Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • at the time, if both owners signed a voluntary charge it can not be a restriction k.  but it looks like one? as above ..... if you re mortgage with the same lender is doesn't need paying if you re mortgage with a new lender then most probably you will have to settle it.
    • The move comes after Tesla reported a sharp fall in its deliveries in the first three months of 2024.View the full article
    • please dont post up unredated court docs!! done now... it looks like: you paid for then cancelled a PC from mac group ltd however the PC still got delivered but not to you. you got issued a court claim but totally ignored it. DCBL HCEO Bailiffs attempted to enforce the CCJ...they failed..you had moved. The Claimant was Granted Permission by the Court to Serve A Statutory Demand and latterly did so. you had attempted to set aside the Original CCJ but failed to attend it's hearing and it got struck out you subsequently have have received a statutory demand for the CCJ sum. you applied to set that aside there was a hearing on 18th Apr which you did not attend. ...............   not quite sure but i think thats the story. ............. same as your other thread.. stop worrying about the house.. you ought to deal with this at some point as if the claimant does go for and manage to you BK. it might not be good. have a think about things , it might pay you to look toward putting an N245 variation to the court and offer a very low £PCM to the court, esp if you have little to no income etc like on benefits/pensioner etc...you might even get it all done for free as there is a small charge for the N245 process.        
    • you've applied to have it set aside and then you've not complied with the Judge's order for your set aside. You'll need to apply to have that order stayed on the ground you were a LIP and didn't understand it. Make it clear you now understand it and you ask that an order be made in the interim to stop all enforcement and any other action.
    • I will provide an update once I receive any further letters regarding application for SJ, and will post up any redacted version.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CIVEA Guidance Note.....When should the 'Sale Fee' of £110 be charged.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2395 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

A week or so ago a regular contributor on here (Dodgeball) started a discussion thread on the subject of when a bailiff should legally be able to charge a 'Sale Fee' of £110. The importance of this subject prompted me to approach CIVEA (The Civil Enforcement Agency) and yesterday they provided me with a copy of their official Guidance Note on the subject. A copy of this should be featuring on their website this weekend.


Dodgeball's important and interesting thread on this subject has run to 5 pages and with 100 replies, I thought that this Guidance would get better publicity if it was posted on a separate thread.


The original discussion thread can be found under the following link:



Link to post
Share on other sites

CIVEA Guidance Note


The transition from the enforcement to the sale stage and when a sale stage fee becomes applicable


How and why the issue arises


1.1 Historically, attendance to remove (ATR) fees under the old regime have been contentious, particularly where issues arose as to whether there was an actual ability to remove goods, and whether that was a prerequisite for an ATR fee. The clear aim of the new legislative regime is to remove such uncertainties. 


1.2 The "trigger" for the application of a sale stage fee attracted considerable debate during the consultation process. It was even suggested by the MoJ - but countered by CIVEA - that actual removal would have to take place in order to 
justify a sale stage fee. That would lead to an absurd result because, as is known, the catalyst for payment is often the realisation that actual removal of goods is imminent; either when the removal vehicle has been summoned, or when it arrives. Where a removal vehicle has been called, or has arrived, and where payment is then made, it would be inflammatory to have to complete the exercise of removal so as to justify a fee. 


2. Legal framework

Regulation 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides, so far as material:


Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered - enforcement other than under High Court writs


5.-(l) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows -


the compliance stage
, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;


the enforcement stage
, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendant at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;


the sale or disposal stage
, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at theproperty for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of sale or disposal...




3.1 Regulation 5 draws a sharp distinction between the various stages. 


3.2 A sale stage fee becomes applicable when there is a step-change between the enforcement and sale stages. A "step-change" requires a positive action, the best example of which will be the calling of a removal vehicle (and therefore incurring a liability to a third party contractor). 


3.3 What will amount to a step-change will be fact-specific, and it is impossible to cover every factual scenario. The following, however, will not amount to a step-change: 


a mere intention, or mindset, to remove goods 


that a number of enforcement visits have been made so as to meet some sort of 
arbitrary "threshold" for a sale stage fee somehow to become applicable 


that an enforcement agent has been at the scene for a length oftime - in other 
words, by the sheer lapse of time 


where a vehicle has been immobilised, but before a removal contractor is 


where a controlled goods agreement has been completed


3.4 The above examples are set out to demonstrate that:


(i) a sale stage fee does not become automatically applicable,


(ii) a passive or default approach is not what the Regulations intend and:


(iii) it will require a positive step-change.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want any discussion/analysis on this to be on here or on the other thread BA ?




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have updated this thread to provide a copy of the guidance given by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA) on the subject of the 'sale stage' fee.


High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA) Guidance :


A 'Sale stage' fee can only be applied under certain circumstances and cannot apply if there are no goods being taken into control which would justify removal for sale.


This may apply, if during Enforcement Stage 1 or 2, the enforcement is escalated to a removal or securing of the premises for a sale on site or a separate visit is planned and takes place, following the appropriate notice, for example, where there has been a breach of CGA and notice of intention to remove has been given (Notice of Re-entry under Regulations 26, TCG Regs 2013


This requires as a minimum, attending to carry out the planned action and should be supported by evidence.


In all instances, details of the action taken should be kept.


It is not necessarily sufficient to say:


That a number of enforcement visits have been made meeeting some sort of arbitrary "threshold" for a Sale stage fee how to become applicable


That an enforcement agent has been at the premises for some time


A vehicle has been immobilised for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear


A Controlled Goods Agreement has been completed and breached,


What is clear from the Regulations is that a positive step towards the stage needs to take place, in order to trigger the fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...