Performing a Citizen's Arrest on a Bailiff

[brassnecked]

Because the bailiff was, or must be presumed to have been, acting in good faith in the belief that it was reasonable, necessary & lawful to seize that vehicle. I can see no grounds to suggest that he had the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a criminal conviction.

 

If he was presented with prima facie evidence the vehicle was NOT the property of the debtor he was enforcing against, and he CHOSE to ignore it and take the motor, then I would argue that the mens rea was present, by virtue of the seizure in the face of the evidence, and the offence was complete at that stage, so he was then a ****** TWOCCER just like a common criminal which he now would be. Good faith went out of the window when he ignored the ownership evidence and neglected to do a DVLA check.

[caledfwlch]

Because the bailiff was, or must be presumed to have been, acting in good faith in the belief that it was reasonable, necessary & lawful to seize that vehicle. I can see no grounds to suggest that he had the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a criminal conviction.

 

I was under the impression Mens Rea was not required for offenses such as TWOC - a circumstance due to how until the law changed, it was near impossible to secure a conviction of vehicle theft.

[brassnecked]

I was under the impression Mens Rea was not required for offenses such as TWOC - a circumstance due to how until the law changed, it was near impossible to secure a conviction of vehicle theft.

Whether it was or wasn't needed, willfully ignoring evidence to seize a third party motor, which as he knew WAS a third party motor, which must therefore be for personal gain is sufficient to constitute mens rea imho

[Malookoo]

Because the bailiff was, or must be presumed to have been, acting in good faith in the belief that it was reasonable, necessary & lawful to seize that vehicle. I can see no grounds to suggest that he had the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a criminal conviction.

 

What legal twaddle as I understand the thread we are talking about a certified bailiff seizing a vehicle unlawfully.

Surely part of the qualifications to get his certificate is knowing the law as it applies to doing the job, therefor he must have known he was acting unlawfully!

 

Perhaps a more interesting discussion would be, had someone restrained said bailiff till dim wit Plod arrived what excuse they would find not to arrest the bailiff.

[brassnecked]

What legal twaddle as I understand the thread we are talking about a certified bailiff seizing a vehicle unlawfully.

Surely part of the qualifications to get his certificate is knowing the law as it applies to doing the job, therefor he must have known he was acting unlawfully!

 

Perhaps a more interesting discussion would be, had someone restrained said bailiff till dim wit Plod arrived what excuse they would find not to arrest the bailiff.

 

Breach of the peace, assault on the bailiff, you name it they may try it

[seanamarts]

First off, was the council made aware that the debtor was deceased.

If and when the council were made aware all bailiff action should have ceased.

The bailiff can only take items belonging to the debtor. Before taking the car he should have checked with DVLA before removing the car. Just because he has been certificated does not give him the right to take any vehicle that is in his reach. Knowing that the car was not the debtors has made it worse for the bailiff.

In my opinion this is theft. He took the car knowing that it did not belong to the debtor.

 

Was the bailiff shown any death certificate, if he had then he should of returned the debt back to the council.

 

First step would to get onto the council and demand they take steps to get the car returned immediately. Then start making complaints to the bailiff company and the CEO of the council.

[Malookoo]

Oh that is so cynical brass, but sadly so very probably true

 

If only Plod would do it right a few times i'm sure it would make yours and others on here who do such brilliant work so much easier.

[brassnecked]

Oh that is so cynical brass, but sadly so very probably true

 

If only Plod would do it right a few times i'm sure it would make yours and others on here who do such brilliant work so much easier.

Issues with police automatically siding with the bailiff in contravention of law, and themselves then becoming "Law Breakers", is mainly down to lack of training of police in bailiff matters, and a misplaced sense that the bailiff is on the same side, even when they have assaulted a debtor, or effectively stolen a third party motor in front of a debtor, because the bailiff waved a liability order under the coppers nose.

 

Old bill has addressed these issues in various threads on here.

[old bill]

Evening all. Warm night, warm night (Well, it is down in Devon.) The offence of Taking Without the Owner's Consent (TWOC) deals specifically with what is commonly-known as joy-riding. In the case of a bailiff or HCEO who seizes a vehicle that does not belong the debtor, there are one of two offences that are usually committed by the bailiff or HCEO. If the bailiff/HCEO is told and/or shown evidence the vehicle does not belong to the debtor, but claims they can still seize the vehicle, the offence is Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2(1), Fraud Act 2006). If the bailiff/HCEO seizes the vehicle knowing that it does not belong to the debtor or seizes it having not taken reasonable steps to establish the lawful owner of the vehicle, the offence is Theft (Section 1, Theft Act 1968). Watching the programme "Here Come the Sheriffs" on BBC I-Player, I heard one of the HCEOs utter the words "No-one has made any representations as to ownership of these vehicles in the last seven days." That would not have cut any ice with the CPS, as they would have come back, "Did you make any checks with DVLA?" HCEOs and bailiffs are regarded as persons having a legitimate reason to seek confirmation as to who the registered owner/keeper of a vehicle is, but it does not relieve them of a duty to establish true ownership of the vehicle.

 

With regard to the Any Person Powers of Arrest, these are provided for under Section 24A, Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If you can catch the bailiff in the act of attempting to take a vehicle, check what type of bailiff they are first before charging in. If they are a County Court Bailiff, they will already have notified the police of their intentions or bring the police with them. A Certificated Bailiff doesn't have that level of intelligence. If an HCEO is lucky, it might be their turn to have the single brain cell they share with the other HCEOs back at their office. In my experience, it is not advisable for a person to try and arrest a bailiff who is attempting to seize a vehicle illegally, unless they have a good or reasonable knowledge of the law.

 

However, I would advise the following -

 

If a Certificated Bailiff or HCEO tries to levy a vehicle that you know does not belong to you or is subject to a finance agreement, you must tell the bailiff/HCEO who the vehicle belongs to and, if you have the finance agreement paperwork to hand, show it to them. If they then still insist they can seize the vehicle, I would advise the following verbal statement is made "You have been told (or shown evidence) who is the lawful owner of this vehicle. If you or anyone acting under your instructions takes or attempts to take this vehicle, you and/or they will be arrested under the provisions of Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for Theft of this vehicle." Always make a note of what the bailiff/HCEO says and write it down as soon as possible, i.e. whilst it is still fresh in your memory. This will be useful as evidence should the bailiff/HCEO be foolish enough to take or try to take the vehicle. If the bailiff/HCEO is foolish enough to try and take the vehicle, then you are within your rights to prevent them from doing so, as the rule of "good and sufficient warning" applies, i.e. the bailiff/HCEO was warned on a previous occasion and has ignored the warning. Section 24A(4) of PACE allows force to be used to prevent the loss of or damage to property and to prevent an offender making off before the police can assume responsibility for them.

 

With regard to the scenario at the beginning of this thread, it is best to report the vehicle as stolen (which it is), and then, a little later, notify the police you have been told of its whereabouts. The police always tell owners of stolen vehicles to go and retrieve them before they are stolen again. That's the first part and stitches the bailiff/HCEO up. The second part is getting the vehicle out of their yard. If they do try to stop you taking it, call the police. Remember, the vehicle has been reported stolen and the police have told you to retrieve it. Any discrepancies on the paperwork produced by the bailiff/HCEO are going to leave them with some very awkward questions to answer and a trip in a white taxi to come.

[welsh1]

I am a bit confused.

I was taxing my car on line and looking through the dvla site,their web site states over and over again that the v5 form is not proof of ownership,and dvla is not proof of owner,they are saying that they are only for the registered keeper.So why would the bailiff check with dvla for the owner?

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_189329

[seanamarts]

I am a bit confused.

I was taxing my car on line and looking through the dvla site,their web site states over and over again that the v5 form is not proof of ownership,and dvla is not proof of owner,they are saying that they are only for the registered keeper.So why would the bailiff check with dvla for the owner?

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_189329

 

hmm.......!!!

Because thats the first obvious place you would think of finding out first.

[old bill]

I am a bit confused.

I was taxing my car on line and looking through the dvla site,their web site states over and over again that the v5 form is not proof of ownership,and dvla is not proof of owner,they are saying that they are only for the registered keeper.So why would the bailiff check with dvla for the owner?

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_189329

 

That's because DVLA security is absolute crap and 1,000s of blank V5Cs get stolen. That's why they've issued red ones recently. The reason a bailiff/HCEO should check with DVLA is to prove they have taken "reasonable and proper steps" to establish true ownership of a vehicle. If a bailiff/HCEO does their job properly, they should carry out other checks to check the reliability of what DVLA holds and ensure they are not seizing a vehicle not owned by a debtor. Bailiffs/HCEOs do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card. If they get nicked for taking a vehicle not belonging to a debtor, the law will treat them the same as any other offender.

