URGENT - Advice needed, pregnant and worried!

[rachaelc1985]

Hi, newbie first post here so please excuse the babbling.

 

I am looking for some advice regarding commercial rent arrears. To cut a long story short, I am roughly 18 months in arrears due to many reasons involving grief, relationship breakdown, ill health and sometimes sheer stupidity with money management.

 

For the last 12 months or so I have been sharing the use of the property with 2 others, who were not contributing to costs at my own agreement.

 

I have not attended the premises since way before Christmas due to a very tough pregnancy and other mental health issues. I was informed by text message last night by one of the girls using the premises that a bailiff or agent had called yesterday chasing the arrears. I received the text whilst on labour ward being in false labour! I still have 4 weeks before my due date, but I am concerned that the stress and worry about the bailiff will land me in early labour for real.

 

Just last week myself and the girls entered into an agreement to finally split the rent going forward equally between us and were just finalising the details this week. Understandably they are concerned about the arrears before setting anything up.

 

What I am trying to ascertain is what is the situation with recovery of assets at the commercial property? I did have a visit from a bailiff back in early 2013. He was from a private company as nothing has gone before a court. There is nothing there of any value at all, (this was in the bailiffs own words!) no stock, no electrical items except kettle etc. I am in no position to pay the arrears at present due to being off work. Surrendering the lease is one option I am considering due to knowing that I will not be properly back to work for at least another 6 months and I do not need the premises to work, I can work from home if necessary.

 

I am trying to find out if the bailiff can visit and seize assets from my home? He is as far as I know a bailiff from a private firm like before, not the courts. Any advice would be very helpful and much appreciated. I am very worried and looking for some information before I make any phonecalls to them.

 

Thank you.

[rebel11]

Hi rachaelc

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will advise as soon as they are available.

 

Added some spaces for you.

[rachaelc1985]

Thank you. x

[rachaelc1985]

Update: Spoken to the agent over the phone. He is a bailiff from Swift Credit Services, the same guy that dealt with it before. I am in the process of sending someone to the property to collect the letter he delivered as he had no details with him over the phone. He is asking for me to contact him on Tuesday to make an appointment to discuss payment. I am somewhat a little more relaxed now knowing that he is not going to take any action before then.

What are my options when speaking with him on Tuesday? I have made it clear over the phone that I am currently not in a position to pay anything off the arrears. If I was to meet with him at the premises next week what would be the steps taken after he sees there are no assets there to distrain?

[wonkeydonkey]

You are a vulnerable person due to your pregnancy and they should NOT be pursuing you. If you have not notified them of your condition then please do so NOW. If you are still in hospital don't hesitate to tell them they can confirm that to be the case, by simply ringing the ward. Once you have informed them verbally (record the call if you can) confirm it in writing. When you are feeling able to cope with clarity please do come back here and you will get all the help you need to get things under control.

[Desperate Daniella]

Absolutely. You are clearly vulnerable and this can be proved. Therefore they should not be chasing you at this time. Tell him that and let us know if he tries to say you aren't.

 

DD

[brassnecked]

He wants to call tuesday to apply the new rules under which the bailiff or EA apparently decides who is vulnerable as MOJ have cacked up again and not codified or properly defined vulnerability. We can only assume that they will adhere to the National Standards.

[Desperate Daniella]

You are obviously up on the new rules, which I'm not.

 

Can he take any goods without a court order anyway?

[brassnecked]

You are obviously up on the new rules, which I'm not.

 

Can he take any goods without a court order anyway?

Check tomtubby's stickies, as the default is now under the old rules it is arguable that the new rules will not apply oops redacted as mixed threads up. If they try to apply new rules commercial rent would be under the new CRAR system as Distress For Rent is dead on Sunday.

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you. I will do that.

[brassnecked]

Thank you. I will do that.

 

We must check and double cheack every timeline of enforcement from now on, and look at what rules have been used, and when a default ocurred as if the default happens on an existing arrangement after Sunday, the new rules will apply.

[Desperate Daniella]

I'm glad you are here, because I'm getting very confused. :???:

[brassnecked]

In theory so long as an arrangement is in place the old rules apply under the transitional arrangement, but if a default happens after April 6th the new rules apply, in any event pregnancy is evidence of vulnerability so the bailiff should not be involved anyway.

 

I think tomtubby and ploddertom need to check this one over, we must be certain how to frame the best advice as the EA may well look at applying CRAR, or try to mix the two systems to confuce and obfuscate.

[Clunks]

We must check and double cheack every timeline of enforcement from now on, and look at what rules have been used, and when a default ocurred as if the default happens on an existing arrangement after Sunday, the new rules will apply.

 

Not strictly true. Only cases where there is no levy or walking possession in place will move to the new regulations on default. The cases with levies and walking possessions in place on default after 6th April, will continue to be dealt with under the existing regulations.

[brassnecked]

Not strictly true. Only cases where there is no levy or walking possession in place will move to the new regulations on default. The cases with levies and walking possessions in place on default after 6th April, will continue to be dealt with under the existing regulations.

