Taking Control of Goods 2013 and the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court fines.....

[tomtubby 2,383]

For at least six years an individual (known to many on here) has posted on various websites (including this one) claims that debtors are not liable to pay bailiff/enforcement agent fees when enforcing unpaid Magistrate Court FINES. Furthermore, since 2007 that individual would advise debtors to pay the amount of the fine only in CASH into the ATM 'Drop Box' in the Magistrate Court foyer in the mistaken belief that the distress warrant would be 'expunged' or 'revoked'.

 

In 2012 the individual took over a small 'advice forum' and since that time he has continued to provide the above 'advice' and in cases where a debtor had paid bailiff fees, the individual would (for a fee) offer to draft a claim form against the Ministry of Justice and that 'supposedly' refunds were made. It is noteworthy that to date (and despite many requests) the website has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of a successful claim.

 

The same 'advise' as above also features on almost all websites with connections to the Freeman on the Land movement.

 

On 6th April the new regulations took effect and it is of serious concern that the individual is continuing to mislead debtors into believing that the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 do not provide for debtors to be charged a fee when enforcing an unpaid magistrate court fine. In other words...they wrongly consider that the government are continuing to provide a free collection service to debtors with unpaid court fines !!!

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the new regulations (and fees) apply to the enforcement of unpaid council tax, unpaid PCN's and of course......unpaid court fines).

[tomtubby 2,383]

Enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court FINES is outlined under section 76(1) of the Magistrate Court Act 1980 (entitled: Enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid).

 

However on 6th April 2014 the entire above section was amended by Section 46 of Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to read as follows:

 

Section 46

 

(1) Section 76 (enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid) is amended as follows.

 

(2) In subsection (1) for “issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum” substitute “ issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum ”.

 

(3) In subsection (2)(a)—

 

(a) for “warrant of distress” substitute “ warrant of control ”;

 

(b) for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum” substitute “ pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ”.

 

In subsection (2)(b) for “warrant of distress” substitute “ warrant of control ”.

[tomtubby 2,383]

Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states as follows:

 

 

(3) The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

 

(a) the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

 

any amounts recoverable out of proceeds (which include money) in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

 

 

Paragraph 62 (Costs) states as follows:

 

 

 

62 (1) Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

 

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise. (including from money paid)

 

(3) The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

 

The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court

 

(5) “Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

[tomtubby 2,383]

To conclude:

 

The new regulations (The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013) cover the enforcement of unpaid council tax, unpaid PCN's and unpaid Magistrate Court FINES.

 

There are some differences to the actual 'enforcement' of such fines under the new regulations (as outlined below):

 

Enforcement agents continue to have the extraordinary power to force entry to enforce unpaid court fines. This is derived from Schedule 4A of the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act 2004 (which has not been repealed). In the past enforcement agents were expected to abide by the HMCTS Forced Entry Protocol (a copy of which is available on this forum). It would seem that enforcement agents do not need to seek prior approval and hopefully in the next couple of days I can provide an update on this (including whether or not the Forced Entry Protocol is to be amended or scrapped)

 

Secondly, prior to 6th April enforcement agents enforcing unpaid Magistrate Court FINES did not have to hold an Enforcement Agents Certificate. This is no longer the position and in line with all other debts streams (council tax and road traffic debts) from 6th April they must now be Certificated.

[tomtubby 2,383]

The Criminal Procedure Rules are currently in the process of being amended and one such amendment will be to change the 'exempt' goods to mirror those outlined in the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

[Guest Panaka]

This makes me smile. No doubt bailiffs (sorry enforcement agents) can charge what they want, but what part of the law says you must pay them? If you pay the creditor direct, a bailiff (sorry, as above), cannot levy against goods to recover only their fees, they would need to take separate civil action.

 

Are you a bailiff (sorry... oh whatever)?

[tomtubby 2,383]

Panaka.

 

Thank you for your post. You have stated that enforcement agents "can charge what they want". This is most certainly not the case at all and this is made very clear in the new regulations.

 

The regulations also provide that if a debtor makes a payment to the creditor ( which includes the Magistrate Court) that from any payment made the creditor MUST pay over to the enforcement agent the "Compliance Fee" of £75.

