Removal for sale fee, when can it be charged ?

[Peterbard]

I am concerned about your advice regarding taking control of goods, as the goods are bound once the EA has received the Warrant of Control and confirmed by BA on numerous occasions... So who is right on this?

 

Not sure if you meant me or really what you are referring to, but if it is reference to this thread. When goods are bound it does not transfer the title of those goods, that remains with the debtor until they are taken under control.

 

Hope that helps settle your concerns.

[brassnecked]

Not sure if you meant me or really what you are referring to, but if it is reference to this thread. When goods are bound it does not transfer the title of those goods, that remains with the debtor until they are taken under control.

 

Hope that helps settle your concerns.

 

That is how I see it DB, bound goods or not if the bailiff cannot gain Peaceful Entry to take control of anything and there is no car to snatch, or alternatively there are insufficient goods available to cover the fees, and part of the debt then no sales fee can be added end of. That's not to say our step friends at Crapquita won't try to add the sales fee anyway.

[Peterbard]

Yes and of course the collection procedure has to be at sale stage in order to collect the sale fee. It seems like common sense. This is completely supported by the legislation as stated.

 

The EA cannot switch from enforcement stage to sale stage while he is at the property under compliance. The simple reason is that on enforcment no goods will be under control when he attends, he cannot attend with the intention to take for sale, as goods must be under control before they are sold. This is not just some aberration as shown it is the opinion of one of the top bailiff experts and is enshrined in the legislation, I notice those who do not agree , do not quote any legislation to support their views, because there isn't any.

 

Edit meant enforcement stage of course

[brassnecked]

One particular poster avowed that yes whilst attending at Enforcement stage, they could go straight to removal if they felt the circumstances made removal and sale best option, and they would add the sale fee then, a Grumpy one on another thread If I remember correctly

[Peterbard]

One particular poster avowed that yes whilst attending at Enforcement stage, they could go straight to removal if they felt the circumstances made removal and sale best option, and they would add the sale fee then, a Grumpy one on another thread If I remember correctly

 

Yes it is a position which many HCEOs adopt regarding the second enforcement stage in particular and is incorrect. As said earlier in the thread, the confusion is that the EA can take the goods at enforcement but for storage and not for sale. to trigger the sale fee he must re attend the "property" and take the goods to place of sale or storage(in lieu of sale).

[mikeymack2002]

Can you please point us to the links that state the EA cannot take goods on a first visit? If the EA attends and the debtor cannot/refuses to pay then why cannot he take the goods on display and sell them? This is what they have been hired to do is it not?

 

 

When the Debtor refuses to sign

 

If the Debtor refuses to sign the controlled goods agreement, then the EA will most probably escalate the enforcement stages to remove the goods to safeguard them and ultimately sell them if payment is not made.

 

 

So for clarity please explain the time line for enforcement in as much as it starts with the knock on the door the debtor opens it then what happens? The debtor refuses to sign a CGA and cannot/will not pay....

[brassnecked]

Yes it is a position which many HCEOs adopt regarding the second enforcement stage in particular and is incorrect. As said earlier in the thread, the confusion is that the EA can take the goods at enforcement but for storage and not for sale. to trigger the sale fee he must re attend the "property" and take the goods to place of sale or storage(in lieu of sale).

That is how it should be, but then we know that it is abused in the really real world by the likes of Capquita and Sherfarce.

[mikeymack2002]

I do love these pet names that posters come up with....

[Peterbard]

Can you please point us to the links that state the EA cannot take goods on a first visit? If the EA attends and the debtor cannot/refuses to pay then why cannot he take the goods on display and sell them? This is what they have been hired to do is it not?

 

 

When the Debtor refuses to sign

 

If the Debtor refuses to sign the controlled goods agreement, then the EA will most probably escalate the enforcement stages to remove the goods to safeguard them and ultimately sell them if payment is not made.

 

 

So for clarity please explain the time line for enforcement in as much as it starts with the knock on the door the debtor opens it then what happens? The debtor refuses to sign a CGA and cannot/will not pay....

 

The enforcment agents function at the enforcment stage is to take control of goods, section 13 gives his options, there is noting regarding sale, however he can remove them for storage as this is one of the options. This does not trigger a sale fee, because bassically it is not for sale, it is to take control of goods. There is no link you have to read the legislation I am afraid.

