The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 released today.

[tomtubby]

If further evidence is needed to demonstrate why the post on the other website is amateurish and clumsy then readers need to look no further than the Guidance Notes at the foot of the new fees regs which state as follows:

 

 

These Regulations make provision for recovery of fees and disbursements from debtors by enforcement agents in relation to the procedure for taking control of goods under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c.15) (“the Act”).

 

The Act provides a new statutory code for taking control of goods in order to sell them to enforce the payment of debts (replacing the process formerly known as “distress”).

 

By section 62 of the Act, the Schedule 12 procedure is available where an enactment, writ or warrant confers the power to use the procedure.

 

It is also available in relation to commercial rent arrears recovery under section 72 of the Act .

 

These Regulations apply whenever an enforcement agent uses the Schedule 12 procedure (regulation 3), including in exercise of commercial rent arrears recovery.

 

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made

[brassnecked]

It will be all well and good then until they take control of the wrong person's goods for another's debt, and the interpleader kicks in but that is another story. What is clear is that that other website is sorely out of kilter in it's opinions of what is coming in.

[tomtubby]

brassnecked.

 

You are once again spot on about the interpleaders.

 

If an amendment is not made soon I can almost guarantee that within a month of the new regs kicking in on 6th April we will see a headline in a national newspaper of a complaint being made by the new owner of a vehicle and where he is required to pay thousands of pounds into court (equal to the value of his car) in order to avoid HIS car being sold to pay somebody else's debt.

 

The government will find such a complaint very difficult to handle.....in particular given that MOJ have received plenty of opposition to this clause. So far, I have not managed to find ONE person who agreed this this clause at the Consultation stage.

[brassnecked]

brassnecked.

 

You are once again spot on about the interpleaders.

 

If an amendment is not made soon I can almost guarantee that within a month of the new regs kicking in on 6th April we will see a headline in a national newspaper of a complaint being made by the new owner of a vehicle and where he is required to pay thousands of pounds into court (equal to the value of his car) in order to avoid HIS car being sold to pay somebody else's debt.

 

The government will find such a complaint very difficult to handle.....in particular given that MOJ have received plenty of opposition to this clause. So far, I have not managed to find ONE person who agreed this this clause at the Consultation stage.

Jamie Waller for one will be a very happy bunny, as JBW will coin it in with these interpleaders where his ANPR pulls in a car with a new owner and an unpaid PCN, and they cannot afford the cost so lose the car and their money by default. Even if ANPR is banned it will still be mayhem out there and finance companies will soon be yelping when bailiffs seize and sell their property as in cars on finance for council tax and other debt.

[Clunks]

Mikeymack2002.

 

According to CIVEA (which may or may not be right) the period of seven days must be CLEAR days. I am therefore as confused as you are !!!

 

If you read the regulations it states 7 clear days and goes on to state that Sundays, Bank Holidays, Good Friday and Christmas Day cannot be included when calculating the period.

 

Therefore Saturdays count so it cannot be what you would class as "working days". So it is indeed just 7 days notice.

[brassnecked]

If you read the regulations it states 7 clear days and goes on to state that Sundays, Bank Holidays, Good Friday and Christmas Day cannot be included when calculating the period.

 

Therefore Saturdays count so it cannot be what you would class as "working days". So it is indeed just 7 days notice.

Doesn't give long then when one of the allegedly "minority" unethical bailiffs we tend to encounter on here tells a debtor to beg or borrow money to pay them then, it will possibly send more to the likes of Wonga, and make the situation worse. Wonder what will happen when a bailiff encounters a logbook loan heavy who is trying to prevent the bailiff removing a disputed car?

Edited February 1, 2014 by brassnecked
to avoid tarring all with the same brush

[tomtubby]

Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act relates to the "Taking Control of Goods" and Schedule 13 lists all of the amendments that the government are making to various ACTS of PARLIAMENT on 6th April when Schedule 12 comes into effect.

 

From 6th April debtors need to be very careful indeed to check the authenticity of 'advice' that they receive from the internet and an excellent example of the sloppy advice that is available was demonstrated yesterday by one particular website misleading viewers with the following statement:

 

"Schedule 13 provides a list of repeals, 156 of them "none of them are related to council tax"

 

The very same website are also misleading the public by stating that the "Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 only apply to Commercial Rent Arrears !!! (Not true of course).

 

I will now address the sloppy statement about the '156 repeals" and that 'none of them relate to council tax" . In fact, the website went further by stating that none of the '156 repeals' relate to council tax, court fines, high court enforcement or traffic debt

 

I have provided a link below to Schedule 13 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations (Amendments).

 

This is a relatively easy document to understand and provides a list of 157 amendments ( not 'repeals') that the Government are making to 67 different ACTS of Parliament. It is clear that the Government have NOT "repealed" Acts !!!

 

Only ACTS of Parliament are being amended. Such as:

 

The Traffic Management Act 2004

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Proceeds of Crime Act 2003

Pensions Act 1995

etc etc

 

I would assume that the website owner was in such a rush to find the proverbial "Gotcha!" clause /exception or loophole that he failed to properly read the amendments being made by Parliament. This is clear because:

 

On the matter of court fines, the vast majority of the 157 amendments are being made to the Magistrates Court Act 1980. These 'amendments' are numbered 45 through to 65.

