The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. A general discussion thread.......

[Fair-Parking]

It is rather typical of those enforcing to not know or to confuse the description 'guide' with 'guide'.

 

To an enforcement agent it is to easy to presume that 'guide' means what they want it to mean which is usually something 'optional' that can be ignored in pursuit of excessive fees. No real point in writing a the guide if it can be torn up and tossed aside.

 

Even HHJ Holman who admitted that he was 'wholly unfamiliar with the structure of law regarding traffic penalty enforcement' erroneously felt obliged to dismiss the TEC Applicant's User Guide and DoT Operational Guidance for Local Authorities (Parking Policy and Enforcement) as being 'optional' when in fact both were working documents for the implementation of CPR 75 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 respectively. Pity, for as a confessed novice, he had never actually read them beforehand or sought to obtain advice from either agency before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

 

Had he done so he would have quickly learned that made them guides not in the 'optional' sense, but in the sense that if an EA wants to arrive at the goal, then the EA is duty bound to follow these guides or otherwise fall by the wayside or get hopelessly lost on the way.

 

If only easy assumptions in pursuit of commission were intelligence..........

[mikeymack2002]

HCEO's further to your point above here quoted

 

 

Further, it is for the person whose goods are taken into control to prove ownership. Of course a sensible EA will not list something that obviously belongs to somebody else but at the end of the day it is proof of ownership that counts.

 

 

This absolutely brings me straight back to point 3.1 as per attachment and point 3.4 of the next PDF.

 

 

Can you now see how this needs to be addressed in full. The valid point is the EA's should not take control/remove goods that belong to a 4rd party.

 

 

We at CAG know that EA's lie but why?

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

Let us pose a scenario, debtor lives in a terraced house with no off street parking, they leave for work at 05:45 hours, and commute so are not back before 18:00 hours. Commuter Joe works round the corner from debtor, so parks outside debtor's house. This he does Monday through Friday, and sometimes Saturday depending if debtor's car is parked there. Or even debtor has no car and a neighbour parks there. For this scenario neighbours car is there and neighbour is on holiday for a fortnight abroad. Bailiff calls on Monday, and there is a motor outside debtors house, it could be Joe or the neighbour, so EA as per

 

"Where ownership is not clear the EA should take control of the vehicle and seek a signed CGA. The TP claimant can then make a TP claim following the procedures laid out in CPR 85.4 as below:

Third Party Claim to Controlled Goods CPR Part 85" @HCEOs

 

Unfortunately as neighbour is away, EA is tardy in looking for proof and removes and sells the car, He shouldn't as the CGA must be signed, or Joe comes back unaware car has been Taken control of in that circumstance the EA MUST have a signed Control of Goods agreement, or will they remove without one as they did prior to April 6th?

[sweep1]

An interesting topic.

 

The current regulations are not as clear as they could be and could land someone with a large bill.

 

What about those people who "rent" their driveway space, should the person renting the driveway to another be held liable to the rentee for the subsequent cost of the lost vehicle and the cost of court expenses.

In this case, what level of proof would an EA accept that the vehicle parked on the debtors driveway is not the debtors but the third party?

 

What about people who have a company car?

These are often on lease via their employer, the employee is unlikely to have little more paperwork than an insurance certificate from the leasing company.

The leasing agreement often stays at "Head Office"

 

What about people who have cars on hire from a hire company?

What about people who take "Chattel Mortgage" against their vehicle? (Logbook loans and the like)

 

In the above cases, none of the above will be clear to anyone that the goods (vehicles) CLEARLY do not belong to the debtor.

 

TCGR2013 appears to offer little cost effective protection to either the EA or the debtor should a "mistake" occur

[lamma]

A thought occurs to me. It involves something I have not looked into but it may provide some protection against the innocent third party whose vehicle is 'nabbed' by a zealous bailiff and it may avoid the horrendous costs involved in the new regulations. It may not have legs but let us see.

Register the Bill of Sale of the vehicle at the High Court (fee £25) under the Bills of Sale Act 1878.

I need to look in detail at this - and at the subsequent amending legislation ! I am not sure when I can complete that but at least it is now tabled in my 'possibly quite interesting' section.