 

I am confused at your statement that if enforcement agents wanted to recover their fees they would need to take separate civil action. Can you explain more on this?

 

Of course I am not a bailiff !!!

[Guest Panaka]

Certainly.

 

As we all know, bailiffs (I can't be bothered to use the new posh title) have a certain reputation for, shall we say, inconsistent behaviour. This could include adding fees for work not carried out, adding levy fees before a levy has taken place or simply plucking a figure out of the air.

 

We know this as we have experienced this.

 

Monies due to the creditor, whether this be via a liability order, fine or whatever is included in the official court document, as is any court fees. For example, the fine may be £100 and court enforcement fee, say £120 (I don't know the exact figures so bear with me).

 

That is what is legally due. The bailiff will then add his fees, £75 for opening a letter, £235 for knocking on your door (nice work if you can get it). This brings it up to, in this example, £530. Of course, you don't have to allow the bailiff entry, even if he tries the old 'foot in the door' trick or threatens a locksmith.

 

The debtor pays directly to the creditor £220, via the drop box, over the counter, online, whatever takes his fancy. The court debt is now satisfied - the legal debt is paid. that just leaves the poor old bailiff wanting his £310. Oh dear, how will he get it? He can't now use the warrant as the debt has been satisfied. He can't levy to recover only his fees. Perhaps the debtor will pay out of kindness?

 

He can of course begin a civil action. the court has of course given him the authorisation to charge his fees... just not the authorisation to actually force you to pay them. A bit like a bounty hunter maybe?

 

Of course, if it can be shown where in any legislation it says that bailiff fees must be legally paid once they have been charged, I'll heat up the old humble pie.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Panaka

[tomtubby 2,383]

As we all know, bailiffs (I can't be bothered to use the new posh title) have a certain reputation for, shall we say, inconsistent behaviour. This could include adding fees for work not carried out, adding levy fees before a levy has taken place or simply plucking a figure out of the air.

 

Quite correct. However under the new regs (introduced on 6th April) there is now a "Compliance Fee" of £75 and an "Enforcement stage fee of £235. Therefore 'levying' is no longer an action that can be taken and 'plucking a figure out of the air' is no longer applicable.

 

 

Monies due to the creditor, whether this be via a liability order, fine or whatever is included in the official court document, as is any court fees. For example, the fine may be £100 and court enforcement fee, say £120 (I don't know the exact figures so bear with me).

 

That is what is legally due. The bailiff will then add his fees, £75 for opening a letter, £235 for knocking on your door (nice work if you can get it). This brings it up to, in this example, £530. Of course, you don't have to allow the bailiff entry, even if he tries the old 'foot in the door' trick or threatens a locksmith.

 

You are sadly not correct. Under the new regulations the "amount due' includes enforcement agent fees.

 

The right to force entry ( and the procedure) is now also provided for in the new regulations.

 

 

The debtor pays directly to the creditor £220, via the drop box, over the counter, online, whatever takes his fancy. The court debt is now satisfied - the legal debt is paid. that just leaves the poor old bailiff wanting his £310. Oh dear, how will he get it? He can't now use the warrant as the debt has been satisfied. He can't levy to recover only his fees. Perhaps the debtor will pay out of kindness?

 

You need to read the regulations properly. Under the new regulations, the 'amount due' now includes enforcement agents fees. Accordingly, until the 'amount due' is paid, the warrant of control is still valid and enforceable. As I have said previously, if payment is made to the creditor (either over the counter or in cash to a 'drop box' the creditor MUST deduct from the amount the Compliance stage fee of £75 and the remainder must be allocated on a pro rata basis between the creditor (court or local authority) and the enforcement company.

 

He can of course begin a civil action. the court has of course given him the authorisation to charge his fees... just not the authorisation to actually force you to pay them. A bit like a bounty hunter maybe?

 

Can you provide details of where the legislation provides for an enforcement agent to issue civil action to recover his fees.

