Within the short space of just two weeks a website is reporting that yet another debtor has been arrested under section 68 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This is a new provision and applies if a debtor either cuts a wheel clamp from a vehicle or secondly (as in this particular case) "intentionally obstructs a person (bailiff) lawfully acting as an enforcement agent". The details of this new arrest are as follows: The debtor received a Notice of Enforcement from a bailiff company. The date on which he received the notice is not stated. The debtor decided that instead of paying the bailiff company he would pay the amount only of the Liability Order direct to the local authority on 8th September. He did not pay the Compliance Fee of £75. Given that there was still a balance of £75 remaining the debt was passed to an enforcement agent to enforce and a personal visit was made on 17th September. It would appear that the debtor confronted the bailiff and asked him for his identify and the debtor started filming the events on his mobile phone. The bailiff grabbed the debtor's mobile phone from him and in so doing the debtor sustained a cut finger. Police attended and they arrested the debtor and seized his mobile phone. He was taken to the police station. After the interview, the police dropped one of the charges (that of assaulting the bailiff) and charged him under section 68(1) of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a person (bailiff) lawfully acting as an enforcement agent)".He has confirmed that he has a court case in early October. The debtor is now seeking assistance from the internet. Firstly, he was advised to ‘act quickly’ to get medical attention for his cut finger as he could make a ‘personal injury claim” Crucially, the debtor has received the following 'advice': Nothing in this regulation enables bailiffs to levy distress for their unpaid fee. They have to seek a civil order under section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003 before then can enforce payment of their fees. Yesterday I started a new thread specifically concerning Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003. It is unfortunately the case that this debtor has been seriously misled. The truth of the matter is that the new regulations are very specific indeed in that the 'amount due' includes bailiff fees that have been applied up to the date of payment (in this case the Compliance Fee of £75) and that from any payment made the Compliance Fee is first deducted with the BALANCE being allocated towards the debt to the council. In this particular case, by refusing to pay the Compliance fee of £75 there is still a balance due under the Liability Order and the bailiff may legally continue enforcement until the balance of the amount due is paid. Crucially, the bailiff is NOT enforcing for his fee of £75.