Archived: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

[labman]

Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

Although I have their permission to do so, rather than reproduce the entire thread, as the post is so long, it is far easier to post a link to the original and invite comments and questions about it on this site also. It is an issue I have discussed at great length with Tomtubby.

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

The thread can be viewed as a visitor if you are not a member.

[bluebottle]

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.

There are a lot of good, honest and decent police officers who are getting increasingly concerned about the way Cabbage Patch Doll & Co are taking this country and the corruption they see on a day-to-day basis. I have been given the opportunity to record some slots about bailiffs for an internet channel and will do my best to present the facts as they stand. I do know that many police officers are turning to alternative media as they turn against the propaganda of mainstream media and any opportunity I have to get the message across to those police officers to deal effectively with the rogue element in the civil enforcement industry and prevent yet more police officers having their service records adversely-affected because they have unwittingly aided and abetted a certificated bailiff to commit a criminal act then I will do everything within my power to do so.

If the new provisions are applied using commonsense, the third-party provisions are, I suspect, aimed at hire companies, leasing companies, finance and hire purchase companies. However, I have no doubt that the less-than-honest elements within the civil enforcement industry will take a chance and see if they can get away with seizing goods they have no right in law to seize, even when challenged, by claiming the law allows they to seize third-party goods regardless. If police officers are made aware of this, put in the picture as to what bailiffs can and cannot do, come April 6, certificated bailiffs who take a chance could be in for a nasty shock.

[bluebottle]

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.

I'm posting up the relevant parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 so you can see just how it applies and how stupid this government - and the last government - have been.

[Amethyst]

Re: Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

The link has already been posted http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...forcements-Act

I'll merge these threads together.

Edit: Done. Can we keep all discussion on this subject in the one place please. Thank you.

[labman]

Re: Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

I'm not reading the replies, so sorry for any duplication. I didn't realise others were in touch with TomTubby over this issue. Apologies again.

[bluebottle]

Re: Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

Although I have their permission to do so, rather than reproduce the entire thread, as the post is so long, it is far easier to post a link to the original and invite comments and questions about it on this site also. It is an issue I have discussed at great length with Tomtubby.

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

The thread can be viewed as a visitor if you are not a member.

Tomtubby/Milo has put in a lot of hard work on this, LM, and she is to be commended for it, as well as yourself. I have put something on the CAG thread, but this is restricted to the effect human rights legislation has on the forthcoming car crash. Those who drafted it don't need their backsides kicked, they need sacking and being deprived of their index-linked pensions and gratuities. That is the only justice, I suspect, most people will consider to be fair and just in the circumstances.

[bizzybob]

Re: Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

Tomtubby/Milo has put in a lot of hard work on this, LM, and she is to be commended for it, as well as yourself. I have put something on the CAG thread, but this is restricted to the effect human rights legislation has on the forthcoming car crash. Those who drafted it don't need their backsides kicked, they need sacking and being deprived of their index-linked pensions and gratuities. That is the only justice, I suspect, most people will consider to be fair and just in the circumstances.

Indupitably.

[CleverClogs]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

I'm posting up the relevant parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 so you can see just how it applies and how stupid this government - and the last government - have been.

One really must wonder what they'd been smoking when that appalling Act was passed.

Gordon "the Moron" Broon had enough sense not to enable it, but why was that monster even created in the first place?

Was it intended to be a sort of "bear trap" for a successive regime, on the basis that no sane person would ever enable such draconian nonsense?

When he first bamboozled his way into power - having apparently offered Clegg a real chance of proportional representation - Cameron declared that he was not going to enable part 3 of that dreadful Act. Why did he change his "mind"?

Have his puppet-masters told him that Labour can be blamed for all the needless misery that will be caused?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Further to yesterday's post on the TCE Act, more very serious food for thought.

The link has already been posted http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...forcements-Act

I'll merge these threads together. Edit: Done. Can we keep all discussion on this subject in the one place please. Thank you.

Yes, of course. :rofl:

[bizzybob]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

One really must wonder what they'd been smoking when that appalling Act was passed.

Gordon "the Moron" Broon had enough sense not to enable it, but why was that monster even created in the first place?

Was it intended to be a sort of "bear trap" for a successive regime, on the basis that no sane person would ever enable such draconian nonsense?

When he first bamboozled his way into power - having apparently offered Clegg a real chance of proportional representation - Cameron declared that he was not going to enable part 3 of that dreadful Act. Why did he change his "mind"?

