RETROSPECTIVE: JUNE 2014 CCR-PS


of goods by their removal from the debtor’s premises as well as removals for sale. As discussed in a previous article last month, the sale stage may need to be artificially triggered by the issue of a second removal notice, most likely by removing the goods from the warehouse to the auction room. Neither the form nor the Regulations deal with this problem. The inventory on the one hand


appears redundant. The controlled goods agreement, notice of taking control of goods and removal notice (plus others) all contain inventories. Only the removal notice, though, suggests that a separate inventory might substitute for the one incorporated in the form itself. It may be that the inventory would


suffice as a notice of taking control of goods when they are secured on the debtor’s premises by some means. However, the form fails to give a breakdown of the fees or details of how


June 2015


to make payments and so it is not really adequate on its own. In contrast to the quite serious


omissions listed above, the inventory does contain space to enter a co-owners’ name and address. As the bailiff is now obliged to identify and record this information, the absence of the requisite boxes from the other inventories is baffling. The solution seems clear but inconvenient: whenever a co-owner is involved (as will be the case with many domestic levies and trade partnerships) an inventory will have to be appended to the fully completed notice or agreement, merely for the purposes of formally setting down the co-owner information. The notice of sale is one of the better


forms, providing space for most of the important details, including co-owners. However, disregarding regulations 34(2) or (3), there is no facility for explaining that the notice replaces an earlier one if this is the case. The notice of abandonment logically should be


www.CCR-PublicSector.com


served upon the same parties as the sale notice, but the Regulations and the prescribed form only mention the debtor, even though it seems that a co-owner would be just as interested in recovering the unsold goods. Like the various sets of Regulations,


the forms leave a good deal to be desired and are in need of amendment and improvement. One final common fault applies to all forms – in all cases the space is lacking to enable the basic enforcement and sale fees to be stated separately from the additional percent- age fees where these apply, although it seems that transparency would make this desirable. CCR-PS


John Kruse is founder and editor of Bailiff Studies Bulletin E-mail: bailiff.bulletin@gmail.com


29


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