[tomtubby 2,383]

Panaka,

 

For clarification on the above points you should find that I have provided the relevant legislation in the following STICKY:

 

Any questions, please do post back. In any event I would be interested to understand more on the right for an enforcement agent to use civil proceedings to recover their fees.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423290-%91Magicians-Choice%92-to-evade-paying-bailiff-fees.-Is-there-really-a-%91loophole%92-in-the-new-regulations-or-is-this-a-TRICK

[lookinforinfo 2,137]

Panaka if you read post 3 above you will see the actual wording of the Act which does confirm that the enforcement fees are to be included and are owed to the bailiff

[Guest Panaka]

Yawn.

 

You are clearly working for or on behalf of the bailiffs as you continue to take this stance (and to be fair, you do have somewhat of a reputation of being on their side). Of course bailiff fees are due, but they are not enforceable on the warrant if not paid. A bailiff cannot demand you pay his fees. A bailiff's fees are little more than a 'bill', an invoice. If you don't pay them, the only route open to them is to take you to court, the same option open to any private company.

 

Obviously this does not need to be part of the new regs as it doesn't need to be. This option is what is known as a civil action as no criminal offence has occurred. Mock pretence as to not know what I meant is... I'll bite my tongue.

 

You mention Section 50(3)(b) of Schedule 12:

 

any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

 

Do you not see the quantifying words there? 'Recoverable out of proceeds'. What does that mean? It means out of monies recovered by the bailiff. Monies paid through them or from the sale of your goods. I love those words.

 

Paying the money direct to the creditor means that the bailiff has not enforced the debt, he has not collected it, he does not control it. Once you have directly paid the creditor, that money is then theirs, it belongs to them, and the debtor has a receipt to say he has paid the creditor. (Keep those receipts in a safe place folks).

 

Of course, under the regs, the creditor may pay the bailiff his fees; may pay but not must pay. In any case, it's now their money to do as they see fit. The debtor has a receipt to say he's paid the debt. However, I'm sure the taxpayer will be miffed if they thought local authorities were, in these chastened times, paying a private company for not recovering debts.

 

All the new regs are saying is that a bailiff is entitled to charge his fees and clarifies what those fees must be, which is interesting - the only major new part that has needed legislative intervention relates to ensuring bailiffs are no longer acting in a criminal manner.

 

Let us also not forget, the new regs do not say that you must pay through, deal with, speak to or even acknowledge a bailiff.

 

Oh and you say "Therefore 'levying' is no longer an action that can be taken and 'plucking a figure out of the air' is no longer applicable."

 

Did you know last night there was happening a case of a bailiff demanding money from someone who didn't live at an address and informed the home-owner that for every 10 minutes he was there, he could charge another £120? Let's not forget that although the rules may have changed, the personnel hasn't and the same shaven-headed thugs are using the same menaces as before.

 

 

[brassnecked 1,590]

Panaka If you don't let the EA in and there is no vehicle available then they can't "levy" or rather under the new rules "Take control of Goods"

 

"Did you know last night there was happening a case of a bailiff demanding money from someone who didn't live at an address and informed the home-owner that for every 10 minutes he was there, he could charge another £120? Let's not forget that although the rules may have changed, the personnel hasn't and the same shaven-headed thugs are using the same menaces as before."

Sadly that is true.

 

Tomtubby is most definitely not a bailiff or a supporter of bailiffs.

"

[Guest Panaka]

 

Tomtubby is most definitely not a bailiff or a supporter of bailiffs.

"

 

Perhaps then the position of Chief Spreader of Misinformation? Whatever the motives, I cannot understand why there is a deliberate persistence to provide misleading info against all other evidence.

 

There seems to be a blinkered stance of 'oh I don't believe a bailiff would act in that way because we have new regulations'. Bailiffs will continue to try to charge what they want - this has already been shown.

[mikeymack2002 1,023]

It maybe that the general public panic and asks for advice, they choose a site that charges for help, this is why they (the site) does so, the reason is getting money for nothing, as advice from the likes of the CAB is totally free again someone taking advantage of those vulnerable people at their most desperate, adding to the misery they are already in is beyond me, especially that the things that are stated as true is simply not, or is misleading

 

 

Mike

[tomtubby 2,383]

Yawn.

 

You are clearly working for or on behalf of the bailiffs as you continue to take this stance (and to be fair, you do have somewhat of a reputation of being on their side).

