Privatisation of Magistrate Court Fines......UPDATE

[Peterbard]

Yes,, if the home address is the registered office the EA will call there first.

 

Different of course if you are just a director of a business registered elsewhere. Many larger concerned may have dozens of directors. There is n personal liabiliy, just a matter of keeping your business assets and your personal ones separate.

 

If you are going to limit your business lability, you are always better registering your business elswere.

[Laura Thyme]

Yes,, if the home address is the registered office the EA will call there first.

 

Different of course if you are just a director of a business registered elsewhere. Many larger concerned may have dozens of directors. There is n personal liabiliy, just a matter of keeping your business assets and your personal ones separate.

 

If you are going to limit your business lability, you are always better registering your business elswere.

What happens if you use an accommodation address then? The HCEO would turn up and find it's not your actual business premises. If they have the previous registered address, i.e. the director's, they'd be inclined to visit there, wouldn't they?

[Peterbard]

Never happen due to registration requirements.

[Peterbard]

Yes, assuming the company's name was on the writ. Presumably if it was the director's name, then the HCEOs couldn't force entry.

 

Sorry missed this, if it was the directors name, it would be his personal liability, (individual) as opposed to his companies.

[Laura Thyme]

Sorry missed this, if it was the directors name, it would be his personal liability, (individual) as opposed to his companies.

Agreed, but in this case forced entry wouldn't be allowed, would it?

[Bailiff Advice]

The rights of entry and forced entry are of vital importance and deserve their own thread.

[Laura Thyme]

The rights of entry and forced entry are of vital importance and deserve their own thread.

Yes, they do, maybe site team will be willing to split the topic.

[Bailiff Advice]

If it's ok, I can look at starting a new thread tomorrow.

[Laura Thyme]

If it's ok, I can look at starting a new thread tomorrow.

Good idea! Go for it, BA!

[Peterbard]

No uness he was carrying out a business of his own on the premisses.

[Peterbard]

No uness he was carrying out a business of his own on the premisses.

 

Good idea! Go for it, BA!

 

Lol, funny.

[Laura Thyme]

Lol, funny.

Well, it's true what BA said, the subject of entry is most important, especially when it comes to this mixture of business and residential premises. I'm aware they can use reasonable force to enter private homes to collect court fines but business debts are a minefield.

 

I'm also aware that this thread was not to do with the subject of rights of entry and business debts but someone had already posted about it on here.

[Peterbard]

Well, it's true what BA said, the subject of entry is most important, especially when it comes to this mixture of business and residential premises. I'm aware they can use reasonable force to enter private homes to collect court fines but business debts are a minefield.

 

I'm also aware that this thread was not to do with the subject of rights of entry and business debts but someone had already posted about it on here.

 

Sorry got dragged away, yes couldn't agree more, so rare to see enthusiasm on here i took what you said as something else, my error.

[Peterbard]

Over 700 views of this thread in 24 hours. Very impressive indeed.

 

I started this thread to once again dispel these dreadful internet myths about bailiff fees for magistrates courts. I questioned yesterday WHY the individual responsible for referring to Section 75A had even brought this subject up.

 

Before even doing so, he surely should have checked to see whether section 26 of the Crime & Courts Act 2013 (amending the Magistrates Courts Act1980 to introduce section 75A) had been brought into force. It appears that it has not been. This is entirely compatible with my comment above that Section 75A is not in use.

 

If anyone is interested in knowing WHY Section 26 was introduced into the Crimes & Courts Act 2013 (although not yet bought into force), they should read the following House of Commons debate from January 2013.

 

PS: At the time of the debate, the section numbers were not the same.

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2012-13/Crime_and_Courts_Bill/07-0_2013-01-31a.5.0?s=%27benefits%27+%A35%27+%27deduction%27+%27fine%27

 

Just to settle the section 75A matter

 

As you say that section is not in use, in fact it has not even been brought into use, in that it cannot be lawfully used.

 

You would think that the person responsible for this would have checked if there had been any enabling instrument issued before shooting his mouth off.

 

Even then he got its function wrong, what a boon he must be to his employer.