Removal for sale fee, when can it be charged ?

[Peterbard]

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!!!

 

These are not "open to interpretation because they are clear. I see I will have to copy the section again for you.

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.

(2)Any liability of an enforcement agent (including criminal liability) arising out of his securing goods on a highway under this paragraph is excluded to the extent that he acted with reasonable care.

 

Notice at the top it says

 

WAYS oF TAKING CONTROL

 

Then it says

 

13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.

 

May do one of the following, it does not say section c can be implemented if section d is refused, section c can be used in any case.

 

Also this is take away for storage, not take away for sale.#

 

The goods then have to be removed form the place of storage for sale this would implement the sale stage and the sale fee.

 

It also gives the debtor additional time to pay

[Peterbard]

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!!!

 

I am not interested in what is said on any sites, you seem preoccupied with linking to other sources on the net, I have news for you, some are incorrect. I can link you to a site which states that the earth is flat, or it is only five thousand years old, or proceeds can only be paid to the EA can you believe that, for instance.

 

If you want opinion then read on her at what JK says on this thread you will find he agrees with me in every instance, or more accurately I agree with him.

[Peterbard]

 

 

 

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!!!

 

Again you seem to be taking information from elsewhere seriously, I am aware that I am the subject of continued abuse and misinformation about my personal circumstances and just for information. I am not going to point out errors on here as frankly it has nothing to do with the debate.

[brassnecked]

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...

 

Assuming they can get in to Take Control, or there is a car to snatch.

 

If none of the above they are screwed, time for council to go for AOE or AOB.

[Peterbard]

Assuming they can get in to Take Control, or there is a car to snatch.

 

If none of the above they are screwed, time for council to go for AOE or AOB.

 

Completely correct, they cannot remove goods for sale which have not been taken under control, this is why they cannot take them even if entry is achieved on the enforcment stage visit.

They have to use the methods in section 13 and none of these permit the taking of goods for sale, in fact all of them require a second visit. To either release goods or take goods for sale or to follow up a failed CGA, or remove the clamp etc.

[Bailiff Advice]

As much as I would like to, I have refrained from taking part in this discussion as I am aware that this thread is providing much needed entertainment for a trio of obsessed individuals on another forum who resort to using ‘poison-well’ techniques (smear tactics) in order to bait posters on here into agreeing that their ‘interpretation’ of bailiff regulations is the correct one.

 

With the greatest of respect, I know that what I post on here is accurate and unlike in the case of these obsessed individuals, is not aimed at analyising legislation in order to find the proverbial ‘loophole’ to assist debtors in avoiding paying a bailiff.

 

When I start a thread (or make a post on the forum) I do so purely in order to provide accurate information to the public. I do not make posts for the benefit these troubled individuals and I would suggest that as difficult as it may be at times for others on here.....they should follow suit.

 

The public ignore their website....please let's do the same.

[Bailiff Advice]

Completely correct, they cannot remove goods for sale which have not been taken under control, this is why they cannot take them even if entry is achieved on the enforcment stage visit.

 

You and I are both aware that John Kruse (for visitors on here, he is the countries expert on bailiff law) is adamant that only 'controlled goods' can be removed. He is also of the opinion that very few vehicles are actually being removed because the modest fee (of £110) does not cover the costs of removal etc. Whilst I greatly admire John Kruse's work, I do not always agree with what he writes and on his point about the rarity of vehicles being removed, I do not think that he is correct and I have provided evidence to him just a few days ago. The evidence referred to has been provided by me to the Ministry of Justice for their 'One Year Review' and is frankly appalling as it is becoming increasingly clear to me that some companies are taking vehicles at an alarming rate and charging outrageous daily 'storage fees'. I anticipated in 2013 that 'storage fees' may become a serious issue and it looks as if I was right.

 

Despite what the regulations may say about the 'sale fee' it is also the case that some enforcement companies have their own 'interpretation' about when this fee can be applied and in fact, this point has actually been raised by CIVEA in their response to the One Year Review.

 

Given the level of confusion, CIVEA have recently sought Counsels opinion and have compiled a Guidance Note that they expect all their members to adhere to regarding the charging of this fee. I am hoping to receive a copy in the next few days and I would also expect CIVEA to allow me to publish the Guidance on the forum. I am sure that the guidance will lead to continued discussion on this thread !!

[brassnecked]

BA, I was concerned about the Storage Fee from the outset, as they are an opportunity to fleece made very manifest as in what is reasonable?