 

For the avoidance of doubt I do not work for or on behalf of any bailiff company and never have done and neither would I do so in the future. Your comment that I have a "reputation of being on their side" is one that originates from one particular individual known to many on this forum (and others as well).

 

The sad fact of life is that despite the new regulations bailiffs will continue to look for 'loopholes' that will enable them to increase revenue. The particular individual that I refer to above does the very same (looking for 'loopholes' in order to increase revenue).

[wonkeydonkey 800]

It maybe that the general public panic and ask for advice, they choose a site that charges for help, this is why they (the site) does so, the reason is getting money for nothing, as advice from the likes of the CAB is totally free again someone taking advantage of those vulnerable people at their most desperate, adding to the misery they are already in is beyond me, especially that the things that are stated as true is simply not, or is misleading

 

 

Mike[/quote

 

It is obvious the poster is only here to fire bullets for a site proven to be full of bullsh*t and run by a person of 'dubious' character. they would be better sticking with the 'guru' of the site they come from and remain content to believing the moon really is made of green cheese.

[mikeymack2002 1,023]

Panaka

 

 

If a debtor has the chance to talk to their creditors and give as much detail of their financial standing, then make and stick to an arrangement plan then the EA will not get involved.

 

 

But if the debtor breaks it through neglect/omission or thought why should I pay, then the creditor WILL initiate enforcement via the EA, (if the debt outstanding is a Courts fine) by doing so the debtor has made a choice not to pay, in the meaning of say it is a Courts fines, it is a PENALTY to the Court and is LAWFULLY due.

 

 

The debtor if owing a Court fine can at ANY time ask for a review due to changes, the amount currently being paid if their financial circumstances change significantly, they can ask for the Court to review the current level of repayment and maybe reduce/rescind some or all of it OR allow the debtor more time to pay.

 

 

But the debtor MUST take responsibility for their Court fines or as sadly now the EA will call on them and charge the new fees. It costs nothing asking the Court for help but the bill from an EA most definitely is expensive

[tomtubby 2,383]

Perhaps then the position of Chief Spreader of Misinformation? Whatever the motives, I cannot understand why there is a deliberate persistence to provide misleading info against all other evidence.

 

Whenever I provide information I only do so after carefully reading the regulations. I do not provide misleading evidence.

 

Of course bailiff fees are due, but they are not enforceable on the warrant if not paid. A bailiff cannot demand you pay his fees. A bailiff's fees are little more than a 'bill', an invoice. If you don't pay them, the only route open to them is to take you to court, the same option open to any private company.

 

I am as confused today as I was yesterday at your comment.

 

If you carefully read all the posts in the "Magician's Choice" link you will see that the regulations have been written in such as way so as to ensure that from any proceeds (which includes money) paid into a 'drop box', in person to the local authority, in person to an enforcement agent, by phone to the enforcement company or online that from that payment the Compliance stage fee is first deducted and is due to the enforcement agent.

 

Therefore under the new regulations there is now only ONE way in which a debtor can AVOID paying the Compliance stage fee and that it by refusing to pay any money whatsoever. The enforcement agent would then need to attempt to 'take control of goods' but the same principle applies here in that from the sale proceeds the Compliance stage fee (of £75 is first deducted).

 

Furthermore, the regulations have again been written in such a way so as to ensure that from all future proceeds (which include money) the payment is distributed on a 'pro rata' basis.

 

Accordingly, avoiding paying bailiffs fee is now simply and utterly IMPOSSIBLE.

 

As to your comment that a debtor can pay only the amount of the DEBT, this again is wrong given the the regulations have again been written so as to provide that the amount of the debt INCLUDES the enforcement agent fees.

 

With respect, I would suggest that you are the one providing 'misinformation'.

[mikeymack2002 1,023]

TT let Panaka play catch up by reading the EXACT quote listed below

 

 

Criminal Procedure rules 52.8(5)(a) clearly states this

 

 

(5) The warrant no longer has effect if— (a) there is paid to the person executing it the sum for which it was issued and any extra sum payable in connection with its execution;

 

It is self explanatory read it here http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/rulesmenu

[mikeymack2002 1,023]

This is incorrect in as much as there are two ways in which to avoid the fees

 

Therefore under the new regulations there is now only ONE way in which a debtor can AVOID paying the Compliance stage fee and that it by refusing to pay any money whatsoever. The enforcement agent would then need to attempt to 'take control of goods' but the same principle applies here in that from the sale proceeds the Compliance stage fee (of £75 is first deducted).

