Hi yes their are communication's from the court before the warrant is issued. from the fines officer for example, giving ten days to pay, but after the warrant is signed for , the debt comes under the TCE and its provisions. I think the OP is considerably past that stage.

Hi I am afraid you have been misled initially. The Compliance fee, is due from when the warrant is received by the bailiff, not from when the notice is sent. As you quite rightly say it is to cover expenses which may include searches etc, these would have to e done before the NOE was posted to you. Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs 5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows— (a)the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage; Payment to the court is always a bad idea once the debt has been transferred to enforcement, as it slows down the procedure, as the sum will not be paid until confirmation is sent from the court to the EA. You are not the first to fall for this "advice". Just to add to the above. The bailiff collects both fees and the sum due to the court in one sum, "the amount outstanding" as far as they are concerned there is just a £75 shortfall. If you ring and say you have been misled, they may intercede and help. But it is your fault, so apologetic is the operative word here. Sorry about the multiple posts. See, like that

Absolutely, 45002. A contract like that is not a lease, there is no statutory protection, no law to say what is included. You need to examine it carefully before you sign.

I am sorry, but without seeing the contract, and knowing what is on it or what effect it has, it is impossible to say.

We have to have all the facts of course, otherwise we cannot give proper advice. Sadly, in my opinion the EA has it right this time, by the 18th , the car had been sold. The bailiff can say you failed to update your address, which is an offence by the way. The car was seized on a highway, so they would have left it for two hours with a notice, then they entitled to remove it. The notice you received(valuation) seems to cover all the requirements of part 39 and 40 of the act. They should notify you of course of the current financial situation, how much is outstanding if anything dispersion of proceeds etc, I would write to them and the creditor about that. But otherwise....

Sorry should have re read your last response. Did you update your details via the V5 when you moved?

I see, did they leave a notice at your house when they took the ca or give any other indication that they did know the new address? Sounds a little suspect to me. How did they locate the vehicle in the first place, if it was parked outside your new address?

Hi again Thanks for your reply. Did you inform them of your change of address before the auction took place?

Oops, i seem to have asked similar questions in May !

Indeed, Although the agreement may effect your terms, could we se it?

Did you not receive a notice of sale before the auction, stating time and place of sale and your amount outstanding? Schedule 12 40(1)Before the sale, the enforcement agent must give notice of the date, time and place of the sale to the debtor and any co-owner. (2)Regulations must state— (a)the minimum period of notice; (b)the form of the notice; (c)what it must contain (besides the date, time and place of sale); (d)how it must be given.

Hi Yes sadley the owne of the property is entitled to reclaim his property. But he has to use the procedure mentioned. https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/section_21_eviction/how_long_a_section_21_eviction_takes#:~:text=The full section 21 eviction process for a,when county court bailiffs come to evict you. But dont worry just yet, Tennants like you are hard to find and landlords tend to explore other options before they liquidate a working tenancy, not withstanding the point made Lonon1 above of course.

It is usual policy to commence with a short tem lease, then when this ends to go onto a mothly renewable arrangement. As far as your safety is concerned it will be the same as it has been since the end of your short term tenancy. There is procedure to reclaim the property, but that is through what is called, the section 21 procedure, unless there is arrears, This gives you plenty of notice, talking months. If you are worried , the best thing to do is to talk to the new owners or their letting agents. It would be good to see the new contract the agents have given you.

The address that would be sent to the EA would be the one onthe judgement notice . The enforcement notice from the bailiff could be sent to you in prison. Any goods or vehicles belinging to you could be liable for seizure. The EA would not need to go to court as your home addres would be one of the.places you reside. I would certainly advise ringing the bailiff and informing him of the situation.heis going to find out anyway. If it's a cc debt it will be c court bailiff,they are usually quite apprachable out .

"Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose "All the effort put in"? You mean there was some kind of entrapment? Surely not.

1 post #5 17 hours ago, Peterbard said: Well. l He didn't just use the video for evidence, if he had, it wouldn't be on u-tube. Not that I object to that but just to correct your point. If he would have come here and I would have seen it , I would undoubtedly recommend an action in tort. But I get the feeling that such a low key remedy was not what you were after.

You say "the judge did not mention relevant premises," well all i can say is that we are both locking at different judgments, because mine says that the agent had no proof to form a reasonable belief etc. Also why have you cut and pasted content of an offsite blog. You dont know it was even written by me? In any case it is out of context because it referred to a bailiff acting within his general powers.

"Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf. " Sorry but my magic wand is out of commission right now. The next best thing would be to provide an accurate reading of the law as it stands. If you are going to discuss the video, then there are sensible matters which could be discussed. Sadly any reasonable debate is impossible, as you always start with the personal abuse, which inevitably leads to thread closure, we have learned that over and over again.

Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66. I in fact said the opposite. "Once the EA acts outside the procedure authorised by his writ(Schedule( 12), he is open to actions under common law or those rules applicable under other legislation." That is what I said. no backpedalling here. You cant have it both ways.

I am not sure what you are expecting. This is nothing new, it is just that the person concerned caught the incident on camera, that makes it newsworthy, apparently. Simply the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises". I can think of several judgments which agree with this, and found against the Bailiff..: 6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor— (a)usually lives, or (b)carries on a trade or business. The bailiff may call at relevant premises, this may or may not correspond to any residential information suppled by the creditor or his office, the provision is permitted under his general powers. The point is that the EA must have a reasonable belief that the person lives or works there. Once the EA acts outside the procedure authorised by his writ(Schedule( 12), he is open to actions under common law or those rules applicable under other legislation. Problems only arise when people take this incident to prove something that it doesn't. There is no disputing that the bailiff and the company behaved atrociously, and there is no denying that DCBL makes a habit of this kind of thing

When you say no correspondence, do you mean no notice to keeper from the authority and notices from TEC? Or do you mean no notice from the bailiff?

I am afraid the OP may have been previously misinformed.

Sorry, and how long ago was this?

Did the contract say " I agree to pay" or anything similar? Did you supply credit/debit card or bank details?