Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[danmcr]

From reading Some of the new bits and bobs being quoted about the changes, I can see the regulations being pushed back a year or two again

 

I don't think they will, they are clearly being rushed through without clear thought following a lot of pressure from MP's, media etc etc.

[brassnecked]

The Stanford and Green thread is indicative of what may well be a regular occurrence when they bulldoze this dogs vomit of a bill into operation.

[Mark1960]

The Stanford and Green thread is indicative of what may well be a regular occurrence when they bulldoze this dogs vomit of a bill into operation.

 

Again I would argue that impounding has not successfully been completed.That is enough IMo to dispute the levy in the Stanford & Green thread-As I've said previously,the TC&E Act part 3 which will also come into force next year,clearly states what is expected in order to constitute a valid levy.A walking possession must be an agreement that is entered into by both sides,a bailiff cannot eimply slap a levy on a vehicle & then post paperwork through the letterbox.I addition,the debtor is required to acknowledge that the goods are now in control of the enforcement agent.

 

I believe an unsigned walking possession is not worth the paper it is printed on-The difference at present is that bailiffs will argue differently-Next year,they will no longer be able to do so as legislation on this matter is more transparent.

[HCEOs]

Again I would argue that impounding has not successfully been completed.That is enough IMo to dispute the levy in the Stanford & Green thread-As I've said previously,the TC&E Act part 3 which will also come into force next year,clearly states what is expected in order to constitute a valid levy.A walking possession must be an agreement that is entered into by both sides,a bailiff cannot eimply slap a levy on a vehicle & then post paperwork through the letterbox.I addition,the debtor is required to acknowledge that the goods are now in control of the enforcement agent.

 

I believe an unsigned walking possession is not worth the paper it is printed on-The difference at present is that bailiffs will argue differently-Next year,they will no longer be able to do so as legislation on this matter is more transparent.

 

A walking possession agreement does not need to be signed for a valid seizure to have taken place (although the seizure you refer to could be invalid for other reasons).

[Peterbard]

A walking possession agreement does not need to be signed for a valid seizure to have taken place (although the seizure you refer to could be invalid for other reasons).

 

I agree that this is currently the position, is Mark saying that this will change when the new relations come in ?

 

If so is there a link to the relevant legislation Mark ?

[HCEOs]

It is my understanding that the same will apply. It is only right as it is not always possible to get a signed walking possession agreement.

 

I think Mark1960 is reading to many old John Kruse books...

[danmcr]

I think Mark1960 is reading to many old John Kruse books...

 

or from a certain other forum!

[Mark1960]

A walking possession agreement does not need to be signed for a valid seizure to have taken place (although the seizure you refer to could be invalid for other reasons).

 

I think the operative word in your sentence is "agreement".How you expect an agreement to have taken place when one party is not even present is beyond me.That is aside from the fact that in the debtors absence,no act of impounding could have taken place.

[Mark1960]

or from a certain other forum!

 

Yeah-That's where I downloaded my removal of implied right of access notices from-Worked a treat as well.

[danmcr]

Yeah-That's where I downloaded my removal of implied right of access notices from-Worked a treat as well.

 

Ha ha I'm sure it did. What you use it for, to wipe you a*s?

[Mark1960]

I agree that this is currently the position, is Mark saying that this will change when the new relations come in ?

 

If so is there a link to the relevant legislation Mark ?

 

Have a read of Schedule 12,Section 13 (1)f the TC&E Act 2007 (due to come into force next April)

 

Further clarity can be found in Shedule 12 Section 13 (4) of the same act.

[Mark1960]

Ha ha I'm sure it did. What you use it for, to wipe you a*s?

 

No-I use the tedious letters that they now send me for that purpose.

[HCEOs]

"Notice of removal of implied rights" ------ laughable

[Mark1960]

"Notice of removal of implied rights" ------ laughable

 

It might well be for a HCEO & we all bow in homage to your undoubted powers.

 

To the mere private bailiff who is acting on behalf of the council & not the courts,they worked on both occasions that I used them.

[Mark1960]

It is my understanding that the same will apply. It is only right as it is not always possible to get a signed walking possession agreement.

 

I think Mark1960 is reading to many old John Kruse books...

 

Oh dear-Don't get much right do you?

 

Ever thought of going to the library & digging out a couple of old John Kruse books?

[HCEOs]

I think the operative word in your sentence is "agreement".How you expect an agreement to have taken place when one party is not even present is beyond me.

 

As I said earlier, an agreement does not need to be made for the goods to be formally seized. If goods are seized then a walking possession agreement is left at the property which should be signed and returned by the debtor.

