Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[Peterbard]

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

 

Did Phil work at the MOJ ?( Does he know)

[Peterbard]

How can I be in error?

 

You seemed to be under the impression that some kind of agreement had to be made between the bailiff and debtor before a legal levy could be made,this was an error

[Mark1960]

Did Phil work at the MOJ ?( Does he know)

 

Nit picking again

 

ELRG-Happy now?

[Mark1960]

You seemed to be under the impression that some kind of agreement had to be made between the bailiff and debtor before a legal levy could be made,this was an error

 

No_I am under the impression that some kind of impounding must take place.

 

That said,without an agreement,a levy soon becomes abandoned anyway so I guess an agreement is pretty crucial in the grand scheme of things.

 

Maybe that's why its called a "Walking Possession Agreement" as opposed to just a "Walking Possession"? Just a stab in the dark like.

[Peterbard]

No_I am under the impression that some kind of impounding must take place.

 

That said,without an agreement,a levy soon becomes abandoned anyway so I guess an agreement is pretty crucial in the grand scheme of things.

 

Maybe that's why its called a "Walking Possession Agreement" as opposed to just a "Walking Possession"? Just a stab in the dark like.

 

 

Oh I see

[seanamarts]

Lets not get this into a flame war here guys, please keep it civil otherwise I will have to close the thread.

[hallowitch]

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.

 

As a rule I wound get involved on a thread like this don't know enough about legislation but I do have an opinion

the notice of distress and the Walking possession agreement used to be 2 different forms

now they are one form the walking possession agreement usually at the bottom of the notice of distress

Its about time they were put back to 2 forms maybe then it wouldn't come across to the debtor as this agreement needs to be signed by the debtor to make the levy legal

[lamma]

When the landlord impounds the goods upon the premises1, leaving them there without anyone in possession, that is sufficient custody, for they are in the custody of the law. If he abandons them, then the possession reverts to the tenant. Whether or not his acts amount to an abandonment is always one of fact when the point arises. If he puts a bailiff in possession it is not necessary that the bailiff should retain continuous physical possession.

 

The modern practice is for the distrainor and the tenant to enter into a walking possession agreement. This permits the tenant to continue to have the use of the goods and to avoid the expense and inconvenience of having a person in possession. The tenant agrees that in consideration of the distrainor not leaving a person in close possession and leaving the goods in their existing positions he will not remove or allow any of the goods to be removed from the premises. Such an agreement may be made by the tenant or a responsible person in the house.

 

Such an agreement prevents the tenant from saying that there has not been an impounding actual or constructive7. It does not, however, bind any stranger who is not aware of the impounding.

 

A form of walking possession agreement is prescribed9 and a charge for walking possession is provided for.

 

For the prescribed form of walking possession agreement see the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, SI 1988/2050, App 2 Form 8 (amended by SI 2003/1858). The forms in the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, SI 1988/2050, App 2 (as amended) may be used with such variations as the circumstances may require: r 2(2).

[Peterbard]

 

Its about time they were put back to 2 forms maybe then it wouldn't come across to the debtor as this agreement needs to be signed by the debtor to make the levy legal

 

The problem with this is that it implies that the debtor has a choice(ie if he didn't sign there is no agreement, no levy) in fact he has no choice an "agreement" is irrelevant.

 

It is a good idea to get a common record of the details of the goods impounded though.

[Mark1960]

The problem with this is that it implies that the debtor has a choice(ie if he didn't sign there is no agreement, no levy) in fact he has no choice an "agreement" is irrelevant.

 

It is a good idea to get a common record of the details of the goods impounded though.

 

Not much use after April 2014 though when Part 3 kicks in.

 

"To take control of goods an enforcement officer must enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor"

[Peterbard]

Again you are out of context

 

The measures below are there to ascertain the way the levy is made, not the legality of it.

 

If option (d)the one you mention, is not agreed, he can just go with option ©

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

 

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

 

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor

[Mark1960]

Again you are out of context

 

The measures below are there to ascertain the way the levy is made, not the legality of it.

 

If option (d)the one you mention, is not agreed, he can just go with option ©

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

 

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

 

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor

 

How am I out of context? We have for the past 2 pages been discussing the essence of the word "agreement".You are now moving the goalposts.

