levy on car (under finance agreement and tools of trade) **Result & Refund**

[brassnecked]

I have to agree with the above. This has to go back to the time when the original "levy" was made and not some time in the future. As to comments I have made previously - and I have made them on more than 1 occasion - I stand by them. As to them being able to "take" the vehicle because arrears have built up makes no difference the contract is still between the Finance Co & the "hirer" unless of couse the Finance Co have a Court Order but that will be for a repossession and not a seizure.

If the Finance Company was going for reposession of itself, I wouldn't have thought they would allow a bailiff to take and sell their property anyway.

 

Op should as you point out kick this back to the council.

[ploddertom]

Ploddertom, do you know what criteria is used to define 'tools of trade?' I could not possibly do my job without my car, is that not sufficient? :/

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but most who are self employed or who have use of a vehicle in connection with a business think it is protected - this is not altogether true. Whilst a sign written vehicle belonging to the Acme Joinery Co Ltd is almost guaranteed to be a "protected" vehicle because of the tools that are used in connection with that type of business. In a similar type of manner a salesman from the Acme Carpet Co could lose out as all he has to cart round are a few samples which may fit in a suitcase and public transport/taxi could be used or he could simply hire a car. Each case must be treated on its own merits but a guide can be drawn up:

How is the vehicle insured? - sole business use is best

Who drives it? - should just be 1 sole driver

Is it used for any other purpose apart from business? - may seem a strange question but if you use it socially then you could be in bother

What equipment do you need to transport? - if only a laptop or a few files you could be on dodgy ground

Can your job be done using other forms of transport? - the Courts do not look at what costs you may be put to

 

The classic case that is usually used is that of Sheriff of Bedford & Toseland Building Supplies v Bishop 1993 whereby it was shown that more than 1 person had the use of a digger so therefore it was not classed as a tool of the trade. However I happen to know of a case recently where this was overturned and a seized vehicle returned - as I say each case on its own merits.

 

In your case this should not even rear its ugly head as the in my view the levy is invalid anyway as the goods are those belonging to a 3rd party - the Finance Co.

[shellysexbomb]

I do use it for social as well. For work I have to drive anywhere in yorkshire with 40 loaves of bread, a box of dough, 40 aprons/baking trays/hairnets etc etc......the only way i could continue is with a hire car. turbo went on my beastie and everyone joked that I should cycle with a trailer, but that is not going to get me wakefield to sheffield by 10am with a 9am start lol......appreciate the info

 

edited to add: its insured sdp and business use with one driver....ME

[brassnecked]

@ PT "In your case this should not even rear its ugly head as the in my view the levy is invalid anyway as the goods are those belonging to a 3rd party - the Finance Co."

 

That is how I see it, it would be interesting if a bailiff tried this threatened course of action and actually removed and sold a car then approached the finance company with zilch when the car sold for less than his fees and some of the debt.

 

Invalid levy is the method of attack for OP.

[shellysexbomb]

Incidentally, dont know how relevant this is....(I may have dreamt but is there some kind of ruling that fees cannot be more than initial LO) This was for £106 that I overlooked

[ploddertom]

 

That is how I see it, it would be interesting if a bailiff tried this threatened course of action and actually removed and sold a car then approached the finance company with zilch when the car sold for less than his fees and some of the debt.

 

 

Love to do another one like that. Last time car was sold by enforcement company - "new owner" had it serviced + lots of little extras added - they then had to fork out not just the cost of the car but all the bits that had been added and then return at their expense to the person they had illegally taken it from. Judge was not amused.

[brassnecked]

Love to do another one like that. Last time car was sold by enforcement company - "new owner" had it serviced + lots of little extras added - they then had to fork out not just the cost of the car but all the bits that had been added and then return at their expense to the person they had illegally taken it from. Judge was not amused.

Would the bailiff get their collar felt for theft as the long unseen here oldbill avers? It does need a test case where a Finance company growls at the bailiff for misappropriating their property.

[shellysexbomb]

UPDATE**

I have today received an email from the council tax manager

 

Thankyou for your e mail of 23 July 2013 regarding the above. My apologies for not responding earlier but I was on leave until today.

 

 

 

I have reviewed all the correspondence you have sent to both ourselves and Rossendales. As a result I have instructed Rossendales to cancel both the levy and van attendance fee. I agree that the vehicle was subject to finance at the time of the levy, the document you sent to Rossendales at the end of June 2013 confirms the same. As the fees incurred by the bailiff have now reduced to £43.30 which is less than the £73.80 you have already paid Rossendales will be refunding you £30.50 in the coming days along with a letter confirming the cancellation of the fees and closure of the account.

 

 

 

I hope this has clarified the situation and thankyou for bringing the matter to my attention. If you haven’t received the refund after 14 days please contact me so I can take the matter up with Rossendales.

 

 

Result! Thanks for the input from everyone

[ploddertom]

Pleased to hear you have a result - I'll alter your thread title. Shame that Rossendales couldn't be big enough to admit it though.

[brassnecked]

Great glad the council saw sense, if Rossers don't refund in good time you could say you are looking at recovery action including the use of bailiffs if a judgment is made against them LOL, only joking am I?

[filrobbo]

Good to hear some good news well done everyone that helped.

[tomtubby]

An EXCELLENT result and at the great to see that we have a local authority officer who has COMMON SENSE.