 

If you are taking your advice from the forum I suspect then there is little hope for you as the owner/moderator knows little about enforcement and appears, like you, to misinterpret almost every regulation and case law there is.

[Mark1960]

As I said earlier, an agreement does not need to be made for the goods to be formally seized. If goods are seized then a walking possession agreement is left at the property which should be signed and returned by the debtor.

 

If you are taking your advice from the forum I suspect then there is little hope for you as the owner/moderator knows little about enforcement and appears, like you, to misinterpret almost every regulation and case law there is.

 

I've got a court case lined up at present.Some of the interpretations of case law & indeed legislation that my council (via their solicitors) have used is laughable-Quality entertainment.So don't start preaching about "interpretating"-Very rich coming from the bailiff who interprets agreements to have been made when one side is not even present.

 

For clarity-An agreement needs to be made by both parties so the levy on the other thread is invalid.Secondly your "understanding" that this (incorrect) notion will continue next year is also incorrect as you will have no doubt have now read the relevant sections of the TC&E Act that I posted.

 

I suggest that you get your own facts right before embarrassing yourself further by criticising other websites.

[HCEOs]

I think we all know who's embarrassing themselves here. You still seem unable to comprehend the simplest of facts. But let's leave that there.

[Mark1960]

Yeah right-Interpretations of Head H being applicable when no goods have been removed are correct as well in your little bubble eh?

[danmcr]

Oh dear-Don't get much right do you?

 

Ever thought of going to the library & digging out a couple of old John Kruse books?

 

Have you?

 

It's well known that John Kruse is well informed with it comes to Bailiff law however it is also known that not all the information in his books is 100% correct. A lot of Bailiffs and Bailiff co's rely on John Kruse books for advice inc myself.

[Mark1960]

Have you?

 

It's well known that John Kruse is well informed with it comes to Bailiff law however it is also known that not all the information in his books is 100% correct. A lot of Bailiffs and Bailiff co's rely on John Kruse books for advice inc myself.

 

Have I what?

 

Got much right or gone to the library?

 

I've got everything right but I never go to the library.

 

Hope this helps

[Peterbard]

Have a read of Schedule 12,Section 13 (1)f the TC&E Act 2007 (due to come into force next April)

 

Further clarity can be found in Shedule 12 Section 13 (4) of the same act.

 

Yes mark spent many ours debating them when they were going through the house in 07, I am just unfamiliar with the section that says that a WPA should be signed by both parties, I was hoping you could point it out.

[Peterbard]

Mark with the greatest of respect reading through this thread I think that you are in error.

 

The WPA is not an agreement between the debtor and the bailiff about the seizure of the goods, the bailiff can impound them under the warrant he needs no consent to do this, the agreement states that he will leave them with you on the grounds that you do not interfere with them until the debt is settled.

 

This is the bailiffs decision not the debtors, in this he does not need the consent of the debtor either.

 

The WPA is simply a record.

[Mark1960]

Well why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

If the debtor is not present,the debtor has not entered into a controlled goods agreement has he?

 

Even today,in a debtors absence,impounding has not taken place as the bailiff will not have been able to make his intentions known.

 

OK-I see where you're coming from-You want to nit-pik the validity of a WP where the debtor is present but refuses to sign.If it was that simple to just levy on goods there would have been no need to have required "close possession for the past few centuries would there?With the costs involved in modern day enforcement,close possession is not a valid option therefore it is rarely,if ever undertaken.An unsigned WP (constructive WP) is implied as opposed to agreed.The bailiff must then take regular steps to ensure that the goods remain in the custody of the law or they will soon become abandoned.Again due to costs involved,this is rarely if ever maintained & people like HCEOs merely rely on the general publics ignorance.

 

I would refer you to a quote from Philip Evans who worked for many years at the MOJ & is highly respected in the enforcement sector:

 

"taking" walking possession is always risky and should never be done

[Mark1960]

Mark with the greatest of respect reading through this thread I think that you are in error.

 

The WPA is not an agreement between the debtor and the bailiff about the seizure of the goods, the bailiff can impound them under the warrant he needs no consent to do this, the agreement states that he will leave them with you on the grounds that you do not interfere with them until the debt is settled.

 

This is the bailiffs decision not the debtors, in this he does not need the consent of the debtor either.

 

The WPA is simply a record.

 

How can I be in error?

In the case on the other thread,the debtor was not present-The bailiff simply cast a net over all vehicles in the immediate area and posted a worthless piece of paper through the debtors letterbox.No act of impounding took place.Goods are required to be seized & then impounded.Impounding is the "securing of goods" and is usually carried out by the bailiff stating his intent.This cannot be completed if the debtor is not present.