the person fined pays the fine plus court fee directly to the court and the court does not pass on the payment to bailiffs. The bailiff is then stuck with a warrant that does not cover collection of their fees, for which they have a contract with HMCS for. The bailiff company then issues their own document which purports to be an official document associated with the court action. They then try to use their own document to enforce collection of their fees, sometimes not showing the person fined, the original court warrant and they don't explain what fees the original court warrant covers. Is the bailiff company unwittingly committing an offence under Section 40 of the Adminstration of Justice Act 1970, by issuing their own document to collect their fees in a situation described above ? Personally I think that they may be and it is up to the Dept. of Justice to take relevant action to fix this issue. HMCS and the Police won't do anything, because they are part of the enforcement system, to a certain extent working with bailiff companies.

The Department of Work & Pensions has awarded a contract to Marston Group to enforce arrest warrants on behalf of the Child Support Agency. http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/15233/online-news/marston-secures-government-arrest-warrant-contract