As I've suggested elsewhere, we are now in a position to confirm the list of 'known unknowns' in the new enforcement law- the areas where further clarification is required. These include issues such as:
- the existence and duration of the right of an agent to remain on premises, if no goods are available;
- the correct handling of fees when payments are made directly to creditors- as increasingly happens where online payment facilities exist. As II have publicised in Bailiff Studies Bulletin in recent issues, a range of views as to the proper interpretation of the law and of the correct handling of funds exists, which in turn generates considerable uncertainty;
- the extent and nature of the 'licence' to enter premises (in other words, whether or not entry may be legitimately refused by an occupier and what the agent's response might be in such situations). This is, of course, not a new argument and not, in my opinion, one where the law has changed at all since April 2014. Diverging views nevertheless exist, both as to the impact of the 2007 Act and, for that matter, as to the exact status of the law before the reforms were introduced. Suffice to say, then, that this continues to be a contentious area; and,
- the proper treatment of goods on HP. On this subject, the argument is that the 2007 Act grated a right to seize 'beneficial interests' in goods. This would appear to include the 'equity' of a consumer debtor purchasing a vehicle by monthly payments under a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement. So far there has been- we are told- one county court finding in favour of this contention, but we need clarification from a higher court. The former law of distress for rent allowed goods on hire purchase to be taken, despite the fact that they were third party property, for the simple reason that they were to be found upon the demised premises. The new law is rather more refined, giving the creditor the power to dispose of the debtor's share of the chattel's value only, but it provides no mechanism for doing this, not explanation of the process for sale or for making arrangements with the finance house. They will retain a claim and must be viewed (I guess) as akin to joint owners, but agents are currently groping in the dark to develop proper procedures in such cases.
After two years, we remain virtually devoid of case authority (except for one case which largely concerns the old law). This may, of course, be because the Act was so well drafted, or it may reflect the obstacles in the way of litigation under the new dispensation. Whatever the explanation, the paucity of judgments leaves many areas of uncertainty. Many of these could, I believe,be quickly resolved by reference to the abundance of old cases we possess. Completion of the MoJ review would also help, but reference to the wealth of existing case law may prove to be a faster solution...