Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[brassnecked]

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).

 

Where was this article could you post a link please TT?

[danmcr]

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

 

He/She will prob be offline till Monday, I've never seen him/her online at weekend or late nights. Could be wrong.

[Mark1960]

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

 

He said he could walk into the house whereas he couldn't-I just put that down to a hyperthetical statement in order to show that he was giving the debtor a chance to resolve the issue.

 

With regards levying on third parties goods,a levy would instantly become invalid as impounding would not have taken place

 

IMO the whole problem regarding bailiffs is the ignorance that people generally have regarding their powers.I wouldn't mind betting that nobody on this thread would have a car towed away where they were not the debtor.This is because they would know how to deal with it.If bailiff law was common knowledge,the threat of bailiffs would loose its impact.It suits the Government for this issue to be cloudy as a large portion of bailiffs are deployed in collecting Government money.I myself have been a victim of ignorance in the past and its only thanks to various websites that have enabled me to learn a little about the real lack of power that many bailiffs have.

[HCEOs]

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

 

As you will know with HCEOs the method for claiming third party goods is different to that of normal Bailiff enforcement. Any claim made to the goods would be put to the creditor in the first instance. At this point it is for them to admit or deny the claim. If admitted the goods are released from seizure. If they have been removed then they would be made available for collection from the auction/storage facility.

 

If the creditor disputed the claim then it would usually go for an interpleader hearing. Here a Master/Judge will decide who owns the goods and an order will be made based on that decision. Unless the good's are of a significant this method can be costly for all, especially those on the losing side.

 

The new regulations mean that third party claims in normal Bailiff work (PCNs/CT/HMCTS fines etc.) will now have to be made to the County Court and an amount equal to the value of the goods seized should be paid into court. Given the amount of cases in this area of work I cannot see how the courts will cope. I would also state that the requirement to pay the vaue of the goods into court is wrong.

Edited August 12, 2013 by HCEOs

[HCEOs]

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).

 

Unfortunately I have no information on this. I am aware that some of the large HCEO companies avoid this route where possible even though it is the correct method (RSC Order 17).

[tomtubby]

As you will know with HCEOs the method for claiming third party goods is different to that of normal Bailiff enforcement. Any claim made to the goods would be put to the creditor in the first instance. At this point it si for them to admit or deny the claim. If admitted the goods are released from seizure. If they have been removed then they would be made available for collection from the auction/storage facility.

 

If the creditor disputed the claim then it would usually go for an Interpleader hearing. Here a Master/Judge will decide who owns the goods and an order will be made based on that decision. Unless the good's are of a significant this method can be costly for all, especially those on the losing side.

 

The new regulations mean that third party claims in normal Bailiff work (PCNs/CT/HMCTS fines etc.) will now have to be made to the County Court and an amount equal to the value of the goods seized should be paid into court. Given the amount of cases in this area of work I cannot see how the court will cope. I would also state that the requirement to pay the value of the goods into court is wrong.

 

 

I would like to know which IDIOTS agreed at Consultation stage that this was a good idea. I certainly wrote a long and detailed explanation opposing this provision and I know that some very influential organisations ( and individuals) also opposed this provision.

 

As I have said before, this provision is the reason why DVLA must NOT allow bailiff companies access to their records. I have also written to the Information Commissioners Office because of the danger of having the VRM on a warrant.

 

Also, any claim would have to be against the LOCAL AUTHORITY and NOT the bailiff company and this will lead to complaints at a level never known before. Utter bloody madness.

 

A small additional point that you may wish to consider and one that centres on the question that I raised a few days ago ( ie: number of applications made yearly for Interpleaders):

 

With writs of fi fa in the High Court there are approx between just 45,000 and 70,000 such writs issued each year and yet, the High Court deal with so many "Interpleader" applications. With council tax.... Liability Orders there were approx 3.3 million issued last year with approx 50% going to bailiffs. With unpaid PCN's there are approx 1.4 warrants issued to bailiffs each year.

 

Can you imagine the number of Interpleader" applications there could be hitting the County Courts each year. !!!

[HCEOs]

Surely if the DVLA did allow real time access it would reduce the amount of third party cars seized. I know it's not perfect but it's got to be better.....

[lamma]

I seem to recall that there is a 24 hour contact number for the police to use, why not let the bailiffs use that number.

Having to lodge the money with the court is madness. Many will not be able to afford it this leaving them nowhere. Also the courts will make quite a lot from the 'float money' - not that will have been a consideration of course although a look at the HMCS financial accounts may make many wonder.

[danmcr]

The Police have direct access to the DVLA databases and can call them up to confirm any detail.

 

The enforcement industry only need access to "live" keeper details nothing else.

[lamma]

That would appear to help - but will not. As the DVLA does not record ownership the bailiffs will be free to ignore. as now, whatever the DVLA says so why would they bother (to start) checking with the DVLA. Plus the DVLA records are woeful, despite statutory provision that they are 'correct'.

