Debtor charged under section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a bailiff".

[tomtubby]

Within the short space of just two weeks a website is reporting that yet another debtor has been arrested under section 68 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This is a new provision and applies if a debtor either cuts a wheel clamp from a vehicle or secondly (as in this particular case) "intentionally obstructs a person (bailiff) lawfully acting as an enforcement agent".

 

The details of this new arrest are as follows:

 

The debtor received a Notice of Enforcement from a bailiff company. The date on which he received the notice is not stated.

 

The debtor decided that instead of paying the bailiff company he would pay the amount only of the Liability Order direct to the local authority on 8th September. He did not pay the Compliance Fee of £75.

 

Given that there was still a balance of £75 remaining the debt was passed to an enforcement agent to enforce and a personal visit was made on 17th September.

 

It would appear that the debtor confronted the bailiff and asked him for his identify and the debtor started filming the events on his mobile phone.

 

The bailiff grabbed the debtor's mobile phone from him and in so doing the debtor sustained a cut finger. Police attended and they arrested the debtor and seized his mobile phone. He was taken to the police station. After the interview, the police dropped one of the charges (that of assaulting the bailiff) and charged him under section 68(1) of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a person (bailiff) lawfully acting as an enforcement agent)".He has confirmed that he has a court case in early October.

 

The debtor is now seeking assistance from the internet.

 

Firstly, he was advised to ‘act quickly’ to get medical attention for his cut finger as he could make a ‘personal injury claim”

 

Crucially, the debtor has received the following 'advice':

 

Nothing in this regulation enables bailiffs to levy distress for their unpaid fee. They have to seek a civil order under section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003 before then can enforce payment of their fees.

 

Yesterday I started a new thread specifically concerning Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003. It is unfortunately the case that this debtor has been seriously misled.

 

The truth of the matter is that the new regulations are very specific indeed in that the 'amount due' includes bailiff fees that have been applied up to the date of payment (in this case the Compliance Fee of £75) and that from any payment made the Compliance Fee is first deducted with the BALANCE being allocated towards the debt to the council.

 

In this particular case, by refusing to pay the Compliance fee of £75 there is still a balance due under the Liability Order and the bailiff may legally continue enforcement until the balance of the amount due is paid. Crucially, the bailiff is NOT enforcing for his fee of £75.

[tomtubby]

The following link is to a new thread that I started yesterday regarding Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003 which demonstrates clearly that this regulation has nothing whatsoever to do with bailiff fees and instead is applicable to court fees.

 

It would seem that yet again, misinformation on the internet has proved very dangerous.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433007-Section-92(8)-of-the-Courts-Act-2003...does-NOT-mean-that-bailiffs-can-only-recover-their-fees-by-taking-civil-action

[tomtubby]

Section 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 was only introduced on 6th April 2014 and is a very serious offence indeed as the regulations confirm that a person guilty of such offence is liable on summary conviction to either of the following:

 

 

• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks
  

or;

• A fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale ( currently £2,500)
  

OR BOTH !!

[unclebulgaria67]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is possible that EA's may now think they can use force against people and have protection in law. e.g they can force their way pass someone at a doorstep.

 

There was a programme on the other night where an HCEO physically assaulted a debtor in their home and the HCEO believed they were acting lawfully.

 

Think the advice must be for people not to engage with EA's who attend their property. Keep the doors locked and refuse to speak to them. It should never get to this position, as the debtor should contact the creditors or EA when getting the enforcement notice. Or even better before it gets to the enforcement stage.

[LittleHen]

It should never get to this position, as the debtor should contact the creditors or EA when getting the enforcement notice. Or even better before it gets to the enforcement stage.

 

I agree with you. But what are debtors to do when they attempt to make contact with EAs (see my thread on local council parking fines re TE7 and TE9) and the EA does not respond to them? Or the company employing the bailiff removes him from the case without telling the debtor, so that the debtor in good faith continues to try to reach the original bailiff and either no-one has been appointed to take over or a new appointment has been made but not notified to the debtor? My husband only found out by chance that the original agent had been removed from his case when he called to complain that he had been trying repeatedly to contact the original EA without any response. Wheh he asked who the new agent would be and how he could get in touch to speak to them, the bailiff company said that he would have to wait for the EA to get in touch. The EA got in touch by making a visit whilst we were on holiday (which the bailiff company were aware of).

[Conniff]

I think I'm correct in saying that the wording on the demand from the council says that the Fee is taken first and arrears after all fees are paid. There can be no excuse, read what the council sends and not rely on some unknown saying what they think is how it works.

[Neckbeard]

Surely the concern should be why this debtor has been charged? Is refusing a CT bailiff entry now classed as "intentionally obstructing a person (bailiff) lawfully acting as an enforcement agent". ?

 

The debtor was assaulted and his phone stolen, albeit briefly, yet he gets charged? The bailiff also refused to show his ID, but it's the debtor who's getting flamed here? I don't get it.

