Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re. Part 6. There is not much change from current regulation, and it seems everybody is forgetting that goods must be kept for 6 days before delivery to the auctioneer, to give time to the defendant to pay and recover the goods and/or time to a third party claiming ownership of the controlled goods to come forth and prove their claim.

 

As far as vehicles are concerned, the minimum requirement to levy on one is to ascertain the registered keeper (99.9% of the time the registered keeper is also the legal owner), but before removal to a safe place prior to auction an HPI check is a must, because if the vehicle is on finance it's untouchable.

 

As far as being a godd/bad/indifferent bailiff it's like with any other profession, a few bad ones will definetely spoil it for the majority.....but let's not forget that sometime defendants esagerate a little bit, and the bailiff is always to blame, but if the defendant would have paid their dues on time then the situation wold have not occurred would it?

[Mark1960]

I don't think any bailiffs will bother checking with DVLA as there is a cost involved.I'm pretty sure that there is no cost for HPI checks.

 

When we had a car levied recently,the bailiffs asked if we would forward them a copy of the V5 (which we didn't do) They are quite happy to "cast a net" levying anything possible in order to charge for a levy.Like everything with bailiffs,its all bluff & they wouldn't dream of taking a 3rd parties car.

 

There is nothing to stop the 3rd party driving the car away in any case.

[brassnecked]

I don't think any bailiffs will bother checking with DVLA as there is a cost involved.I'm pretty sure that there is no cost for HPI checks.

 

When we had a car levied recently,the bailiffs asked if we would forward them a copy of the V5 (which we didn't do) They are quite happy to "cast a net" levying anything possible in order to charge for a levy.Like everything with bailiffs,its all bluff & they wouldn't dream of taking a 3rd parties car.

 

There is nothing to stop the 3rd party driving the car away in any case.

 

I think you will find a bailiff WILL clamp and even remove a third party motor, Jacobs and JBW have form for this, JBW months after a car has been sold, ANPR goes kerching, and JBW snatch motor from new owner for previous owners PCN. jacobs levied removed and sold a VW camper at a debtors address for repair, then had to return it at expense to themselves, they tried to infer like JBW that tough the bailiff can take the motor.

You can read the whole sorry 21 page missive here, suffice to say that Jacobs although they eventually returned the motor, don't look too good, initially as it went through several auction houses within days, and police were useless. To be fair to Jacobs once they were backed into a corner, they held their hands up and went the extra mile to get the camper back, as they realised the reputational damage if it went viral in the press.

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/showthread.php?t=646595

 

It is well worth a read as it shows exactly how bailiffs get away with it (usually)

 

It even appeared on CAG here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263164#post2972690

Edited August 7, 2013 by brassnecked
extra info

[lamma]

'Wrong vehicle' is an illegal distress and the remedies are rescue, replevin or damages.

I have not studied these new regulations but I think it will be difficult for them to circumvent what is described in the preceding sentence. Then again, government avarice knows no bounds.

[brassnecked]

'Wrong vehicle' is an illegal distress and the remedies are rescue, replevin or damages.

I have not studied these new regulations but I think it will be difficult for them to circumvent what is described in the preceding sentence. Then again, government avarice knows no bounds.

 

Part 6 n48 and 49 are ambiguous, do they relate to third parties paying underpaid bailiff fees when they claim, or the bailiff after a valuation of seized goods paying the true value to a third party whose goods have been seized and sold for peanuts?

 

Either way I feel they most certainly are trying to remove the civil remedies against an enforcement agent who wrongfully ly takes goods

[HCEOs]

ANPR

 

At first glance the need to clamp a car for two hours puts an end to roadside ANPR stops.

[HCEOs]

In the HCEO world the methods of dealing with third party claims to goods has always been through interpleader. This puts the decision with the judgment creditor as to whether there is any merit in the claim based on evidence submitted. It will be interesting to see if Local Authorities/HMCTS wish to attend hearings to fight a claim.

[lamma]

Part 6 n48 and 49 are ambiguous, do they relate to third parties paying underpaid bailiff fees when they claim, or the bailiff after a valuation of seized goods paying the true value to a third party whose goods have been seized and sold for peanuts?

