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

[tomtubby]

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 take effect on 6th April and from the many posts made by the regular contributors on the forum it is clear that there are many concerns as to how these drastic changes will affect debtors. The local authorities (and enforcement companies) are confused with the regulations and naturally the regulars on here must be the same.

 

Over the next few days I have offered to put together simple Practice/Guidance Notes over different threads and these may then be used as the basis for STICKY's. To try to avoid threads going 'off topic' I think that it would be a good idea to start this thread so that we can share our views and ask questions.

[tomtubby]

I HOPE that I am wrong but the way in which I have just read the statutory regulations it would seem that the fee that debtors may have to pay to make a Third Party/or Exempt Goods claim is £120. Like I say...I hope I am wrong (it was thought that the fee would be £80).

 

I will make enquiries during the day and post back.

[tomtubby]

When I publish the Practice Notes/Guidance I will be providing details of each notice and the requirment that each must contain.

 

Clunks is correct. A 'Global' levy will not be permitted.

[tomtubby]

It would seem that SOME local authorities are looking to keep their residents aware of the new regulations. The following are links to a press article from South Northamptonshire Council and the second one relates to Wellingborough Council:

 

http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Northamptonshire/Towcester/NN12/News/Local-News/270574-Rule-Changes-For-Bailiffs-This-Weekend

 

 

http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Northamptonshire/Towcester/NN12/News/Local-News/270574-Rule-Changes-For-Bailiffs-This-Weekend

[tomtubby]

 

However if they do want to set judgment aside / get a stay now (and they don't qualify for an EX60) the new court fee will be £155 (up from £80 - a 95% increase) from 22nd April.

 

.

As many on this forum are aware, I have very serious concerns indeed regarding the 'Interpleader' applications and, with the new regulations just days away I wanted to ensure that I had the correct information regarding the fees that would be payable (which I understood to be £80).

 

Late yesterday afternoon information came my way that HMCTS have actually INCREASED the fee by nearly double to £155 !!!

 

The 'midnight oil' was burning late into the evening yesterday with email exchanges with 'experts' in this field and unfortunately, it was discovered early today that my information was correct. The implications are immense. Not only will this significant fee apply to 'Interpleader' application but it will also apply to debtors seeking a 'review' of their Out of Time witness statement and it will also apply to any applications to set aside or stay a judgment.

 

CIVEA and the High Court Enforcement Officers Association appear not to have known about this fee increase until the news broke early this morning.

 

Question for HCEO...has there been any reaction from the High Court Enforcement sector?

[tomtubby]

Almost all enforcement company are members of CIVEA. The public may well be interested in the ADVICE given by them about the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

 

No need to rush to read what they have written as there is NOTHING to read !!!

 

I am lost for words....

[tomtubby]

New STICKY's have been completed regarding the new regulations that take effect today.

 

There can be little doubt that there are challenging times ahead and over the next few weeks there is bound to be more information forthcoming. It will be a 'learning curve' and if information given on the forum is wrong then it can simply be changed (hopefully without critical comments from some posters). We are all volunteers and are here to help debtors as best we can.

 

It will be interesting to see how each enforcement company 'interpret' the regulations and I for one will be interested to know what local authorities make of the new regulations now that there is so much accurate information now on-line which will no doubt be very different from the information given to them by the various enforcement companies in their 'training sessions' !!!

[tomtubby]

Still nothing from CIVEA and some other enforcement companies have also provided no information about the new regulations for debtors visiting their sites to make enquiries or to make payment. A few emails will be on their way this evening.

 

I would 'assume' (and I hope that I am wrong) that CIVEA are more interested in dealing with the 'clients' and are focused instead on the Panorama TV programme tomorrow.

[tomtubby]

The Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 was only released this afternoon. I have not had time to read through it but at first glance it makes for some very interesting reading.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...-standards.pdf

[tomtubby]

It is my understanding that the Government will be waiting a while to see how the new Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 works in practice and there will then be a review of the new National Standards that will very likely lead to more changes but the most important new development with the Standards in that in the months ahead MoJ will be seeking to have the Standards endorsed by all Stakeholders (and appropriate creditors). This should add a lot more weight to the Standards.

