Are the Taking Control of Goods Regulations working

[brassnecked]

The other point that I should have raised on my first post about this fee is that as there is no intention to take control, there is no compunction for an actual bailiff to call. It may often by done by a local person from the office who just drops the letter of enforcement quietly through the door to avoid meeting the householder. This of course helps the bailiff no end -£235 without

even having to make the visit. I realise it is difficult to quantify how widespread it is since the whole point of the exercise is now to avoid contact except over the phone.

It is quite possible they send a muppet out with the letters toi garner the £235, after all if the assumption is that the debtor is out, why send a bailiff?

[Peterbard]

Thanks guys for agreeing-I wasn't expecting that.

It would be interesting to know how the numbers of bailiffs entering property and "seizing" goods [i know, I know its not called that any more ] has dropped since the CGA has come into force compared to before the Act.

 

It cannot be because debtors are wealthier now than a couple of years so it must lie with the Bailiffs not wanting to take the time to do the job they are paid for. Understandable I suppose but

you would then have to ask if they are avoiding the seizing but I imagine still collecting similar percentages to the previous Act, it would rather beg this question . If they can do it now

without seizure why could they not have done it in the past without the need to humiliate people by rummaging through their homes.

 

I cannot see why a two tier system for enforcement could not be introduced. The first visit would be say £100 for the visit with the threat of a further £135 if they have to take control of goods. That would mitigate the financial effect on the debtor as well as hoping to lessen the sense of grievance against bailiffs and perhaps for them to appreciate that the bailiffs are

now trying to help by not charging the full amount straight away.

 

The other point that I should have raised on my first post about this fee is that as there is no intention to take control, there is no compunction for an actual bailiff to call. It may often by done by a local person from the office who just drops the letter of enforcement quietly through the door to avoid meeting the householder. This of course helps the bailiff no end -£235 without

even having to make the visit. I realise it is difficult to quantify how widespread it is since the whole point of the exercise is now to avoid contact except over the phone.

 

The scenario where the EA just sneaks up the path and posts the notice through the letterbox in order to justify the fee really does not stand up to further examination. The only way the EA gets any fee is if the debtor pays, if there is no contact the warrant goes back and he gets nothing, so there is ample reason for him to want to engage with the debtor.

The call must be made by the EA in order to justify the fee as it is one of the enforcment stages, he must be operating under the enforcment power.

 

This does not mean that it must be the individual agent the power is conferred to, as I think i mentioned before. The agent can allow another agent to act under that power as long as he instructs.

 

This is section 2 of schedule 12, incidentally I notice the odd FMoTL stating that this power has something to do with section 63 of the act, it does not, section 63 is about EA using uncertified help whilst he is present.(usually at enforcment or sale)

 

You are right when you say that often the agent has no desire to take control of goods, schedule 12 is defined as, taking control of goods and selling them to raise money.

What some do not understand is that this definition is about the power contained within the act, not about the desired action, the process and purpose is to raise the money to repay the ammount outstanding, taking control and selling goods has to be within the act for the threat to be lawfully used by the EA.

 

It has always been a problem when trying to analyse EA behaviour over the years, in that the only way the figures can truly reflect what happens depends on reports and complaints made by the debtor, sometimes people do not complain.

[Bailiff Advice]

I cannot see why a two tier system for enforcement could not be introduced. The first visit would be say £100 for the visit with the threat of a further £135 if they have to take control of goods. That would mitigate the financial effect on the debtor as well as hoping to lessen the sense of grievance against bailiffs and perhaps for them to appreciate that the bailiffs are

now trying to help by not charging the full amount straight away.

 

As mentioned earlier, the fee scale had evolved from intensive research by an economist contracted to the Ministry of Justice approx 6 years ago. His research involved working with the enforcement agencies and the advice sector (I also provided a lot of information to him at that time). His first recommendation had to be scrapped after complaints and had to be significantly reworked.

 

The fee scale at present (£75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement fee) is working and I cannot see there ever being grounds to introduce two stages as you have outlined. At present High Court debts are subject to "two stages' and unfortunately, this is causing a great deal of concern.

 

As DB has correctly pointed out, if an enforcement agent considers that all that he has to do is to post a letter through a letterbox and hey presto...he gets £235 then he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Yes...some debtors may arrive home, read the letter and call the bailiff and make payment but they are in the minority. On average, a bailiff makes between 20 and 30 visits per day. Many times (especially when enforcing magistrate court fines ) two enforcement agents will attend the property.

 

If the enforcement agent is unable to obtain payment, he will keep the account for as long as permitted under the relevant local authority contract (varies between 3 to 6 months). If he returns the accounts back to the council.....he does not get paid.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

This does not mean that it must be the individual agent the power is conferred to, as I think i mentioned before. The agent can allow another agent to act under that power as long as he instructs.

