Changes Introduced by The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[BurlingtonGroup]

When The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 were introduced on April 6th 2014, there were several key changes to the enforcement by a Enforcement Agent (formerly known as a Certificated Bailiff). These changes include:

• Introducing the Notice of Enforcement

Enforcement Agents are now required to provide 7 days notice before attending to take control of goods. In the majority of cases, notice will be provided by post and will be subject to the usual CPR rules around postal service (Sundays & Bank Holidays are not included as part of the 7 day notice period) which means the initial visit to the Defendant will not be made until the 12th day after the notice is posted.

During this period, known as the 'Compliance Stage', the Defendant will be given the opportunity to pay the debt in full and be made aware of the next steps should payment not be received. At this stage, enforcement fees are limited to £75+VAT.

• Goods Exempt from Seizure

Goods exempt from seizure include the appliances necessary to satisfy basic domestic needs as well as 'tools of the trade'; items used by the Defendant for business purposes. The big change here is that the 'tools of the trade' that will be exempt must have an aggregated value of £1,350 or less so items belonging to the Defendant such as vehicles (valued at £1,350 or more) can now be taken control of.

• Guidance on the Interpleader Process

To avoid fraudulent claims, there is a key change to the process intended to determine ownership of goods claimed by a third party. As suggested by Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the supporting regulations, it is now the responsibility of the third party Claimant to start Interpleader proceedings. The third party Claimant must also make a payment into the court for an amount equal to the value of the goods until the claim is proven.

• The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

A new fee structured was introduced in April. For a breakdown of fees see here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made

• More on The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

For further information and comment on the introduction of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations, see this article: link removed


What are your thoughts/comments of the new regulations?

[Amethyst]

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

Thread closed and posts that add nothing to the discussion removed,

[gavmoulds]

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

Last reply...........I am paying the debt....it is not related to the vehicle....there is no 'Benfecial interest as the vehicle does not belong to me. I fail to see how 'anyone' can secure something that is clearly not mine. How can there be any benefit in seizing someone elses property...based on this it must surely be protected under these regulations. Incidentally since my previous post I have now found an answer which is very simple and straight forward House of Commons Library, Home Affairs Section, Current regulation of Bailiffs.....quote 'A Bailiff cannot seize goods subject to a hire purchase or rental agreement'. quote By Law, 'Bailiffs also cannot take cars which are bought on hire purchase'. This says it all for me.

[Indebt]

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

Welcome to the party.

Sadly, you are asking the impossible. There is no straight answer other than what I already told you, ie work out if there is a beneficial interest in the vehicle. If you have not put down a considerable deposit, there is unlikely to be a beneficial interest.

I'm not sure what you wanted to avoid exactly but there is no such thing as simple clarification.

Have you thought about just paying the debt? Surely that is the straight forward answer to all of this?

[gavmoulds]

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

Now I am more confused than ever. I cant put this any simpler........I have a vehicle on Finance. My debt is not related to this vehicle in any way. I am trying to discover if i can park my vehicle without hiding the bloody thing every night. I owe a debt from a previous vehicle which I no longer have. The companies are not connected...the debts are not connected...I simply want some clarification on what is protected and what isnt.

I honestly came to this forum to avoid all this........I have seen all this advice before on general consumer sites. I honestly thought this would be the best site to get a simple straight forward answer.

I will not be watching this topic any further as it isnt acheiving anything for me.

[Indebt]

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

Interesting answer...it doesnt fill me with confidence and actually makes me more worried. My current vehicle is on Conditional Sale. The debt is for a previous HP which is a complete mess but I am making payments. Clearly this vehicle is not owned by me and is in no way related to the debt. Surely they cannot take control of goods which do not belong to me. They certainly wont get paid that way.

To my knowledge, there have been two cases, not three. The first one was poorly handled and had it been handled properly, with legal representation, the outcome would have been successful.

The second case was taken out on the back of legal advice. Unless Milo is legally qualified, I would be inclined to place my trust in the solicitor who acted on behalf of the debtor. Certainly in the second case, nobody was "encouraged" to pursue legal action. Milo has just invented that bit for effect.

The court failures have not "significantly worsened" anything. Bailiff companies were taking these vehicles regardless. If anything, it has highlighted the problem and advisors are now aware that advice on websites like CAB and Stepchange is not accurate.

The key issue with HP vehicles is beneficial interest. If you check how much a car will sell at auction and then check how much it will cost to buy out the agreement, you will see if there is a beneficial interest or not. The clause regarding allowing a vehicle to be seized is contentious. How can you possibly stop it? The clause regarding paying penalties is more difficult to overcome. If you incur a penalty for parking/driving in a bus lane etc then under the T&C's, you will be under an obligation to pay it. If your debt is from another area, ie council tax CC judgement etc then it is reasonable for you to assume that the vehicle is not yours and that you will not be breaching T&C's if the bailiff subsequently seizes it.