 

The likeyhood is that anyone strong enough to stand up to a bailiff regarding the "agreement" will also refuse him entry.As a consequence,the only option he'll have is to gamble on levying & removing a car there & then.Whereas visit fees will be higher,removal fees will be controlled and the bailiff will risk court proceedings for wrongful levy/theft etc.It will just not be practical for bailiffs to remove goods on the spot & if bailiffs were to risk this on a daily basis,they would run the risk of being sued collectively for more than they're worth.

 

In addition,it would not be looked upon favourably in a court of law if goods were removed on the first visit,thus not enabling the debtor a reasonable opportunity to address the issue.We are after all still the UK,despite the best efforts of bodies like the DWP and local authorities to conduct themselves otherwise.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Seems quite clear to me.

13(1) says he can, wrt a car:

 

a) clamp it on your driveway.

b)clamp it on the highway

c)tow it

d)enter into an AGREEMENT.

 

Don't see an option to levy and walk away without clamping?

 

The routine clamping or towing of vehicles that may not belong to the debtor could get rather expensive for Bailff Corp !

[Ganymede]

 

 

it would not be looked upon favourably in a court of law if goods were removed on the first visit,thus not enabling the debtor a reasonable opportunity to address the issue.

 

Hi,

 

What experience do you base the first part of your statement on? Surely the time to address the issue is at the CCJ stage, not at enforcement.

[lamma]

The law of Distress perhaps. The making of a distress in itself constitutes (only) a demand. When chattels have been seized, it is necessary to imprison and secure the chattels for safe custody until the cause of distress is satisfied or the statutory period has elapsed at the expiration of which the chattels can be lawfully sold by reason of the tenant failing to replevy them. The sale may not be held until five days have elapsed from the taking of the distress and notice thereof. See the Distress for Rent Act 1689 s 1 (as amended)

[Peterbard]

Hi,

 

What experience do you base the first part of your statement on? Surely the time to address the issue is at the CCJ stage, not at enforcement.

 

Yes bailiffs are of course entitled to remove goods on their first visit, the reaason that they don't(often) is purely a commercial one.

[Mark1960]

Hi,

 

What experience do you base the first part of your statement on? Surely the time to address the issue is at the CCJ stage, not at enforcement.

 

Hi,

 

We were speaking about scenario's next year when part 3 comes into force.Of course not all enforcement comes after CCJ's & debts like Council Tax & parking fines rarely see the debtor afforded the opportunity to speak in court.

 

Bailiffs are driven by the incentive of commission so they will clearly like the debtor to have a feeling of helplessness-The truth is that debtors are far from helpless.Bailiffs working for LA's for instance have a duty to ascertain if a debtor is vulnerable,what their financial circumstances are,if a debtor is in receipt of income support,housing benefit,etc,etc-To simply charge in & remove goods because a debtor refuses to enter into an agreement is not really a valid option.In these circumstances,9 times out of 10,the removed goods will be a car-Even if bailiff companies had enough tow trucks at their disposal,they would never risk the backlash incurred by multiple mistaken removals.

[danmcr]

Hi,

 

We were speaking about scenario's next year when part 3 comes into force.Of course not all enforcement comes after CCJ's & debts like Council Tax & parking fines rarely see the debtor afforded the opportunity to speak in court.

 

Bailiffs are driven by the incentive of commission so they will clearly like the debtor to have a feeling of helplessness-The truth is that debtors are far from helpless.Bailiffs working for LA's for instance have a duty to ascertain if a debtor is vulnerable,what their financial circumstances are,if a debtor is in receipt of income support,housing benefit,etc,etc-To simply charge in & remove goods because a debtor refuses to enter into an agreement is not really a valid option.In these circumstances,9 times out of 10,the removed goods will be a car-Even if bailiff companies had enough tow trucks at their disposal,they would never risk the backlash incurred by multiple mistaken removals.

