Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

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 !

 

Just the act of attendance is enforcing the writ/warrant/order, one can not say that because I am prepared to pay what I owe, you (bailiff)since all you did was turn up on my door you get nothing........My question would be why did you not pay when you received notification that you owe this money and that if you do not pay within the next XXX days a bailiff will be sent out to you and that will cost you more.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

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.

 

You'd be surprised at how many friends and family members will try it on by saying that the goods belong to them not the defendant.

[Peterbard]

You'd be surprised at how many friends and family members will try it on by saying that the goods belong to them not the defendant.

 

I wouldn't , although that is a slightly different scenario

.

[danmcr]

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.

 

No because the claimant would have access to documents and other items to prove ownership such items the Bailiff/HCEO would not have privy to.

[Peterbard]

No because the claimant would have access to documents and other items to prove ownership such items the Bailiff/HCEO would not have privy to.

 

I think that this is when the levy is being made not when the goods are already in the possession of the bailiff.

[HCEOs]

The burden of proof always lies with the third party claimant to prove the goods are theirs, not the other way around.

[Peterbard]

The burden of proof always lies with the third party claimant to prove the goods are theirs, not the other way around.

 

I don't agree, if the goods are in the possession of the bailiff and they are seeking to sell them to raise funds and settle the debtors liabilities, the burden to show that the goods belong to the debtor must be theirs surely, otherwise it sanctions selling someone else s goods, this I believe is a criminal act.

 

This is of course presuming that ownership of the goods is challenged, I am not referring to the levying of the goods, which as you say is a matter of the debtor showing ownership.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Dodgeball

[HCEOs]

With HCEOs, we currently have a duty to investigate any third party claim although the claim is put to the creditor in the first instance. If the creditor admits the claim then the goods are released - end of. If the creditor disputes the claim then an interpleader hearing should be sought to determine the ownership of the goods. It is here where the burden of proof is put on the interpleader claimant.

[Peterbard]

With HCEOs, we currently have a duty to investigate any third party claim although the claim is put to the creditor in the first instance. If the creditor admits the claim then the goods are released - end of. If the creditor disputes the claim then an interpleader hearing should be sought to determine the ownership of the goods. It is here where the burden of proof is put on the interpleader claimant.

 

I would agree with this accept for the last sentence, I see no reason why the burden of proof would be assigned to the third party.

It is the creditor through is agent that are seeking to get permission to sell the goods, I would have thought that if any issue regarding the legal right to do so was raised, it would be up to him to show that this existed.

 

Otherwise you or I wold be free to sell anyone else s goods, even though ownership was challenged. The proof of ownership (or legal charge) would be on the party selling the property in my opinion.

[seanamarts]

So are we now saying (HCEO & danmcr) that if a vehicle is not registered to the debtor,it won't be levied?

 

An example of a bailiff conducting himself professionally,not sure I'd be able to maintain this level of patience:

 

 

Now why cant all bailiffs act like this? He did get something a little wrong, but all in all he did the RIGHT thing and acted in a professional manner and gave the debtor the chance to go back to the council to try and resolve the situation.

 

Going back to the third party levy, why should the onus be on the innocent to prove the car/property was theirs, when it should be down to the bailiff to find out who the owner is before it gets the the interpleader stage. Or am I not seeing the full picture here, if not can anyone care to explain, so others who may not understand also, in plain english please. Thank you

[HCEOs]

I think we're looking at it form different sides of the fence.

 

Firstly, this is not just about cars although it is they that have been discussed.

 

You are seeing Bailiff levying on third party goods which you claim is intentional.

 

I see debtors saying they've sold their goods to their brother 10 minutes before they were seized.

 

The truth is that it all need as balanced view. Goods of a third party will always be levied if no proof is available. Without instant access to the DVLA it is often impossible for an bailiff to know the registered keeper when at an address. Even then this does not necessarily give him the owner.

 

Levying a car on someones drive when there is no answer from the door is sensible in such situations.

[seanamarts]

So if the car is parked outside and the owner is visiting joe blogg four doors down and see's that his car has been clamped. what do they do?

[HCEOs]

They levy on it.