£10, £20, £50 or more per day. The £110 Sales Fee is only the beginning of another very large bill that could escalate a Liability Order for arrears of low amounts below £25, £5, or even £1 as per Outlawla & the NELC FOI information into hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

[Peterbard]

I dont think that the point that goods must be under control before they are removed for sale is an issue, the legislation and all of the regulations state " controlled goods" when referring to actions taken in respect of sale and as said it is only when goods are taken under control that the EA can sell them as before that he does not have title.

 

It must also be remembered that goods can also be removed for storage in the enforcment stage as part of the process, this does not enable sale or trigger the fee.

 

I am unsure what the CIvea guidence says, previous guidence I have seen seems to ignore the sale stage all together , so it will be interested to see and as shown, in the past it is not always completely accurate for obvious reasons.

 

As far as the issue itself is concerned, I just read the legislation and report what it says, JK happens to agree, which gives me added confidence but if anyone can show the legislation permits the charging of sale fees at enforcement, I will gladly re examine, however so far no one has.

 

This is an important issue and despite what may be said I raise it because it is a concern that people may be charged fees and charges that are not lawfully due.

 

Despite what happens on the FMoTL type forums mentioned, there will be no abuse or silly remarks here, all contributions will be gratefully received.

[brassnecked]

Once the goods are taken into control and removed, and especially in the case of a motor vehicle or a mobility scooter, storage fees will rack up a considerable sum, as £25 - £50 per day is a not uncommon amount. The Sales Fee applicable on actual sale will be insignificant in comparison.

 

Incidentally on a successful Third Party Claim for a car that has been in storage for a month, wonder if the EA will try to charge the storage to the third party? Might be cheeky enough.

Edited October 13, 2015 by brassnecked
typo

[caro]

[/color]. I do not make posts for the benefit these troubled individuals and I would suggest that as difficult as it may be at times for others on here.....they

 

The public ignore their website....please let's do the same.

 

Yes. If EVERYONE ignored the site, especially regarding what they think of cag and those who post here then there'd be no problem.

[Bailiff Advice]

Yes. If EVERYONE ignored the site, especially regarding what they think of cag and those who post here then there'd be no problem.

 

I quite agree but the personal insults aside, it is nonetheless very difficult indeed to witness debtors having bailiff fees substantially increased, vehicles being taken and court cases lost on a frequent basis and all the while,.....this trio of individuals continue to provide a 'ring of steel' around their Guru (JasonDWB).

[mikeymack2002]

Well its about time CAG stopped references to that site, oh they do I forgot. It's about time some posters stopped their referencing to other known sites and live a life like others and stop tit for tat postings. Life goes on before and after DWB. My personal thoughts are there is much more to this than either party is willing to admit..

 

Finally anyone seeking unprofessional advice is FULLY responsible for what may happen to them ... or cost them...

[Bailiff Advice]

BA, I was concerned about the Storage Fee from the outset, as they are an opportunity to fleece made very manifest as in what is reasonable?

£10, £20, £50 or more per day. The £110 Sales Fee is only the beginning of another very large bill that could escalate a Liability Order for arrears of low amounts below £25, £5, or even £1 as per Outlawla & the NELC FOI information into hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

 

Regarding your second comment about Liability Orders for low amounts. I have now seen a lot of contracts and many of them provide that low value Liability Orders should not be allowed to be subject to a stage two fee (enforcement fee of £235) and should stay at the Compliance stage.

 

Your first comment (storage fees) is by far the most serious problem.

 

Before the regulations came into effect in April 2014 I voiced my concerns (even on this forum) and to the Ministry of Justice about 'storage fees'. Thankfully for the 'One Year Review' I have been able to provide a lot of documentary evidence to support my concerns. By far the worst offender is one particular London authority who have decided to take their bailiff enforcement 'in house'. They are allowing their 'in house' bailiffs to charge an astronomical amount of 'storage fees' of £50 per day !!!! This same council also remove vehicles from the streets that may be causing an obstruction and those cars are taken to the local authorities vehicle pound (which is the same location used by their bailiffs). All London authorities have to charge the exact same daily fee for storage......which just so happens to be significantly cheaper than their 'in house' team are charging to debtors. It is a disgrace.

 

Fortunately, any LA's who take bailiff enforcement 'in house' will be subject to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. I am looking forward to their response.

[ploddertom]

 

Fortunately, any LA's who take bailiff enforcement 'in house' will be subject to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. I am looking forward to their response.

