New Fines Collection Orders

[TAE]

I'd still like to know what "break into their homes" means.

While everyone is out, some blokes break into the house/flat and take ... what exactly?

The son's play station? The daughter's doll house?

How do they decide what belongs to whom? If the 18 year old son did the crime, why should they take the dad's TV? Or the brother's PC?

 

[detective-boy]

I'd still like to know what "break into their homes" means.

Scehdule 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40028--k.htm#sch4

In short, it means force entry on a warrant, so only following the issue of a Court Order.

The distress order will be subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other distress order currently issued, namely it will only apply to the personal goods of the person concerned and there will be limits on personal clothing, tools of trade, etc. There will also undoubtedbly be some means by which anyone who claims property which has been seized actually belongs to them will be able to apply to the Magistrates for it's return.

In my experience, the majority of people faced with this sort of robust action suddenly "remember" that do have the necessary few hundred quid stuffed down the back of the sofa.

And in any case, criminal fine default has always previously resulted in arrest and imprisonment in the absence of payment, so you could argue that the introduction of the possibility of distress as a step back!

This whole thread is scaremongering at it's finest.

 

[Fullyplumped]

...and there will be limits on personal clothing...

What - so we can't have their shoes?

 

[TAE]

The distress order will be subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other distress order currently issued, namely it will only apply to the personal goods of the person concerned and there will be limits on personal clothing, tools of trade, etc.

Yes these people are always very careful.

There will also undoubtedbly be some means by which anyone who claims property which has been seized actually belongs to them will be able to apply to the Magistrates for it's return.

Ok maybe these people are not always very careful.

In my experience, the majority of people faced with this sort of robust action suddenly "remember" that do have the necessary few hundred quid stuffed down the back of the sofa.

This isn't law yet, how can you have any experience of it?

This whole thread is scaremongering at it's finest.

With this government, one has to be very suspicious.



BTW - does this law allow them to take posession of the house/flat/campervan itself?

 

[Gmart]

Scehdule 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40028--k.htm#sch4

In short, it means force entry on a warrant, so only following the issue of a Court Order.

The distress order will be subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other distress order currently issued, namely it will only apply to the personal goods of the person concerned and there will be limits on personal clothing, tools of trade, etc. There will also undoubtedbly be some means by which anyone who claims property which has been seized actually belongs to them will be able to apply to the Magistrates for it's return.

In my experience, the majority of people faced with this sort of robust action suddenly "remember" that do have the necessary few hundred quid stuffed down the back of the sofa.

How cynical of you! One question though, what happens if you're living with people in a shared house, how will they know not to take their possessions?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Non payment of fines is a big issue that needs sorting out, but the way the state has gone about this is arse over tit. It is deliberately secretive and hasnt even gone through the usual phoney "debate" process.

It is, as some have said, just part of the stwho dont cough up - thats how the apologist will excuse this. But I see where this is going...when people refuse to be retina scanned for the database state dstate will have powers to break in to their homes and intimidate them.

drip...drip...drip...

 

[scott_forester]

And what do you think should be done if you get a community service as a punishment for not paying a fine and and don't complete the community service?

Fines and CS are given instead of a prison term if you not willing to do it you should go to jail. Really, build more jails. These people don't pay fines or do CS because they know they arn't going to get away with it.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Fines and CS are given instead of a prison term if you not willing to do it you should go to jail. Really, build more jails. These people don't pay fines or do CS because they know they arn't going to get away with it.

Yes, I know. It's just that jails are very very expensive, taking money that could be more usefully spent on something else more worthwhile (I'd like to see soldiers' and sailors' pay increased significantly and I bet you've got a pet project too) and they don't do much for people who can be dealt with otherwise. Taking the fines off them is better than the £3500 a month it costs to lock 'em up.

 

[detective-boy]

This isn't law yet, how can you have any experience of it?
...
BTW - does this law allow them to take posession of the house/flat/campervan itself?

I was referring to robust action on the old system which was the execution of a commitment warrant (i.e. straight to jail) unless payment is made there and then ... at that point they suddenly "remembered"

As far as I aware, no distress ation allows the taking of land (i.e. houses and flats). It could include vehicles.

As for houses in multiple occupation, that is where it gets difficult, but exactly the same problems arise with every other form of distress and they are usually sorted out OK. If it is not plain then the court will be told there is nothing to distrain and alternative action will be taken (i.e. commitment for non-payment in this case).