[mikeymack2002]

Also if you are on benefits some claimant's actually use their index as their home address, because they live in them

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

Also if you are on benefits some claimant's actually use their index as their home address, because they live in them

 

 

MM

In which case it may fall under the same head as a Travellers campervan or caravan, and be exempt.

[unclebulgaria67]

Have there been any change re a bailiff or HCEO using forced entry ?

 

To my knowledge, it was only in the following situations.

 

Criminal court fine

 

Where a walking possession agreement had been signed by the debtor

 

Where a Judge specifically signs an order that agrees to a forced entry (not sure what debts they would agree this for, but it would include repossession orders)

[unclebulgaria67]

Have there been any change re a bailiff or HCEO using forced entry ?

 

To my knowledge, it was only in the following situations.

 

Criminal court fine

 

Where a walking possession agreement had been signed by the debtor

 

Where a Judge specifically signs an order that agrees to a forced entry (not sure what debts they would agree this for, but it would include repossession orders)

 

Has there been any change to this ?

 

As for the new rules, I expect it will take people a bit of time to adjust and to get the details correct.

[unclebulgaria67]

Have there been any change re a bailiff or HCEO using forced entry ?

 

To my knowledge, it was only in the following situations.

 

Criminal court fine

 

Where a walking possession agreement had been signed by the debtor

 

Where a Judge specifically signs an order that agrees to a forced entry (not sure what debts they would agree this for, but it would include repossession orders)

[HCEOs]

No the rules remain the same as before.

 

Remember that HCEOs can break into commercial property or any building not attached to a residential dwelling (e.g. a detached garage or barn).

[mikeymack2002]

Beat me to it lol

 

 

But the defence is in plain writing, IF IT IS NOT ATTACHED this means if the shed is connected to the property (house) that cannot do so, same as if the garage is not connected. It must be TOTALLY free from the main building for them to be able to enter.

 

 

Now a spanner in the works here,

 

 

If the word used is "connected" does this mean if the lightening/power circuit is from the main power supply does this form an umbilicus? therefore "connected"? this will be a strange one to use?

 

MM

[avatar2233]

Have there been any change re a bailiff or HCEO using forced entry ?

 

To my knowledge, it was only in the following situations.

 

Criminal court fine

 

Where a walking possession agreement had been signed by the debtor

 

Where a Judge specifically signs an order that agrees to a forced entry (not sure what debts they would agree this for, but it would include repossession orders)

 

 

 

My pet bailiff has just left me a nice letter saying:

 

"I have attended today to take control of goods and remove for sale. If no communication is made within 24 hours an application will be made to the courts under S28 para1 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 pursuant to S12 of The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to use reasonable force to enter your premises in your absence to remove your assets for the purpose of sale. This may involve the use of a locksmith.

 

If you do not pay immediately entry may be made and your goods seized and sold to pay the amont you now owe. The action of seizure is called 'taking control of goods'."

 

It's for council tax, i'm quite interested to see if they go through with it or not ... new regs and all. Amused me how they've covered themselves by saying 'may', not 'will' . I think that's the fifth or sixth time they've promised to relieve me of my goods and chattels within 24 hours, first time they've mentioned asking a judge for a bit of paper though.

 

Cheeky monkeys charged me the £110 third stage fee for delivering that letter too, even though they are yet to seize any goods to sell or dispose of. Have never even spoken to them let alone let them in.

Edited May 7, 2014 by avatar2233
Slightly misquoted letter.

[unclebulgaria67]

My pet bailiff has just left me a nice letter saying:

 

"If no communication is made within 24 hours an application will be made to the courts under S28 para1 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 pursuant to S12 of The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to use reasonable force to enter your premises in your absence to remove your assets for the purpose of a sale. This may involve the use of a locksmith.

 

If you do not pay immediately entry may be made and your goods seized and sold to pay the amont you now owe. The action of seizure is called 'taking control of goods'."

 

It's for council tax, i'm quite interested to see if they go through with it or not ... new regs and all. Amused me how they've covered themselves by saying 'may', not 'will' . I think that's the fifth or sixth time they've promised to relieve me of my goods and chattels within 24 hours, first time they've mentioned asking a judge for a bit of paper though.

 

Cheeky monkeys charged me the £110 third stage fee for delivering that letter too, even though they are yet to seize any goods to sell or dispose of. Have never even spoken to them let alone let them in.