 

On the matter of council tax, the amendments are outlined from number 105 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

On the matter of county court warrants, amendments are made to the County Courts Act 1984 are are detailed in amendment numbers 68 through to 82.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13

[tomtubby]

It was only at 6 pm last night that we received details of the MOJ Guidance regarding the position of VAT on enforcement agent fees from 6th April. HMRC have approved the Guidance and will be amending their own Manuals in due course.

 

As I have said on another thread, during next week I will providing simple guidance on the new regs that take effect on 6th April and I have offered to assist the site team with putting together brand new STICKY's as well. It is important to keep each thread 'within topic' and later today this one will be updated regarding VAT.

 

One point that I will make is that in providing guidance it has been decided that in order to make the guidance as simple as possible I will not be providing links to relevant statutory regulations as this merely acts to complicate the position for debtors.

[seanamarts]

Letters have already starting coming with regards to this new fee structures.

 

Basically what this letter is saying, is the 1st and second fee will become a compliant fee (?) and the third visit will incur a fee of £235.00. Where a levy has already taken place the fees incurred to date will be carried forward under the new legislation.

 

What is a compliant fee? will this be a fee that the bailiffs can pluck out of the air because I can find nothing so far on what these fees will be.

 

Any ideas on this TT.

[seanamarts]

I also need to ask if the bailiff still needs to be certificated as the one I am dealing with at the moment isnt, but pertains he is. I have also just found out that he like to tell porkies. Forced entry, unlawful levy, wrong charges etc etc, the list is endless and Im thinking he is dragging his feet now for the 6th of April to get here.

 

I feel quite uncomfortable at what is about to come for all debtors with levies already taking place. One late payment and bang!!!! they are right back at the start.

[tomtubby]

VAT and Magistrate Court Fines:

The enforcement companies will NOT be able to charge VAT to debtors in relation to the enforcement of court fines. This is because the 'services' are supplied to HMCTS and are recoverable by MOJ under whose control the courts fall.

 

Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates and Road Traffic Debts:

Where enforcement is carried out by private sector enforcement agents, their services are subject to VAT. However the services of the enforcement agent are supplied to the creditor (who is the local authority) and it is the LA who will recover the VAT from HMRC. The debtor will therefore NOT be charged VAT on enforcement agent fees when enforcing either of these debt types.

 

Child Support Agency.

 

Again, the debtor is not charged VAT on enforcement agent fees.

 

 

High Court Judgments and County Court Judgments transferred to the High Court for enforcement.

 

There is a wholly different procedure and an explanation is best left to an expert (HCEO) to address.

[tomtubby]

Letters have already starting coming with regards to this new fee structures.

 

Basically what this letter is saying, is the 1st and second fee will become a compliant fee (?) and the third visit will incur a fee of £235.00. Where a levy has already taken place the fees incurred to date will be carried forward under the new legislation.

 

What is a compliant fee? will this be a fee that the bailiffs can pluck out of the air because I can find nothing so far on what these fees will be.

 

Any ideas on this TT.

.

 

I will be addressing this query in the morning.

[seanamarts]

Have you the new number to the Her Majesty’s Courts Service Headquarters - Enforcement Team, The ones on the form 4 dosnt exist any more Please

[seanamarts]

No matter have got it now still waiting to hear back

[mikeymack2002]

A few observations here as follows.

 

 

A distress warrant becomes a warrant of

 

 

What do the old saying for ATR/ATL will these now be known by different names if so what.

 

 

A bailiff arrives with ta view to levy/remove can they still use peaceful entry like climbing through an open window and the such?

 

 

In regards to Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) (1A) (b) meaning if the debtor has insufficient goods what will happen to the warrant/fees

 

 

Having regards to the use of 52.8 to seek relief from a bailiff the advice given on other sites will then be seriously flawed

 

 

What will the penalties be for the debtors who "pays and reclaims" and what serious implication's will it have on future interaction with the bailiff, will they be more likely to remove goods rather than leave them under a WPA?

 

 

Will seizures now form a major part of recovery rather than WPA's, if in breach of a WPA will this still attract more fees?

 

 

Now to the Warrants, if the new Warrants do not contain the new wording does this make the Warrant invalid?

 

 

In debt collection activities there are guidelines that state " that notices must be in plain English" will this apply to the new Acts? Is it in fact a breach of AN ORDER OF THE COURT or is it a debt?

 

 

mm

[HCEOs]

A few observations here as follows.

 

 

A distress warrant becomes a warrant of

 

Warrant of Control

 

What do the old saying for ATR/ATL will these now be known by different names if so what.

 

Enforcement Stage or Sale and Disposal Stage

 

A bailiff arrives with ta view to levy/remove can they still use peaceful entry like climbing through an open window and the such?

 

Yes peaceful entry is permitted but they can no longer climb through a window but instead must use the usual means of entry (e.g. door).

