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

[avatar2233]

No worries. Will remember in future

[lamma]

I have found a Local Authority that sends the 7 day Notice itself (from the council's office) and adds the fee to the outstanding debt - in this case a CT LO.

I see this as invalid by virtue of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 S.8 (2)

"Notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent’s office."

 

Furthermore their text makes it clear that the Enforcement agent has not yet been engaged.

[brassnecked]

I have found a Local Authority that sends the 7 day Notice itself (from the council's office) and adds the fee to the outstanding debt - in this case a CT LO.

I see this as invalid by virtue of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 S.8 (2)

"Notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent’s office."

 

Furthermore their text makes it clear that the Enforcement agent has not yet been engaged.

 

It would seem that the council are not applying the new rules, as they are after taking the £75 for themselves, unless their bailiffs are in house, in which case it may be OK. Either way any benefit to hard pressed debtors of the new rules was subsumed to the profit margins of the EAs imho

[avatar2233]

My bailiff was back yet AGAIN today, left me another copy of the same letter, think that makes four in the past fortnight now. Pretty damn eager.

[lamma]

It would seem that the council are not applying the new rules, as they are after taking the £75 for themselves, unless their bailiffs are in house, in which case it may be OK. Either way any benefit to hard pressed debtors of the new rules was subsumed to the profit margins of the EAs imho

Bailiffs (EAs) not in house. Have advised to get a breakdown.

[brassnecked]

Bailiffs (EAs) not in house. Have advised to get a breakdown.

Good advice lamma, I think these new regs will be extremely problematic as some rogue EAs try to mix and match to suit between old and new using the transitional arrangements to mystify a debtor.

[tomtubby]

 

I have found a Local Authority that sends the 7 day Notice itself (from the council's office) and adds the fee to the outstanding debt - in this case a CT LO.

I see this as invalid by virtue of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 S.8 (2)

"Notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent’s office."

 

Furthermore their text makes it clear that the Enforcement agent has not yet been engaged.[/QUOTE]

 

 

Lamma,

 

Are you able to get a copy (with personal info removed)

[tomtubby]

Avatar 2233

 

Unfortunately I cannot read the attached either. However, the wording is WRONG.

 

The goods news is that the company concerned (and others) have 'realised their mistakes' and such letters will NOT any longer be sent for debts such as council tax or unpaid parking charge notices.......

 

If anyone has received a letter threatening to apply to a Judge for permission to force entry and the debt relates to unpaid council tax or an unpaid parking charge notices, please post back and if possible provide a copy of the notice (with personal info removed). If this is not possible then 'cut and paste' the precise wording.

[tomtubby]

A short while ago I stated that I would be providing a 'Simple Guide' to the new regulations. Unfortunately this is taking a little while longer than hoped as there is a further information that I am waiting for but this 'Guide' should be ready by the end of next week.

 

In the meantime, in relation to the enforcement of unpaid Magistrates Court Fines, unpaid Council Tax and unpaid Parking Charge Notices the following needs to be made clear:

 

 

 

VAT:

 

Under the new regulations, enforcement agents enforcing unpaid magistrate court fines, unpaid council tax or parking charge notices cannot....and must not charge VAT to debtors on enforcement agent fees.

 

 

 

 

HPI and DVLA search fee:

 

Under the previous regulations there was no provision to charge such fees but nonetheless, it has long been 'industry practice' for bailiffs to charge HPI and DVLA search fee ( normally £20 each time) and this has amounted to a substantial amount of money being received.

 

Under the new regulations enforcement agents cannot....and must not charge either an HPI or DVLA search fee to debtors.

 

 

 

'Head H' Fee

 

The charging of a 'Head H fee' (of £24.50) in relation to unpaid council tax had been 'industry practice' for approx 10 years and as a regular poster (outlawla) on here has discovered....the charging of this fee has resulted in significant amounts of additional revenue to bailiff companies.

 

Under the new regulations enforcement agents cannot....and must not charge a 'Head H' fee of£24.50 when enforcing unpaid council tax.

