Cars and Bailiffs????

[Strongcoffee]

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could answer my question please

I am banging my head against a brick wall with the pond life @ Rossendales! My partner and I have some outstanding debit for CT which has been passed over to Rossendales. The big half wit bailiff at Rossendales has decided to put a notice of intent to take away/tow away our cars against the debt. Both cars are Company cars and not owned by us but by our employers! Rossendales have told me that I need to provide, from my employers, a V5, Insurance Cert and Bill of Sale to prove the car belongs to my employer and not I! Not only would it be highly embarrassing to ask for this from my employers it also seems a little O.T.T when they could do a simple DVLA check!

Can anyone tell me what I REALLY need to do to get this sorted?

Thanks

Me

P.S we are currently paying the CT back in installments with the C.

[ploddertom]

Simply tell them they are Company Cars and that if they do a simple DVLA check this will bear things out & ask them to remove the levy fee and all associated costs from the account, adding instead a 1st or 2nd Visit Fee if relevant.

[josephbloggs]

Not allowed to access dvla database for council tax. Dvla only shows registered keeper anyway not the owner. Levy will be based on a reasonable belief they are yours (eg if they are on your drive.) Onus of proof unfortunetly lies with yourselves.

[outlawla]

Not allowed to access dvla database for council tax. Dvla only shows registered keeper anyway not the owner. Levy will be based on a reasonable belief they are yours (eg if they are on your drive.) Onus of proof unfortunetly lies with yourselves.

 

Would it not in that case then, be far more gratifying to allow tossendales to take the vehicles and then for J. G-Js to be answerable to a criminal offence, namely theft?

[ploddertom]

Would it not in that case then, be far more gratifying to allow tossendales to take the vehicles and then for J. G-Js - she's left I believe now that Marstons have taken over - to be answerable to a criminal offence, namely theft?

 

Presactly

[woad]

Would it not in that case then, be far more gratifying to allow tossendales to take the vehicles and then for J. G-Js to be answerable to a criminal offence, namely theft?

 

And then have the Op have to explain to their employer(s) why the cars have been taken away... And whom would bring the charges? The employer(s), or the Police? If the later, they may not even pass the 'case'to CPS, and CPS may decide it is not in public interest. Op stated that they did not wish their employers' to know about the debt.

[brassnecked]

And then have the Op have to explain to their employer(s) why the cars have been taken away... And whom would bring the charges? The employer(s), or the Police? If the later, they may not even pass the 'case'to CPS, and CPS may decide it is not in public interest. Op stated that they did not wish their employers' to know about the debt.

Problem is woad that the bailiffs are daft enough to take the cars, and as per josephbloggs claim that Observer v Gordon backs them up., so it's a Mexican standoff. They may have to involve the employer before dossendales do something very silly.

[outlawla]

And then have the Op have to explain to their employer(s) why the cars have been taken away... And whom would bring the charges? The employer(s), or the Police? If the later, they may not even pass the 'case'to CPS, and CPS may decide it is not in public interest. Op stated that they did not wish their employers' to know about the debt.

 

Sorry, I made the comment completely ignoring how the government relies on playing the stigma card to its advantage, or in other words holding the threat over them of having people (neighbours, employers etc.) find out how burdensome they are to society; even though they may well have paid far more into the system than their fair share in better times.

 

It was also neglected about how the Home Office influence Police forces to turn a blind eye, and also the Criminal Prosecution Service who would never compromise their position by taking on cases which might dilute their performance figures. If you are wondering what I'm talking about it's the cases not 100% of a certain successful prosecution.

 

EDIT:

 

I seems you're willing to let the corrupt system win as a trade off for keeping a low profile?

[woad]

Sorry, I made the comment completely ignoring how the government relies on playing the stigma card to its advantage, or in other words holding the threat over them of having people (neighbours, employers etc.) find out how burdensome they are to society; even though they may well have paid far more into the system than their fair share in better times.

 

It was also neglected about how the Home Office influence Police forces to turn a blind eye, and also the Criminal Prosecution Service who would never compromise their position by taking on cases which might dilute their performance figures. If you are wondering what I'm talking about it's the cases not 100% of a certain successful prosecution.

 

EDIT:

 

I seems you're willing to let the corrupt system win as a trade off for keeping a low profile?

 

Not all, as brassnecked succinctly put it, the Op is between a rock and a hard place. Back in the days when Personnel Dept was Personnel, and not HR, I'd be of the opinion that it might be 'best' (as in 'lesser of two evils) to approach Personnel and explain the situation to them in confidence.

[tomtubby]

Can I just make it clear that bailiff companies are NOT permitted to search the DVLA database when enforcing COUNCIL TAX.

 

They can do so however for unpaid PCN's and criminal fines.