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

[Neckbeard]

Really!!

 

You are 'clutching at straws' and know perfectly well that 'proceeds' include money.

 

 

Yes, money taken by the bailiff, whether it be cash, card or dubloons. Are you saying that if you pay the council direct, even before the bailiff is at your door, that this is money taken by the bailiff?

[PersonOfInterest]

A person has been arrested and it is only right that you rely upon facts.

 

In fact, what the debtor said is that he did not even know about a Liability Order until after he had received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement but by this time he has paid the council tax debt to the council.

 

Now, common sense alone will tell you there is something wrong here. If as he says he did not know about a Liability Order then are we to assume that he has not paid the summons costs or the liability order fee as well?

 

All of these are simple questions (just like the dates on the notices) and should have been asked of him. If an error has been then it can be corrected. What we have now is that this poor debtor is facing paying between £1,500 and £2,500 for legal representation.

 

Once again, this case has proved how important it is to not ignore correspondence. If as he says the debt had been paid to the council and he then received a letter from a bailiff company then it is crucially important to make contact with either the local authority or enforcement company. Again, nobody has even bothered to ask the debtor whether he did this.

 

more conjecture

[outlawla]

I don't think the question is about whether proceeds include money, rather whether money paid to the council is considered proceeds from enforcement.

 

The debtor has obviously paid the council voluntarily and the EA has taken no part in this.

 

If, for example, the only reason a debtor failed to pay C.Tax on time was because of a cash flow problem, but subsequently cash became available and was paid the council; even if the EA has been instructed, the bailiff would have had no influence on the debtor's payment. Payment was always going to have been paid and the only factor influencing payment was the fact that the debtor's cash flow problem ceased.

[elcordobez]

I agree with outlaw. The EA had no business being there in the first place.

[elcordobez]

PersonofInterest. I agree, its all theory.

[elcordobez]

Neckbeard. Money paid to the EA is not the same as proceeds of enforcement. I read it that enforcement is the process of taking control of goods. That power ceased under the council tax regulations reg 45.

[Sweetlaw]

Streetlaw, couldn't quote your post before you deleted it. You talk about compliance stage, first enforcement, second enforcement, disposal stage. That is for high court bailiffs. CT bailiffs have 3 stages - compliance, enforcement, disposal. Reg 13 as already referred to deals only with enforcement stage onwards.

 

 

Yes, that's why I deleted it. The last thing this thread needs is even more wrong info

[ims21]

Thread closed

[tomtubby]

I would like to make the following statement:

 

I noted that the debtor had made a post on the relevant website last week that the bailiff who visited his property was Mr Grxxxby and that it is his belief that the bailiff may not be legally certificated.

 

His name does not appear on the HMCS Bailiff Register and whilst that is disappointing it is sadly the case that the register is not as up to date as we would like.

 

I made enquiries myself today with Bromley County Court (this is one of two County Courts used by Chandlers for certification purposes) and they confirmed by email that the bailiff is indeed a Certificated Bailiff. He was granted his certificate to work for Chandlers Ltd on 11th April 2014 and his certificate expires on 11th April 2016.

 

I hope the above avoids any further confusion.