 

Your forgetting not all Bailiff/Enforcement Officers work on a commision basis and the job of a Bailiff/Enforcement Officer is to seize the goods of a respondent and raise the sums to pay the balance and in most cases are ordered or commanded by the warrant/writ to do so. Payments plans/Walking possession agreements are simply at the discretion of the Bailiff/Enforcement Officer.

 

Bailiffs are not debt collectors nor telephone collection agents, however councils are treating them as such and are using Bailiffs far too often which results in the problems we see on this forum and many others alike.

 

Bailiffs should not be used as a first port of call, sending in the Bailiffs when someone doesn't pay council tax one month should not result in the bailiffs being sent in, especially in these hard times, more discretion should be used by councils.

[brassnecked]

Your forgetting not all Bailiff/Enforcement Officers work on a commision basis and the job of a Bailiff/Enforcement Officer is to seize the goods of a respondent and raise the sums to pay the balance and in most cases are ordered or commanded by the warrant/writ to do so. Payments plans/Walking possession agreements are simply at the discretion of the Bailiff/Enforcement Officer.

 

Bailiffs are not debt collectors nor telephone collection agents, however councils are treating them as such and are using Bailiffs far too often which results in the problems we see on this forum and many others alike.

 

Bailiffs should not be used as a first port of call, sending in the Bailiffs when someone doesn't pay council tax one month should not result in the bailiffs being sent in, especially in these hard times, more discretion should be used by councils.

Very true, unless the council is infested by Capita, in which case bailiffs are the first option, as Equita need an income, and they will see this change as a win win for them.

[danmcr]

Very true, unless the council is infested by Capita, in which case bailiffs are the first option, as Equita need an income, and they will see this change as a win win for them.

 

That's a whole different issue and the Council should not allow a company to have such control over it's services.

[Ganymede]

Hi,

 

We were speaking about scenario's next year when part 3 comes into force.Of course not all enforcement comes after CCJ's & debts like Council Tax & parking fines rarely see the debtor afforded the opportunity to speak in court.

 

Bailiffs are driven by the incentive of commission so they will clearly like the debtor to have a feeling of helplessness-The truth is that debtors are far from helpless.Bailiffs working for LA's for instance have a duty to ascertain if a debtor is vulnerable,what their financial circumstances are,if a debtor is in receipt of income support,housing benefit,etc,etc-To simply charge in & remove goods because a debtor refuses to enter into an agreement is not really a valid option.In these circumstances,9 times out of 10,the removed goods will be a car-Even if bailiff companies had enough tow trucks at their disposal,they would never risk the backlash incurred by multiple mistaken removals.

 

 

 

You haven't really answered my question though...

[Mark1960]

You haven't really answered my question though...

 

Really????

 

Well as we were on about April 2014 onwards,it should be pretty obvious that no-one has had any experience but my original answer should have helped the penny drop for you as to why it would not be looked upon favourably by a judge-Not that experience is needed to have made the statement in the first place.

[Peterbard]

Really????

 

Well as we were on about April 2014 onwards,it should be pretty obvious that no-one has had any experience but my original answer should have helped the penny drop for you as to why it would not be looked upon favourably by a judge-Not that experience is needed to have made the statement in the first place.

 

I personally find it difficult to see why you would think that a judge would be concerned, the authority to remove the goods has already been given ??

[Mark1960]

I personally find it difficult to see why you would think that a judge would be concerned, the authority to remove the goods has already been given ??

 

 

 

If you care to re-read my post,it should be clear,even to you that the hyperthetical scenario I had created involved removing a vehicle on a first visit.Like most of the hot air that comes from the bailiff side of the argument on here,you may talk about/threaten to remove vehicles on a first visit when a debtor refuses to enter into a controlled agreement but in practice,it rarely,if ever happens due in no small part to the consequenses of civil action.

[Peterbard]

If you care to re-read my post,it should be clear,even to you that the hyperthetical scenario I had created involved removing a vehicle on a first visit.Like most of the hot air that comes from the bailiff side of the argument on here,you may talk about/threaten to remove vehicles on a first visit when a debtor refuses to enter into a controlled agreement but in practice,it rarely,if ever happens due in no small part to the consequenses of civil action.

 

Oh I see, I have always had a problem with hypothetical, i made the mistake of not living in the world you have created.