 

In regards to Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) (1A) (b) meaning if the debtor has insufficient goods what will happen to the warrant/fees

 

If the bailiff is not paid, his fees are not paid.

 

Having regards to the use of 52.8 to seek relief from a bailiff the advice given on other sites will then be seriously flawed

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

What will the penalties be for the debtors who "pays and reclaims" and what serious implication's will it have on future interaction with the bailiff, will they be more likely to remove goods rather than leave them under a WPA?

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

Will seizures now form a major part of recovery rather than WPA's, if in breach of a WPA will this still attract more fees?

 

It is difficult to tell but removals could form a major part of the enforcement action for various reasons.

 

Now to the Warrants, if the new Warrants do not contain the new wording does this make the Warrant invalid?

 

New warrants are being drafted as we speak

 

In debt collection activities there are guidelines that state " that notices must be in plain English" will this apply to the new Acts? Is it in fact a breach of AN ORDER OF THE COURT or is it a debt?

 

The notices have been prescribed so the bailiffs must use what they've been given. Having seen them they are easy to understand if incredibly long winded.

 

mm

 

Please see the above in RED, hope this helps.

[Janie1962]

Have just received this from HCE Group Ltd.......I really don't understand.

 

 

"As you may or may not know there is new legislation due to come into effect which has recently been laid before Parliament and effects the enforcement industry.

 

As of 6th April 2014 the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCE Act) will come into force. Its aim is to ensure openness and transparency throughout the industry and particularly the fees which are charged.

 

We note you are on an arrangement for payment of £50.00 monthly and payment is being made to ourselves.

 

Please be advised that in line with the TCE Act and to ensure transparency as per the Act’s intention, in the event that you default on the arrangement post 6th April 2014 enforcement action will proceed in line with the TCE Act and the new fee structure, The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

This means that a fee of £495.00 + VAT will be incurred upon further enforcement action commencing. You will not be notified of the default and an Enforcement Agent will look to make an immediate re-attendance at your premises.

 

It is important to note that you will fall into default unless cleared funds are received on the day that your payment is due. As per our previous correspondence you should allow 5 days for payment to clear and be allocated to your account. Therefore for example if payment is due on the 15th of each month we will require payment on the 10th of each month in order for your payment to clear and reach our account by the agreed date.

 

THE BALANCE AS OF TODAY’S DATE IS £xxx INTEREST AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF FEES WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE ON THE CASE UP UNTIL 6TH APRIL 2014.

 

Given this information we would strong

ly advise that you may wish to consider paying this case in full prior to the TCE Act coming into effect.

 

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

High Court Enforcement Group Ltd (Bradford)

 

Office 4, City Hub Bradford

9-11 Peckover Street

Bradford"

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi Janie 1962, I recall very recently, reading a post by TT who highlighted these letters were doing the rounds. where does it leave a creditor?

[seanamarts]

There needs to be some plain english guidelines made, when sending out these letters, its going to cause no end of panic to some and I can see some bailiffs using this to their advantage.

[mikeymack2002]

Having regards to the use of 52.8 to seek relief from a bailiff the advice given on other sites will then be seriously flawed

This is for TT to respond too,

Not sure what you mean.

What will the penalties be for the debtors who "pays and reclaims" and what serious implication's will it have on future interaction with the bailiff, will they be more likely to remove goods rather than leave them under a WPA?

 

Not sure what you mean.

On other sites it is deemed acceptable to pay a Bailiff what is due with a debit/*credit card then reclaim the payment as a fraudulent payment by way of "reclaim" from their bank/credit supplier, if a debtor now does in fact pay the amount due then reclaims as above this will then show up on the Bailiffs account as a returned payment. This will have the effect of the original payment not being made, will the Bailiff then add further fees to cover a return visit to the debtor to re-acquire the original payment again? I hope this may be a little bit clearer or as such

A debtor pays by card claims a refund of the payment, this then has the same effect as non payment of the original debt, will this allow the Bailiff to add more fees for getting a second payment from the debtor

MM

[mikeymack2002]

Clarity is not an option when the MOJ made the new rules, I wonder why?

 

 

Now further reading will no doubt bring up issues like "pay and reclaim" I feel sorry for ANY debtor that now takes this advice and does in fact P&R it amounts to fraud in my eyes, the advisor will no doubt get away SCOTT FREE, this must be brought to the attention of anyone attempting this method of avoiding paying the fines/fees, they can and will come to grief and possibly face some serious charges and again be before a Court for this....

 

 

Personally if you are having payment problems speak to the Court the VERY 1st week you have ANY problems paying, most defiantly before a Bailiff is used as the debt WILL have serious implications to your wealth in RECORD time and cost you so much more than the amount missed.

 

 

MM

[lamma]

It is important to note that you will fall into default unless cleared funds are received on the day that your payment is due. As per our previous correspondence you should allow 5 days for payment to clear and be allocated to your account. Therefore for example if payment is due on the 15th of each month we will require payment on the 10th of each month in order for your payment to clear and reach our account by the agreed date.

Good grief they are even gouging float money as well. Excessively at that, T+0 has been around a long while.