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?

[Johnboy007]

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

To be honest, I don't think they have gone far enough with regards to fees.
EAs can claim fees for enforcement without ever doing anything, other that posting a letter.
I wouldn't mind being able to claim £235.00 for posting a letter.
I would do it all day.
The fee should only be chargeable when they have completed that stage.
For example, if they have taken control of goods, then the fee is chargeable.
But it seems they can charge for fees up front and still not take control of anything.
It's a bit like a plumber sending you a bill for changing taps, then not actually changing them.
The system is open to abuse, and I speak as someone who has experienced this behaviour by an EA.

[Guest]

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

Not sure how the visit must be 12 days after notice was posted?

There is no guarantee that the letter will be posted on the same day as it is dated for a start. For point of argument, supposing it was dated and posted on Monday 7th July, the days that count are 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, meaning it's possible to visit on the 16th, 10 days after the notice was date/posted. Obviously postal service providers are not the quickest which could mean a debtor only really has 3 or 4 clear days in which to act. I would hope that agencies will not be so quick off the starting blocks and only in extreme cases should visits follow so quickly. Certainly up to now, this seems to be the case in general.

For council tax collection, agencies are urged by both the MOJ and the DCLG to safeguard against debtors entering into punitive repayment plans. One company in particular appear to be demanding punitive repayments as a matter of course so as to ensure an extra £235 for the enforcement fee.

Interpleader is a double edged sword and agencies will have to be sure they have the debtors vehicle as interpleader could result in costs being awarded against the agency. The binding of goods is a fair addition as it will stop (especially with PCN's) debtors changing ownership after the NOE but before enforcement. This also protects debtors who are stupid enough to think this idea is unique and not been tried before.

The £1350 ceiling is a can of worms and it will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

[Guest]

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

To be honest, I don't think they have gone far enough with regards to fees.
EAs can claim fees for enforcement without ever doing anything, other that posting a letter.
I wouldn't mind being able to claim £235.00 for posting a letter.
I would do it all day.
The fee should only be chargeable when they have completed that stage.
For example, if they have taken control of goods, then the fee is chargeable.
But it seems they can charge for fees up front and still not take control of anything.
It's a bit like a plumber sending you a bill for changing taps, then not actually changing them.
The system is open to abuse, and I speak as someone who has experienced this behaviour by an EA.

Johnny-Its £75 for sending a letter, the £235 only kicks in after a visit has actually taken place. The argument being that it has cost to send the agent out, regardless of whether goods are taken control of or not. On the other side of the coin, the enforcement fee is only chargeable once, so if the debtor is out, the agent cannot expect payment for 2nd & 3rd visits.

You could call a plumber out to look at your sink problem and he could tell you that you need new taps. Although he hasn't fixed the problem, he has still been called out which has cost him money. It would be reasonable for him to submit a bill at this point.

[bluebottle]

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

As a retired policeman, I can see the interpleader provision being abused by enforcement agents and civil enforcement companies. If a third party vehicle owner catches an EA interfering with their vehicle and challenges them, it is very unwise indeed for the EA to tell them to go to interpleader as if the police attend, ask to see the warrant/order and then carry out a Owner/Keeper enquiry on the Police National Computer and find discrepancies between what is on the PNC and warrant, the EA is going to have some awkward questions to answer, if the police officers don't arrest him/her.

If an EA seizes a third party vehicle in the absence of its owner and the EA and civil enforcement company can prove they made a genuine error, then, yes, it is equitable to go to interpleader.

In the case of an individual person, not a corporation, the interpleader provision is potentially unlawful as it is incompatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It also needs to be borne in mind that where the creditor is a public authority, a contracted civil enforcement company and its enforcement agents are subject to compliance with the HRA. This is something of which civil enforcement companies contracted to public authorities do not appear to be aware.

[Johnboy007]

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

Johnny-Its £75 for sending a letter, the £235 only kicks in after a visit has actually taken place. The argument being that it has cost to send the agent out, regardless of whether goods are taken control of or not. On the other side of the coin, the enforcement fee is only chargeable once, so if the debtor is out, the agent cannot expect payment for 2nd & 3rd visits.

You could call a plumber out to look at your sink problem and he could tell you that you need new taps. Although he hasn't fixed the problem, he has still been called out which has cost him money. It would be reasonable for him to submit a bill at this point.

Yeah but the trouble here is, they send a letter with the EA, and then claim a fee for calling after the 7days, without actually calling.
It's fine for us who follow the the rules and know how they should be enforced.
We would contest it, or refuse to pay it.
Not so the average Joe Soap, he/she/ hasn't got a clue, as the many posts on LB will confirm.
They will pay up, be it reluctantly.
My daughters been charged £110.00 for sale and disposal of a car that Newlyn never, ever were in possession off.
So that is the point I am making.
Complete each stage, with proof.
Then charge their bloody outrageous fees.
Letters should be sent by recorded and signed for post. Cost under £2.00

[BurlingtonGroup]

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.

