Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[ploddertom]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

The 12 days are calculated like this:

If the Notice of Enforcement was posted on a Monday (day 1) then 3 days for postal time (until Thur - Day 4) and then 7 days excluding Sunday (7th day is Friday - Day 11) so it would be the 12th day before a visit can be made.

That;s all fair and well if 1st class post is used but many use 2nd class or 3rd party mail like UK Mail, DHL etc. I belive CIVEA have suggested their members allow 14 days whilst there has been a blinding silence from the HCEOA. I know the MOJ are interested in hearing of examples and many have been sent to the. In the beginning there were many mistakes but mostly ironed out now barring one well known name who see fit to deliver personally and only allowing 2 - 3 days.

[Wombats]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

Can we not name these companies so they are highlighted for everyone giving advice to posters?

See LINK HERE

[bizzybob]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

The flexible way Enforcement Companies are interpreting the 7 Clear Days is a cause for concern, as one well known one that's parent company has too many fingers in too many pies is still hand delivering with a day or less from the date on the letter to respond, as in dated 1st hand delivered 8th or 9th. They need more than a Mild Tolchock by a Judge imho, and being extirpated from the councils they infest.

[ploddertom]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

Can we not name these companies so they are highlighted for everyone giving advice to posters?

See LINK HERE

I was referring to Equita whereas JBW run a close second.

[bizzybob]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

I was referring to Equita whereas JBW run a close second.

JBW may well come into the spotlight as the councils that use them come under scrutiny for CUBO operations and seizure and sale of third party vehicles.

[bluebottle]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

I feel that once the guano hits the ceiling fan, JBW won't be able to avoid the fallout from Operation Cubo that is bound to happen. It will be interesting to see if Waller goes scuttling off to the Royal Courts of Justice, like he did with the Panorama programme showing one of his goons behaving appallingly. It would just be Waller's luck if he ended up before Lord Tugendhat and had his case thrown out, as he did with the attempt to stop Panorama going out.

[Wombats]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

All interesting, but how do we, on this site interpret the 7 clear day issue? Legislation cannot unfortunately always be interpreted as it appears in print.

To me it states clearly :

6. (1) Subject to paragraph (3), notice of enforcement must be given to the debtor not less than 7 clear days before the enforcement agent takes control of the debtor’s goods.

Must be given to the debtor not less than 7 clear days before the EA takes control.

To me that says the debtor, should have 7 clear days from the day on which he receives the notice (regardless of how it is served). So just as say a CCA request is 12 + 2 days for postage, a letter sent 1st class, with proof of postage essential, should be deemed received two days later (posted on the 12th, received on the 14th).

Do people agree or not?

7 clear days was, IMO, the minimum time the debtor should have to negotiate any repayment plan, bearing in mind this is already reduced from 14 days.

If the notice gives the debtor 5 days to negotiate, are we saying the notice is defective? If not, why not?

[Johnboy007]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

All interesting, but how do we, on this site interpret the 7 clear day issue? Legislation cannot unfortunately always be interpreted as it appears in print.

To me it states clearly :

6. (1) Subject to paragraph (3), notice of enforcement must be given to the debtor not less than 7 clear days before the enforcement agent takes control of the debtor’s goods.

Must be given to the debtor not less than 7 clear days before the EA takes control.

To me that says the debtor, should have 7 clear days from the day on which he receives the notice (regardless of how it is served). So just as say a CCA request is 12 + 2 days for postage, a letter sent 1st class, with proof of postage essential, should be deemed received two days later (posted on the 12th, received on the 14th).

Do people agree or not?

7 clear days was, IMO, the minimum time the debtor should have to negotiate any repayment plan, bearing in mind this is already reduced from 14 days.

If the notice gives the debtor 5 days to negotiate, are we saying the notice is defective? If not, why not?

I must agree with you wombats..........
Posting the notice, is just that
Its POSTING.
If it remains in the postal system for a few days, then they haven't actually given it to the debtor, as per regulations.
So the debtor hasn't had the statutory seven days.
A good arguing point I would say.:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[bizzybob]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

The interpretations Act allows it to be considered delivered two days after posting, however 7 days is therefore too short a period anyway, so MOJ should be lobbied to change it to 14, as to being able to Take Control of Goods, they can't if there is nothing outside of value to take, or the debtor won't let them in. Why do they assume the EA WILL Take Control of Goods on an Enforcement Stage visit?

[Johnboy007]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

The interpretations Act allows it to be considered delivered two days after posting, however 7 days is therefore too short a period anyway, so MOJ should be lobbied to change it to 14, as to being able to Take Control of Goods, they can't if there is nothing outside of value to take, or the debtor won't let them in. Why do they assume the EA WILL Take Control of Goods on an Enforcement Stage visit?

A good point mate......
The crafty buggers are also using second class post.
Sometimes takes over three days to get there.
aw:

[Milo]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

I have written extensively on this subject and I will see if I can copy the information over to LB.