[Sweetlaw]

I read this thread. There's a load of posts been removed from it as the OP obviously has some serious illness. This has put a false view on the thread so I'm not reading it now. They were there when I was on the site after my late shift and gone when I got up middle of next day.

[brassnecked]

So let me get this right, a bailiff turns up and if a debtor tries to reason with him or prevents him from foot in door tactic he risks arrest for obstructing the EA? If a bailiff turns up at the wrong house, and the householder throws him off the property he will get arrested also?

 

Is R V Tucker COA2013 still good then, and can an EA use force against a debtor now with impunity, as indicated by the TV programme UB mentioned?

[*RainbowTears*]

I read this thread. There's a load of posts been removed from it as the OP obviously has some serious illness. This has put a false view on the thread so I'm not reading it now. They were there when I was on the site after my late shift and gone when I got up middle of next day.

 

Sadly this does happen quite a bit! I myself have also been following the thread & I can only hope the OP gets proper "legal" advice by visiting a Solicitor before he finds himself in a worse off situation....

 

As TT has stated many, many times herself, noone should rely on "internet legal advice alone"!

 

I'm interested in also seeing how this situation pans out for the OP...

[tomtubby]

I read this thread. There's a load of posts been removed from it as the OP obviously has some serious illness. This has put a false view on the thread so I'm not reading it now. They were there when I was on the site after my late shift and gone when I got up middle of next day.

 

.

 

I first saw the thread very early yesterday morning (around 7am) and it is fair to say that I was very disturbed indeed at the contents of some posts that had been made by the debtor in the early hours of the morning. The posts appeared to me to demonstrate a serious level of 'vulnerability' and for that reason alone I copied the thread. A short while later those posts disappeared.

[Sweetlaw]

.

 

I first saw the thread very early yesterday morning (around 7am) and it is fair to say that I was very disturbed indeed at the contents of some posts that had been made by the debtor in the early hours of the morning. The posts appeared to me to demonstrate a serious level of 'vulnerability' and for that reason alone I copied the thread. A short while later those posts disappeared.

 

If said site is profiting by altering the posts of a vulnerable person it is below low. I've not looked at thread today, will go over and look later after work.

[brassnecked]

If said site is profiting by altering the posts of a vulnerable person it is below low. I've not looked at thread today, will go over and look later after work.

 

Is it the site with the Flame Pit?

[tomtubby]

I think I'm correct in saying that the wording on the demand from the council says that the Fee is taken first and arrears after all fees are paid. There can be no excuse, read what the council sends and not rely on some unknown saying what they think is how it works.

 

You are correct.

 

The debtor himself confirmed that he received a letter from the bailiff company for arrears of council tax and that he then paid the amount only of the Liability Order to the council leaving the Compliance Stage fee of £75 unpaid. He has made the point clear in that he knew that he had not paid the Compliance Fee.

 

The new regulations are very clear indeed in that from any payment made....whether to the local authority or magistrates court (and whether online or in person) the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted and the balance will be allocated on a pro rata basis with approx 75% being allocated towards the amount on the Liability Order and 25% towards the fees to the bailiff.

 

In this particular case given that payment had been made to the local authority within the 'Compliance stage' then the only deduction would have been just £75.

 

As an example, a Liability Order is issued for £525 and passed to bailiffs.

 

A Notice of Enforcement issued with a Compliance Fee of £75. Amount due is now £600.

 

Payment made of £525 to the council.

 

Compliance fee of £75 deducted and the balance of £450 is credited towards the council tax debt leaving a balance due under the Liability Order of £75

 

Given that thee is still an amount due of £75 the bailiff is legally entitled to continue with enforcement and most importantly, he is NOT enforcing for his fees. In fact.....far from it given that his fee Compliance Fee of £75 has ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED !!!

[tomtubby]

I have just received a PM advising me that the debtor CONFIRMED that he had indeed received the Notice of Enforcement. The debtor confirmed this by stating the following on the website:

 

"Had council tax issue, wrote letter to council, no reply. They then took out an LO without informing me. Only know about it when I received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement".

 

"However, I had fully paid up the council tax, no existing monies owed, apart from £75 charge"

 

 

The debtor confirms that he had he only knew about the Liability Order when he received the Notice of Enforcement (he has not stated the date of this notice).

 

He then made payment of the amount only of the Council tax on 8th September leaving the Compliance Fee of £75 unpaid.

 

The regulations have been in place for nearly 6 months and it is very well known that the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted from any payment made. It is shocking that knowing the extreme vulnerability of this debtor that not one person has the common decency to ask the debtor to exhibit a copy of the Notice of Enforcement showing the date that he received it and advising him that he may well owe the amount of £75 and that he has been wrongly advised.

 

This debtor has now been arrested and has confirmed that he cannot get legal aid and has spoken to three firms of solicitors and is looking at facing solicitors costs of between £1,000 and £2,000.