 

Either way I feel they most certainly are trying to remove the civil remedies against an enforcement agent who wrongfully ly takes goods

Your précis sounds like just another instance of damages. I must read the text.

[HCEOs]

You are correct in that the new draft doesn't make sense.

 

A previous draft of the Statutory Instrument (29/03/12) states that that it would be for the third party claimant to pay the value of the goods seized, or a proportion of it as directed by the court, into the court.

 

Therefore if an Enforcement Officer takes a car worth £5000, the third party claimant may be required to pay £5000 into court until the ownership is clarified. I presume this full amount would only be required if their claims were dubious.

 

This is good news for the enforcement industry as the many bogus claims should be eliminated.

Edited August 8, 2013 by HCEOs

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

How about a renter displaying an approved badge in the windscreen so an enforcement agent can see at a glance if the vehicle is third party renting the space in working hours, may be peace of mind for a bailiff who is diligent and doing the job correctly, after all DVLA are one of the worse culprits for mess ups., and even if a bailiff checks with them there can be doubt as to the veracity of the information they provide.

 

I agre with the second point, DVLA make massive cockups, and they are always slow in processing paperwork....as far as the sticker on the inside of the window....I now somebody who knows somebody else who has an acquaintance that can provide Disadled badges for £500, tax discs for £50 and any Council parking permit for a mere tenner.....I would not trust an approved badge if you even if you hit me over the head with a big stick.....

[danmcr]

I agre with the second point' date=' DVLA make massive cockups, and they are always slow in processing paperwork....as far as the sticker on the inside of the window....I now somebody who knows somebody else who has an acquaintance that can provide Disadled badges for £500, tax discs for £50 and any Council parking permit for a mere tenner.....I would not trust an approved badge if you even if you hit me over the head with a big stick.....[/quote']

 

£500!!! I of a person who was selling them £75. Just not worth the risk.

[brassnecked]

You are correct in that the new draft doesn't make sense.

 

A previous draft of the Statutory Instrument (29/03/12) states that that it would be for the third party claimant to pay the value of the goods seized, or a proportion of it as directed by the court, into the court.

 

Therefore if an Enforcement Officer takes a car worth £5000, the third party claimant may be required to pay £5000 into court until the ownership is clarified. I presume this full amount would only be required if their claims were dubious.

 

This is good news for the enforcement industry as the many bogus claims should be eliminated.

Tough on the person who is a genuine third party, and hasn't that level of money to pay into the court and has to go to Wonga to avoid losing their car and end up in trouble themselves.

 

Good news for the enforcement industry as it is as tomtubby alludes a licence to take any thing they want without let or hindrance in effect. i can see a nasty incident coming up where a third party and a bailiff end up being tasered.

[danmcr]

As someone who works in the enforcement industry I think it's ridiculous that people with genuine third party claims should have to pay anything into the Court.

 

Goods should simply remain in control pending the outcome of a claim to the Court.

[Peterbard]

As someone who works in the enforcement industry I think it's ridiculous that people with genuine third party claims should have to pay anything into the Court.

 

Goods should simply remain in control pending the outcome of a claim to the Court.

 

I took this to mean an intentional third party agreement, surely if the vehicle was impounded without authority or with it not being the property of the owner it would just be an invalid levy.

[Guest carlos999]

HCE Group have an identical system and Marston have the same but just for in house work.

 

Shercar was always 24-48 hours anyway.

 

There seems to be a specific focus on how this will affect debtors, but creditors are being equally disadvantaged by practices used by enforcement companies, one of which (former) that has been mentioned here. This company have access to dvla records and act on such however when challenged by a third party claim they go to the creditor saying if they dispute the third party claim and go to interpleader 'their' solicitors will charge the creditor in the region of 4000.00 pounds. Quite obviously a creditor will always withdraw and order the return of goods regardless of proof shown! Moral of the story here is that regardless of technology the enforcement agency need to be robust and ethical for debtors and clients alike so creditors should choose their enforcement agents wisely. Similarly debtors can infer from this that if one of these 'less reputable' enforcement companies, without in house legal teams seized their assets it may be worth instigating a claim !