 

This is section 2 of schedule 12, incidentally I notice the odd FMoTL stating that this power has something to do with section 63 of the act, it does not, section 63 is about EA using uncertified help whilst he is present.(usually at enforcment or sale).

 

The enforcement agent not only has to to provide instructions to another un-certificated person) but he also must be present with that person:

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/63?view=plain

 

 

63: Enforcement agents

 

(1): This section and section 64 apply for the purposes of Schedule 12.

 

(2): An individual may act as an enforcement agent only if one of these applies—

 

(a): he acts under a certificate under section 64;

 

(b): he is exempt;

 

©: he acts in the presence and under the direction of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.

[Peterbard]

Yes in the section 63 case, by the way we should say section 63 part 3 of the act apparently as some who do not understand may get it mixed up with sched 12 .

 

You may remember ther was a great deal of discussion about this when the act was going through lords. It was said that this was unwise, in that although the individual is covered by the EAs licence there may be data protection issues, and if it was even legal to let an uncertified individual take part in a legal enforcment, anyway they let it in the act and here it is.

 

But section 2 of schedule 12 has nothing to do with this, this section refers to the enforcement power.

 

Because of the way the TCEA is structured the power which is passed from the various enactments is issued to an enforcment agent(that is one enforcment agent).

if other agents are permitted to enforce the particular action then there must be a way that the agent in question can permit other authorised agent to use that power on his instruction, this is it section 2(2).

Also as pointed out to me earlier this is also needed in the case of high court enforcment when the writ is enforced by an individual HCEO.

[lookinforinfo]

The scenario where the EA just sneaks up the path and posts the notice through the letterbox in order to justify the fee really does not stand up to further examination. The only way the EA gets any fee is if the debtor pays, if there is no contact the warrant goes back and he gets nothing, so there is ample reason for him to want to engage with the debtor.

The call must be made by the EA in order to justify the fee as it is one of the enforcment stages, he must be operating under the enforcment power.

 

I understand that Dodgeball. The point I was making was that EAS because of the easy money made just by delivering the Enforcement letter,

they have no wish at that time to deal with debtors. They are bound to be upset at being charged £235 for a mail delivery.

 

Much easier for them to wait to be contacted probably a few days later [perhaps after advice has been taken from sites like this] when it will be realised that the only way out is to come to some kind of deal with the EA or Council. And now that the EA has their money there is less need to

control goods an arrangement can be made without that.

 

I never thought that a letter in itself would be enough to initiate an arrangement in many cases and of course as BA points out it may take

several visits before some sort of deal can be agreed in some cases.

 

The main point is that EAS appear to be circumnavigating the Regulations which makes life easier for them without the hassle of taking goods under control. One can understand the anger ,frustration, indignation etc etc felt by the recipients of such tactics which is why I suggested a

two tier collection service. I understand that the MOJ may feel that way but the question asked was whether the Regulations were working.

They are though not in the way envisaged.

[Peterbard]

AS regards the question, I suppose the answer would be overall yes, however it is a large document and some areas work better than others. Certainly the single fee structure is working better, at least it would be if people let it. Going off what we see on here it is the debtor who circumnavigate the fee structure or seek to.

[brassnecked]

I would like to see if there is concrete evidence of the engineer a visit to garner the £235 by refusing all offers especially any affordable to the debtor at Compliance Stage.

[Peterbard]

I would like to see if there is concrete evidence of the engineer a visit to garner the £235 by refusing all offers especially any affordable to the debtor at Compliance Stage.

 

So would I, EAs are far more afraid of loosing their contract with the authority than any regulator and I cannot see a more sure fire way of doing just that.

[brassnecked]

So would I, EAs are far more afraid of loosing their contract with the authority than any regulator and I cannot see a more sure fire way of doing just that.

Don't think the LA would care unless they were taken to task over a lack of control over their appointed agents.

 

After all all they want is the cash.

[Peterbard]

Don't think the LA would care unless they were taken to task over a lack of control over their appointed agents.

 

After all all they want is the cash.

 

Oh I am sure they would, and I can also tell you that the the contract would not be renewed if this were proven to be a common practice.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

I feel I may be a bit of a lone wolf on this one.

I have complained about it before without getting much support or agreement but it is the subject of the £235 fee.

 

. . . . . . .

 

However to charge £235 just to deliver a letter with apparently no real intention of ever taking goods under control seems unjust, unfair and

bordering on fraudulent. I believe that the MOJ did intend to make it viable for EAs to control goods and not for the bailiffs to circumnavigate

the Regs in this way.

 

I can understand the way that you feel, but let's not forget that prior to the new legislation there were a miriad of different fees, how much to charge on visit one, two or three, attendance to remove, van fees, walk in possession fees, fees for stepping on the cat's tail etc.