[seanamarts]

That's because DVLA security is absolute crap and 1,000s of blank V5Cs get stolen. That's why they've issued red ones recently. The reason a bailiff/HCEO should check with DVLA is to prove they have taken "reasonable and proper steps" to establish true ownership of a vehicle. If a bailiff/HCEO does their job properly, they should carry out other checks to check the reliability of what DVLA holds and ensure they are not seizing a vehicle not owned by a debtor. Bailiffs/HCEOs do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card. If they get nicked for taking a vehicle not belonging to a debtor, the law will treat them the same as any other offender.

[Malookoo]

Indeed brass you are right about the lack of training regarding bailiffs, also the excellent coverage of the law by old bill. I am still do not know how this can be any sort of defence for them when even when criminal offences are pointed out to them they still refuse to take action?

 

There is at least on thread on here where the Police looked into it enough to remove the bailliffs but apart from that no further action by the Police!

 

Sorry IMO this is just plain wrong and indefensable.

[welsh1]

That's because DVLA security is absolute crap and 1,000s of blank V5Cs get stolen. That's why they've issued red ones recently. The reason a bailiff/HCEO should check with DVLA is to prove they have taken "reasonable and proper steps" to establish true ownership of a vehicle. If a bailiff/HCEO does their job properly, they should carry out other checks to check the reliability of what DVLA holds and ensure they are not seizing a vehicle not owned by a debtor. Bailiffs/HCEOs do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card. If they get nicked for taking a vehicle not belonging to a debtor, the law will treat them the same as any other offender.

 

It says they have changed the colour because,

"Why change the V5C?

The re-designed V5C now makes it clear that it is not proof of ownership and will provide details of where you can get advice on how to avoid becoming the victim of vehicle crime."

 

So it's not because their security is bad,it seems they are making it absolutely clear that it is not proof of ownership,so when you say they should check with the dvla to show they have taken reasonable and proper steps to establish ownership,the dvla are making it very clear that they should not be used to check ownership,in fact they state it twice on the link i put up.

 

I'm sorry but i cannot see how the dvla can be used as proof of ownership as it very clearly states on a government web site it is not proof of ownership.

 

I phoned a friend whose brother is a policeman,he told her to tell me that the v5 form is for the purpose of road traffic offences,in that ,if a road traffic offence has been committed,speeding jumping a light etc,then the person who registered the vehicle is sent the paperwork,they are then obliged to name the person at the time of the offence,apparently he laughed when he was told that the registered keeper was the owner,and pointed out that some companies run dozens of vehicles with no person named on the v5 form,only the company address where the paperwork for the offence is sent.

 

So that being the case,with the government telling us it is not proof.What is?

[caledfwlch]

Indeed brass you are right about the lack of training regarding bailiffs, also the excellent coverage of the law by old bill. I am still do not know how this can be any sort of defence for them when even when criminal offences are pointed out to them they still refuse to take action?

 

There is at least on thread on here where the Police looked into it enough to remove the bailliffs but apart from that no further action by the Police!

 

Sorry IMO this is just plain wrong and indefensable.

 

Easiest thing these days is to film everything, and ask the officers if they are genuinely happy at being filmed breaking the law, and how long do they think they will be employed with actual audio visual evidence of them breaking the law If you want to try your hand, you could say a friend, neighbour of family member is "nearby" also filming on zoom......

[old bill]

It says they have changed the colour because,

"Why change the V5C?

The re-designed V5C now makes it clear that it is not proof of ownership and will provide details of where you can get advice on how to avoid becoming the victim of vehicle crime."

 

So it's not because their security is bad,it seems they are making it absolutely clear that it is not proof of ownership,so when you say they should check with the dvla to show they have taken reasonable and proper steps to establish ownership,the dvla are making it very clear that they should not be used to check ownership,in fact they state it twice on the link i put up.

 

I'm sorry but i cannot see how the dvla can be used as proof of ownership as it very clearly states on a government web site it is not proof of ownership.

 

I phoned a friend whose brother is a policeman,he told her to tell me that the v5 form is for the purpose of road traffic offences,in that ,if a road traffic offence has been committed,speeding jumping a light etc,then the person who registered the vehicle is sent the paperwork,they are then obliged to name the person at the time of the offence,apparently he laughed when he was told that the registered keeper was the owner,and pointed out that some companies run dozens of vehicles with no person named on the v5 form,only the company address where the paperwork for the offence is sent.

