andrew wilson Andrew James enforced at a wrong address

[HCEOs]

I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

[unclebulgaria67]

I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

Would you threaten a businesses goods while they were trading with customers present, when the warrant was for a liability owed by a private person, who was just an employee of the business ? The EA was shown evidence of the company ownership/who owned the goods and they were aware that the warrant related to an unpaid parking ticket of a private person.

 

Does not sound correct to me.

[Coughdrop]

I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

So accepted practice would be if, say I owed £650 for CTax and I have £650 worth of goods you could seize in my house, but did not have £650 I could immediately get my hands on, rather than accept three monthly payments to clear the debt, you'd reject this and look to enforce in other ways? This despite me offering a reasonable repayment option.

 

This is totally wrong surely. It goes against the whole spirit of the TCGA doesn't it?

[HCEOs]

We enforce judgments through the High Court, not parking fines, council tax etc. The work is different and therefore a different approach is needed.

 

My comment was in relation to the lengthy discussions on repayment not the original post in this thread.

 

The key point is it always comes down to assets. The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor. If a reasonable repayment plan is offered and the EA is satisfied that the goods will not disappear then a short repayment plan may be accepted, with the creditors agreement. However, some creditors refuse repayment plans entirely, it is not always down to the EA.

 

Each case is dealt with on its merits.

[Peterbard]

I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

How would the EA know what the debtor had at compliance ?

[Peterbard]

Yes it is an interesting question, here is another.

What would be the point of a compliance stage which gives the debtor chance to make an offer of payment and avoid the enforcement visit if this can only be considered when the value of goods has been assertained.

 

Also one might ask,what is the purpose of a two stage enforcement procedure ?

[brassnecked]

The TCGA doesn't seem to look right with High Court then DB, as EA/HCEO will want to make an Enforcement visit to assess the goods in the debtors Private Residence for that water bill, but has no automatic right of entry, rather than look at an I&E and an offer based on it, they will hope there is a car they can grab when they call.

[Peterbard]

I think it is a question of altering long held practices.

 

As said,"The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor"

 

However section 62 of the TCE says:

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exerciser only by using that procedure.

 

The days of turning up out of the blue and saying I have a writ give us your money or we will take our goods has ended, now the writ must be enforce using the procedure.

[brassnecked]

Looks like some HCEO EAs will have to modify their methods possibly DB then to ensure compliance with TCGA

[Peterbard]

I must echo Ba's sentiments though. We are very fortunate to have the input of HCEOs and EAs on here, it is pointless going on about the regulations if we do not know what is happening in the real world.

[brassnecked]

I must echo Ba's sentiments though. We are very fortunate to have the input of HCEOs and EAs on here, it is pointless going on about the regulations if we do not know what is happening in the real world.

Absolutely agree, they do indicate what is the reality from an EA perspective.

[got_thugged]

Update:

 

I have received a letter from the Defendant's solicitor raising two issues:

 

1. The documents now served are therefore prima facie out of time. (They say they received the documents 5 days after the intended date of delivery?)

 

They are asking me for a reason why the documents got delayed.

 

2. In addition the Particulars of Claim served do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16 as they have not been verified by a Statement of Truth.

 

They have however attached a copy of their N9 response pack with box 1 (I intend to defend all of this claim).

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

This is what you will have now and probably no way out. They will use every trick in the book to defend and they will use solicitors specifically who deal with bailiff law. I can see this getting verybdrawn out, and possibly, very very expensive. Last one of these I saw, costs were awarded as although it was a smalls claims issue, the claim was done that way to avoid the proper court procedure and costs were awarded. I think in the region of about £4000.

 

Maybe you will win, but I doubt it. The correct processes, even as a third party, would have been an eac2 complaint. If upheld, then sue.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I think it is a question of altering long held practices.

 

As said,"The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor"

 

However section 62 of the TCE says:

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exerciser only by using that procedure.

 

The days of turning up out of the blue and saying I have a writ give us your money or we will take our goods has ended, now the writ must be enforce using the procedure.

 

Essentialy, this confuses LA work with civil claimants. A civil claimant does not have to accept an arrangement and can specifically tell the EA upon asking them to carry out the writ that no arrangements are to be made. The only acceptable arrangement is to repay the entire debt before the expiry of the noe.

[got_thugged]

Is any of the advice given on this website correct at all?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/pcnlegal.html

 

It deals with all regulations applicable and is not some fotl thing.

[unclebulgaria67]

got thugged, your thread became a debate about the legislation, without you being given totally clear advice.

 

What is clear is that the Enforcement companies are interpreting the new legislation in different ways.

 

Not sure where you are with your issue and what steps to take. The bailiff advice site you linked to (DWB) is not recognised by CAG. It contains interesting advice, but should be treated with extreme caution. Some of it, is very similar to FMOTL.

 

What actions have you taken ?

[Peterbard]

Essentialy, this confuses LA work with civil claimants. A civil claimant does not have to accept an arrangement and can specifically tell the EA upon asking them to carry out the writ that no arrangements are to be made. The only acceptable arrangement is to repay the entire debt before the expiry of the noe.

 

I dont think so, LA's are civil claimants, and what ever way you cut it the HCEO and the bailiff enforcing an LA liability order, have to use the same procedure.

 

If the creditor will only accept a full payment then goods can be taken under control and time given to raise the sum required there is no difference.

 

If the debtor refuses to pay, goods can be taken under control and stored elsewhere, but this does not trigger any sale fee. Because the bailiff did not attend with the intention of taking goods for sale.

 

Goods can be taken from the debtor and secured elsewhere. They can then be taken from there for sale, this then triggers the sale fee.

[Peterbard]

Is any of the advice given on this website correct at all?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/pcnlegal.html

 

It deals with all regulations applicable and is not some fotl thing.

 

 

Very little and no it doesn't not by a long way

 

OOps just noticed the link has been changed, I am sure everyone knows what i mean, I am not of course referring to CAG