 

The whole affair was very confusing for every one: the public, the bailiffs and the Courts who are supposed to make sure the correct fee is charged at the right time.

 

Let's not forget that at the time the Attendance fee for Magistrate Distress warrants was £225.00.

 

The new system is simple to understand, if a warrant (distress or execution) goes to enforcement a fee of £235.00 is added to the balance, no more, no less; it remains the same until the warrant is satisfied one way or the other and it doesn't matter how many times an Agent attends a property, once or ten time, the cost is the same.

 

If you think that an EA just delivers a letter and has no intention of seizing good you are quite mistaken.

 

When an EA attends a property it is to Take Control of goods because the debtor has not paid or hasn't made contact with the agency within 7 working days of the Compliance letter being sent out to them.

 

If the debtor, after negotiating with the EA, then decides to pay rather than have their goods removed that's a step in the right direction which save a lot of time and hassle to all involved.

 

The legislation, as well as the compliance letter, is also very clear in stating that once the debtor is informed that there is a Warrant of Control issued with his/her name on it, all their possession are automatically under Court Control.

 

The legislation permits the adding of the Enforcement Fee after the 7 day period (which effectively is 10 calendar days), but the vast majority of Agencies will only add said fee when it's allocated to an Agent. And for TMA warrants it's only applied when the visit is made and recorded.

 

I do not think that £235.00 is excessive considering the amount of work involved even before a visit is made.

 

What I find disturbing is the number of debtors who ignore the Compliance letter then complain about a bailiff visit.

[neil_tp]

I agree. This is one aspect that is not working as envisaged.

 

The Enforcement fee was set at this level because it was hoped that it would give the EA more time to engage with the debtor:

To explore repayment affordability, negotiate with the creditor, and to ensure that an equitable agreement could be reached .

 

In hindsight it was perhaps naive. Hundreds of years of being the boogey man, is not an image that can be shaken off overnight.

 

 

 

The actual EA on the ground doesn't want to engage with the debtor, he/she is self employed and wants their cut of the £235 once they have attended the address!

[Peterbard]

The actual EA on the ground doesn't want to engage with the debtor, he/she is self employed and wants their cut of the £235 once they have attended the address!

 

OH if life were so simple.

 

Anyway off topic this thread is about if the fees are working my comments were about why the fee was introduced, not your theory about the motive of the bailiff.

 

As I said this has not worked so well, for the reasons I have raised.

[lookinforinfo]

There is another issue that bothers me with the new REgs.

 

The MOJ must live in cloud cuckoo land with regard to EAS producing documentation at the front door. It is lsimply ludicrous to say that the alleged debtor can view the details in the EAs

office. What a cop out. It's 7am and this guy is knocking on your door demanding to be let in and to be paid x amount of pounds without having to produce any evidence that he has the

right to claim any money at all.

Yes he [she] may be a bailiff but without a document [not necessarily a warrant of some description] that contains a name [or names] an address and a date of birth along with the reason for the

visit, the date of the Court hearing if there was one, the number of the Liability Order the day it was issued and the amount claimed along side any fees already incurred by the EA.

 

I would have thought that that should be a minimum requirement. Please feel free to add anything I may have forgotten-it's many years since i have had a knock from them.

 

Of course that would not be in the EAs interest since they would have to show the address which may not be the one that they are at and of course other problems such as the person they are chasing may be a joint tenant but is not mentioned on the LOP nor the warrant. And there will be times when the tracing agent has simply got the wrong person.

This lack of documentation at the critical time one would have thought must offend some element of the Human Rights Act.

[brassnecked]

Agree lookedinforinfo, a lack of paperwork and the EA's assumptions are running counter to any improvements.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

An Enforcement Agency and their Agents can only go by the information that is supplied by the Client, it is in no one's interest not to be able to go to the right place with the right information. Sometimes Enforcement Agents are blamed for the mistakes made by who instructed them.

 

In excess of 75% of warrants issued are returned to the clients because the debtor doesn't reside at the address provided, this is found only after sending out the Compliance letter or after a visit is made by the Agent.

 

There is another issue that bothers me with the new REgs.

 

The MOJ must live in cloud cuckoo land with regard to EAS producing documentation at the front door. It is lsimply ludicrous to say that the alleged debtor can view the details in the EAs office. What a cop out.

 

Assuming that the debtor never received any previous correspondence from either Court or Enforcement Agency (about 7 letters all together), that person will be surprised at a visit from an Enforcement Agent, however, it has always been the case that the original of the warrant is at Court, and the debtor has to address the Court to receive a copy.

 

 

It's 7am and this guy is knocking on your door demanding to be let in and to be paid x amount of pounds without having to produce any evidence that he has the right to claim any money at all.

