Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 and unpaid Magistrate Court Fines.

[Peterbard]

Yes and since the power is transferred via the warrant section 62:

 

)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

 

Applies

[Bailiff Advice]

Posting up the new regs will allow a general discussion thanks for posting them.

 

The information provided is slowly closing loopholes and makes it all the more understandable as to what is and what is not.

 

This is just more clarification and I would expect even more soon.

 

Very well put indeed MM.

 

It is just such a shame that some people are just looking for 'loopholes'. As I have said very often, the advice that I have always given is that the debtor must engage with the enforcement company at the initial Compliance Stage (or better still...even before this stage when the case is still with the local authority or the Magistrate Court.

[Peterbard]

Very well put indeed MM.

 

It is just such a shame that some people are just looking for 'loopholes'. As I have said very often, the advice that I have always given is that the debtor must engage with the enforcement company at the initial Compliance Stage (or better still...even before this stage when the case is still with the local authority or the Magistrate Court.

 

It has to be said that it is for those who do understand the TCE bill and followed the proceedings in its formation, to ensure that the regulations allow just that and no more

[Bailiff Advice]

 

The information provided is slowly closing loopholes and makes it all the more understandable as to what is and what is not.

 

A little known fact is that the act of always trying to find 'loopholes' is described as 'sophistry'.

[brassnecked]

Again reading these new rules above it appears yet again the EA is still trying to get "the use of reasonable force" back in see 52.8(b)(iii) why will the EA not treat "debtors" as humans and with some respect.

 

 

All it appears to me is that they want to use force as a tool. Authorised or not. If not, then applying to the Court to be able to use it lawfully.

 

The above is an observation and not as a generality against all EA's some abide by the rules some.... well? some don't.

 

Is the force against the debtor, as in push past and give slight tolchock on the way in, and cuff them once the power has been granted?

 

OR is this "Force" in relation to forcing entry with locksmiths or battering ram whichever is reasonable in the circumstances, as per DCVA for taking control of goods for a magistrates fine in extremis?

 

I feel like mikeymack, the EA's will not be happy until they get quasi police powers that let them lawfully assault and cuff a debtor possibly at the first call. Many were unhappy that the use of "Force" against a debtor was removed.

[brassnecked]

Sophistrists often try to sell Snake Oil.

[mikeymack2002]

This thread could possibly go full circle here in as much as most adults are either working or on benefits, it the Courts were minded to they could either fine and the defendant and get paid in full then and there, or the simplest way for this to go is the AoE route, the Courts get paid, the Government get paid the only one the does not get paid is errrr the EA.

[brassnecked]

This thread could possibly go full circle here in as much as most adults are either working or on benefits, it the Courts were minded to they could either fine and the defendant and get paid in full then and there, or the simplest way for this to go is the AoE route, the Courts get paid, the Government get paid the only one the does not get paid is errrr the EA.

 

Well yes that would likely work, but the EA companies would be squawking about how they are having to maKe staff redundant, the Industry is good, provides a public service collecting government debt convenietly ignoring to the unsavoury with menaces albeit lawful part, the bullies within the industry etc etc.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Rule 52.9 has also been substituted and is renamed: Warrant of Control: Application to resolve dispute

 

Rule 52.9 outlines the court procedure that must be followed in relation to Regulation 50 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulations 15 and 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 in cases where goods have been sold and there is a dispute regarding either the co-owner’s share of proceeds or a dispute about the amount of disbursements recoverable.

 

The application to the court may be made by either the enforcement agent, defendant or co-owner of the goods. There is a fee to pay for this application.

 

Many people on here are aware that I have a website (which I do not advertise..and certainly do not need to!!!) and I posted a page on the site over the weekend about this same subject. The page has been viewed so many times since Sunday and I have received a lot of questions on the subject (many of them from solicitors). On question that has frequently been asked is about the fee to pay to pay under the above new Rule 29.

 

The actual wording in the regulations provides that the person making the application to court will pay any fees prescribed.

 

It is my understanding that the present situation is that there is no actual fee prescribed but this could change given that the Ministry of Justice is currently looking at the matter of court fees (yesterday saw the cost of issuing a claim in the County Court for over £10,000 rise sharply and they are seeking more views before raising the fee for an N244 from £155 to £255 (or without notice from £50 to £100).

[mikeymack2002]

I have just spoken to my Council in regards to CTAoE, asking them and the legal DEPT. if a case is returned to the Council are the EA's fees still added.

 

 

The answer to this question was NO THEY ARE NOT, so with this in mind I am going to send in a FOI request to get this in writing then we can all see that this is right

[Peterbard]

I have just spoken to my Council in regards to CTAoE, asking them and the legal DEPT. if a case is returned to the Council are the EA's fees still added.

 

 

The answer to this question was NO THEY ARE NOT, so with this in mind I am going to send in a FOI request to get this in writing then we can all see that this is right

 

I think you aer on the wrong thread MM

[Bailiff Advice]

Dare we hope that this will finally put an end to other FMOTL type forums advising debtors that they do not have to pay magistrates court fees, on the strength of 52.8.

I somehow doubt it.

 

 

The regs take affect from today and it will be very interesting indeed to see what advice is going to be given to debtors by these people.

 

I suspect that I will not be the only one taking an interest in this subject today!!

[mikeymack2002]

I thought that reg 52.8 has now changed?

[Bailiff Advice]

I thought that reg 52.8 has now changed?

 

The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 were laid in Parliament two weeks ago and come info effect on two different dates. The part relating to Magistrate court fines etc comes into effect today.

[Peterbard]

I thought that reg 52.8 has now changed?

 

If effectively changed last April when the TCE schedule 12 was enacted, there has been some delay in deleting the procedure from the regulations, that has now been attended to , but the TCE procedure have legally been in force since then.

[Bailiff Advice]

If effectively changed last April when the TCE schedule 12 was enacted, there has been some delay in deleting the procedure from the regulations, that has now been attended to , but the TCE procedure have legally been in force since then.

 

100% correct and in fact, John Kruse has written extensively on this subject and confirmed the position.

[Peterbard]

100% correct and in fact, John Kruse has written extensively on this subject and confirmed the position.

 

Yes it is because when legislation is enacted it automatically repeals any duplicated measure which exist in regulations elsewhere.

[Peterbard]

CPR JUst for interests sake

 

Information to be included in a warrant of control

52.7.—(1) A warrant must identify— (a) each person to whom it is directed; (b) the defendant against whom it was issued; © the sum for which it was issued and the reason that sum is owed; (d) the court or fines officer who issued it, unless that is otherwise recorded by the court officer; and (e) the court office for the court or fines officer who issued it. (2) A person to whom a warrant is directed must record on it the date and time at which it is received. (3) A warrant that contains an error is not invalid, as long as— (a) it was issued in respect of a lawful decision by the court or fines officer; and (b) it contains enough information to identify that decision.

 

Interesting to see the last sentence, so anyone arguing a warrant is void for no address for instance is incorrect.