 

So that being the case,with the government telling us it is not proof.What is?

 

What your friend's brother told said is correct and incorrect. There is an index on the Police National Computer (PNC) called the Vehicle Owner Index. One of its uses is to find out who is the registered owner/keeper of a vehicle when it is being followed by police, not just for traffic offences. The most unreliable resource the police have access to is the Motor Insurers' Database (MID). Not only is it not reliable as to accuracy, insurers have been known to give out incorrect information to the police, claim they have sent notices to motorists which have then proven not to have been sent or received and because some insurers use call centres in India, whose workers find it hard to understand British regional accents and dialects, give out data relating to motorists other than the one police are enquiring about. This results in motorists suffering wrongful, if not, unlawful seizure and sale/destruction of their vehicles. In one case, a motorist's Audi worth £4,400 was seized and destroyed on the say-so of a motor insurer who subsequently admitted they had given the police incorrect information. They tried to fob the motorist off by offering him £400. I understand the motorist did, eventually, get justice. For caggers' information, as of 6 April 2010, the ICO has the power to fine those breaching the Data Protection Act up to £500,000.

 

This illustrates why one source of information should not be relied upon and why bailiffs/HCEOs should make enquiries with a number of sources to establish true ownership of a vehicle and not assume it belongs to the debtor.

 

As for the red V5Cs, the reason DVLA are now issuing them is because a batch of blue V5Cs were stolen from their stationery storage facility. There are also some very good forgeries of V5Cs around.

[welsh1]

What your friend's brother told said is correct and incorrect. There is an index on the Police National Computer (PNC) called the Vehicle Owner Index. One of its uses is to find out who is the registered owner/keeper of a vehicle when it is being followed by police, not just for traffic offences. The most unreliable resource the police have access to is the Motor Insurers' Database (MID). Not only is it not reliable as to accuracy, insurers have been known to give out incorrect information to the police, claim they have sent notices to motorists which have then proven not to have been sent or received and because some insurers use call centres in India, whose workers find it hard to understand British regional accents and dialects, give out data relating to motorists other than the one police are enquiring about. This results in motorists suffering wrongful, if not, unlawful seizure and sale/destruction of their vehicles. In one case, a motorist's Audi worth £4,400 was seized and destroyed on the say-so of a motor insurer who subsequently admitted they had given the police incorrect information. They tried to fob the motorist off by offering him £400. I understand the motorist did, eventually, get justice. For caggers' information, as of 6 April 2010, the ICO has the power to fine those breaching the Data Protection Act up to £500,000.

 

This illustrates why one source of information should not be relied upon and why bailiffs/HCEOs should make enquiries with a number of sources to establish true ownership of a vehicle and not assume it belongs to the debtor.

 

As for the red V5Cs, the reason DVLA are now issuing them is because a batch of blue V5Cs were stolen from their stationery storage facility. There are also some very good forgeries of V5Cs around.

 

I'm sorry but nothing i have said is incorrect and is all correct,i only asked about the v5 form,not the pnc,which by the looks of it uses the dvla for it's information,and is therefore not 100% as it could tell you the registered keeper is a female,but her husband could be driving.

 

Going on the information you have given,you have said that other forms of information cannot be relied upon and you have stated that they are open to abuse,and as the dvla state the v5 form is not proof of ownership,what is?and what sources should they use? other than the two examples you have given,which are 1,flawed,2,not proof of ownership.

 

I concede that you may be a serving policeman and may know about forged v5 forms and the changing of the colour,but why would they put a very large statement on the front,if for no other reason to make a point about ownership.

 

Is it not as simple as producing my receipt that was given when i paid for my car? which proves the car was bought by me and is my property.

[old bill]

I'm sorry but nothing i have said is incorrect and is all correct,i only asked about the v5 form,not the pnc,which by the looks of it uses the dvla for it's information,and is therefore not 100% as it could tell you the registered keeper is a female,but her husband could be driving.

 

Going on the information you have given,you have said that other forms of information cannot be relied upon and you have stated that they are open to abuse,and as the dvla state the v5 form is not proof of ownership,what is?and what sources should they use? other than the two examples you have given,which are 1,flawed,2,not proof of ownership.