 

 

 

Credit card transaction fee:

 

Under the previous regulations it was again 'industry practice' to charge figures of between 4% and 6% on the overall debt when paying by credit card.

 

Under the new regulations enforcement agents cannot....and must not charge credit card transaction fees when enforcing any debts.

 

 

 

PS: The statutory regulations were released very late indeed and it is to be expected that 'mistakes' will happen. However, enforcement agents should by now be fully aware of what they can and what they cannot charge.

 

The past '24 hours' have been a 'learning curve' for many local authoritiues and enforcement agents !!!

[avatar2233]

You can view it here TT - http://postimg.org/image/vzd7x9qtn/

 

I thought that they had misinterpreted S28, good to hear they've been set straight

[HCEOs]

Bailiffs (EAs) not in house. Have advised to get a breakdown.

 

Name and shame the Council I say.

[bazm]

VAT:

 

Under the new regulations, enforcement agents enforcing unpaid magistrate court fines, unpaid council tax or parking charge notices cannot....and must not charge VAT to debtors on enforcement agent fees.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe VAT can be charged on storage and auctioneer costs to the debtor

[tomtubby]

 

I believe VAT can be charged on storage and auctioneer costs to the debtor

 

The above query was posed by the LGO yesterday at a Conference and I need to read back on all of my notes.

 

PS: HCEO....your views on this please.

[lamma]

Lamma,

Are you able to get a copy (with personal info removed)

yes, but the recipient does not want this public, even anonymised, at this stage.

But will provide you a suitable copy.

Probably doable tomorrow.

 

tt, your box is full.

[tomtubby]

Following a Conference yesterday my in box has been a bit busy !!!! Space made available... again.

[HCEOs]

The above query was posed by the LGO yesterday at a Conference and I need to read back on all of my notes.

 

PS: HCEO....your views on this please.

 

Yes VAT can be charged on storage and auctioneers fees. The same would be said for any third party supplier including locksmiths and removal contractors.

[brassnecked]

Yes VAT can be charged on storage and auctioneers fees. The same would be said for any third party supplier including locksmiths and removal contractors.

 

So much for simplification, VAT is a nightmare in an enforcement scenario

[tomtubby]

I had two separate enquiries yesterday from debtors who has received a visit by an enforcement agent on SUNDAY. Under the new regulations this is now permitted but whilst the vast majority of the country were basking in the sunshine on Sunday or enjoying a BBQ there were some more ambitious EA's taking the opportunity to enforce unpaid PCN's.

 

No guesses for which company.....

 

Both were from the same company .

[Marincor]

I haven't read this post since my last entry so I don't know if this point has been made (mods pls remove if it has) but my perusal of the TOGR revealed some useful info. For instance:

 

As you know the enforcement of TOGR is pursuant to the TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12. After watching the 1st episode of Parking Mad, and being aware of the fact police are not allowed to get involved in civil enforcement, I decided to check the legislation and discovered this under the TCAE 2007: '33 Goods on a highway (3)The warrant may require any constable to assist the enforcement agent to execute it'.

 

HOWEVER, Section 6 Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 which is pursuant to Sections 85(4) and 86 of the County Courts Act 1984 HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED OR AMENDED! So for those who know legalese the all powerful word in the above regulation is 'MAY', which in light of the aforementioned means 'if you consent' to the police stopping you.

 

All you have to ask the constable stopping you in one of these road heists is: "Are you assisting the EA to enforce a parking fine?" and if the fool says yes, quote the above to him and take his name, badge no. and where he is stationed.

 

Thought this might help. I've noted others but I gotta go! (daily backups!).

[tomtubby]

Marincor,

 

The matter of whether or not the police should be assisting in their "Roadside Operations" is addressed on a thread dedicated to that subject and on there you will see that the Metropolitan Police have recently agreed in an FOI response that they are NOT supposed to provide any assistance to enforcement company seeking to pursue unpaid parking charge notices. Instead, they should only 'assist' if the debt is in relation to a Magistrates Court FINE.

