Transferring or selling a vehicle to avoid bailiff enforcement.

[mikeymack2002]

As already confirmed at post #24 but I didn't add the link as already posted in a stikky You may also want to view section 5 in the above link as well

[Peterbard]

Also, the fact that the goods have been sold in good faith does not prevent the EA form taking them. The sanction is against the buyer and is contained in section 51(3).

 

It is that when sold at auction if the goods were purchased in good faith the proceeds are issued to the buyer first before the balance being given to the creditor, if they are in purchased in bad faith the buyer becomes joint owner and gets an equal share but after the creditor has been paid(if there is anything left).

 

I should add however that since the proceeds will go to the purchaser first in the case of a "good faith" sale, it would probably be the case that the EA would consider the goods not worth seizing

[mikeymack2002]

Since we are back at the TCoG lets look at 'getting the best price', (para. 37.1 from the above link). Auction might not be the best place or get the best price, This might be worthy of discussion on its own? Most normal people would sell their items privately for a much higher price....Which is 'reasonable'. Back on topic...

[brassnecked]

This thread has made me lose the will to live, so for clarity Bound means in effect the debtor's goods cannot be sold by the debtor , In control means the bailiff has listed them with the intention of removing them for sale if a debtor defaults on any payment arrangement, or is going to take them and sell them anyway?

 

Right it's Postal 2 for me, all the bickering has made me want to play on a FPS to bust the stress.

[mikeymack2002]

If a liability hearing is heard in the AM, can the LA then send this to the EA in the PM? If so does this mean that the goods could be 'bound' within a very short time of the LO being given? If so what if any complications can this cause?

[Peterbard]

This thread has made me lose the will to live, so for clarity Bound means in effect the debtor's goods cannot be sold by the debtor , In control means the bailiff has listed them with the intention of removing them for sale if a debtor defaults on any payment arrangement, or is going to take them and sell them anyway?

 

Right it's Postal 2 for me, all the bickering has made me want to play on a FPS to bust the stress.

 

Yes its OK .

 

He goods being bound as far as the TCE is concerned, it means that the EA is allowed to chase them if they are sold or otherwise moved on .

 

So it is more about the goods in that sense.

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread has made me lose the will to live,

 

Right it's Postal 2 for me, all the bickering has made me want to play on a FPS to bust the stress.

 

You are not alone.

 

What everyone needs to remember is that whilst this may well be a 'discussion' thread, it is nonetheless surely aimed at providing advice to viewers who may have received a bailiff visit.

 

Members of the public would have no idea what 'Schedule 12' is and would have even less idea what 'bound' goods were.

[Bailiff Advice]

After the vehicle was taken this lady was advised to transfer ownership of her car to her husband (this is despite the fact that bailiffs can remove jointly owned goods). She was told to backdate the V5c by one week.

 

She has confirmed that the car was purchased by her father for £6,000 and that the insurance is in her name (although her hubby is a named driver).

 

On 10th February (5 days after she ‘sold’ her vehicle), her husband (as the new owner) telephoned Marston Group to ask for the release of 'his' car. He has encountered a problem. The debtor is now worried because Marston's are asking him for proof of 'sale', transfer of insurance' and evidence of payment made to 'purchase' his wife's car.

 

It would seem that the debtor's husband has now encountered another problem. Marston Group are asking for evidence that he taxed the vehicle on the same day of purchase. All posters so far responding have advised the debtor that such a question is not relevant and that her husband should refuse to provide details. In fact, the question is very important indeed and this is because:

 

Since 2014 when changes were made to road tax it is now the case then when a vehicle is sold that the previous road tax becomes

VOID.

The previous owner will receive a refund from DVLA (if they had purchased one years's tax in advance) and the new owner must obtain a new car tax on the day of purchase.

 

Getting back to the subject of this thread, Marston Group are now seeking 'evidence' from the debtor's husband to support his 'claim' that he had 'purchased' his wife's vehicle a few days before it had been clamped by their bailiff.

 

Sadly, it is cases such as this, that make enforcement companies view genuine 'third party' claims with so much suspicion.

 

If a new purchaser makes a claim to an enforcement company that their vehicle has been seized in relation to the previous owners debt, then in almost all cases, the enforcement agency will require the following:

 

A signed and dated receipt.

 

Evidence of payment made to purchase the vehicle.

 

Evidence that insurance cover was taken out in the new purchasers name on the date of purchase.

 

Evidence that car tax had been purchased on the date of purchased.

 

Most companies will also request a copy of the new V5c. This is not usually possible as it may take up to 4 weeks for DVLA to process the new keeper information.

[daverules]

This topic was discussed recently on a another thread. As has it been discussed in depth about taking advice from the Internet again very much in depth. (To death I might add)

 

Do we really need yet another thread discussing these topics again?

 

If you take advice that is not professional you will ALWAYS run the risk of getting advice that is wrong (Possibly) or that others disagree with. That goes for ANYONE that charges for advice.

 

 

Any means either new or repetitive in ensuring that the correct information gets out to people, is neither done to death or unwarranted.

 

Regards

[Peterbard]

Any means either new or repetitive in ensuring that the correct information gets out to people, is neither done to death or unwarranted.

 

Regards

 

Yes, I will drink to that

[brassnecked]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, Marston Group are now seeking 'evidence' from the debtor's husband to support his 'claim' that he had 'purchased' his wife's vehicle a few days before it had been clamped by their bailiff.

 

Sadly, it is cases such as this, that make enforcement companies view genuine 'third party' claims with so much suspicion.

 

If a new purchaser makes a claim to an enforcement company that their vehicle has been seized in relation to the previous owners debt, then in almost all cases, the enforcement agency will require the following:

A signed and dated receipt.

