Archived: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

People need to be making themselves aware of the implications of this legislation being implemented on April 6th 2014. One of the most common reasons for people having involvement with bailiffs is Council Tax. Council Tax benefits have already been cut leading to a significant increase in bailiffs collecting CT debt this year. Next year many of these same households will be expected to contribute 20% instead of 8.5% this year.

What will be the net result of this? Sadly for the public, if bailiffs become involved in CT debt collection the fees will be at least £235, a staggering 600% increase.

Worse still, the MOJ appear not to have consulted as widely as they could and should have leaving money strapped debtors trying to find still more money they simply don't have. Detail is still very sketchy with just weeks to go until implementation of the Act, including major issues such as will fees be subject to VAT?

Rightly, the implementation should be delayed for 6 months, but this will not happen for political reasons.

LB will produce up to date stickies as soon as accurate detail is available, but until that time, we can only point out developments as they occur.

Read the link below from Nottinghamshire this week:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Counci...#ixzz2u5H38cwO

and then page 12, paragraph 3 onwards makes interesting reading here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127417999/...n-response-pdf

It does not make happy reading for us I'm afraid.

[bizzybob]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

The whole thing is a complete cock up, with MOJ appearing to cave in to demands from the "Enforcement industry" rather than the Advice Sector

Quoted P12 Para3

"For instance, Julie Green-Jones the chief executive of Rossendales has been involved in helpingthe Ministry of Justice shape new legislation under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act.When proposals include a 600% hike in the fee structure, it’s obvious why she would want to workclosely with the MoJ and influence legislation. But what is unlikely to go down well with the public iswhy the head of an enforcement firm, well publicised on TV and in the press for its unlawfulpractices, would be a suitable candidate for holding discussions with the MoJ"

I feel there will be severe issues if they plough on with this one, it has the potential to be a Kaiser Chiefs song title$, when bailiffs go in hard on a vulnerable debtor on a council estate who would previously have had all the council tax covered.

$ I Predict A Riot

[bluebottle]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Personally, BB, I can see certificated bailiffs getting their heads kicked in if they try to seize third-party goods and then try to fob off third parties to interpleader. A person has a right to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to protect their property and I suspect they will use such force. Notwithstanding, Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights makes it quite clear that the State may not deprive or otherwise interfere with a person's enjoyment of their possessions. Any certificated bailiff acting for a local authority who decides to be a tit and attempts to seize third-party goods is going to fall foul of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, along with the civil enforcement company and local authority. I can see the National Pro Bono Centre and pro bono legal charities being very busy in the coming months. I can also see it coming as an awful shock to individual certificated bailiffs, civil enforcement companies and local authorities that the Human Rights Act is a law they cannot ignore and have to obey.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

The following is a comment by the CEO of an reputable Enforcement Agency. If he (who is likely to see his profit margins increase astronomically) says this it makes one wonder what on earth the Big Knobs at the MOJ have been taking, either in liquid or gassy form, before making these amendments.

With the Taking Control of Goods regulations due to come in on 6th April, I am concerned about the proposed process for third party claiming goods that have been seized soon to be known as ‘taken control of’. This process is known as an interpleader claim.

Currently, usual practice is for the third party to make a formal claim to the goods, in writing and within 5 days of seizure, to the Enforcement Officer.

The EA/HCEO will then put this claim to the creditor to either admit or dispute the claim. If the claim is admitted the goods are released from seizure. If the claim is disputed the EA/HCEO will apply for an interpleader hearing in front of a Magistrate or, depending on the Court issuing the warrant/writ, a Master at the High Court. It is here that ownership is adjudged and whether the losing party has costs issued against them. This has been the process for as long as I can remember.

From 6th April, a very new system comes into place which at first glance appears ludicrous.

Now, firstly it will be the responsibility of the third party to make and application to court which seems somewhat unfair especially if they are not legally minded. There is also a cost for this application of £80. However, the real issue I have is that they are also required to pay into court the value of the goods seized!

So picture this. An Enforcement Agent (EA) attends a property and takes control of a boat on a trailer outside. He clamps the trailer but there is no response from the property. If the boat is owned by a third party it is this person that is now required to make the court application (£80) and pay the value of the boat into court. This could be tens of thousands of pounds!

So what if the claim is legitimate but the third party cannot afford to make the payment?

In my opinion, this Regulation is unjust, impractical and divorced from reality and I very much hope this Regulation with be amended before 6th April. I also hope that in practice a sensible approach will be taken with regard to making the payment equal to the value of the goods.

The new Regulations covering the above are set out in part 60 of Schedule 12 Taking Control of Goods in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

[CleverClogs]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Let us be forthright - this kakistocracy is about to legalise larceny!

[enaid]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Let us be forthright - this kakistocracy is about to legalise larceny!

No surprise there if the MOJ has any involvement.

[CleverClogs]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

No surprise there if the MOJ has any involvement.

Yes, indeed.

Then there's the Minister for Injustice himself, Chris Greyling.

I have no doubt that he's a likeable chap and would probably make a welcome guest at any dinner party, but one might be inclined to count the spoons afterwards. :grin:

[bizzybob]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Basically Sir Vere for good or ill that provision will bring MOJ into conflict with the HRA, and the European Court of Human Rights, as it breaches the Act and the Articles in several places, notwithstanding the extra costs to Heathcare trusts for treatment on bailiffs ambulanced to A&E

Jamie Waller must be creaming his jeans at the prospoect of his ANPR profits increasing as the third party motor his cretins seize from a new owner for a PCN for the previous owner, who cannot afford the interpleader as he will get the car by default. HP companies will also be bleating loudly, when they as the owners become embroiled in an interpleader to protect their property, along with Motability Finance, as bailiffs being bailiffs will regard the new system as a carte blanche that allows them to take Motability Cars, even though other legislation forbids it.