 

 

Thanks for that clunks, as it would appear that Jacobs et al are indicating that after tomorrow, any arrangement under old rules with or without a levy will be treated under new rules, the implication being the will visit take control of and remove goods thereby grounding the sales fee of £110, and storage. Hope I am wrong

[mikeymack2002]

The vulnerability rules don't say how pregnant you need to be, but it should be after the second trimester/heavily pregnant as this is when the lady is at the most delicate, any serous stress could cause serious problems, I think the EA is waiting till the new rules apply so they can add fees at the higher rates.

 

 

If the EA can bluff then they will try very hard to issue you a notice levying on your goods, (taking control)

 

 

Have you thought about the "contract" that maybe in place should you walk away from the rental agreement?

 

 

Since you are very heavily pregnant (this puts you clearly in the vulnerable group) can I ask who is the main renter in this situation? as this may change some of the advice you may receive. is it a sole trader or did more than one person sign the rental agreement, was there a deposit paid at sign up? who pays the utility/service bills? Sorry to ask but if there was more than one, then the Warrant/debt should be equally divided between the people that signed-up, is the company a LTD one? if not it should be. This one could end up being a little trickier to sort as other people are involved.

 

 

MM

[Clunks]

Thanks for that clunks, as it would appear that Jacobs et al are indicating that after tomorrow, any arrangement under old rules with or without a levy will be treated under new rules, the implication being the will visit take control of and remove goods thereby grounding the sales fee of £110, and storage. Hope I am wrong

 

Have you got a copy of or somewhere where I can find the above by Jacobs?

 

It's all down to whether a Levy/Walking Possession is in place, and with either of those, then old rules continue on any future default after 6th April.

 

Cases which have the standard £42.50 charged will be transferred to the new regulations with the £42.50 acting as the Compliance Fee and the new Enforcement Fee of £235 being charged on the first visit.

[brassnecked]

Have you got a copy of or somewhere where I can find the above by Jacobs?

 

It's all down to whether a Levy/Walking Possession is in place, and with either of those, then old rules continue on any future default after 6th April.

 

Cases which have the standard £42.50 charged will be transferred to the new regulations with the £42.50 acting as the Compliance Fee and the new Enforcement Fee of £235 being charged on the first visit.

That is how I understand it, the trigger is whether a levy is in place or not

[tomtubby]

At this precise time I am working on various new STICKY's (one of which will be the matter of cases where enforcement action started before 6th April and the procedure that must be followed from tomorrow.

 

In Rachel's case we need to know what charges have been applied so far and whether or not a 'levy' has been made upon goods by Swift.

 

In the case of rent arrears these fall under the Distress for Rent regulations. Accordingly, if a bailiff has attended premises for the purpose of attempting to 'levy distress' but he was unable to do so, then the action already taken by him would constitute the "compliance stage" (which from tomorrow will be £75)

 

However: the enforcement company will not be able to charge this fee to you (of £75) and instead (and this is very important) he can only charge the fee in paragraph 2 of Appendix 1 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 (or as amended by Si 2003/1858).

 

For all future action Swift will be permitted to charge the 'enforcement stage fee' of £235.

 

Most importantly, if the bailiff had 'levied upon goods' before 6th April then he may continue to enforce the debt using the fee scale applicable at the time of the levy ( in this case; The Distress for Rent Rules).

[Clunks]

That is how I understand it, the trigger is whether a levy is in place or not

 

But on another thread where there was clearly a levy in place, you told the debtor that from 6th April, she will be charged £235 Enforcement Fee, potentially £110 Sale Fee etc, which isn't true.

 

You have me confused on your postings.

[tomtubby]

 

But on another thread where there was clearly a levy in place, you told the debtor that from 6th April, she will be charged £235 Enforcement Fee, potentially £110 Sale Fee etc, which isn't true.

 

You have me confused on your postings.[/QUOTE]

 

.

 

You are absolutely correct. At the time of my posting I had not had the opportunity to properly consider the 'transitional' element of the regs. This was not helped by the fact that the regs themselves contain a number of errors (one of which had already been brought to the attention to the legal team at the Ministry of Justice). I highlighted two further errors. A Correction Note is in progress.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the information given in my post number 19 is the correct position.

[Clunks]

TT my post was aimed at BN.

[tomtubby]

TT my post was aimed at BN.

 

We are all volunteers on here spending precious time in assisting others.

 

Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act is certainly not easy to understand and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations and the accompanying fee scale is equally difficult and, made far worse by the extreme delay on the part of the Ministry of Justice in releasing the regulations to the general public. Stakeholders were also affected by the delay.

 

To criticise others for making errors is not fair and more so given in this particular case given that when BN made his comment he had relied a post of mine which provided inaccurate information.

[brassnecked]

But on another thread where there was clearly a levy in place, you told the debtor that from 6th April, she will be charged £235 Enforcement Fee, potentially £110 Sale Fee etc, which isn't true.

 

You have me confused on your postings.

 

I think I was indicating that the bailiff may try to add fees under the new regime not that they would or should if a levy is in place and no default. Anyway we now know what applies when so there is no ambiguity any more, so from a post by an Op and the correct question s it will be apparent what applies or should apply.

[tomtubby]

This subject will become clearer when the new STICKY's are put on the forum. I will be making some important comments on the general 'discusssion' forum tomorrow as this subject as debtors need to make enquiries to ascertain whether a levy had been made or not. More tomorrow.