[seanamarts]

I mean Joe Bloggs, what does he do, or should do. He is the innocent party in this and has no idea why his car has been clamped.

[HCEOs]

I mean Joe Bloggs, what does he do, or should do. He is the innocent party in this and has no idea why his car has been clamped.

 

I said levy not clamp.

 

Joe Bloggs would make a claim regarding the car and that would be dealt with.

[seanamarts]

Some are clamped or even taken.

 

So how would Joe Bloggs go about getting the car back, he has no idea who has taken it or clamped it etc. Would there be a notice left on the car if it has been clamped or levied on. Or worse, taken away. how would he know who to contact. He has no connections to the debtor. So has no idea what has happened.

[HCEOs]

I'm aware this has happened on very rare occasions.

 

Joe would phone the Police. The Police would tell him that it has been seized by a bailiff and give him a contact number (if the bailiff has done his job correctly).

 

Joe would make a claim to the vehicle and that would be dealt with.

[seanamarts]

Will the car be bought back straight away? or would this have to go for an interpleader hearing?

[kcdhs9878b]

I had this many years ago. I loaned some amateur radio equipment to a friend who had it seized by bailiffs and I had to make an interpleader claim. I had to produce receipts, serial numbers and my life history, I then had to collect it from an office miles away and I was left out of pocket because I was not refunded my application fee.A commercial landlord seized computer equipment for unpaid rent but the equipment was leased, the leasing company reclaimed it all through the small claims court and was paid everything.Interpleader = don't bother, too risky, waste of money.Small claim = less burden of proof, get paid everything.

[lamma]

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

I believe it would make (that part of) the levy an illegal distress rather than invalid.

[seanamarts]

HCEO's, any answer yet to my query. Please

[tomtubby]

HCEO. I have just finished reading a most informative article by Mr Chris Badger a Director of firm called the Sheriffs Office. The article was about Interpleaders (which the government have astonishingly introduced under Part 6 of TCE). I anticipate that this could well be the biggest mistake that MOJ could ever have made.

 

 

A question for you......do you know roughly how many Interpleader claims are made to the High Court last year? I know that it is a lot as I spoke to the High Court yesterday but a rough indication from you would suffice ( if poss).

[Peterbard]

Striped down to its bare bones.

 

Someone comes along and takes your goods.

The warrant or the fact that it is a bailiff has nothing to do with it because the debt has nothing to do with you.

 

You then have to jump through legal hoops and prove that the goods are yours before you can retrieve them ?

 

sorry i do not believe it.

[seanamarts]

Well it does happen and way too often.

 

With a car it should be avoidable, all the bailiff has to do is check with DVLA to see who the owner is, but thats is not always the case here.

 

Basically, no one 's car is safe with regards to many bailiffs who dont check before they levy, clamp or take. To them the onus is on the debtor to prove the car dosnt belong to them. But how do they go about that.

 

The poor owner of the car that has had it taken is stuck, reports it to the police as stolen, then told it has been seized for a debt that is not his/hers.

 

As with it being clamped, they have to wait around for the bailiff to come back and release it after they have proved that the car belongs to them.

 

If the car has been levied unknowingly, whats to say that further down the road it is stopped by a bailiff using ANPR and the owner again has to prove that the debt is not theirs and prove that the car belongs to them.

 

A mistake? no its laziness or the bailiff is just trying to bump up his/her fee's hoping that no one will be aware of what has happened. There is something in place to stop this from happening, but the bailiff will do it any way.

[brassnecked]

Striped down to its bare bones.

 

Someone comes along and takes your goods.

The warrant or the fact that it is a bailiff has nothing to do with it because the debt has nothing to do with you.

 

You then have to jump through legal hoops and prove that the goods are yours before you can retrieve them ?

 

sorry i do not believe it.

That will be codified into law with the TCGE and the owner will have to pay the fees owing and the value of the goods into court for the interpleader, giving the enforcers carte blanche if the owner would have to take a loan to protect their property, if they cannot pay or cannot afford to challenge then effectively the state has lawfully stolen goods for a debt owed by another. This law is flawed and just plain wrong wrong wrong