[tomtubby]

Hopefully today I will be a chance to read the new Standards.....a very busy weekend.

[tomtubby]

It is well known that enforcement agents (possibly for financial reasons) will attempt to misinterpret the regulations in such as way a way to suit them. It would seem that there are a number of websites that do the same (in this I refer to section 31 of the National Standards which states as follows:

 

Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.

 

As many will know, the regulations that came into effect yesterday are contained in MANY different statutory instruments (some of which are very surprising and these details clearly the position of fees (which is effect is almost the same as the previous regs regarding council tax) the difference being that the enforcement company ANY the creditor receive a pro rata distribution.

 

With regards to section 31 what this means is that if a local authority or Magistrate Court RECALL the warrant or Liability Order (because of a Statutory Declaration or because the LA may have obtained employment details etc for an Attachment of Earnings) then the EA CANNOT enforce against the debtor for an fees that they may have incurred.

 

PS: Section 31 does NOT mean that paying the court or local authority direct will stop the enforcement agent from pursuing the fee.

[tomtubby]

The important thing that needs to be done is to provide ACCURATE information (wherever possible) to debtors. It is sadly a know fact that there are some internet sites that had an astonishing level of misunderstanding of the regulations in the past and 2 sites in particular only confirmed on April Fools Day that the new regulations do also apply to council tax, non domestic rates and unpaid parking charge notices (this was despite the entire 'advice' industry knowing different at least 2 years ago!!!!

 

Sadly, even today those same internet sites CLAIM that Magistrate Court fines are 'apparently' not included in the new regulations. This is very sloppy of the sites in question and inability to read and properly UNDERSTAND the new regulations. Instead, the sites in question are now referring all visitors to the new National Standards (which are merely a good practice Guidance tool).

 

For the avoidance of doubt....Magistrate Court FINES are now CLEARLY embodied in the new Statutory Regulations and the new fees scale applies to them also.

[tomtubby]

Just a random question I may have asked before but have forgotten.

 

What if the debtor Pays and reclaims from now on?

 

If the debtor makes the mistake of following other sites advice does anyone know yet what the rules will be in the coming months for them?

 

MM

 

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 agents 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.

[tomtubby]

Coughdrop....it is a shame that you have posted the link on this page as once again this thread is fast going 'off topic".

 

All of the above posts on this page should be on the right thread which is the DISCUSSION thread regarding the new regulations.

[tomtubby]

Highland mav

 

You have made 2 very interesting posts above. The first one states that you were 'in the industry for 25 years' and that Lord Denning stated the following:

 

"If a bailiff enters without the express permission of the householder, you have the right to hit him over the back of the head with a milk bottle' and treat him/her as trespassing".

 

Your 2nd post states that:

 

"In Halsbury's Laws of England, it states that all Magistrates and County Courts are Administrative Courts and have no jurisdiction, and also states ' The Law is very clear on this'.

 

 

Firstly, Lord Denning did NOT state what you claim he did. It would seem that you have visited certain websites closely associated with the Freeman on the Land movement.

 

This is also CONFIRMED by your second post regarding "Administrative Courts". Again, this is 'stuff and nonsense' from FoTL supporters.

[tomtubby]

Highland mav.

 

I am assuming that your above post is directed to me in reply to my post. Firstly, please read what I said properly. I did NOT accuse you of being a liar.

 

Secondly, Lord Denning did NOT quote the words as stated by you and if you have many Law books as you say you will see this for yourself.

 

The most interesting part of your post however must concern the position of 'Administrative Courts'. Are you trying to say that they have no legal standing? If so, this would be interesting given that in your previous work (for 25 years) you would have no doubt been enforcing warrants (which would of course have come via orders from such courts).

 

I would be interested in your response but there is simply no need for abuse. This is a learning curve and accurate information is vitally important.

 

PS: Under the new regulations of course the position of trespass has now been clarified....An enforcement Agent will NOT be deemed a trespasser. End of.

[tomtubby]

Official statement about "Cowboy Bailiffs"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-grayling/chris-grayling-cowboy-bailiffs_b_5105200.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[tomtubby]

Read this on another forums can anyone give the real explanation please

 

 

Paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken. It also stops further fees being charged.