 

 

That could change if they get their wish to charge for FOI requests!

[Peterbard]

That could change if they get their wish to charge for FOI requests!

 

I think many of us saw this coming it is yet another example of a free facility being abused and subsequently being withdrawn.

[ploddertom]

 

I think many of us saw this coming it is yet another example of a free facility being abused and subsequently being withdrawn.

 

 

I agree the system needs to be changed/overhauled to try & stop the abuse by multiple requests from people posing under different identities.

 

However this detracts from the main question so shall refrain from making further comment on this point.

[Bailiff Advice]

Duplicate

[brassnecked]

£50 per day or £350 per week is outrageous, as three weeks in storage will add over £1,000 to the bill so on a LO for £150, the debtor is screwed over totally. Incidentally if a vehicle is removed and a Third Part is successful and the vehicle ordered to be returned after say 2 weeks and £700 in storage fees, is the car ransomed until the innocent pays the storage, or does the LA waive that cost?

 

What is the cost that all London Councils should be charging?

[wonkeydonkey]

£50 per day or £350 per week is outrageous, as three weeks in storage will add over £1,000 to the bill so on a LO for £150, the debtor is screwed over totally. Incidentally if a vehicle is removed and a Third Part is successful and the vehicle ordered to be returned after say 2 weeks and £700 in storage fees, is the car ransomed until the innocent pays the storage, or does the LA waive that cost?

 

What is the cost that all London Councils should be charging?

 

I recently stored my car in a 'secured' parking facility near Newcastle airport for 1 week, the cost was £48+vat. I fail to see how the same/similar facility can warrant a fee of £50 per day.

[caledfwlch]

I recently stored my car in a 'secured' parking facility near Newcastle airport for 1 week, the cost was £48+vat. I fail to see how the same/similar facility can warrant a fee of £50 per day.

 

I personally think Seizure in most cases is potentially a breach of the human rights act, or perhaps something else.

 

The point of seizure is supposed to be to clear the debt, yet it is a well known fact that not only will most seizures not clear the debt, but will significantly increase it. That cannot be remotely right or fair, and could be argued as a cruel and unusual punishment being inflicted by the courts, despite being in debt not being a criminal matter.

[Bailiff Advice]

£50 per day or £350 per week is outrageous, as three weeks in storage will add over £1,000 to the bill so on a LO for £150, the debtor is screwed over totally.

 

What is the cost that all London Councils should be charging?

 

Bearing in mind that we are talking here about London, the example that I am providing below shows that if vehicles are removed from the street for causing an obstruction that LB of Newham charge a 'removal fee' of £200 and storage fees of £40 after a period of 24 hours.

 

LB of Newham have their own 'in house' bailiff operation called One Source. It is this operation that are allowing their bailiffs to charge storage fees of £50 per day. Naturally the vehicles are taken to the same vehicle pound !!

 

https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/Services/Clamping-and-removals.aspx#pound

[Peterbard]

I personally think Seizure in most cases is potentially a breach of the human rights act, or perhaps something else.

 

The point of seizure is supposed to be to clear the debt, yet it is a well known fact that not only will most seizures not clear the debt, but will significantly increase it. That cannot be remotely right or fair, and could be argued as a cruel and unusual punishment being inflicted by the courts, despite being in debt not being a criminal matter.

 

I think that it is the threat of seizure which assists in settlement of the debt(in most cases) rather than the act itself. Unfortunately in order for the theat to be effective it must be carried thr9ugh.

[caledfwlch]

I think that it is the threat of seizure which assists in settlement of the debt(in most cases) rather than the act itself. Unfortunately in order for the theat to be effective it must be carried thr9ugh.

 

But the point of the threat going ahead is to cover the debt, which it clearly does not.

 

The HCEO's certainly make a big song and dance about how they have been "ordered by the court to attend and remove goods to cover the debt, however if you can pay, we wont take the goods" they are primarily there, or at least that is how they see it under the law to take goods, and it sounds like in theory could ignore cash and still take the goods.

 

Therefore if they take goods that not only wont cover the debt, but will increase it, that is not attempting to pay the debt, but is enacting an illegal additional punishment against the Debtor.

[Peterbard]

I dont think that the sale of goods has to completely cover the debts, in fact section 13 of the fees regs gives the formula for distributing proceeds when they are less than the amount outstanding.

 

But the point really is that the threat of having your goods removed is a powerful incentive to raise the cash, and EA are legally permitted to threaten such an action.