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

[mollyam]

I was wondering if anyone knows if the Courts have any vested interest in instructing Bailiffs? My friend had a fine which she pays every month, however, at christmas she was taken very seriously ill, she was due to pay the fine on the 6th December but was in hospital so got her son to make the payment on the 8th, by the next month she was back to making payment on the 6th, but the following month she had a bailiff letter because the court routinely fires the warrants off to the bailiffs if you are even 1 day late paying! (she has been paying with no problems for the previous TWO YEARS so its not like she was a delinquent payer) it made me wonder why the court was so keen to fire it off to bailiff without even waiting a couple of days? are they on commission??

[HCEOs]

It must be remembered that fees only become an issue if they're paid.

 

A family on benefits, sitting on milk crates, with a battered 'settee adorned' Fiesta outside probably aren't going to pay and the case will be returned to the Utility company.

 

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.

[HCEOs]

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?

 

Like now, it will depend on whether goods have been seized (taken into control).

 

If they have, then the debtor will get a notice advising them that the enforcement agent is coming back to break in.

 

If they then hide/sell the goods they will be nicked by plod.

 

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 Paragraph 68(1):

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

 

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—

 

(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or

 

(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 (£2,500) on the standard scale, or

 

©both.

 

[welsh1]

Like now, it will depend on whether goods have been seized (taken into control).

 

If they have, then the debtor will get a notice advising them that the enforcement agent is coming back to break in.

 

If they then hide/sell the goods they will be nicked by plod.

 

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 Paragraph 68(1):

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

 

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—

 

(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or

 

(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 (£2,500) on the standard scale, or

 

©both.

 

 

 

I cannot see the police being able to arrest anyone as you would have to prove who committed the offence,and no one is going to admit it.

[brassnecked]

It must be remembered that fees only become an issue if they're paid.

 

A family on benefits, sitting on milk crates, with a battered 'settee adorned' Fiesta outside probably aren't going to pay and the case will be returned to the Utility company.

 

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.

 

Thanks HCEOs that is in line with what reputable HCEOs will do, they won't flog a dead horse ;now if it were Sherfarce next doors car may go missing. perhaps

[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?

[brassnecked]

Looks like there will be a glut of secondhand goods and cars at auction as people will have no choice but to let the EA take the goods even if they are third party, as the eye watering fees will be unaffordable to many. and that will befgore the sale and storage fees are considered on top. Wait until the Currant Bun, Express, Mirror and the other popular tabloids get hold of this little gem. The whole thing is now farcical.

 

When a third party has to go to interpleader would it be correct to assume that the claimant has to pay all fees and the debt into court including the £110 and daily storage fee up to the date of hearing, as in say

 

Car value 2000

debt 700

Compliance and visit 310

Sale fee 110

Interpleader Fee 155

Storage say 14 days @ £30 = 420

 

Total to pay in 3695

 

That sort of cash will be difficult for many to get hold of. It has been said that there are checks and balances and interpleader will be rare, but as before some will fall under the radar and innocents will lose out, as they cannot afford the cost of interpleader,.

 

It will also badly affect low paid who may not be able to gain an exemption when the water company send in the HCEO, so are landed with a quadrupled or worse debt as they cannot afford a stay and variation application, they may have scraped the £80, but £155 is beyond them.

 

Effectively this could put people in debt for the rst of their lives to pay ever increasing fees just like a Wonga or loan shark.

[mikeymack2002]

Spanner in the works time as always with a valid question as always.....

 

 

Here goes.

 

 

A Social housing tenant/private tenant with an order issued moves out and fails to notify the Courts, the new tenant blissfully unaware that there is/has been bailiff/EA enforcement action prior to their taking on the new tenancy, or an WA had already been signed.

 

 

What is the correct way to get the EA/Bailiff to leave the new tenant alone, what if the EA/Bailiff has already levied and returns because of breach repayment plan, the EA forces the door seizes all of the valuable goods and leave the property secure?

 

 

What if an EA has a warrant to take control of goods and the debtor has moved, as we all know they EA has heard all of this before and then just walks in and seizes everything of value?

 

 

The new tenant will obviously produce ID but will not allow the EA access, which had previously been done with the old WA, what is this going to do to the EA if he/she gets this terribly wrong? Even if they had/do levy on a car then seize it in record time?

 

 

Can anyone see how things may go if they go wrong? I know TT is doing some hard work atm but has anyone thought of things this way? I ask this as I am moving this week and would hate to have an angry EA at my door for a former residents debts, this is/will happen just watch, eventually the EA will get the wrong debtor and force entry and make a huge mistake could this happen now? If so what will it cost the EA in the long run?

 

 

Brassnecked Good post, I had already voiced concerns at my local level and have given the Council food for thought similar to this, the result was that the Enforcement team will be making last chance visits to the debtors home for non payment of CT/former rent arrears, they have also said that current rent arrears will be handled by DCA's, but if they are unable to obtain payment/offers to clear within 3 months then they may consider escalating to Court, but only as a last resort.

 

 

MM

[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....

[brassnecked]

If it were myself and the EA came a knocking, I would show him ID and a tenancy agreement showing the date and that he has no Comtrol over my goods as patently they are NOT what is on his list, as in he seized a Samsung TV serial no 000xxx mine is a Panasonic serial111 XXX, however not everyone will challenge, they will panic especially if the disingenuous EA says the liabilityOreder/warrant is to the address and they must pay.

 

I feel the EA MUST fail at the doorstep as the list of controlled goods would not tally with the contents. If there had been no control order in place, then the ID should be sufficient to send him away. I would also contact the creditor and tell them that their quarry had escaped.

 

Thoughts?

[brassnecked]

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....

Why the silence from the usually holier that thou bailiffs are all squeaky clean can do no wrong CIVEA?

[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.

[ploddertom]

Equita do have quite a bit of it on their site.

[ploddertom]

Don't whether it is just me but have tried the new enforcement register with several different names & scenarios but nothing appears to work.

[brassnecked]

We will have to see how LAs react when complaints go in about EA behaviour under new rules, as in EA doesn't gain entry, and can seize nothing as there is no car.

It seems to be assumed that when the EA turns up the debtor will let them in to list goods as if they are compelled to do so. Is there a presumption of entry by the EA at the first visit by the MOJ?

[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

[brassnecked]

Most interesting, but surely these Standards should have been released well in advance?

[lamma]

That link does not work for me.

[sweep1]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/enforcement-officers/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf

 

The link will work if you hover your mouse over the link and wait briefly, then left click to view the pdf from the justice.gov.uk website or select the whole link below, copy and paste into the url bar

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/enforcement-officers/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf

[brassnecked]

They set high standards, and are specific about many aspects but they are advisory only are they not?

[avfc1]

They may be only advisory but many creditors include in their contracts clauses that demand EA's (bailiffs) adhere to the National Standards.

[brassnecked]

They may be only advisory but many creditors include in their contracts clauses that demand EA's (bailiffs) adhere to the National Standards.

Indeed they do, but many EAs will pay mere lip service to the Standards, especially when a 12 year old looks around 15, and the EA will claim they looked 16

[avfc1]

Well in that case, it makes no difference if their advisory or law because an unscrupulous bailiff will still adopt that attitude.

 

 

Any genuine breach of the NS, including the scenario you mention will leave anything that occurs thereafter open to challenge.

[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.