 

[The Black Hand]

Fines are not civil debts. They are criminal punishments, enforced by the Courts. My understanding is that the changes in the rules refer to COURT enforcement officers, acting to enforce unpaid fines. They do not, so far as I know, affect the situation in relation to civil debts and the baliffs employed to collect them.

Anyone who cannot pay a fine can go back to Court at any stage and ask for it to be reviewed. Most simply can't be arsed. Which basically is two-fingers to the Court and to the original victim if there was one.

Why shouldn't they be enforced robustly?

Why shouldn't you be shot?

 

[big footed fred]

To the people against this - Are you nuts or just criminals trying to avoid your punishment ?

The people we are talking about are people who have broken the law and refuse to submit to punishment.
What the hell is wrong with enforcing the court's ruling against a criminal ?

If you are a criminal and end up with these guys breaking into your house when you avoid the fine - fucking hard luck pal.

 

[DarthSydodyas]

What the hell is wrong with enforcing the court's ruling against a criminal ?

Nothing. Personally, I think it is more meaningful putting them through community service or prison (if they fail the former), than knocking doors down to take their Hugo Boss pants.

 

[TAE]

It could include vehicles.

Even when the vehicle is someone's home?

The people we are talking about are people who have broken the law and refuse to submit to punishment.
What the hell is wrong with enforcing the court's ruling against a criminal ?

Nothing - I'm just a bit concerned about innocent people getting caught in the middle.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Fines are not civil debts. They are criminal punishments, enforced by the Courts. My understanding is that the changes in the rules refer to COURT enforcement officers, acting to enforce unpaid fines. They do not, so far as I know, affect the situation in relation to civil debts and the baliffs employed to collect them.

Anyone who cannot pay a fine can go back to Court at any stage and ask for it to be reviewed. Most simply can't be arsed. Which basically is two-fingers to the Court and to the original victim if there was one.

Why shouldn't they be enforced robustly?

There was an interesting article in the Observer that puts recent changes in law into a historic perspective:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1800428,00.html

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Incidently, when I moved into my new flat a few years ago the previous occupants had used that address while bunking trains. They had received a fine at court which they obviously had no intention of paying - despite being told by myself the court baliff kept coming around - always in office hours...

Would this person/s have used the new change in law to break and claim their money in goods?

 

[Fruitloop]

To the people against this - Are you nuts or just criminals trying to avoid your punishment ?

The people we are talking about are people who have broken the law and refuse to submit to punishment.
What the hell is wrong with enforcing the court's ruling against a criminal ?

If you are a criminal and end up with these guys breaking into your house when you avoid the fine - fucking hard luck pal.

The whole point of democratic safeguards is that the state is not infallible. Would it have been such a great thing if the police could have exercised such draconian authority against non-payers of the Poll Tax? Are we all going to go happily along with this kind of treatment of people who refuse to sign up to the govt's insane cash-cow ID card project?

It's not the massively increased police powers, or the tendency of the govt to use the police as a political instrument, or the blurring of the line between govt and corporate power on their own that's scary, it's the combination of all of them. All it would take would be for a comparatively innocuous bit of legislation to allow private contractors to bid for the right to perform the fine collections, and then you'd have the possiblity of private bailiffs cavity-searching folks for not signing up to the crappy national ID database. Is this the kind of society you want to live in? 'Cos it scares the hell out of me.

 

[detective-boy]

Even when the vehicle is someone's home?

I don't think I have seen that specific circumstance dealt with in the law, but that is not unusual - the vast majority of law doesn't deal with every possible circumstance, that is where the Courts and precedent comes in.

I would not expect a vehicle in which someone resided to be considered property for distress by anyone involved in the process. And if they did, I can't see any Court supporting that decision.

 

[detective-boy]

There was an interesting article in the Observer that puts recent changes in law into a historic perspective:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1800428,00.html

Fascinatng though the history is, I have rarely read an article in a supposedly serious newspaper which is so riddled with basic misunderstanding and hyperbole. It starts from his own quote from an 18th century commentator who draws a distinction between civil law and criminal law. The twat the blithely ignores that and rants on about a whole range of criminal measures as if the "Englishman's Home is his castle" principle applied to them.

It is the sort of bollocks you expect from certain posters on Urban, not from a so-callled serious newspaper which has a crucial role in ensuring that the public have ACCURATE information.

 

[detective-boy]

Would this person/s have used the new change in law to break and claim their money in goods?

No. The law gives no powers to distress anyone other than the subjects goods.

 

[detective-boy]

Would it have been such a great thing if the police could have exercised such draconian authority against non-payers of the Poll Tax?

Much as I don't want to piss on your parade ... distress was available for Poll Tax arrears / refusals to pay.