All on all own goal by MOJ. I wonder if JGJ flashed a bit of thigh at the MOJ muppets during the consultation?

[bluebottle]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

It is my understanding that there is a meeting in London involving the civil enforcement industry, advice sector, local authorities and MoJ in connection with this new provision. I have to agree with Sir Vere's analysis - the provision is divorced from reality and should be struck down.

A growing number of judges are questioning some of the more bizarre laws this current band of misfits, aka the ConDem government, are trying to push through and I have a feeling the vast majority of police officers, who are good, honest and decent people, will start to question what is happening, notwithstanding that a growing number already are.

If a bailiff makes a genuine mistake, then fair enough, but the reality is that there are some very disingenuous and dishonest individuals within the civil enforcement industry who either need removing from the industry altogether or a spell as a guest in one of H.M. Holiday Camps. I can see these individuals insisting they can seize third-party goods and attempting to hoodwink police officers into aiding and abetting them. A recent case that came onto the LB forums highlighted the fact that 11 officers from Northumbria Police were reprimanded for aiding and abetting a certificated bailiff to commit what was, in essence, an unlawful, if not, illegal act against a debtor. Those 11 officers now have a black mark on their service records and are sadder and wiser people. It is to Northumbria Police's credit that the force recognised their approach to incidents involving civil enforcement was wanting and needed changing and asked the debtor to help them by providing information on what bailiffs can and cannot do in order that training programmes could be formulated and initiated.

As for Jamie Waller filling his jeans come April 6, my gut-feeling is that what will be filling Mr Waller's jeans will be coloured brown rather than white when one savvy person hauls him and his goons, JBW Group and their public authority clients into court under Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, which holds public authorities, commercial entities acting as or on behalf of public authorities and individuals acting for or on behalf of public authorities to account. Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (aka the Rome Convention), which is enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998, makes it perfectly clear that the State cannot interfere with an individual's enjoyment of their possessions or deprive them of their possessions. The only exceptions are where an individual has not paid taxes they are legally-required to pay or a penalty imposed by a court of law or legally-convened tribunal. Notwithstanding that seizure cannot take place without lawful authority being issued by a court or legal tribunal after the individual has been adjudged to be liable. This, therefore, brings into question the lawfulness of DVLA seizing and destroying motorists' cars for alleged non-payment of road tax without lawful authority from a court. Some seizures by customs officers have been ruled unlawful or illegal by the courts.

Convention rights under the Rome Convention are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and inviolate (cannot and must not be breached). Although the likes of Mad Madame Mim May and Greasy Grayling would love to do away with the UK complying with the Rome Convention, recent comments by Canada and The Netherlands about violations of human rights on the part of the UK government and talk of British politicians being hauled in front of the International Criminal Court, the next few months are, I suspect, going to be somewhat rocky and, dare I say, a lawful rebellion by the British people is likely to take place.

[bizzybob]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Hope Celestine and Amethyst don't mind me posting the link but Milo aka tomtubby on CAG has posted this on there

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...iewing%29-nbsp

This part is the one that will allow Jamie waller and any ANPR bailiff to create havoc with third party cars when their ANPR goes kerching. It also has the potential to heap even more odium on any plod involved in pulling the third party motor. on one of these joint possibly unlawful stops. Hopefully as BB indicates above he will be neutered before he can do any lasting damage.

The ECHR and HRA will be instrumental here as the TCGA clearly breaches both the Act and the Convention, ever likely Cabbage Patch Doll Camoron wants rid of this inconvenient legislation.

[bizzybob]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

@ BB "Convention rights under the Rome Convention are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and inviolate (cannot and must not be breached). Although the likes of Mad Madame Mim May and Greasy Grayling would love to do away with the UK complying with the Rome Convention, recent comments by Canada and The Netherlands about violations of human rights on the part of the UK government and talk of British politicians being hauled in front of the International Criminal Court, the next few months are, I suspect, going to be somewhat rocky and, dare I say, a lawful rebellion by the British people is likely to take place."

If I were Camoron Clegg SlobBourne, Bliar or some of the others I wouldn't plan on visiting Canada or Holland anytime soon then.

[CleverClogs]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

Convention rights under the Rome Convention are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and inviolate (cannot and must not be breached). Although the likes of Mad Madame Mim May and Greasy Grayling would love to do away with the UK complying with the Rome Convention, recent comments by Canada and The Netherlands about violations of human rights on the part of the UK government and talk of British politicians being hauled in front of the International Criminal Court, the next few months are, I suspect, going to be somewhat rocky and, dare I say, a lawful rebellion by the British people is likely to take place.

If those two had their way, not only would the UK withdraw from the EU, but England would secede from the Commonwealth!

[bluebottle]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

If those two had their way, not only would the UK withdraw from the EU, but England would secede from the Commonwealth!

non magis quam locutus est per iocum

[CleverClogs]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

certe...

[enquirer]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

This is going to go horribly, horribly wrong. Bailiffs (lets be blunt - most of whom are criminals), will see this as carte blanche to help themselves to anything they want.

Legal redress will be effectively closed off for most people - few will know what to do, and even fewer will have the ability to pay large sums into court to cover seized cars and so on. I suspect that bailiffs will quickly prove to be so out of control that they start going after peoples homes too.

Physical violence is inevitable.