 

I concede that you may be a serving policeman and may know about forged v5 forms and the changing of the colour,but why would they put a very large statement on the front,if for no other reason to make a point about ownership.

 

Is it not as simple as producing my receipt that was given when i paid for my car? which proves the car was bought by me and is my property.

 

Actually, Welsh1, I am a retired policeman, but I have studied law since retiring. The reason DVLA have included statements about not accepting a V5C as proof of ownership of a vehicle is because of stolen and forged V5Cs. Car ringers use stolen/forged V5Cs to "legitimise" stolen vehicles. If you look on an MOT Certificate, there is a statement that you should not regard a valid MOT Certificate as proof that a vehicle is roadworthy. I have, in the past, stopped vehicles with a valid MOT Certificate, but with potentially dangerous faults. And my brother-in-law's younger brother, who is an MOT Tester, once showed me a car, brought in for testing, with a valid MOT Certificate with a month still to run on it, whose sills and bodywork were more filler than metal. If it had been in a collision, the car would have disintegrated. He refused to test it an called VOSA, who, together with Trading Standards and the police, closed down the garage that carried out the previous MOT test on the car. The car was destroyed - for obvious reasons.

 

In all probability, where a person buys a motor vehicle from a dealer, they will receive a Bill of Sale from the dealer which contains the name and address of the buyer. If they buy the vehicle on finance, in addition to the Bill of Sale, the buyer will receive a finance agreement which will also have their name and address on the agreement and that of the finance company.

 

This is a debate that is going to go round in circles, but it does not change the fact that a bailiff/HCEO should carry out a number of checks to establish the true ownership of a motor vehicle and not just assume a vehicle belongs to a debtor.

[brassnecked]

@ old bill "This is a debate that is going to go round in circles, but it does not change the fact that a bailiff/HCEO should carry out a number of checks to establish the true ownership of a motor vehicle and not just assume a vehicle belongs to a debtor."

 

This is the nub of the issue, if the bailiff does not do this, and is presented with evidence like a bill of sale, finance agreement or whatever, and still continues to take a motor then it is theft, or fraud.

[welsh1]

Actually, Welsh1, I am a retired policeman, but I have studied law since retiring. The reason DVLA have included statements about not accepting a V5C as proof of ownership of a vehicle is because of stolen and forged V5Cs. Car ringers use stolen/forged V5Cs to "legitimise" stolen vehicles. If you look on an MOT Certificate, there is a statement that you should not regard a valid MOT Certificate as proof that a vehicle is roadworthy. I have, in the past, stopped vehicles with a valid MOT Certificate, but with potentially dangerous faults. And my brother-in-law's younger brother, who is an MOT Tester, once showed me a car, brought in for testing, with a valid MOT Certificate with a month still to run on it, whose sills and bodywork were more filler than metal. If it had been in a collision, the car would have disintegrated. He refused to test it an called VOSA, who, together with Trading Standards and the police, closed down the garage that carried out the previous MOT test on the car. The car was destroyed - for obvious reasons.

 

In all probability, where a person buys a motor vehicle from a dealer, they will receive a Bill of Sale from the dealer which contains the name and address of the buyer. If they buy the vehicle on finance, in addition to the Bill of Sale, the buyer will receive a finance agreement which will also have their name and address on the agreement and that of the finance company.

 

This is a debate that is going to go round in circles, but it does not change the fact that a bailiff/HCEO should carry out a number of checks to establish the true ownership of a motor vehicle and not just assume a vehicle belongs to a debtor.

 

I accept this is going around in circles but,all i wanted to clarify was what was proof of ownership,as all the things that were being offered were ie v5 were stated to be not proof.

 

I have some experience in mot(i have had a lot of cars fail),and i cannot agree with you,an mot certificate is only a statement signed by a tester,that the vehicle that was tested had met the standards set by the government ON THE DAY IT WAS TESTED,it does not mean the vehicle is roadworthy for the period until the next test.Your scenario about getting a garage that carried out a test 11 months before shut down for passing the vehicle is very strange,as the vehicle may well have passed a test,and the next day been damaged and repaired,that is not the fault of the tester,who carried out the relevant checks the day before and passed a serviceable vehicle.

As an ex police officer you should know this as the basics,and you would have the power to remove the vehicle off the road,for it's unfit condition,and issue a fixed penalty or report for a summons.

 

Please read the first paragraph in the link

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

 

I still think my receipt is adequate proof.

