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

[brassnecked]

avatar2233, if Penham Excel are indeed misinterpreting the TCG Regs, then the council who employ them need a Formal Complaint sending with local MP included to highlight that well the new deal for debtors is not working, and bailiffs, sorry Enforcement Agents just keep on "cheatin & fleecin" That application of the third stage sales fee, of £110, with no entry contact or Control f Goods Agreement, which has to be wet signed by a debtor is worrying indeed.

[mikeymack2002]

back on topic I am wandering if someone could look at this and comment on these points I am asking

 

 

TBH did these reforms go far enough or in much more detail? I think not, once again the debtor is going to suffer more fees and LESS time to act. Which brings us all back to the first rule of being in debt TALK TO CREDITORS ASAP and work on a plan before the case goes to Court.

 

 

Or pay the debt in full, or make an arrangement plan with the creditor, which is permissible even if it is with the EA. which brings us nicely to the post here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Also if you read the PDF taking control of goods see section 8.2 the word ACTUALLY is very important, but this part is very worrying 9(4)(b) this is very open to abuse by an EA that is not as honest as some. I have attached this PDF for viewing

 

 

The importance of this part is 8(2)(a) the cost of storage is minimal because they already have storage facilities' in place so no extra cost is involved, will the EA charge a fee for this storage?

 

(2) The following disbursements are recoverable provided that they are reasonably and actually incurred—

 

(a) the cost of storing goods which have been taken into control and removed from the premises or highway;

 

 

Also please read 17 (1)(2) what are peoples view on this?

 

 

Further thoughts are as follows

 

 

1. An EA goes into an area with say 5 debtors, and takes control of goods at each one of them and removes

2. The TRUE cost of removing goods is significantly lower than if it was for just one debtor.

3. The ACTUAL cost for storage/removal is again much lower because the EA is dealing with more than one (1) debtor on his rounds

4. Will the EA's actually be honest and state that they have removed goods from many debtors within a short period of time and certainly within the same area, therefore not actually incurring any further costs except the fuel it takes to go from one address to thee next, especially if within the same town/village

5. The true cost is minimal because the EA did not return to base and empty each debtors goods INDIVIDUALLY, so not to mix up one debtor's good's with another's

6. If the EA's use this method and have multiple goods from different debtors what safeguards are in place to stop goods mixing? Then having goods sold and the proceeds being allocated to the wrong account/debt?

[avatar2233]

avatar2233, if Penham Excel are indeed misinterpreting the TCG Regs, then the council who employ them need a Formal Complaint sending with local MP included to highlight that well the new deal for debtors is not working, and bailiffs, sorry Enforcement Agents just keep on "cheatin & fleecin" That application of the third stage sales fee, of £110, with no entry contact or Control f Goods Agreement, which has to be wet signed by a debtor is worrying indeed.

 

Indeed, I may well write to the council about it at some point. Gonna wait and see whether they actually go through with applying for the warrant first though. Unless i've misunderstood the regs they won't get anywhere fast even if they do S28(2a) sets a pretty narrow scope.

 

I did wonder if applying the 3rd stage fee improperly was a way of trying to provoke me into contacting them, but think it's more likely it's just a little scheme they've hatched to increase the return they get from their debtors.

Edited May 8, 2014 by avatar2233

[mikeymack2002]

avatar2233 if you pay your debt in full then you may want to read the threat here

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423283-‘Magicians-Choice’-to-evade-paying-bailiff-fees.-Is-there-really-a-‘loophole’-in-the-new-regulations-or-is-this-a-TRICK-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Is there a reason that you have an outstanding debt with the LA

[avatar2233]

The reason is that they and I disagree about my entitlement to the single occupancy discount.

 

I've read that thread, fees dont fuss me, i'm emigrating within a month, the EA can do what they like, i simply don't care If they break in i'll just sit in the corner and read a book and not even acknowledge their presence (apart from filming them for YouTube), my goods except those few i'm taking with me have already been given to family and friends. I'm a web developer so they cant have this computer even if they want it , it'll just be a waste of their time and an interesting new experience for me. I don't intimidate easily.

 

I only mentioned it since uncle bulgaria was wondering if anything about their powers to force entry had changed, Penham Excel think something has... i think they are wrong but if this is something EA's are going to start threatening as a matter of course then it's a problem. A little old lady or vulnerable debtor might not take it quite so nonchalantly as i do, not to mention the abuse of the fees structure.

Edited May 8, 2014 by avatar2233

[avatar2233]

but this part is very worrying 9(4)(b) this is very open to abuse by an EA

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/9/made

 

(4) Where the goods are—

(a)auctioned by way of an internet auction site; or

(b)sold other than by auction,

the enforcement agent may recover from the debtor 7.5% of the sum realised by the sale of the goods.

 

 

 

Yes, it is, in theory at least. They could flog debtors goods to a guy on a street corner. These regs don't seem to have been particularly well thought out at all.

[SWLABR9]

More back of a fag packet legislation from the Coalition

[unclebulgaria67]

I only mentioned it since uncle bulgaria was wondering if anything about their powers to force entry had changed, Penham Excel think something has... i think they are wrong but if this is something EA's are going to start threatening as a matter of course then it's a problem. A little old lady or vulnerable debtor might not take it quite so nonchalantly as i do, not to mention the abuse of the fees structure.

 

Sometimes it is best to stay away from local authorities because they love making things much more complicated than they need be. I wrote a complaint about some local issue and now they think I need to be involved in local decision making, with them sending me letters every month and inviting me to attend meetings. Perhaps they do this to all people who complain, so they can say that they have been consulted. My neighbours who did not complain, don't get the letters.

 

Also you can guarantee that if you need something, they will have a 30 page form to complete, most of which is totally irrelevant.

 

Going back to your point about the bailiffs, you should enter into a formal complaint with the council in writing by recorded delivery and ask them to note this as stage 1 complaint in regard to the LGO process. Keep the complaint going for as long as needed and hopefully you will be out of the country, before the bailiffs are allowed to get involved again.

[mikeymack2002]

I dropped this in to the wrong forum so have posted it here as follows

 

 

Ok here's looking at a bad scenario, you get an bad EA that gets to remove goods for sale, as in s9(4)(b) of my attachment which clearly states "sold other than by auction"

 

How open is this to abuse? I guess time will tell, because the debtor will have no recourse than to accept the word of an EA that "a" sale took place. nowhere is it deemed necessary that the sale must be at auction and can clearly be disposed of by other means.

 

 

I guess the MOJ didn't look to closely to this one did they? it has left a wide open hole for a less scrupulous EA to operate from without breaking a sweat, and get paid for it too. Something here stinks big time, I will spend as long as it takes to find more holes that are open to abuse.

[brassnecked]

Good question MM If the EAs mate wanted a Beemer well...........who knows?

[avatar2233]

For anyone that's interested re bailiffs threats to force entry to residential premises to collect on council tax liability order, at some point this morning the following notice was left for me:

 

 

 

"Enforcement Agents Attendance

 

I have re attended your premises today with a view to removing goods under the powers granted within the:

 

Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 pursuant of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

Notice has been provided under the powers granted to me as a Certificated Enforcement Agent acting for . The said Notice and associated Enforcement letters pursuant to S12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows, if no payment is received IMMEDIATELY, that I can now apply to the Court for Powers of Entry.

 

Should immediate contact not be made and the Courts grant me Powers of Entry the next course of action will be attendance with a Locksmith to enter your premises and remove goods. Under the powers of the Court this procedure can be carried out even in your absence.

 

Please do not ignore this letter.

 

Make contact with me and this matter can be concluded."

 

[Emphasis original]

 

 

 

Usually they wait a week or two between visits, it's only been a few days this time.

 

Some very officious capitalisation in there as well

[lookinforinfo]

I don't see that anyone has picked up on S10 [2]of the Act-"Circumstances in which EAs cannot take control of goods"

Where an item which belongs to the debtor is in use by any person at the time at which the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it, the enforcement agent may not do so if such action is in all the circumstances likely to result in a breach of the peace.

Seems a bit of a catch 22 for the Police on roadside stop then.

[brassnecked]

I don't see that anyone has picked up on S10 [2]of the Act-"Circumstances in which EAs cannot take control of goods"

Where an item which belongs to the debtor is in use by any person at the time at which the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it, the enforcement agent may not do so if such action is in all the circumstances likely to result in a breach of the peace.

Seems a bit of a catch 22 for the Police on roadside stop then.

 

If that was to be applied absolutely, and without interpretation, it might render any seizure at the roadside where a vehicle is "being used" as in on a journey. unlawful If the car is parked up at home however then it would not be in use.

 

Thoughts folks?

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't see that anyone has picked up on S10 [2]of the Act-"Circumstances in which EAs cannot take control of goods"

Where an item which belongs to the debtor is in use by any person at the time at which the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it, the enforcement agent may not do so if such action is in all the circumstances likely to result in a breach of the peace.

Seems a bit of a catch 22 for the Police on roadside stop then.

 

So if the debtor and their family/friends are holding/using items, the EA's can't tough them. If they tried to snatch them, the Police if in attendence would have to arrest the EA for breach of the peace.

[brassnecked]

So if the debtor and their family/friends are holding/using items, the EA's can't tough them. If they tried to snatch them, the Police if in attendence would have to arrest the EA for breach of the peace.

 

Would appear to ne so, imagine if the bailiff, oops EA tried to take a power drill or if they tried to snatch Sthil stone cutter off a tradesman as they were working, one slip and the EA would be legless, literally.

 

Seeing how the p;olice are under the spell of the EA they would likely tell the debtor to stop using the item and hand it over, then arrest them if they refused.

 

Wonder if that would apply to say a Rolex or other ludicrously expensive timepiece, the driver of say a BMW pulled over in an ANPR scram was wearing and is likely worth twice the value of the car?

[SWLABR9]

Again, this doesn't seem to have been properly defined. I wonder how they'd define 'back of a fag packet'?

[brassnecked]

Again, this doesn't seem to have been properly defined. I wonder how they'd define 'back of a fag packet'?

 

The back of a small card board cube 7 cm long x 4 cm wide approximately.

 

The whole lot is an almighty firk-up, with the main beneficiaries the EA companies.

[SWLABR9]

I'd guess it's going to be like the bedroom tax with the law being created by precedent as it goes along.

[tomtubby]

Avatar.

 

Are you able to remove personal information and post a copy of the notice on the forum?

[ploddertom]

I'd guess it's going to be like the bedroom tax with the law being created by precedent as it goes along.

 

The problems I have seen so far are:

1 - a total disregard for the allowed 7 clear days

2 - what appears to be laziness in filling out the required forms

 

No doubt others will come to light but it looks to me as if none have them have learned a bean and will just bulldoze their way through as they have done in the past. What they forget in my view is that Legislation now lays down what they do and how to do it. If they can't be bothered to fill forms in correctly or jus use a plain 7 days notice then it is time THEY learn the hard way and have the Legislation used against them.

 

On the other hand those that do High Court work have in the main caught on how to do it properly.

[HCEOs]

With regard to the forms no guidance was offered by the MoJ and they were only released a few weeks before the changes came in.

 

They are in the most part poorly designed with duplication of content and other important information missing. One important omission in my mind is the lack of a 'payments to date' type box. If a payment has been received and a second visit is made due to a broken arrangement the figures will not add up. Also, in HCEO work there is nowhere for the execution costs (they get put in the debt box) and there are complications for the enforcement stage box if stage 2 is added.

 

I foresee changes being made to the forms before the year is out.

 

Having said all of the above I'm glad it appears that HCEOs are doing it properly.

[avatar2233]

Avatar.

 

Are you able to remove personal information and post a copy of the notice on the forum?

 

This is the best I can do using my phone as a scanner:

 

He was back again this morning and left another notice. Exactly the same as the above but with todays date

 

 

 

EDIT: Attaching the image seems to result in some weird behaviors, half the time its not attached at all and some other times the link is broken and when it isn't the image is tiny, so i've uploaded it here too: http://postimg.org/image/vzd7x9qtn/

Edited May 12, 2014 by avatar2233

[mikeymack2002]

this is unreadable you can always to be convert it to PDF

[avatar2233]

this is unreadable you can always to be convert it to PDF

 

Yeah, the forum shrinks it on upload. I've added a link to a third party image host instead.

[dx100uk]

you need to always convert everything you attach to PDF format

 

dx