 

The second is to ACTUALLY pay the fine in the first place or talk to the Court, if unable to pay do so IMMEDIATLEY or if there is a long term issue with your finances this MUST be done BEFORE your next payment is due to the Court.....

 

 

No disrespect to you TT

[tomtubby 2,383]

Panaka,

 

You mentioned that an enforcement agent may only recover his fees by taking CIVIL ACTION through the courts and I did question you on which part of the regulations you were relying upon. The reason why I asked that question was so as to ensure that you had not been relying upon a shocking MISINFORMATION provided on a particular website which states as follows:

 

"If a bailiff wants to recover his fees incurred up to and including the point at which the debt was paid direct to the court, he must take a new civil action against you under Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003".

 

Of course section 92.8 of the Courts Act 2003 does NOT provide for this course of action at all and I would not want debtors to embarrass themselves by quoting this clause.

[Guest Panaka]

If you carefully read all the posts in the "Magician's Choice" link you will see that the regulations have been written in such as way so as to ensure that from any proceeds (which includes money) paid into a 'drop box', in person to the local authority, in person to an enforcement agent, by phone to the enforcement company or online that from that payment the Compliance stage fee is first deducted and is due to the enforcement agent.

 

I'm sorry, it says nothing about a 'drop box' or the like. It only says from 'any proceeds'. The only way 'proceeds' are available is if you pay the bailiff direct.

 

The regs say "any proceeds (which includes money)..." which means anything that the bailiff collects whether it be saleable goods, money, kidneys, whatever. It does not state that money paid direct to the creditor can be called proceeds. What does proceeds mean? Money obtained from an event or activity. There is no other meaning in this context.

 

Therefore, as I said, the regs allow bailiffs to charge fees, but does not give them authority to force their payment. How can a warrant state the amount of fees that can be enforced if it's not known at what stage any payments will be made, or do they assume a bailiff will be charging the full whack (£420+) from the outset?

 

Misinformation, mate, misinformation. Back to school with you.

[mikeymack2002 1,023]

A direct quote from https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/print

 

 

1. What you can do when a bailiff visits

 

A bailiff may visit your home if you don’t pay your debts - eg a Council Tax bill, parking fine, court fine, county court or family court judgment.

This will happen if you ignore letters saying that bailiffs will be used.

Bailiffs must normally give you at least 7 days’ notice of their first visit.

 

You can stop bailiffs from visiting by paying the money you owe. Talk to the person or business you owe money to as soon as possible to get advice on how to pay your debt.

Bailiffs are also known as ‘enforcement agents’.

 

Dealing with bailiffs

 

In most cases, you don’t have to open your front door to a bailiff or let them in.

Bailiffs are not usually allowed to force their way into your home - eg by pushing past you, or putting their foot in the door.

However, if you don’t let them in or agree to pay them:

 

 

• they could take things from outside your home - eg your car
  
• you could end up owing even more money
  

If you do let them in, but don’t pay them, they may take some of your belongings. They could sell the items to pay the debt and cover their fees.

Bailiffs are allowed to force their way into your home to collect unpaid criminal fines, Income Tax or Stamp Duty, but only as a last resort.

 

Bailiffs can’t:

 

• enter your home if only children or vulnerable people are present
  
• enter your home between 9pm and 6am
  
• enter your home through anything except the door
  

What to ask a bailiff

 

Before you pay a bailiff, or let them in to take your things, ask to see:

 

• proof of their identity - eg a badge or ID card
  
• a detailed breakdown of their charges
  

Paying a bailiff

 

You can pay the bailiff on the doorstep - you don’t have to invite them into your home.

Make sure you get a receipt to prove you’ve paid.

If you can’t pay all the money right away, speak to the bailiff about how you could pay the money back.

Offer to pay what you can realistically afford in weekly or monthly payments.

The bailiff doesn’t have to accept your offer.

[welsh1 51]

It's just like having happy contrails back:loco: