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

[Coughdrop]

That is excellent the concept put away for good

 

Are we absolutely sure?

 

My understanding is the normal route will be as outlined above. However, there are two notable exceptions:

 

TCE Part Two.

 

4. (2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

 

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

 

Only then do we come to what will happen in most cases:

 

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given.

 

The part in red and bold referring to 7(1) is the detailed list of goods taken into control as above. BUT TCE Pt 2 4 (2 & 3) are still global levies from the time the EA receives the instruction.

[Coughdrop]

In which case Global Levies can indeed be put to bed thank you. It is worth nit picking the wording so we all have the same understanding.

[Coughdrop]

What about entry, return entries and forced entry?

[Coughdrop]

What about entry, return entries and forced entry?

 

Anyone, especially the final part?

[Coughdrop]

It would be good to know. I think there are issues over re-entry, and from my understanding, they can no longer climb through an open window, but I may well be wrong?

[Coughdrop]

This is astonishing. I hope these supposed 'advice' sites are just that, advice and are not offering any other services. It could be potentially very costly for any debtor reading such a site to think they maintained certain rights they no longer have.

[Coughdrop]

Can I just ask for clarification... I understand that the processes have changed and that the fees have been substantially increased. What are the variations to our own rights.... for example: A bailiff never used to have right of access to your home... being permitted access through open doors and windows only... is this still the case? Is a person still free to leave the door shut in the knowledge that if the force entry they will be committing an offence or have the new rules also provided the "Enforcement Officer" new powers?

 

Please have a read of the following link which was published on here yesterday and has been consulted widely by many councils. It sets out things from a consumers point of view factually using some of the material from this site. It will answer all your questions above and more:

 

http://simply-wrong.com/new-bailiff-regulations-april-6th-2014/

[Coughdrop]

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,

 

It would help if the question were asked on the right thread then, as my post purely answers it. I apologise for not having time today to plough through every post to see exactly what has been happening.

 

As for keeping on topic, I say Amen to that for all threads, so I do apologise if my answer to a question on this thread took it away from where it was. When I read it in its entirety last, it had gone miles off thread. As I say I haven't had time to plough through everything today.

[Coughdrop]

Official statement about "Cowboy Bailiffs"

 

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

 

Excellent link. I particularly like this quotation from it:

 

we are making sure bailiffs don't take advantage of vulnerable people who simply don't understand why they are being pursued, or what to do about it. Bailiffs will be trained to recognise when they are dealing with someone vulnerable

 

My schoolboy English tells me the part in red is in the future tense. Is that not a bit tough for vulnerable people who are being pursued now (present tense) under the new regs?

[Coughdrop]

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.

 

Would that be the same person as Petomaniac?

[Coughdrop]

Very useful, thank you.

[Coughdrop]

This is pretty user friendly and a summary can be printed out:

 

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/steps/step2/Pages/Step_2_11.aspx

[Coughdrop]

Given a FOI request should reveal details of the LA's contract with an enforcement company, it is a great shame the terms outlined in their contracts with local authorities regarding the period of time that a payment arrangement should run for are not made public, on the understanding they are under no obligation to accept an offer.

 

The spirit of the law is clear, so if this information were published it would make it easier for debtors to come up with reasonable offers and harder for EA's to refuse them.

 

Given many EA's rely on mobiles, is it good advice to suggest the offers be sent via text message so there is something in writing which can be proven?

[Coughdrop]

 

The courts and bailiff companies in my opinion are not working hard enough to resolve these situations. A better process is needed.

 

The court staff are never going to start explaining the enforcement process for EA fees as well, the training implications alone are substantial.

 

As for the better process, it's there on paper and is called the Compliance Stage. Debtors need educating to engage early, and EA's need educating to accept reasonable payment offers without going to the Enforcement Stage to bump their fees up. The question then arises that if an honest EA is really successful and negotiates repayment offers for all his clients, thus costing them only £75, where does he stand when wages are paid compared to the less honest one who pushes for the £235 Enforcement fee as well? Where is the incentive for honesty?