 

You may care to note that there is a LOT of work being done 'behind the scenes' to stop this operations.

[tomtubby]

A few weeks ago I posted the following advice on this thread:

 

Any website that advises a debtor to 'pay and reclaim' is not helping a debtor at all and in fact, is merely trying to direct a debtor towards a 'Gotcha Clause' to get the debtor out of paying.

 

In the main, such sites are almost always associated with the Freeman on the Land movement (although this may not be apparent to visitors) and they will be attempting debtors towards thinking that council tax, parking tickets and in particualr...court fines are not legal debts.

 

Under the new regulations (and also the old ones) the position is this:

 

Imagine if a debtor paid a Liability Order by cheque. The account would be marked as PAID. If the cheque bounced 10 days or 2 weeks later the account (previously marked as paid) would be re-opened and the account referred to an enforcement agent to recommence enforcement proceedings.

 

Exactly the same position arises in cases of 'Pay and Reclaim' and the only difference being that instead of the enforcement company being made aware of the reversed payment by cheque of approx 10 days - 2 weeks, the credit card/debit card's reversal would take a few weeks longer.

 

UPDATE:

 

The new regulations took effect nearly 6 weeks ago and despite trying to keep the public advised of the CORRECT position regarding the new regulations it it sadly the case that debtors will seek out "debt avoidance' websites. The following concerns a debtor who did just that earlier this month after he received a visit at his home from a bailiff seeking payment of an outstanding PCN. The enforcement agent had clamped his car and advised him that he would leave the car clamped for 2 hours (the correct time frame under the new regulations) to allow him to make payment of £512 (PCN £202, Compliance Fee £75 and Enforcement Fee of £235).

 

The debtor paid the sum of £502 using his credit card and then sought information from the internet. He had the misfortune to come across a website and upon reading the information provided on the site's forum he considered that he had grounds to seek a 'chargeback' on his credit card. It would seem that he believed that as he had not been PERSONALLY GIVEN a Notice of Enforcement (the site in question incorrectly refer to it as a "Regulation 6 Notice") that the enforcement was invalid. In his particular case he confirmed that he had indeed received the Notice of Enforcement in the POST but this had not been GIVEN to him PERSONALLY !!!!

 

He paid the website in question a "template' letter fee of £15.

 

His credit card did indeed refund the money to him (although to be fair most are not doing so).

 

At 7.15 last evening the enforcement agent returned to the property and promptly clamped his car. Perfectly legal given that the warrant has not been settled. Naturally the enforcement company would not permit him to make payment a 2nd time by credit card. His wife tried to withdraw cash from their credit card without success (given that he had used the 'refund' payment to purchase a new laptop). Eventually 2 hours later the car was taken by the enforcement agent and an additional fee of £110 was also applied bringing the debt now to an unaffordable £622.

 

To make matters worse, the debtor is due to drive to France tomorrow as his sister is getting married next Saturday in a Chateau.

[tomtubby]

Regarding the above situation, debtors may be interested to know that the website in question confirmed two days ago that are receiving approx £1,500 PER WEEK for selling these Template letters to unsuspecting members of the public.

[Fair-Parking]

All we need now is the input of the famous one thread, one criticism 'Panaka' (fictious protector of a fictious queen) or 'Petamaine' (professional music hall farter) to come back under yet another diversionary banal name in order to try and insult and score brownie points.

[tomtubby]

UPDATE:

 

The debtor managed to borrow the sum of £622 from a Pay Day loan company called Quick Quid and picked his car up yesterday afternoon. The amount that he will have to repay at the end of the month will be £802.

 

As stated above, the original debt that he paid by credit card was £512. This debtor has lost nearly £300 by relying upon such irresponsible rotten advice.

[Marincor]

Hello TomTubby/Mods,

 

Is there a specific thread for updates on specific parts of the TOGR & TCAE that I should use when I want to update CAGers on what I find? There are a number of threads and I obviously want to ensure a comprehensive narrative is maintained on the right thread.