Not sure how the visit must be 12 days after notice was posted?

There is no guarantee that the letter will be posted on the same day as it is dated for a start. For point of argument, supposing it was dated and posted on Monday 7th July, the days that count are 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, meaning it's possible to visit on the 16th, 10 days after the notice was date/posted. Obviously postal service providers are not the quickest which could mean a debtor only really has 3 or 4 clear days in which to act. I would hope that agencies will not be so quick off the starting blocks and only in extreme cases should visits follow so quickly. Certainly up to now, this seems to be the case in general.

For council tax collection, agencies are urged by both the MOJ and the DCLG to safeguard against debtors entering into punitive repayment plans. One company in particular appear to be demanding punitive repayments as a matter of course so as to ensure an extra £235 for the enforcement fee.

Interpleader is a double edged sword and agencies will have to be sure they have the debtors vehicle as interpleader could result in costs being awarded against the agency. The binding of goods is a fair addition as it will stop (especially with PCN's) debtors changing ownership after the NOE but before enforcement. This also protects debtors who are stupid enough to think this idea is unique and not been tried before.

The £1350 ceiling is a can of worms and it will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

[BurlingtonGroup]

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

Thanks for your comments. Obviously the EA would need to have reasonable belief that the asset seized belongs to the Defendant and not a third-party.

[Johnboy007]

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

Thanks for your comments. Obviously the EA would need to have reasonable belief that the asset seized belongs to the Defendant and not a third-party.

They would need to have reasonable belief that they actually seized it, and that the colour was correct as well.msl:

[Guest]

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 is a very fair way of calculating the 7 days. I wonder if it is your companies policy to allow 3 days for postage? I can tell you now, other companies are not doing this, they are calculating the 7 days as in my example.

Also, the key date is the date on the notice, not the date of posting. Again, I suspect that many companies are not posting on the same day that the notices are dated. Up to now, it seems that most debtors are seeing a period that is longer than 7 days between notice and a visit.

it has always been the case that "reasonable belief" is required before seizing/taking control of goods. "Reasonable belief" can give an agent a vast scope. I suspect if a vehicle was to actually be removed then it would be on the strength of a lot more than just "reasonable belief"

[bizzybob]

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

If an EA clamps and takes control of a third party vehicle, say one parked on a street of terraced houses with only on street parking, and clamps it, the innocent then provides prima facie proof as in V5 insurance etc to the EA and they refuse to remove the clamp, and still insist on interpleader, they will be on a very sticky wicket indeed, and if the third party cuts off the clamp, they couldn't go to police and aver a crime had taken place if the EA ignored the obvious evidence. The interpleader is for where there may be doubt. Wonder if an aggreived third party who cannot afford to pay in the value for an interpleader so loses the car can go after the EA as per oldbill's comments under HRA?

And what part do you have in the enforcement industry Burlington Group?

Around where I live an EA's Berlingo could well end up on bricks if they knock on the wrong door.

[bluebottle]

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

Thanks for your comments. Obviously the EA would need to have reasonable belief that the asset seized belongs to the Defendant and not a third-party.

To be honest, reasonable belief isn't really going to cut any ice. In practice, an EA would have to be able to show he/she had taken reasonable steps to establish the ownership of goods, not just randomly or indiscriminately seize goods without ascertaining first as to whom they belong. Also, the civil enforcement industry needs to realise the penny has dropped with a number of police forces as to the malpractice that goes on within the industry. If the civil enforcement industry does not smarten and clean up its act pretty quickly, I can see the police being less inclined to assist and more inclined to challenge the actions of individual EAs.

[bizzybob]

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

To be honest, reasonable belief isn't really going to cut any ice. In practice, an EA would have to be able to show he/she had taken reasonable steps to establish the ownership of goods, not just randomly or indiscriminately seize goods without ascertaining first as to whom they belong. Also, the civil enforcement industry needs to realise the penny has dropped with a number of police forces as to the malpractice that goes on within the industry. If the civil enforcement industry does not smarten and clean up its act pretty quickly, I can see the police being less inclined to assist and more inclined to challenge the actions of individual EAs.

,
They will be claiming Observer V Gordon is still the undisputed precedent for assuming who owns goods again next, and be really indignant when plod feels their collars for towing a third party car where the owner has provided proof of ownership.

[bluebottle]

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

,
They will be claiming Observer V Gordon is still the undisputed precedent for assuming who owns goods again next, and be really indignant when plod feels their collars for towing a third party car where the owner has provided proof of ownership.

Observer v Gordon has, in my view, been overused by the civil enforcement industry as a means of escaping being held to account for their actions. Words like "flog", "dead" and "horse" come to mind.

[bizzybob]

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

Observer v Gordon has, in my view, been overused by the civil enforcement industry as a means of escaping being held to account for their actions. Words like "flog", "dead" and "horse" come to mind.

Buried, stinking and rotting imho.