Progressive Property Ventures LLP v Kamil Mrozinski

Under regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, a vulnerable debtor must receive an adequate opportunity to obtain advice and assistance after goods have been taken into control and before their removal. The relevant enforcement power is exercised when the taking into control validly begins, not when the writ is issued, when goods become bound, or when an earlier enforcement stage starts. The opportunity required is fact-sensitive and may include practical assistance with court applications or negotiations. Earlier opportunities to address the debt do not remove the separate obligation arising at the taking-into-control stage. A period of one day will not necessarily be adequate. If the required opportunity is not provided, the enforcement agent’s fees and relevant disbursements are not recoverable.

The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt of approximately £10,155, together with costs. A writ of control was issued and a notice of enforcement was served on the defendant, who asserted vulnerability arising principally from anxiety, depression and sleep problems requiring medication. His car was clamped and removed on the following day.

The defendant applied for the enforcement agent’s fees and disbursements to be disallowed under regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The central issues were when the enforcement power was exercised and whether the defendant had been given an adequate opportunity to obtain advice and assistance before removal.

1. The defendant was a vulnerable person for the purposes of regulation 12. The relevant vulnerability arose principally from anxiety, depression and significant sleep problems requiring medication, which affected his ability to deal with enforcement issues.
2. Under regulation 2 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, “enforcement power” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The procedure is taking control of goods and selling them to recover the judgment sum. The enforcement power is exercised only when that procedure validly commences, namely when goods are taken into control. The issue of the writ, the binding of goods under Schedule 12 Part 2, and the enforcement stages in regulation 6 do not determine when the power is exercised.
3. The reasoning in Just Digital Marketplace v HCEOA and others [2021] EWHC 15 (QB) supported that construction. A process which does not comply with Schedule 12 is not a valid exercise of the power.
4. Regulation 12 requires a vulnerable debtor to have an adequate opportunity to obtain advice and assistance after the goods are taken into control and before removal. The earlier advice and opportunities provided to the defendant did not discharge that distinct obligation. The assistance may include practical steps, such as an application to court or negotiation with the creditor.
5. The adequacy of the opportunity is fact-sensitive. The court must allow for the practical difficulties vulnerable people may face in engaging with enforcement proceedings. One day between clamping and removal was inadequate in the circumstances. Clamping safeguarded the car and sufficiently protected the creditor’s recovery rights while further advice was obtained.
6. The enforcement agent’s fees and disbursements were therefore disallowed to the extent required by regulation 12. The court confirmed its earlier decision on reconsideration, although for different reasons.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.