[caledfwlch]

I'm sorry but nothing i have said is incorrect and is all correct,i only asked about the v5 form,not the pnc,which by the looks of it uses the dvla for it's information,and is therefore not 100% as it could tell you the registered keeper is a female,but her husband could be driving.

 

Going on the information you have given,you have said that other forms of information cannot be relied upon and you have stated that they are open to abuse,and as the dvla state the v5 form is not proof of ownership,what is?and what sources should they use? other than the two examples you have given,which are 1,flawed,2,not proof of ownership.

 

I concede that you may be a serving policeman and may know about forged v5 forms and the changing of the colour,but why would they put a very large statement on the front,if for no other reason to make a point about ownership.

 

Is it not as simple as producing my receipt that was given when i paid for my car? which proves the car was bought by me and is my property.

 

You can however, bet your left testicle, that if a bailiff was after you, your car had you registered as keeper, but your brother, say was the owner, and the bailiff did a DVLA check, he would take that as evidence of being able to levy your brothers car for your debt, and the Courts would, rightfully (i suspect) back him in that assumption.

 

A basic DVLA check is the absolute first step a Bailiff can and should be expected to take/make.

[caledfwlch]

I accept this is going around in circles but,all i wanted to clarify was what was proof of ownership,as all the things that were being offered were ie v5 were stated to be not proof.

 

I have some experience in mot(i have had a lot of cars fail),and i cannot agree with you,an mot certificate is only a statement signed by a tester,that the vehicle that was tested had met the standards set by the government ON THE DAY IT WAS TESTED,it does not mean the vehicle is roadworthy for the period until the next test.Your scenario about getting a garage that carried out a test 11 months before shut down for passing the vehicle is very strange,as the vehicle may well have passed a test,and the next day been damaged and repaired,that is not the fault of the tester,who carried out the relevant checks the day before and passed a serviceable vehicle.

As an ex police officer you should know this as the basics,and you would have the power to remove the vehicle off the road,for it's unfit condition,and issue a fixed penalty or report for a summons.

 

Please read the first paragraph in the link

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

 

I still think my receipt is adequate proof.

 

Actually I am getting completely confused as to what you are arguing for/against?

 

With regards DVLA checks - what we are saying is that is the absolute minimum step a Bailiff should take before effecting the removal of a vehicle he intends to levy/has levied. If it's your car, and you turn up with your receipt, then yes, I suspect the Bailiff would be extremely foolish to attempt to remove the vehicle, as you have shown evidence the car is owned by you, and not the named debtor.

[welsh1]

Actually I am getting completely confused as to what you are arguing for/against?

 

With regards DVLA checks - what we are saying is that is the absolute minimum step a Bailiff should take before effecting the removal of a vehicle he intends to levy/has levied. If it's your car, and you turn up with your receipt, then yes, I suspect the Bailiff would be extremely foolish to attempt to remove the vehicle, as you have shown evidence the car is owned by you, and not the named debtor.

 

I am getting confused as well,

My point was that the government was stating that the dvla were not proof of ownership,so why should the bailiff check with them,as it serves no purpose,the government have stated it on their web site and stamped it on the front of the v5 form,so the bailiff could argue that there was no need to check with them.

All i wanted to know was what would be undeniable proof of ownership.

 

I also agree with you about your other statement that the slippery so and so's would see my name on the v5 and argue it was mine and take it.It seems a catch 22.

I will keep my receipt handy.

[old bill]

The vehicle I refer to in my post was in the days before the police were given the power to seize vehicles. Also, the garage that got shut down had a history of dodgy MOT decisions and was doing illegal "cut and shuts". It was a criminal operation. The vehicle that was more filler than metal was an MOT failure that was intended to be dismantled for spares, but the dodgy garage decided to do it up and sell it. Unfortunately, being a criminal operation, they did a very good job on the bodywork and sills with filler and other materials that cars are not made from. It was by sheer chance that it was taken to the garage where my brother-in-law's younger brother was the MOT tester and he noticed a number of things as he was driving it into the MOT Test Bay. Being a very experienced mechanic and panel beater, he checked a few things, then rang VOSA. In short, the MOT Certificate for the car was as legitimate as a £9.00 note. Genuine certificate, but should never have been issued. Unfortunately, there are still criminal operations like that around, but the intelligence is much better these days and a lot of them are closed down fairly quickly.