MMif you read the legisaltion posted you would not have to keep asking these questions, however. CGA is just one method of taking control of goods section 13 again there are two other which are available should the debtor not wish to sign a CGA

[mikeymack2002]

I have read the regs many times already and even 18 months on is still complicated. The fact the debtor cannot/will not pay means the EA can remove items of value and store/sell them... A CGA is an option that's all if they want to remove for sale/storage then they can.

[mikeymack2002]

My understanding is if you refuse or cannot pay in full and have goods that can clear the debt then the EA can remove the goods for sale, they would be held for a period of time before the sale due to not having an instant auction available.

 

 

But taking this one step further, could the EA not list these items immediately for sale online with an instant listing for a 7 day sale? this then would allow the fee to be added at that stage. Then allow the debtor 7 days in which to pay in full and recover their goods? The regs clearly state that the EA can sell them on an online auction house do they not?

 

 

Just thinking out loud here that's all...

[Bailiff Advice]

Unfortunately today I have seen clear EVIDENCE of 4 cases where the 'sale stage' fee of £110 has been applied in cases where it should not have been applied. In one of the cases, the debtor queried her account by making a Subject Access Account . This revealed that an initial enforcement visit had taken place 18 days after the Notice of Enforcement had been sent and that nobody was present at the property. Despite this, the enforcement fee of £235 was applied together with the sale fee of £110.

 

The frequency of the sale fee being applied is becoming a real worry.

[brassnecked]

Unfortunately today I have seen clear EVIDENCE of 4 cases where the 'sale stage' fee of £110 has been applied in cases where it should not have been applied. In one of the cases, the debtor queried her account by making a Subject Access Account . This revealed that an initial enforcement visit had taken place 18 days after the Notice of Enforcement had been sent and that nobody was present at the property. Despite this, the enforcement fee of £235 was applied together with the sale fee of £110.

 

The frequency of the sale fee being applied is becoming a real worry.

 

Which bailiff companies are doing this, is it Capquita/Ross 'n Robbers? they had form for upfront fee fraud under the old Regs. Whichever it is this should be reported to MOJ imho as they should be made aware of the abuse of the system..

[Coughdrop]

Unfortunately today I have seen clear EVIDENCE of 4 cases where the 'sale stage' fee of £110 has been applied in cases where it should not have been applied. In one of the cases, the debtor queried her account by making a Subject Access Account . This revealed that an initial enforcement visit had taken place 18 days after the Notice of Enforcement had been sent and that nobody was present at the property. Despite this, the enforcement fee of £235 was applied together with the sale fee of £110.

 

The frequency of the sale fee being applied is becoming a real worry.

 

Four cases in one day - that's a lot. I know I've not posted much recently (and don't intend posting loads), but I've obviously missed a fairly major issue akin to the old Head H fee. I assume if you've had 4 in one day, this will be reflected across the advice sector / help boards. As I say, somehow it has passed me by.

 

Definitely one to look out for - are you able to share the evidence or name and shame the companies at least?

[Bailiff Advice]

Four cases in one day - that's a lot. I know I've not posted much recently (and don't intend posting loads), but I've obviously missed a fairly major issue akin to the old Head H fee. I assume if you've had 4 in one day, this will be reflected across the advice sector / help boards. As I say, somehow it has passed me by.

 

Definitely one to look out for - are you able to share the evidence or name and shame the companies at least?

 

No, this is not four cases on the same one day. If it were, that would be of serious concern.

 

Under the 'One Year Review' the Ministry of Justice sought documentary evidence of any wrongdoing and in this respect, details of approx 10 cases were provided to them where the 'sale fee' had been applied in circumstances where it should not have been. I will not post copies of the documentation on the forum but if you wish, I will email copies over to you in the morning.

[Peterbard]

My understanding is if you refuse or cannot pay in full and have goods that can clear the debt then the EA can remove the goods for sale, they would be held for a period of time before the sale due to not having an instant auction available.

 

 

But taking this one step further, could the EA not list these items immediately for sale online with an instant listing for a 7 day sale? this then would allow the fee to be added at that stage. Then allow the debtor 7 days in which to pay in full and recover their goods? The regs clearly state that the EA can sell them on an online auction house do they not?

 

 

Just thinking out loud here that's all...

 

hi sorry about the delay had to sort some problems out.

 

The thing is MM that the goods taken at sale sale are previously taken under control under section 13. The sale fee can only be charged on controlled goods, so this has to take place on the sale visit. If you look at the options available under section 13, there are none that would permit the EA to sell the goods on removal. EAs have to act in accordance with the schedule 12 procedure, just because they get paid to do a job does not mean that they an just do as they like, thank goodness.

