RETROSPECTIVE: JUNE 2014 CCR-PS


Are there enough mandatory forms provided for in the new Certification of Enforcement Agent Regulations 2014, and are they fit for purpose? By John Kruse


THE FORM, THE FORM ALONE IS ELOQUENT!


Council, that some consideration of the appropriate use of the Taking Control of Goods forms might be a useful exercise. The forms contained in the


I


Certification of Enforcement Agent Regulations 2014 are a novelty in that they are mandatory for use for all forms of debt enforcement: previously, prescribed forms only applied to rent and road traffic penalties. The new forms must be used in the


exact form given in the Regulations – all that may be added is logo and contact information. They are however, far from perfect and completing them can present some subtle challenges. The first observation to make is that


not as many forms are prescribed as are required in day-to-day practice. For example, there is no visit notice or notice associated with re-attendances to remove. Similarly, not all the forms and notices referred to in the Regulations are actually prescribed: there are no documents to accompany the mandatory valuation or for use when disposing of securities, for instance. These gaps are compounded by the


absence from the forms of information that might have been felt to be desirable – for example, the enforcement notice (of which more in due course) – meaning that enforcement agents may well wish to supplement the documentation with their own additional notices. Laudable as this may be, it does of course tend to undermine and subvert the whole point of setting out forms in legislation at all. We shall consider the forms in their


random statutory order, beginning with the enforcement notice. The glaring absence on this form is any mention of


28


t was recently suggested to me by Barrie Minney, senior enforcement agent for Brighton & Hove City


its effect. Debtors are not warned of the binding effect nor of the agent’s right to follow goods removed elsewhere and, if necessary, to force entry. This omission is bizarre as it tends to render otiose (‘serving no practical purpose or result’) the provisions in the Act; certainly, it demands that the prudent bailiff protect the creditor’s interests by serving the notice with a covering letter spelling out the notice’s effect. The major issue with the controlled goods agreement will be external to the


controlled goods agreement has been breached – the details of the agreement and the default must be stated. If a bailiff is re-entering by force for fines or for judgments or taxes at business premises, no notice is necessary. If a bailiff is re-entering to remove goods secured on the debtor’s premises, a court order is needed if force is to be used – but still no notice is given. The notice of entry and taking control


of goods is the form to be used in three situations (and combines what


Like the various sets of Regulations, the forms leave a good deal to be desired and are in need of amendment and improvement


form itself – the question of who may properly be asked to sign it. However, the purpose of the agreement is to document not just a taking into control but a payment arrangement. A fairly small space is provided to record the details of this. Additionally, many of the terms will be standard to every agreement made so that agents may very well prefer to develop a separate payment agreement which may be attached to the controlled goods agreement and which will allow a more extended account of the conditions and implications, with specific personal information inserted by hand. A similar document may well also be required for any arrangements agreed at the enforcement notice stage. The immobilisation warning is very


brief and barely covers the facts by the Regulations. Clarification is desirable that the number supplied is available 24 hours and that a clamp will be removed reasonably soon after payment. The notice of intention to re-enter only applies to situations where a


www.CCR-PublicSector.com


appear to be three separate notices in the regulations): t As notice every time premises are entered – so that multiple entry notices are possible. t As notice of taking control of goods or vehicles on the highway – plus an immobilisation notice. It is implied that, for vehicles at least, the immobilisation warning may be incorporated into the notice of taking control, but a separate notice is the easiest and most certain solution. There is, though, no mention of the fact that clamping may be for a minimum period of two hours and may be followed by removal. t (It seems) as notice of taking control of goods by securing them on the premises. This latter function is not clear but there is an obvious need for a notice to be used at this point in the process and usage of this particular form makes the most sense. In part, it seems to be the implication of regulation 33(2). The notice of removal is a dual


purpose form – it covers taking control June 2015


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32