[HCEOs]

I would disagree. An 'on the spot' DVLA check may not provide definitive proof of ownership but it will give the Enforcement Officer some guidance and will almost certainly prevent cars from being removed until further investigation is made.

[lamma]

"and will almost certainly prevent cars from being removed until further investigation is made." I have a dream.....

[brassnecked]

"and will almost certainly prevent cars from being removed until further investigation is made." I have a dream.....

 

Which ome flying pink elephants, or flying pigs?

 

I forsee major problems and bailiffs ending up more hated than a paedophile when people start losing their goods for someone elses debtansd cannot afford the fees and valuation costs involved in an interpleader.

[seanamarts]

Why should they have to pay for someone else's debts, especially if they do not know them, its ludacris! So technically no one is safe at all from their property being taken.

 

This surely cant be allowed to happen.

[tomtubby]

I wrote extensively about this last April at Consultation stage. This provision was featured under Paragraph 60 of the Consultation and I cannot believe that any responsible enforcement company or representative of the "advice" sector would ever have supported such a clause and therefore, I am at a loss to understand how it could have been enacted into legislation.

 

I can foresee many PQ's when MP's return from the Summer recess.

[lamma]

"I am at a loss to understand how it could have been enacted into legislation. "

Chicago School economics pure and simple. Just done 'UK style'.

[brassnecked]

"I am at a loss to understand how it could have been enacted into legislation. "

Chicago School economics pure and simple. Just done 'UK style'.

 

Most definitely lamma, no ones goods will be safe.

[brassnecked]

Why should they have to pay for someone else's debts, especially if they do not know them, its ludacris! So technically no one is safe at all from their property being taken.

 

This surely cant be allowed to happen.

 

Unfortunately the idiots in Parliament have allowed it. They are fully aware of the issues, it is the money they are after. The goods will be forfeit to the crown to be sold for the other persons debt, if the innocent cannot afford the costs of the interpleader, so will be seriously out of pocket with no redress.

 

I wonder if there is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, as they are taking goods of someone totally unconnected with a debt, so the costs of interpleader and the system itself may be denial of right to a fair trial. Just a thought.

 

Wonder is a bailiff will be stupid enough to seize a DHL van full of parcels as it was parked outside a debtors house to deliver a parcel in the vicinity?

[tomtubby]

Later today I will be submitting a fair amount of correspondence to the Ministry of Justice in an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of this particular provision and the way in which it has the real potential to seriously damage the entire regulations that are due to come into force next April. As I have said before, I will NOT let this subject drop. Of that I can promise.

 

PS: A big THANK YOU to those people who have provided additional information to me regarding this subject. You know who you are.

[HCEOs]

I understand the principle behind it but the manner it which it has been set out is completely wrong in my opinion. It is not right that an innocent party will have to pay the value of the goods seized into court upon their application. There is an option for the court to reduce this sum but the principle is still wrong. Yes, it will reduce fraudulent claims (of which there really are many) but this provision is not the way to do that.

 

It is just more proof that this is being rushed through without proper consideration for how it will work in practice, if at all.

 

There are many issues for the enforcement industry too but these seem to be falling on deaf ears also. The Government has had years to get this right and as always it's rushed through, last minute, by people who do not understand all the factors.

[Surfer01]

I am not too clued up, but are they saying that if my car is parked outside a debtor's house and the debtor is someone I do not know and have not met, the bailiff can seize my car and it is then held by the courts and I have to pay to get back my own car? What if the car is on HP or a motability car?

[tomtubby]

HCEO. Good points raised. Thank you.

 

Everyone reading this part of the thread may find the new thread posted this morning regarding Stanford & Green of GREAT interest !!!!

[HCEOs]

I am not too clued up, but are they saying that if my car is parked outside a debtor's house and the debtor is someone I do not know and have not met, the bailiff can seize my car and it is then held by the courts and I have to pay to get back my own car? What if the car is on HP or a motability car?

 

Essentially yes.

 

Let's say you own a new Mercedes worth £35,000.

 

The bailiff arrives at the debtor's property and your car is parked on the drive. Maybe you're a friend and you've all gone out for the evening.

 

He, rightly in my opinion, levies on the car and posts his documents through the door.

 

In accordance with the new regulations, you would now make an application to court (essentially an interpleader) and pay £35,000 to them.

 

Firstly, lucky you if you've got that sitting around and secondly the amount of possible applications and money paid into court would have the courts grinding to a hault (which they nearly have already). If the car is on finance you could argue that the finance company would have to make the claim and pay the sums due. It's just not going to happen.

 

Basically, this provision needs a lot more thought and amendment before next April.

 

Personally, I believe the current interpleader process used by HCEOs is a model it should be based on.

[seanamarts]

This certainly needs more publicity on this subject, just to make people aware that this does happen and what they can do about it.

[josephbloggs]

From reading Some of the new bits and bobs being quoted about the changes, I can see the regulations being pushed back a year or two again