[danmcr]

It would make the levy invalid, however there is still a process to follow to prove it is invalid.

[danmcr]

Moral of the story here is that regardless of technology the enforcement agency need to be robust and ethical for debtors and clients alike so creditors should choose their enforcement agents wisely.

 

Hit the nail on the head with that!

 

I always say the biggest are not always the best, in fact some of the biggest companies operating are the worst offenders and who's names continually appear on forums.

[HCEOs]

Hit the nail on the head with that!

 

I always say the biggest are not always the best, in fact some of the biggest companies operating are the worst offenders and who's names continually appear on forums.

 

Unfortunately the smallest are not always best either. There are a lot of one-man-band bailiff companies offering HCEO services popping up that have little to no understanding of the industry and have been granted the authority to do it by an authorised HCEO that knows little more than them.

[Peterbard]

It would make the levy invalid, however there is still a process to follow to prove it is invalid.

 

Would not the burden of proof be on the bailiff to show that the levy was valid , once a complaint had been made ?

[danmcr]

Unfortunately the smallest are not always best either. There are a lot of one-man-band bailiff companies offering HCEO services popping up that have little to no understanding of the industry and have been granted the authority to do it by an authorised HCEO that knows little more than them.

 

Completely agree.

[danmcr]

Would not the burden of proof be on the bailiff to show that the levy was valid , once a complaint had been made ?

 

No it's on the claimant and rightly so. (by claimant I mean such person claiming that the good's belonging to him/her/them not a creditor)

[Guest carlos999]

Unfortunately the smallest are not always best either. There are a lot of one-man-band bailiff companies offering HCEO services popping up that have little to no understanding of the industry and have been granted the authority to do it by an authorised HCEO that knows little more than them.

 

That is also very correct and any creditor needs to be diligent in their search. In my experience the larger ones are only interested in profit for themselves often to the detriment of the debtor and creditor, with predominantly posting letters as opposed enforcement. On the face of things a creditor might like the low arrangement per month and the nice hand delivered reminder but fail to realise the companies want people to default to charge more fees (or assist in justifying the ones already applied to the account) ! Debtors need to help themselves for the industry to become 'fair'. Pay as soon as you physically can to avoid the hefty visits and then challenge the speculative fees! If a HCEO has attended once and secured a payment with no enforcement he is going to have a harder job justifying his fees to both creditor and claimant then if they have visited 5 times and numerous broken promises. You may even get a refund !

[HCEOs]

If a HCEO has attended once and secured a payment with no enforcement he is going to have a harder job justifying his fees to both creditor and claimant then if they have visited 5 times and numerous broken promises.

 

If he's secured payment then his fees would have been paid so there will be no need to justify them to a creditor, or am I missing something?

[Guest carlos999]

If he's secured payment then his fees would have been paid so there will be no need to justify them to a creditor, or am I missing something?

 

Just because a debtor has paid the debt and fees does not mean they cannot challenge the HCEO fees applied which are often excessive. The HCEO fees are loaded from the start by the Enforcement Agency and this can be challenged after satisfaction of the writ (often the best way to avoid further costs) anything that was specutively charged for should be returned.

 

The first priority for a debtor is to ask for a breakdown and justification of all fees charged and challenge appropriately. Any work that isnt done shouldnt be charged for and that amount returned. If a HCEO doesnt agree to return any funds then the debtor can consider a detailed assesment by a master using the evidence the HCEO agency has sent out. I have personally seen debtors paying huge amounts in fees disguised as poundage, invenotry costs, valuation costs, enquiry costs etc etc when a levy has not even taken place (often with the excuse that 'the hand has cast a levy' on attendance).

 

I presume you have an interest, or indeed are an HCEO, and would likely support the above that if a debtor actually questions costs that in many instances costs are then reduced ! The new fee regime will be a welcome caddition to the enforcement industry and could see a lot of the HCEO agencies seeing a massive reduction in profit.

[Peterbard]

No it's on the claimant and rightly so. (by claimant I mean such person claiming that the good's belonging to him/her/them not a creditor)

 

I think that once the claim was made it wold reverse the burden of proof. In the situation where it is a contested third party levy.