Section 50(3) The “Amount Outstanding” as in the the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (schedule12)
As can be seen hereunder, section 50(3) says:
The “amount outstanding is the sum of these.”
(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);
(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs)
I suppose the words “the sum of”, would indicate that there is more than one item contained in the ammount outstanding, to most of us, anyway
Subsection (a) refers to sums remaining on the warrant or order (the amount adjudged to be owed to the creditor).
To this sum is added subsection (b).
This is any sum owed out of proceeds in regards of costs as per paragraph 62.
I think the problem is contained here, in that he believes that cost do not represent fees.
“62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.
(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.”
If we look at section 62 the first paragraph states that regulations can be made in regards to Enforcement related services, that phrase is important.
The definition of the term, “Enforcement related services” is given here:
(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it
I think anyone would accept that , “anything done under the schedule” would mean fees.
But if not, we go on.
Section 62 (1) says that , “regulations may be made”.
If we go to the fees regulations, and look on the first page we see:
“The Lord Chancellor makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 90 of and paragraphs 13(3), 42, 50(4) and (7), and 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007(1).
So it would seem to be that the fees regulations are made under section 62 (costs)”
Fees are indeed costs under section 62.
Leave a Reply
77 Comments on "Section 50(3) The “Amount Outstanding” as in the the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (schedule12)"
Seems that Zeke is on a run.
The rules on limitations for a penalty charge notice and a parking charge notice are different, and you have a parking charge notice.
The limit for the enforcement of a parking charge notice enforced with a county court judgment is six years.
NO THE LIMITATION PERIOD DOES NOT EXTEND TO COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENTS.
If the judgment is transferred to a writ of control (a High Court Writ) the enforcement ceases to be exercisable after 12 months.
NO. THE WRIT NEEDS TO BE RE ISSUED THAT IS ALL.
The judgment must be greater than £600 before it can be transferred up to the High Court.
DCBL ARE ALSO LICENCED DEBT COLLECTORS
Your options depend on whether DCBL are acting as debt collectors for a parking company, or enforcing a High Court writ.
If you can tell us which of these DCBL is enforcing, then we can give you the appropriate guidance on how to stop the enforcement power, bearing in mind the debt is linked to a previous address.
THE DEBT IS REGISTERED TO THE DEBTOR,NOT HIS ADDRES
Zero says this.
It looks like a private parking ticket, and DCBL was recently done for collecting tickets without a judgment purporting to be in the capacity of High Court enforcement agents.
I don’t suppose there is any evidence of this Zeke.
what exactly is meant by,” got done”. Is this a technical term?
Zeke just advised this on his forum.
you want to set aside a default judgment, you cannot make the application from the same address as the judgment itselfe for..
What nonesense. Of course you can make an application to set asside a judgement from anywhere.
The requirements for such an application are in the cpr.
More shockingly incorrect advice from Mr Bennison.
#2 Re: Can i sue
Post by zeke » 05 Apr 2021 12:13
You can sue for the loss of use of the car for each day the car was clamped.
The claim amount is £25 a day for each day the car is clamped, plus your wasted expenses.
Wasted expenses are calculated on a daily basis fort each day the car was clamped, and includes,
Hire purchase payments
You can claim special damages, these include
Loss of business from being deprived of the use of the car. Eg. if you use it as a minicab or taxi
Travel costs, taxi, train and bus fares
This list is not exhaustive, but gives you an idea of the numbers involved.
You make a claim against the council. Never against the bailiff company – they will mess you about and frustrate the proceedings with angry letters.
The council is compensated afterwards through the bailiffs public liability insurance.
Although the Bailiff did send the NOE to the wrong house, and fees may be refundable. The reason for this is because the owner of the vehicle in question had not updated his vehicle registration. s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies.
The OP needs to be careful here because this is an offence that may have severe consequences. I am sure that the court would not permit any action for damages in tort because the OP is the cause of his own losses. There are also sections within the TCE
that forbid the EA from being a Trespasser. The authority, (council) would have had a perfect right to issue the order, to the customer’s last known address.
I am unsure what Mr Bennison is using for a reason to claim these damages. But I am 100% sure this is Poppycock at the highest level.
I have no idea what is meant by the insurance comment.
#5 Re: Case decided, what about fees?
Post by zeke » 10 Feb 2021 13:43a contractual agrement.
If money has been taken before the writ was stopped, or stayed, that money is set off the judgment. No fees may be taken out of that money.
The fees aren’t “reversed” on the claimant. There is no statutory requirement for claimants to pay them if the writ is stayed. Any claimant liability for enforcement fees on the stay of a writ is contractual between the claimant and the bailiff company.
I am sorry but this is incorrect. The procedure is outlined in part 83 of the CPR, and states at part 15:
“Where an order is made by the District Judge suspending a warrant of execution, the debtor may be ordered to pay the costs of the warrant and any fees or expenses incurred before its suspension and the order may authorise the sale of a sufficient portion of any goods seized to cover such costs, fees and expenses and the expenses of sale.”
There is also a fee for the application of £255