Major crackdown on abuse of 'debt' judgement by rogue parking and utility firms is announced Ministers will pledge action on abuse of county court judgments by rogue firms Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed The Govt plans to immediately set aside all backdoor CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

Despite the new bailiff regulations having been in force for over 18 months, it is very worrying to see that a number of the 'Beat the Bailiff' Facebook pages continue to advise the public that if an enforcement agent is enforcing a judgment that has been transferred to the High Court, that the agent cannot charge VAT on bailiff fees. Such information is inaccurate and highly misleading. In April 2014 the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 were introduced and provide for statutory fees that can be charged by enforcement agents. In relation to county court judgments transferred to the High Court for enforcement, the statutory fee scale provides that the enforcement agent can charge the following fees: Compliance fee: £75 First enforcement stage: £190 (plus 7.5% on amount over £1,000). Second stage enforcement: £495 Sale or disposal fee: £525 plus 7.5% on sums over £1,000 The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 were laid before Parliament on 4th January 2014 and came into force on 6th April 2014. It was not until shortly after the regulation had been laid in Parliament that HMRC finally resolved the issue as to whether or not VAT should be added to bailiff fees. On 26th March 2014 (two weeks before the regulations came into effect) the Ministry of Justice released their official guidance on VAT. This followed official HMRC approval and agreement. HMRC amended their internet guide a short while after.

Given the degree of misunderstanding about an N245 Application (together with inaccurate advice about enforcement of a writ of control by a High Court Enforcement Officer) a debtor is reporting online that her debt has increased by almost £1,000. Background: On 2nd December the debtor posted that she had received notification from a High Court Enforcement company that they were enforcing a CCJ. She made clear that she wanted to pay the debt within one month of the date of the judgment (17th November) so as to ensure that her credit rating was not affacted. On receipt of the Notice of Enforcement she contacted the enforcement company to advise that she could not pay immediately and wanted to make an arrangement to pay by the 17th December. As this was outside of the Compliance stage, the enforcement compoany correcrtly advised her that any arrangement would involve a personal visit by the Enforcement Officer and a Stage 1 fee of £190 plus vat would be chargeable. She was advised to file an N245. She was wrongly advised that enforcement would cease. ON 11th December she made a series of desperate posts as she was having trouble completing the N245 and was becoming very anxious as the matter had to be resolved within 6 days (by 17th December) otherwise a record of the judgment would appear on her credit file and remain there for a further six years. On the same day (11th December) she was advised to pay the judgment debt £890 (minus bailiff fees) online to the creditor. She did so. She also file the N245.....and paid a court fee of £50 Yesterday, she posted back in desperation. The enforcement officer has once again visited and the debt has substantially risen to £1,928 (Stage 1 and Stage 2 fees have been applied). The enforcement company stated that they had contacted the creditor a few days beforehand and that apparently, their records did not record her direct payment. This has now been amended. National Debt Line have advised her that the enforcement agent is indeed entitled to his fees. The court have not yet received a response from the creditor in relation to her N245 Application (which is about right given the Christmas period). She has now been told to file an N244 in the High Court. The McKenzie Friend has offered to refer her to his ‘solicitor’. She needs to pay another fee of £150 for this. This is in addition to the N244 fee of £155.

Here are two sets of county court judgments. One relates to their LTD liability company and the other to their trading name. There are probably more judgments at their other address and also in the name of devicebuyer but we don’t have the resources to buy any more. Against their trading name:- Against them as a Ltd company

Copy of His Honour Judge Cryan's Judgment regarding Costs in Form 4 Complaints. On 16th April I started a new "Sticky" regarding the problems that can be encountered when making a Form 4 complaint. In that post I also mentioned the serious matter of costs and I referred to a leading test case that was heard before His Honour Judge Cryan sitting at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC. For ease of reference I provided important extracts of his Judgment dated 25th January 2011. A copy of the full judgment (which includes a case reference) can be read by way of the following link: [ATTACH=CONFIG]43427[/ATTACH]

The following are lists of legal cases /Judgements and a description of the relevance of each case. As an example I will be providing copies of the following: Toseland Building Supplies v Bishop Groundworks Ltd: This appeal court case is relevant if claiming that goods or a vehicle are "Tools of the Trade". DSI Foods etc: This vitally important appeal court case regarding Shergroup Ltd confirms that a bailiff CANNOT assume that all goods in the property belong to the debtor and that he must ensure that he reads any documentation given to him. The 2nd most crucial part of the judgment is that a bailiff should only visit the address given on the writ of fi fa/warrant. Michael Throssell v Leeds City Council: This case was one where Mr Throssell was seeking "detailed assessmant" of the bill from a bailiff and where the District Judge confirmed that a bailiff cannot charge "multiple charging for enforcing more that one Liability Order. Anthony Culligan v Marston Group Ltd: This is a simply stunning Judgment which related once again to a dispute regarding legal fees charged by Marston Group. The Judgment handed down by District Judge Avent is by far the clearest and most easily understood Judgment and details in clear language the fees that can be charged by a bailiff when enforcing an unpaid parking charge notice. Of vital importance this Judgment confirms that a bailiff cannot charge a fee for clamping a car. There are other Judgments that will be included as well and I will be updating this thread with details over the Xmas holiday period. If anyone has any suggestions etc these would be most welcome.