"Who would agree to this without understanding the consequences ? " Good question. UB If, for instance the option of a remote examination of goods were permissible at compliance, the debtor may be tempted to agree, if it was mooted as an alternative option to attendance. There would have to be accommodation for the debtors signature of course, but there are laws in place to cover remote signatures on contracts, and frankly that would be the least if the EAs problems.

Thanks BN. I should add, that any Bailiff action is, to my mind unconscionable under the present circumstances, and the point should have been raised by the Master IMO. As usual our problem will not be, what the amendment says. But more, what some EA will imply it says, on the doorstep.

On examining the Judgement there are a few things which occur to me. The Master seemed to have a problem reconciling the original act (see under)with the amendments and regulations made in 2013 14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods. (2)Where there are different relevant premises this paragraph authorises entry to each of them. (3)This paragraph authorises repeated entry to the same premises, subject to any restriction in regulations. (4)If the enforcement agent is acting under section 72(1) (CRAR), the only relevant premises are the demised . premises. With that of the sections later amended in 2013 and Regulations in the TCoG regs of the same date. These give instruction on how entry can be made . The language of the original act reflects the intention to use force. So when it says"14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods." it is an unqualified instruction , in that regard. In my view the original language of part 14 should also have been amended when the regulations came into use, but were not. As pointed out by the Master, with reference to Mr Benyons observations, the word , May is used in the part rather than must, which could be applicable here, however, I think that this was more in consideration of settlement prior to the intended visit. I dont think virtual anything as available when the act was drafted.

Virtual Enforcement (During the Pandemic) Enforcement trade bodies and Just invite MoJ to review regulations - Credit Today - Consumer Action Group Enforcement agents may enter homes via video, court decides | News | Law Gazette On the eighth of January 2021 Master McCloud, sitting in the High court (QB) in Wales was required to make a declaration, regarding the legality of “Virtual Visits” by Enforcement officers operating under part 13(d) of schedule 12 TCE 2007. That is, to enter into a Controlled Goods agreement without entry into the debtors premises. It was decided that there was nothing within the immediate legislation which prevented it, but further investigations should be made regarding its effect on other sections of the act and regulations made under it. IT IS DECLARED THAT: 1. An enforcement agent may enter into a controlled goods agreement within the meaning of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 with a debtor whether or not the enforcement agent has physically entered the premises on which the goods are located. Judgement Here Just Digital Marketplace Ltd (enforcement - controlled goods agreements - taking control of goods) [2021] EWHC 15 (QB) (08 January 2021) (bailii.org) Opinion The first thing to emphasis on this, is that it does not affect any of the debtors previous rights and protections under the TCE, the facility is entirely, and can only, be used with the debtors full permission and thus knowledge. In particular, it does not taking control of goods by peeking through debtors windows. Also, and I suspect this is something some EA may argue, it does not give permission for them to force re-entry to claim goods IMO. More to come

Hi. I am unsure why my last post was removed, I wasn't being funny, just a little busy ATM. the subsequent post revealed that there were payments made up to 2019 So SB is out the window as said. As you know you will need a good arguable reason why you could be expected to win on your application, that is, for it to be considered by the court. Look for Was the credit card under an arrangement(reduced payments)with the original creditor before it was assigned to Link Notice of Assignment, notice of sums of arrears as said earlier. Have statements been maintained since, every month since the original transfer/assignment date. Have they charged interest since termination of agreement;(withdrawal of credit facility.) Did they send any earlier default notice, termination or warning about recording a default on your CF. When was the default or missed payment first recorded on the file. spell

Well there is still the enforcement issue. Not sure i agree with the "Trumps it all" statement TBH. default judgement, respondent moved house so did not receive paperwork, workable SB defence? Regarding the SB date, we know that the last payment date on a regulated agreement has nothing to do with the Sb, dont we? Anyway I will leave you good people to it , best of luck to all.

Hi. if for instance a default was issued in 2013 , and not paid they cannot pursue six years later plus 14 days later. Neither in my view should the put a default on your file, but as said earlier this is arguable from a legal standpoint I have found though, that once you look into these things you will probably find the default notice was never issued. Really you need to see the agreement a default notice and the claim etc. Possible application to set aside? DX It also seems lie a big jump from judgement to applying for a chargeing order, i believe the FCA guidance will have something to say about that.

The POC doesn't state when the DN was issued, unless I missed it. the sb date would be 6 years from that date plus 14 days. As that would be the earliest they could enforce. So, as you say it may well be SB. Unless payments were made in the interim.

I have seen many of these cases over the last year or so, mainly Vanquis but now other dca and credit providers. When taken to the ombudsman the response is that legally the creditor has done nothing wrong, however they have agreed to ..., then they give the scenario seen here. This pactice is wrong for many reasons but it seems the creditors will continue to pursue this course, until there is some positive ruling on the matter. Which is why they relent from their initial bullish responses should the customer look like he is taking it to court.