Have his puppet-masters told him that Labour can be blamed for all the needless misery that will be caused? It makes you wonder

They broadly support their buddies in the enforcement industry as they want to keep them on side when there are poor people to turf from their homes for failure to starve to pay the Bedroom Tax.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

With new Statutory Instruments and CPR rules still in the ether this topic is a fast moving issue.
So, in response to my initial post I am reliably advised that the revised Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) have clarified the process further.

It now appears that the claim to goods should be made to the HCEO/EA first. This is then put to the creditor to admit or dispute, in the same way current interpleader works, and only then if it is disputed does the third party claimant have to make their payment into court.

Given this I feel that balance is restored and that this new procedure could prevent bogus claims once it is realised the court application and payment must be made to continue the claim.

[ploddertom]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

I'll be one of the first to agree that in general the current use of Interpleaders with HCEO's works and see no reason that for them this will continue. Where I have a problem is Bailiffs using the same as they will no doubt take advantage.

Why? Because with Council Tax the Bailiffs may be acting under the Contracting Out Regulations that allowws them to adopt the permission of the Local Authority. Therefore the Bailiff will be submitting claims to his own company and not the Council. Pleanty of scope of unlawful use of the forthcoming Regulations I foresee.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

I'll be one of the first to agree that in general the current use of Interpleaders with HCEO's works and see no reason that for them this will continue. Where I have a problem is Bailiffs using the same as they will no doubt take advantage.

Why? Because with Council Tax the Bailiffs may be acting under the Contracting Out Regulations that allowws them to adopt the permission of the Local Authority. Therefore the Bailiff will be submitting claims to his own company and not the Council. Pleanty of scope of unlawful use of the forthcoming Regulations I foresee.

I might be naive, after all my boss received a letter of praise about my behaviour and professional approach from a Tax Evader, despite the fact that I had his beloved BMW 850 AC Shnitzer towed away and eventually sold for tax arrears, but, with the new regulations in place I strongly believe that the wheat will be sorted from the chaf very quickly indeed.

[Amethyst]

Re: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act

For ref\info ... relevant civil procedure rules changes....
(Further amendments in relation to Certification of Enforcement Agents will be issued shortly. These changes will be included in the 70th Update to the CPR and will commence in April 2014

)
SCHEDULE
“PRACTICE DIRECTION 83 – WRITS AND WARRANTS – GENERAL PROVISIONS
Part 83 – Section I – Scope and interpretation
Scope - Rule 83.1
1. In relation to writs and warrants that relate to taking control of goods, Part 83 should be read in conjunction with-
(1) Part 84, which contains rules specifically in relation to taking control of goods; and
(2) the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules
Writs and warrants other than those conferring a power to use the TCG procedure- duration and priority - Rule 83.3
2. The notice required by rule 83.3(7)(b) should be in Form 71.
Part 83 – Section III– Writs
Forms of writs
3.1 A writ of control must be in Forms 53 to 57 in Practice Direction 4 as appropriate.
3.2 A writ of delivery must be in Form 64 or 65 in Practice Direction 4, whichever is appropriate.
3.3 A writ of possession must be in Form 66 or 66A in Practice Direction 4, whichever is appropriate.
Writs other than those conferring a power to use the TCG procedure– order for sale otherwise than by auction - Rule 83.12
4.1. Rule 83.12 only applies in relation to writs that do not confer a power to use the procedure in Schedule 12. The rule therefore applies in relation to the following writs-
40
(a) writs of delivery where there is no element of taking control of goods; and
(b) ecclesiastical writs.
4.2. Schedule 7 of the Courts Act 2003 applies in relation to such writs. Paragraph 10(3) of that Schedule provides that if the person who seized the goods has notice of another execution or other executions, the court must not consider an application for leave to sell privately until the notice prescribed by these Rules has been given to the other execution creditor or creditors.
Application for warrant of control - Rule 83.15
5. The request for a warrant of control should be in Form N323.
PRACTICE DIRECTION 84 – ENFORCEMENT BY TAKING CONTROL OF GOODS
Interrelationship of rules on taking control of goods with other legislation
1.1 The provisions in this Practice Direction and Part 84 on taking control of goods are closely linked to, and need to be read with—
(1) Part 3 of and Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (The Act), which can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure- rules/;
(2) the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules; and
(3) the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2013, which can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules.
1.2 Part 83 – Writs and warrants – General provisions, is also relevant and contains provisions relating to writs and warrants of control and also other forms of writ and warrant that confer a power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Act.
1.3 A flow chart providing guidance and setting out the interrelationship between these Rules, the 2007 Act and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules.”.