liability order help

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

The law is very clear. It is Regulation 8(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, posted below. It has nothing to do with any road Traffic Regulations or magistrates Court fines.

Given the pasted legislation below, can you please elabourate on your comment that "It is patently wrong to claim that sending a Notice of Enforcement to a previous address is not compliant with legislation"

Method of giving notice and who must give it


8.—(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—

(a)

by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

(b)

by fax or other means of electronic communication;

(c)

by delivery by hand through the letter box of the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

(d)

where there is no letterbox, by affixing the notice at or in a place where it is likely to come to the attention of the debtor;

(e)

where the debtor is an individual, to the debtor personally; or

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

I'm not sure what you mean by "statutory breach"?

How can it be a lawful enforcement if the law has been broken?

As stated previously, the law states that a debtor MUST be given 7 clear days notice before an enforcement agent visits and charges £235 for doing so. The notice MUST be given to the place, or one of the places where a debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business.

Simply sending notice to a previous address is not compliant with legislation. The OP was not afforded her statutory right to deal with the matter before further charges were added to the account.

An enforcement is empowered to recover a debt by taking control of goods to sell them in order to recover a sum of money. He may do this by using the Schedule 12 procedure. If the debtor is not given 7 days clear notice, then that procedure has not been used-Enforcement thereafter is non compliant.

What should have happened in this case is that once it was established that the debtor had moved address and had been traced to a new address, another notice of enforcement should have been sent to the debtors correct address. Rundles did not bother because they had already managed to add £235 to the account and it would have meant this figure would have had to have been removed.