Nice link Andy? Complaints | CIVEA

Yes it must have been signed. Do we have a name for the EA? How much in fees did they end up charging, if you dont mind me asking. Oh, and Civea dont handle customer complaints anymore I believe.

Hi Important, when you made the arrangement to pay, did you sign a walking possession order? If you did not they CANNOT come back and take goods off you, nor do they have a right to force entry, it is that document (agreement) that gives them the right. The bailiff misrepresenting himself in that way, is also a very serious offence. Was there any witnesses?

It seems to be legit, it states that i can avoid this by logging in. No idea what my codes are, and besides I dont want to reactivate it. Cheeky monkeys.

How odd My letter is dated 23rd November, yes it sometimes takes me a while to get through my mail. It says You account has been inactive for twelve months..............inactive account,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless reactivated.. fee £9. I will look through the stuff you kindly provided.

I dont use PayPal, just dont like their business model. Anyway, like everybody else i opened an account about ten years ago with them , used it once. Sent them an email to cancel immediately after.. Today I received a letter saying that unless I started using this account they would charge me a £9 "none usage fee". I just wondered, if anyone else has received one of these?

Hi Just a thought, but are they still permitted to share the data after such a long time?

They could not have visited earlier(legally) without sending an earlier NOE, like the one produced here. Ask them for a copy of the earlier notice, and details of when it was sent. As it is, you are now at compliance stage, and only the compliance fee of £75 is due. You need to write/email to the authority and tell them that you had no idea the liability order had been applied for, or that indeed money was owed, as you had left the area. Copy the Bailiff in. If the authority take it back, which they should IMO, they should cancel all enforcement fees. Hi DX, At first thought you would think so: but if you did that, the bailiff would still have the enforcement power. It hasn't been withdrawn and there is nothing to stop him calling and charging the extra fee, especially because the debtor is told to pay him, and not the authority. I dare say, eventually it would be all sorted and he would get his money back, but there are no guarantees . Best going about it the right way IMO and getting the LO sorted. He should have ample time.

Hi You need to get on to the authority also, there are various statutory letters you should have received from them prior to any further enforcement(bailiffs). You should have been warned for instance that the a liability order was being applied for. I take it you had moved out by the time the liability order was issued in 2017? With respect to DX, that letter is way out of date, and really should not be used. If you have proof you moved before the liability order was made, like your new CT bill. Offer to send a copy. Ask them to withdraw the bailiffs, as you want to set up a repayment plan I find it helps to offer a payment off the debt, perhaps the first instalment, others disagree but I think it shows willing. You may have to provide them with an I and E. I dont see mention of an enforcement fee, but these can only be charged after the bailiff has called. Once the order is taken back, any bailiff fee should be removed. You will have to be persistent.

Lol. Yes I remember seeing this as an original. No interest permitted on a CCA debt like this Unless it is under the courts act, post initialising proceedings. section 69 county courts act.

Your SAR to the CRA, should show the default being issued and then taken off. In fact some of the CRA have a facility to show historic entries. Creditors should not be assigning un-defaulted accounts to debt collectors, because a DCA do not have the facilities to maintain the accounts if the debtor remedies by paying up before termination Everyone who encounters this should complain as loudly as possible IMHO.

Yes absolutely its called reversing the burden of proof, I believe. As DX says, if you dont respond properly, there is nothing to stop them taking proceedings, the court will not interfere.

The situation is, that your correspondence, if it is to reset the SB start date would have to state an intention to pay. If the debt had already gone past the six years, it cannot be re started.

As I feared the raving looney parties have picked this up to bolster there idea, that you can pay the court direct to avoid fees. No not at all. In this case a warrant should not have been sent, because the debtor had not been given the time to remedy under the Courts act.(ten days). Nothing to do with bailiffs. Quite a rare occurrence. After the warrant is properly received by the bailiff, they have the power to enforce, all payments will end up with them, no matter who you pay, and they will remove their fees. A similar claim was made in the high court a few years ago, in Murgatroyd, that too was false because the debtor had failed to notify the HCEO of payment of the debt, again before the warrant was issued.

Yes good. I did mention the 10 ay ting earlier, although i did think you were referring to an agreement with the Bailiff, if I must be honest. Unusual for the fine officer not to send the ten day notice, as he is the one who creates the warrant. But all's well that ends well. It again goes to show that you should talk to the creditor or/and the bailiff, and not, as others are advised to do, ignore them. Well done Oh and have to say, well done DX.

The initial £75 Fee is separate to the the enforcement charges under fees regulations, in that the bailiff is due to be paid on endorsement of the warrant by the EA, prior to enforcement. It is not part of the pro rata payment under section 13 of the fees regulations. In any case the OP says he had already defaulted on repayment to a plan set up by the bailiff, the bailiff would not have to send another NOE in that case, neither do they have to acknowledge failure to keep to the terms of the agreement. They will, in my view, quite rightly, enforce forthwith.