Finally, it could well be the case that finance companies do not take kindly to bailiffs removing their vehicles, especially if a sale won't raise enough to cover the amount required to buy out an agreement. If a HP company is merely classed as a "co-owner" then they have no say in how much they get back from the sale.

[gavmoulds]

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

Interesting answer...it doesnt fill me with confidence and actually makes me more worried. My current vehicle is on Conditional Sale. The debt is for a previous HP which is a complete mess but I am making payments. Clearly this vehicle is not owned by me and is in no way related to the debt. Surely they cannot take control of goods which do not belong to me. They certainly wont get paid that way.

[Milo]

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

Unfortunately, in the past year, three individuals have been encouraged into pursuing legal action against local authorities regarding vehicles being taken by a bailiff that were subject to hire purchase. Each case has been lost (and in fact, should not have been instigated in the first place). The courts agreed that the vehicle could have a 'beneficial interest' and accordingly, can be seized and sold.

The bottom line is that these court failures have now significantly worsened the position in that all enforcement companies will consider that a vehicle on hire purchase if fair game to clamp/remove.

A significantly important point though with ANY vehicle that is subject to Hire Purchase (and this was outlined in the recent court case), is that all hire purchase contracts contain specific clauses stating that if a vehicle is seized for non payment of a penalty charge notice, (or fine) that this will be considered a breach of the agreement and will be grounds for the contract to be terminated.

[gavmoulds]

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

May I ask a newbie question. It really does not seem clear to me that if I have a Car on Hire Purchase which clearly is not owned by me.... 1. Can it be clamped ( by anyone ) 2. Can it be seized / removed. Nobody so far seems to be able to clarify this for me.

I am really worried as I am being persued for an old debt and my car seems to be an easy target.

[Milo]

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

I think an independent regulator or tribunal would be a great idea.
Give them the power to inflict heavy punishments to all those enforcement companies, that think they can break the law with impunity.
Hit them where it hurts....
In the pocket
aw:

BOth PATAS and TPT work extremely well (it could have a lot to do with the fact that both operations are run by WOMEN.... Ms Carolyn Hamilton and Ms Caroline Shephard)....excuse the spellings..they could be wrong.

A little known fact is that BOTH adjudication services are paid for by the local authorities that issue the tickets (and I quite agree with this). How it works with PATAS is this:

A London authority (for discussion purposes...Hammersmith & Fulham ) issue a PCN to 'Mr Bluebottle' for overstaying at a paid for parking bay. If 'Mr Bluebottle' considers that the parking warden had issued the ticket on his car unfairly or if there had been an error with the signage then he can make 'informal representation' to H&M by email or post within the strict time frame on the Parking Charge Notice. If H & M reject the 'informal representation' then 'Mr Bluebottle' needs to wait to receive a Notice to Owner and he then has the opportunity to make 'Formal Representation' to Hammersmith & Fulham. There are strict rules for the local authority to take into consideration when considering 'Formal' Representation'.

If the local authority reject the 'Formal Representation' then they would write to 'Mr Bluebottle' to advise him that he can have their decision reviewed by the Parking and Traffic Adjudication Service (PATAS). 'Mr Bluebottle' does not have to pay a fee.

HOWEVER....and this is important.......

Hammersmith & Fulham are charged a fee and this covers the salaries and running costs for PATAS. Therefore, there is a responsibility on the LOCAL AUTHORITY to carefully consider 'Formal Representations' .

The 'fee' charged to each local authority is very steep indeed and means that each PCN that is appealed to PATAS is a 'loss' to the local authority.

It is absolutely correct that the local authority should bear the cost.

[Johnboy007]

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

I think an independent regulator or tribunal would be a great idea.
Give them the power to inflict heavy punishments to all those enforcement companies, that think they can break the law with impunity.
Hit them where it hurts....
In the pocket
aw:

[bluebottle]

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

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 authorities 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.

Thank you for your response, Milo.

Although CIVEA expect their members to follow its guidance, it looks like it is a case of "old habits die hard" where certain civil enforcement companies are concerned, which is of concern, not only for debtors, but also those civil enforcement operators who keep to the rules.

In order for a regulator to have the confidence of all parties, it has to be totally independent and funded by the taxpayer. One solution is to have a specific tribunal to deal with civil enforcement matters under the umbrella of HMCTS, once the politicians can be stopped from playing silly beggars with the justice system.

I agree with your feelings on Regulation 45A entirely. However, I would not be surprised if local authorities lobbied for it to become a duty and not a right to send a 14-day notice following the issue of an LO.

Quelle surprise as to who it was that lobbied hard to reduce the notice period to 7 days. The argument they put forward holds about as much water as a sieve. I have come across cases where Rent Bailiffs have broken the law or assisted landlords to break the law and I think we are aware of which High Court Enforcement operators give their industry a reputation it doesn't deserve.

[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.

[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

Sorry duplicate post.