[Peterbard]

No, this is not four cases on the same one day. If it were, that would be of serious concern.

 

Under the 'One Year Review' the Ministry of Justice sought documentary evidence of any wrongdoing and in this respect, details of approx 10 cases were provided to them where the 'sale fee' had been applied in circumstances where it should not have been. I will not post copies of the documentation on the forum but if you wish, I will email copies over to you in the morning.

 

Hi BA.

 

yes this is why JK raised the point, the abuse is still quite common apparently. Just seen it on the television program , where the bailiff implies that goods will be taken and sold on a first visit, very misleading.

 

Incidentally in that program the bailiff gets a call whilst at the debtors premises from a "solicitor" who tells him what he is doing is illegal, bailiff ignores it of course.

[brassnecked]

Hi BA.

 

yes this is why JK raised the point, the abuse is still quite common apparently. Just seen it on the television program , where the bailiff implies that goods will be taken and sold on a first visit, very misleading.

 

Incidentally in that program the bailiff gets a call whilst at the debtors premises from a "solicitor" who tells him what he is doing is illegal, bailiff ignores it of course.

 

There needs to be a test case, as it is possible the EA Companies will try to apply the Sales Fee at any opportunity whether lawful at that stage or not.

 

We appear to be going back to the pre April 2014 scenario where for example Capita Group EA's were applying all fees before the first visit as in upfront fee fraud. MOJ need to stamp on them hard.

[mikeymack2002]

Final post on this thread...

DB you are wrong an EA can remove items on the first visit. Also the program you are referring to was it not an HCEO?..

 

Again if you refuse to sign or pay and the EA starts to remove and you try to stop them then a new offence occurs of obstructing comes in to play again costing the debtor even more money and a criminal record...

[Peterbard]

Final post on this thread...

DB you are wrong an EA can remove items on the first visit. Also the program you are referring to was it not an HCEO?..

 

Again if you refuse to sign or pay and the EA starts to remove and you try to stop them then a new offence occurs of obstructing comes in to play again costing the debtor even more money and a criminal record...

 

MM. I some times think that you do not read anything other than what you post.

 

As I have said a multitude of times on here, I am not wrong. The EA can remove goods at the first stage, but for storage not for sale. I suppose it is a waste of time to tell you to look at section 13 again..

[Peterbard]

Regarding removal for storage, as said again a multitude of times. The power to remove goods is an option under section 13, it does not depend on the CGA being refused, goods can be removed even if the CGA is not mentioned. It is entirely down to what the EA thinks is the most appropriate method of taking control of goods.

[Peterbard]

Final post on this thread...

.

 

Getting a bit like you friends OTR MM, make a silly statement then dont have the stomach to defend it.

[Peterbard]

There needs to be a test case, as it is possible the EA Companies will try to apply the Sales Fee at any opportunity whether lawful at that stage or not.

 

We appear to be going back to the pre April 2014 scenario where for example Capita Group EA's were applying all fees before the first visit as in upfront fee fraud. MOJ need to stamp on them hard.

 

I think that this is the reason why this is practice is continuing, anything to increase the pressure on the debtor. I think that this is made perfectly clear within the act, perhaps some kind of publication drawing the EAs attention to how the act works produced by the authorities, something like the guidance procedure on VAT and fees perhaps.

[mikeymack2002]

Getting a bit like you friends OTR MM, make a silly statement then dont have the stomach to defend it.

 

 

Since I do not sit on these boards 24/7 I have been out with family members and discussing this very issue. if the EA wants to take the goods the only way to stop it is to enter in to the agreement or risk losing your chattels! Since I am not the only one on many boards they also state you are wrong not just DWB but others too.

 

 

Since I have been banned on one other board then I cannot state clearly enough the rules are open to interpretation by everyone including the EA. At the end of the day if they (EA) need to take your chattels they will. No matter what you say or moan about it could still happen. The EA does not have to enter in to a CGA it is an option, if they prefer to take your goods in lieu of payment then they will. They don't have to leave and come back they can and often do take goods when visiting properties to enforce the WoC.

 

 

 

What was your point about post #47 having a dig? But unlike you I will and do take criticism openly and with an open mind, maybe you should do the same. I.E. if you are wrong and it is pointed out to you take it on the chin and move on. No need for cheap digs at any other poster is there!!!

[mikeymack2002]

If they EA does decide to take your goods for sale you have 7 days to pay or they are sold its in the regs too...