Yes he [she] may be a bailiff but without a document [not necessarily a warrant of some description] that contains a name [or names] an address and a date of birth along with the reason for the visit, the date of the Court hearing if there was one, the number of the Liability Order the day it was issued and the amount claimed along side any fees already incurred by the EA. I would have thought that that should be a minimum requirement. Please feel free to add anything I may have forgotten-it's many years since i have had a knock from them.

 

The Enforcement Agent should and does carry a copy of the Enforcement Details, which give the following information:

1) Name of debtor, their DOB (if known by the Court), NI n° (if known by the Court) a telephone number (if known by the Court)

2) Address of debtor, as last known by the Court.

3) Date of issue of the warrant and reason for the issue (i.e. unpaid fine imposed on dd/mm/yyyy for X offence).

4) Amount outstanding, including any fees accrued.

 

When the EA is happy he is speaking to the debtor item 3 must be disclosed to him/her as soon as practical, followed by 4, This is a legal requirement

 

 

Of course that would not be in the EAs interest since they would have to show the address which may not be the one that they are at and of course other problems such as the person they are chasing may be a joint tenant but is not mentioned on the LOP nor the warrant. And there will be times when the tracing agent has simply got the wrong person.

 

This lack of documentation at the critical time one would have thought must offend some element of the Human Rights Act.

 

An EA would have no place in the business if he went to an address which was different from the one on the Enforcement details, what would be the point any how?

[brassnecked]

Thanks for the clarification Sir Vere, it shows that the EA can be a victim of court mess ups as well as a debtor.

[lookinforinfo]

An Enforcement Agency and their Agents can only go by the information that is supplied by the Client, it is in no one's interest not to be able to go to the right place with the right information. Sometimes Enforcement Agents are blamed for the mistakes made by who instructed them.

 

In excess of 75% of warrants issued are returned to the clients because the debtor doesn't reside at the address provided, this is found only after sending out the Compliance letter or after a visit is made by the Agent.

 

 

 

Assuming that the debtor never received any previous correspondence from either Court or Enforcement Agency (about 7 letters all together), that person will be surprised at a visit from an Enforcement Agent, however, it has always been the case that the original of the warrant is at Court, and the debtor has to address the Court to receive a copy.

 

 

 

 

The Enforcement Agent should and does carry a copy of the Enforcement Details, which give the following information:

1) Name of debtor, their DOB (if known by the Court), NI n° (if known by the Court) a telephone number (if known by the Court)

2) Address of debtor, as last known by the Court.

3) Date of issue of the warrant and reason for the issue (i.e. unpaid fine imposed on dd/mm/yyyy for X offence).

4) Amount outstanding, including any fees accrued.

 

When the EA is happy he is speaking to the debtor item 3 must be disclosed to him/her as soon as practical, followed by 4, This is a legal requirement

 

Time and again we read on this forum that EAs are not showing the details you say they are carrying. I am sure that the debtor is not always telling the truth but equally

there are some EAs out there who are trying it on and so cannot show the information they have since it does not tally with the address they are at or something else is incorrect which

would prevent them getting paid straight away.

 

 

 

 

An EA would have no place in the business if he went to an address which was different from the one on the Enforcement details, what would be the point any how?

 

Do you seriously think that there are not some EAs who after finding out a debtor's new address would not call round there to try and collect the £75 and £235 fees straight away rather than return the warrant/LO to the Council and put their fees at risk.

[Peterbard]

I know what you say does happen, but many of these will be debtors who ask to see the warrant, and of course there is no provisions which say one must be produced there and then.

 

There is a provision which states that the EA must have sufficient identification to snow he is entitled to enforce the debt, not sure where it is without looking, i think it is in standards guidance.

[Bailiff Advice]

I know what you say does happen, but many of these will be debtors who ask to see the warrant, and of course there is no provisions which say one must be produced there and then.

 

There is a provision which states that the EA must have sufficient identification to snow he is entitled to enforce the debt, not sure where it is without looking, i think it is in standards guidance.

 

I am in the process of writing a report on this very subject so I may be in a position to contribute later today.

[Peterbard]

 

There is a provision which states that the EA must have sufficient identification to snow he is entitled to enforce the debt, not sure where it is without looking, i think it is in standards guidance.

 

There it is , knew I had seen it somewhere, schedule 12 TCE

 

26(1)The enforcement agent must on request show the debtor and any person who appears to him to be in charge of the premises evidence of—

(a)his identity, and

(b)his authority to enter the premises.

(2)The request may be made before the enforcement agent enters the premises or while he is ther

[Peterbard]

As regards section (b) the authority is not the warrant, as per the magistrates court act 1980

 

[F1125D Execution by person not in possession of warrant.

(1)A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may be executed by any person entitled to execute it even though it is not in his possession at the time.

 

In fact since the entitlement to enter premisses is courtesy of the TCE, just a copy of section 14 of schedule 12 would suffice together with the bailiffs authentication, and anything which confirms the premises are "relevant".