[unclebulgaria67]

TT

 

The way the EA acted in this case appears to have been wrong. Why is the debtor being charged for an offence, when it appears the EA assaulted them ? Obviously we only have one side of the story.

[tomtubby]

TT

 

The way the EA acted in this case appears to have been wrong. Why is the debtor being charged for an offence, when it appears the EA assaulted them ? Obviously we only have one side of the story.

 

Exactly, we only have one side of the story and have no idea at all what else took place or the reason why the police felt it was appropriate to arrest the debtor. We can only assume that there is more background to this matter.

 

As an example, around 5pm yesterday I spoke with a man who had been arrested the previous day under the same section of law (section 68) and has spend 4 hours in police cells. He too has been charged.

 

Not until asking him a number of questions was it established that he has 22 PCN's and has two vehicles (one of which he claimed had been sold to his brother). He did not have a receipt for the sale and he remains on the insurance. He then told me that he had already been arrested a month ago after cutting the clamp off his first car !!

 

This second arrest the day before yesterday was for cutting the clamp off the car that he 'sold' to his brother. They both live at the same address.

 

From the many years that I have been posting on here everyone who knows me will be aware that I will always ask questions to establish the background.

[tomtubby]

Is it the site with the Flame Pit?

 

No.

 

In the council tax section entitled:

 

"Arrested for obstructing a bailiff"

 

PS: But you need to read it soon as the thread is about to be moved into the 'private members areas'. This is where cases that look likely to lose are moved into so as to ensure that the outcome is never known.

[tomtubby]

I have just received a PM advising me that the debtor CONFIRMED that he had indeed received the Notice of Enforcement. The debtor confirmed this by stating the following on the website:

 

"Had council tax issue, wrote letter to council, no reply. They then took out an LO without informing me. Only know about it when I received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement".

 

"However, I had fully paid up the council tax, no existing monies owed, apart from £75 charge"

 

 

The debtor confirms that he had he only knew about the Liability Order when he received the Notice of Enforcement (he has not stated the date of this notice).

 

He then made payment of the amount only of the Council tax on 8th September leaving the Compliance Fee of £75 unpaid.

 

The regulations have been in place for nearly 6 months and it is very well known that the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted from any payment made. It is shocking that knowing the extreme vulnerability of this debtor that not one person has the common decency to ask the debtor to exhibit a copy of the Notice of Enforcement showing the date that he received it and advising him that he may well owe the amount of £75 and that he has been wrongly advised.

 

This debtor has now been arrested and has confirmed that he cannot get legal aid and has spoken to three firms of solicitors and is looking at facing solicitors costs of between £1,000 and £2,000.

 

 

 

Thank you for your second PM !!!

 

As mentioned above the debtor confirmed that he had not known about the Liability Order until he received the Notice of Enforcement. It would now seem that he then received a FURTHER letter BEFORE the visit on 17th September.

 

 

The following is what the debtor has stated:

 

 

"In the "Additional Compliance Letter", it clearly states Debt Type as Council Tax.

 

"In the "Notice of Enforcement Agents Attendance", it clearly states warrant of control, with "unpaid council tax" circled".

[tomtubby]

It also needs to be remembered that the Compliance Fee is legally applied once the local authority has instructed the enforcement company and will appear on the Notice of Enforcement.

 

Although it becomes PAYABLE when the Notice of Enforcement is sent it is INCURRED before the notice is sent and this can cause a problem if payment is made during the period when the EA are instructed and the actual letter is sent to the debtor.

[*RainbowTears*]

No.

 

In the council tax section entitled:

 

"Arrested for obstructing a bailiff"

 

PS: But you need to read it soon as the thread is about to be moved into the 'private members areas'. This is where cases that look likely to lose are moved into so as to ensure that the outcome is never known.

 

Spot on TT! You never ever get to see what happened next once a threads been "moved" from the public eye!

 

I urge the OP to get proper Legal advice asap & NOT to just take the "internet legal advice" their being given so far, as gospel!!

[*RainbowTears*]

TT You must be Psychic! Lol

 

As Oppppssss to late it's already been moved!!

[PersonOfInterest]

seems like the bailiff was not certificated.

[PersonOfInterest]

if the police dropped the assault charge then the police must have thought debtor had no case to answer. if bailiff is not certified then game over.

[PersonOfInterest]

 

The regulations have been in place for nearly 6 months and it is very well known that the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted from any payment made. It is shocking that knowing the extreme vulnerability of this debtor that not one person has the common decency to ask the debtor to exhibit a copy of the Notice of Enforcement showing the date that he received it and advising him that he may well owe the amount of £75 and that he has been wrongly advised.

 

This debtor has now been arrested and has confirmed that he cannot get legal aid and has spoken to three firms of solicitors and is looking at facing solicitors costs of between £1,000 and £2,000.

 

Which regulation is this?