All CIVEA members have been advised that allowing '14 days' from the date of postage would be 'prudent'. Sadly, some of their members are not taking the advice.

The Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act was debated in 2006/7 and over the intervening years different parts of the Act came into force. On of the last parts of TCE was Part 3 (Taking Control of Goods).

The delay had been because the Minister in charge at the time had made a statement that implementation (of Part 3) would NOT take place until an Indepandent Regulator had been appointed. The government made the point very clear that such a body would NOT be paid for by the tax payer. The industry came up with a number of proposals. To give an idea of how bad each proposal was the BEST one was deemed to be that proposed by the British Parking Association (BPA). Quite correctly this was rejected at Consultation stage. Given that no regulator was in place MOJ took the decision that implementing Part 3 of TCE could not be delayed anymore and the new regs had be to introduced.

There can be little doubt that such a large Act of Parliament will need some amending and I know that MOJ intend making some changes after the Parliamentary recess. Very shortly there should be a revised National Standards 2014.

I hope to goodness the position regarding the '7 clear days' is changed (and it certainly needs to be in particular given the revoking of section 45a of the council tax regs (removing the local authorities right to send a '14 day letter' after a Liability Order has been issued.

PS: You may be interested to know that most people responding to the Consultation Paper suggested for a period of 14 day. One 'small' group lobbied MOJ very hard for '7 days'.....and they won.

I recently sent the following link to the Ministry of Justice. As you will read...the position in this debate is as clear...as mud !!

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2005-06/Company_Law_Reform_Bill/09-0_2006-06-29a.7.0?s=%22clear+days%22#g7.9

[bluebottle]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

That practice is going to turn round and bite the civil enforcement industry on the backside sooner or later, JB.

[Milo]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

Sorry duplicate post.

[bluebottle]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

All CIVEA members have been advised that allowing '14 days' from the date of postage would be 'prudent'. Sadly, some of their members are not taking the advice.
The same old story, unfortunately, Milo. If you make a rule or quote best practice, there will always be those who choose to ignore it.

The delay had been because the Minister in charge at the time had made a statement that implementation (of Part 3) would NOT take place until an Independent Regulator had been appointed. The government made the point very clear that such a body would NOT be paid for by the tax payer.
Regulators SHOULD be paid for by the taxpayer. How else can the public have any confidence in them?

I hope to goodness the position regarding the '7 clear days' is changed (and it certainly needs to be in particular given the revoking of section 45a of the council tax regs (removing the local authorities right to send a '14 day letter' after a Liability Order has been issued. Do we know who was responsible for this? It should be a duty, not a right, for LAs to send a 14-day Letter after a Liability Order has been issued.

One 'small' group lobbied MOJ very hard for '7 days'.....and they won.
Now who could that small group possibly be?

It seems all too clear that the MoJ has been very hasty and rushed things. The saying, "Act in haste, repent at leisure" comes to mind straightaway. I have a feeling it could very well be a case of "repent at leisure" for the MoJ.

[Milo]

Re: Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

All CIVEA members have been advised that allowing '14 days' from the date of postage would be 'prudent'. Sadly, some of their members are not taking the advice.
The same old story, unfortunately, Milo. If you make a rule or quote best practice, there will always be those who choose to ignore it.

The delay had been because the Minister in charge at the time had made a statement that implementation (of Part 3) would NOT take place until an Independent Regulator had been appointed. The government made the point very clear that such a body would NOT be paid for by the tax payer.
Regulators SHOULD be paid for by the taxpayer. How else can the public have any confidence in them?

I hope to goodness the position regarding the '7 clear days' is changed (and it certainly needs to be in particular given the revoking of section 45a of the council tax regs (removing the local authorities right to send a '14 day letter' after a Liability Order has been issued. Do we know who was responsible for this? It should be a duty, not a right, for LAs to send a 14-day Letter after a Liability Order has been issued.

One 'small' group lobbied MOJ very hard for '7 days'.....and they won.
Now who could that small group possibly be?


Bluebottle: I will try to answer each heading in turn:

CIVEA have a new Director General and it is almost certainly the case that CIVEA expect all their members to abide by their guidance (14 days) and if some companies are failing to do so...they need to be made aware.....and will be !!

BB...I am sorry but what I should have said was that MOJ would not fund a Regulatory body and on this point I agree. I was not a member of the Stakeholder group looking at a Regulatory body (although I would have liked to have been) and my suggestion would have been along the lines of PATAS and PTP (the Adjudication service for parking. Both are funded by the relevant individual local authorites that issue the PCN.

Revoking the '14 day letter' is to my mind a very bad idea indeed and is one that I know many local authorities are deeply concerned about. I have personally made lengthly submissions to both MOJ and DCLG regarding this matter and I really do hope that common sense prevails and section 45a is re-introduced later in the year.

Regarding the '7 clear days'.....it was well known that companies enforcing unpaid RENTS and High Court Enforcement Officers lobbied very hard to reduce the notice period to '7 days'. Their argument being that if a business tenant in a commercial property was given '14 days' notice they would EMPTY the entire property.