 

Think they are misleading you. The acts they refer to only allow reasonable force, so no breaking down doors or using a locksmith. I don't believe for council tax they can apply to Magistrates to gain forced entry

[avatar2233]

I don't believe them either tbh, though the fact the regulations provide that they have to inform the court how they plan to secure the premises before it will grant permission does imply they can in theory be given the go ahead to defeat locks etc.

 

S28 (2cii) - how, after entry, the enforcement agent proposes to leave the premises in a secure state; and

 

I'm assuming (in light of S28(2d)) the court will only allow that if they have managed to communicate with the debtor who has stated unequivocally they won't be getting in or something along those lines, as opposed to cases such as mine where they don't even know if i'm resident or not.

 

I'll find out in a few days either way i guess

 

Doesnt seem to say anywhere in the regulations which court they have to approach to get this permission either... guess it must be either the local magistrates or the local CC.

Edited May 7, 2014 by avatar2233

[HCEOs]

They do have the right to apply to force entry.

 

Whether they will or not is a different matter.

[avatar2233]

Just having read S28 again though, neither of the conditions in para (2a) is satisfied... council tax doesnt fall under S127 of the Finance Act, nor have i removed goods to these premises to avoid the bailiffs getting them, i live here, the goods were here before the council even got the liability order.

 

That being the case, i'm 99% convinced they are in fact telling porkies.

 

He also left the letter hanging out of the letter box then sat in his car over the road for a quarter of an hour... i assume to see whether or not anyone pulled it through thus confirming property was occupied. Has to be a breach of the standards guidelines in there somewhere . Anyone could have come along and stolen the letter while it was hanging out the door.

[avatar2233]

They do have the right to apply to force entry.

 

Under what provision? Neither of the conditions in S28(2a) being satisfied?

 

 

Whether they will or not is a different matter.

 

Quite , i've never had a threat that wasnt empty from a DCA or Bailiff.... no disrespect to HCEOs intended, no experience with you guys.

Edited May 7, 2014 by avatar2233

[tomtubby]

Avatar

 

Would you mind letting us know which company left this notice?

[avatar2233]

Penham Excel

[tomtubby]

Avatar

 

Is this debt in relation to council tax or for Non Domestic rates?

 

I am really concerned as well that the £110 'sale' fee has been applied.

[avatar2233]

It's council tax, residential property.

 

I thought adding on the third stage fee was a bit off too... stretching the interpretation to include a visit where he intends to remove for sale without having first gained a control agreement or prior access, or any contact at all in fact, is taking the mick I think.

 

5. (1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

 

(b)the enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;

 

©the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal (including application of the proceeds and provision of the information required by regulation 14).

 

I assume they are relying on the underlined section and would argue that this visit was for the purpose of removing [transporting] goods as I havent responded thus far... doesnt seem right to me though, they havent even verified that I have any goods for them to take... plus I imagine they would have transported them to a storage facility in the first instance, not 'the place of sale', not sure though. Either way I think it's cheeky.

Edited May 7, 2014 by avatar2233

[avatar2233]

Just for reference, the fees charged in total are £387.50; it doesnt include a breakdown but i surmise it is as follows:

 

£18+£24.50 = Compliance stage, they visited 3 or 4 times prior to the new regs so that's caught by the transitional arrangements.

£235 = Enforcement stage, which they charged last time they came after the new regs.

£110 = Sale/Disposal stage, which they must have charged today to bring the total to £387.50.

[mikeymack2002]

Perhaps admin can move this to the correct forum? as getting in the way of the op thread

[avatar2233]

Apologies if i'm wrong but what's the issue with using this thread? It's relevant to the subject matter (Taking Control Regs 2013), and i wasn't asking a question, i was replying to a point raised by another member with a pertinent first hand experience.

 

Bailiffs (Penham Excel at least) are now threatening to get warrants to force entry (locksmith) to peoples properties to collect against Council Tax Liability Orders with no prior access/control agreement/contact with the debtor based upon what (as far as I can tell) is a misrepresentation of S28 of the Regs (neither condition in 2a being satisifed). Those same regs are the subject of this thread.

 

Similarly with erroneously (IMO) charging the 3rd stage fee in the circumstances.

Edited May 8, 2014 by avatar2233