Debtor charged under section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a bailiff".

[tomtubby]

seems like the bailiff was not certificated.

 

This morning an owner of a tyre business realised for himself not to rely upon the HMCS register when evidence was provided that the bailiff (from Equita) had been granted a certificate on 29th July !!!

 

The correct procedure is to request a copy of the bailiff certificate.

[PersonOfInterest]

me thinks so too. but Ive been following this story on "that" site & printed of a copy. i think bailiff had no cert thats why refused to show when asked. and i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared. just looking at facts and applying logic. the way i see it, if no cert debtor cleared, if have cert debtor done for.

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

[elcordobez]

What site?

[brassnecked]

What site?

 

A site that swears black is white, in effect but we can't post a link on here

[tomtubby]

me thinks so too. but Ive been following this story on "that" site & printed of a copy. i think bailiff had no cert thats why refused to show when asked. and i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared. just looking at facts and applying logic. the way i see it, if no cert debtor cleared, if have cert debtor done for.

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

 

I have been posting on this forum since 2007 and anyone who knows me will know that I will always ask questions to establish the background as this is vital to ensure that an accurate response is provided. What I will not do and have never done is to guess. There is no evidence at all that the bailiff was not certificated and neither is there any evidence that the bailiff assaulted the debtor. This is speculation and is best avoided.

[elcordobez]

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

 

Ditto. What regulation?

[Peterbard]

Ditto. What regulation?

 

I think TT is referring to the taking control of goods regulations ?

[Peterbard]

or the fees regs i suppose.

[tomtubby]

I think TT is referring to the taking control of goods regulations ?

 

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

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

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

[Peterbard]

Yes

i thought perhaps the fees regs, I think reg 4 states something like the fee is due on the inception of the stage, and not on its completion. Since this fee is payable if the rest of the stage is completed or not it makes sense that it wold be debited first.

I was a bit confused by the question to be honest, the regulations are as you say settling in now and the agencies are getting used to them and the tsk of interpreting in the way they were meant it be used, it is just the way the legislation is drafted. There can be no other interpretation.

[Neckbeard]

I'm sorry TT, but I cannot see in those regs you quoted where it says that if you pay the creditor direct, the creditor must pass on any fees. It only talks about money taken in the course of enforcement or the sale of goods, (auctioneer fees etc). That reg seems to be clarifying what happens if the proceeds do not reach the debt amount.

 

It clarifies that first the auction fees are deducted and then the compliance fee and then the remainder split pro rata. In any case, that reg only applies if the enforcement stage has commenced.

[Neckbeard]

...and neither is there any evidence that the bailiff assaulted the debtor.

 

I thought the cut on the finger and the bailiff admitting it was the evidence?

[Peterbard]

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

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

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

 

This is what confused me, where does tt say that there is such a regulation, i see where she says that the regulations have been in place thne i see whee she says that they are being used in this way, perhaps you could copy the post for me.

 

The point being made is tht the regulations are in place and this is the way they are being implemented. There is no regulation to state tht they cannot be implemented in this way in any case.

[Peterbard]

i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

 

 

Missed this also, was the bailiff arrested for this assault, what leads you to believe that an assault took place, the police obviously did not think so or they would have made an arrest against the bailiff wouldn't they ?

 

More seriously there is a matter which needs to be resolved here, and that is what measures can the debtor take to stop the bailiff when he is acting beyond his powers. If they for instance push past someone on their first visit and the debtor resists, can he then invoke this i order to kid the debtor that if he does resist he can be arrested, we know legally he should not be able to, but do the enforcement authorities.

 

I get the feeling that when something like this occurs(and i notice there is another instance of this involving a clamp) the police will make an arrest and then look at the legislation later, usually because they do not know how it works and who really is liable.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Dodgeball
clarificatin

[tomtubby]

I thought the cut on the finger and the bailiff admitting it was the evidence?

 

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

[unclebulgaria67]

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

 

Attempted theft of a mobile phone !

[PersonOfInterest]

Missed this also, was the bailiff arrested for this assault, what leads you to believe that an assault took place, the police obviously did not think so or they would have made an arrest against the bailiff wouldn't they ?

 

More seriously there is a matter which needs to be resolved here, and that is what measures can the debtor take to stop the bailiff when he is acting beyond his powers. If they for instance push past someone on their first visit and the debtor resists, can he then invoke this i order to kid the debtor that if he does resist he can be arrested, we know legally he should not be able to, but do the enforcement authorities.

 

I get the feeling that when something like this occurs(and i notice there is another instance of this involving a clamp) the police will make an arrest and then look at the legislation later, usually because they do not know how it works and who really is liable.

 

hahaha wanted to say, read the thread guys, but no longer there hahahaha

 

from the thread bailiff admitted assault

[PersonOfInterest]

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

 

there is gbh & abh & comon assault if i touch u without your permission that is assault

[tomtubby]

I'm sorry TT, but I cannot see in those regs you quoted where it says that if you pay the creditor direct, the creditor must pass on any fees. It only talks about money taken in the course of enforcement or the sale of goods, (auctioneer fees etc). That reg seems to be clarifying what happens if the proceeds do not reach the debt amount.

 

It clarifies that first the auction fees are deducted and then the compliance fee and then the remainder split pro rata. In any case, that reg only applies if the enforcement stage has commenced.

 

Your above comment is almost identical to that read daily on 'debt avoidance' websites that make a full time job of seeking to find the proverbial 'gootcha' clause in regulations that allow them to avoid payment. I will address the answer in a separate post.

[tomtubby]

there is gbh & abh & comon assault if i touch u without your permission that is assault

 

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

[PersonOfInterest]

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

 

 

then why regulation 17 talk about outstanding amount and fees separates? this taking xontrol of goods regulations is so complex

[Neckbeard]

Your above comment is almost identical to that read daily on 'debt avoidance' websites that make a full time job of seeking to find the proverbial 'gootcha' clause in regulations that allow them to avoid payment. I will address the answer in a separate post.

 

Don't know why you didn't answer in that post!! Just saying that I can't see where it says it.

[PersonOfInterest]

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

 

like u say, dont assume, how u know bailiff not charge? u the bailiff tom?

[Neckbeard]

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

 

It's not unfair to say that the police are often scared of bailiffs, believing they are 'the courts', and acting on an authority the police have no right to question. However as we have seen, bailiffs lie.

[PersonOfInterest]

its clear now, tom is the bailiff