 

When you have paid the creditor, you must notify the bailiff by a durable means under paragraph 59(2) of the Act.

 

 

MM

 

Your query is vitally important and I now realise where you had read this.

 

For any new visitors, the same internet site are behind the following fiasco and sadly, also behind a recent Form 4 complaint at Torquay & Newton Abbot County Court where the debtor was ordered to pay over £4,000 in costs to the bailiff:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421842-Suing-a-Bailiff-Company-Enforcement-Agent.....make-sure-you-read-here-first!!!!(3-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Before answering your question it is important to first understand WHAT the website are trying to advise debtors. In a nutshell, the 'advice' is exactly the same as they have always been providing which is that in order to avoid paying bailiff fees the debtor should INSTEAD pay the CREDITOR direct (ie: the local authority (or in the case of court fines) pay cash into the ATM 'drop box' at the Magistrates Court).

 

Giving the importance of this subject it would be better if I started a new thread so that members of the public (and all the helpers and moderators on here) are aware of the correct position regarding payments made direct to the creditor (local authority/magistrates court etc).

[tomtubby]

Just a short note to let everyone know that I am working on another STICKY which will effectively be like an 'IDIOTS GUIDE' about the new regs. I am not sure of the title yet but it should be ready by the weekend.

 

Just a quick note:

 

VAT is NOT chargeable on enforcement agents fee when enforcing non domestic rates, council tax, parking charge notices or CSA arrears.

 

Also, from 6th April an enforcement agent MUST NOT charge the following:

 

DVLA search fee, HPI fee or credit or debit card handling fee.

[tomtubby]

Ploddertom,

 

In fact I am going to include the information in my above post in the new 'Dummies Guide'. I need to think of a good title...anyone?

[tomtubby]

Lamma......EXCELLENT ....

 

Simplified Guide it is !!!!!!

[tomtubby]

With council tax debts in particular it is very important to find out the precise amount of fees already charged by the enforcement agent. If the fees are MORE that £42.50 it would indicate that 'a levy' had been made on goods of (almost always a vehicle). If so, then the bailiff must continue charging the fees that were in force BEFORE 6th April. This is VITALLY important.

 

Since Monday we have come across 6 cases where the enforcement company have attempted to charge the NEW fee of £235 in cases where they have previously levied. They KNOW that they should not be doing this and it is VERY worrying indeed. It is almost certainly the case that I will need to start a new thread on this subject.

[tomtubby]

 

Read this on another forums can anyone give the real explanation please

 

Paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken. It also stops further fees being charged.

 

When you have paid the creditor, you must notify the bailiff by a durable means under paragraph 59(2) of the Act.

 

 

 

MM.

 

The new regulations took effect on 6th April and two day later you made the above post. It was generally considered that the person providing the 'advice' would make the necessary changes once they had properly read and most importantly.....understood the new regulations. This was important given that it was only on April Fools Day that the site in question finally acknowledged that the new regulations did after all apply to council tax debts and unpaid parking charge notices !!!

 

Sadly, the website in question have not amended their advice and therefore, given the importance of this subject it would be better if I started a new thread so that members of the public (and all the helpers and moderators on here) are aware of the correct position regarding payments made direct to the creditor (local authority/magistrates court etc)

[tomtubby]

Thankfully if I had not of completed a Simplified Guide to the new regs as it would have had to be changed so often to take effect of the ERRORS that are coming forward by the enforcement companies. The biggest by far concerns the charging of VAT.

 

Because of the extreme seriousness of this subject I will be starting a brand new thread tomorrow. In short, it would seem that MANY local authorities are insisting that that enforcement agents must charge VAT of 20% on their fees from 6th April and we have now seen evidence that this is now being charged to debtors !!!

 

The CORRECT position (and one that many people......myself included) fought so hard for is that VAT in NOT chargeable to the debtor on enforcement agent fees for either road traffic debts, council tax debts or non domestic rates. The only exception being where the account had commenced enforcement action before 6th April and where a 'levy' had also been in place before that date.

 

It is therefore imperative that everyone checks to see whether VAT had been added.