 

Evidence of payment made to purchase the vehicle.

 

Evidence that insurance cover was taken out in the new purchasers name on the date of purchase.

 

Evidence that car tax had been purchased on the date of purchased.

Most companies will also request a copy of the new V5c. This is not usually possible as it may take up to 4 weeks for DVLA to process the new keeper information.

 

This is problematic if the new owner is a genuine third party as the car could be sold before they have the V5 from DVLA, and they ignore all the other evidence provided.

 

As to the Bound Goods if the vehicle was genuinely sold before the EA gets the writ/LO etc and the new owner bought in good faith as in was a stranger to the debtor, they surely were not Bound, and if the EA still sells the car, where does that leave the innocent? The goods were not Bound at time of sale That of itself is a problem with the Regulations.

 

If they were sold to a Stranger when EA had Writ/LO but debtor was unaware as they were selling the car anyway, and themselves buying another is itself a problem Can EA still have them in that particular circumstance, law says yes, goods were already bound so unsaleable Common Sense says no as debtor was unaware goods were bound by a court.

 

WE need to put up a bullet pointed sticky om Bound Goods in as simple a format as possible as a checklist.

[Bailiff Advice]

If as you say the vehicle was sold before the writ was passed to the enforcement agent, then as long as there is other supporting evidence that backs up, then most companies do not insist on seeing the V5C.

 

I should also add that in cases where there is a degree of 'doubt', the enforcement company will many times want to also see the 2nd page of the V5C. They will be looking at the information at the bottom left hand side. This is a small box where DVLA record the date that they received new keeper details.

[Peterbard]

Thing is that if i read this right the goods were bound when they were taken in any case, so it is not a third party claim, in the sense that cPR 85 would be appropriate,

In other words not a claim made under section 60 but rather section 61.

 

The goods would be bound to the enforcement power if they were sold after they were bound. The fact that they may or may not have been bought in good faith is not relavant because in either case the EA can take control and remove them.

 

5(1)An assignment or transfer of any interest of the debtor's in goods while the property in them is bound for the purposes of an enforcement power—

(a)is subject to that power, and

 

(b)does not affect the operation of this Schedule in relation to the goods, except as provided by paragraph 61 (application to assignee or transferee).

 

Section 61 says that bound goods which are purchased in good faith merely become joint owned and as such are still liable for seizure. The only difference is the apportionment of the proceeds after the goods have been sold.

[brassnecked]

That is where I see the problem, especially as debtor probably was unaware goods were BOUND at time of sale. That part is patently unfair to an innocent third party buyer, who loses out especially as the innocent loses the car, and probably will be done for obstructing the EA, who seen to like using this new offence at the slightest excuse against anyone debtor and third party alike, if he tries to prevent the seizure when the EA calls at their home not the debtors to snatch the car.

 

This part needs an amendment, but obviously only for that particular circumstance, the situation under debate is clear, as a transfer when debtor knows bailiff has been is a fraudulent action.

[Peterbard]

 

Yes indeed although if after the car is taken it is discovered that the car was bought in good faith the buyer is refunded his money(or what is available) out of the proceeds before the claimant is paid. It is for this reason that the EA may not take the car in any case(it my not be worth the trouble as nothing will be lefter over for the creditor).

 

Section 50

(6)If there is a co-owner of any of the goods, the enforcement agent must—

 

(a)first pay the co-owner a share of the proceeds of those goods proportionate to his interest;

 

(b)then deal with the rest of the proceeds under sub-paragraphs (1) to (5).

[Bailiff Advice]

 

When do goods become 'bound'?

 

 

In the case of a

warrant of control

issued by the county court or magistrates’ court, the goods are bound from the time the warrant is received by the enforcement agent.

 

I have received 4 enquiries since yesterday asking for clarification on the above post and in particular, whether this refers to a warrant in relation to an unpaid penalty charge notice that is authorised by the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

To answer the question, YES, it does.

 

The statutory regulations (Section 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) refer to a warrant under Section 99 of the County Court Act 1984.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/section/99?view=plain

 

Section 99 (and sections 85 to 104) were introduced into Article 4.1 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 and is still applicable.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/article/4/made?view=plain

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt:

 

In relation to a warrant of control for an unpaid penalty charge notice goods become 'bound' from the date that the warrant is received by the enforcement agent and not from the date when the Notice of Enforcement is received by the debtor.

[Bailiff Advice]

After the vehicle was taken this lady was advised to transfer ownership of her car to her husband (this is despite the fact that bailiffs can remove jointly owned goods). She was told to backdate the V5c by one week.

 

She is incurring £18.00 per day storage.

 

She has confirmed that the car was purchased by her father for £6,000 and that the insurance is in her name (although her hubby is a named driver).

 

On 10th February (5 days after she ‘sold’ her vehicle), her husband (as the new owner) telephoned Marston Group to ask for the release of 'his' car. He has encountered a problem. The debtor is now worried because Marston's are asking him for proof of 'sale', transfer of insurance' and evidence of payment made to 'purchase' his wife's car.

 

This lady has not only been led into committing a criminal act by removing the wheel clamp, she is also in the position whereby her debt has increased by £110 for the removal fee and £150 to date for storage with ongoing daily fees of £18.00.

 

It would seem that the debtor's husband has now encountered another problem. Marston Group are asking for evidence that he taxed the vehicle on the same day of purchase. All posters so far responding have advised the debtor that such a question is not relevant and that her husband should refuse to provide details. In fact, the question is very important indeed and this is because:

 

Since 2014 when changes were made to road tax it is now the case then when a vehicle is sold that the previous road tax becomes

VOID.

The previous owner will receive a refund from DVLA (if they had purchased one years's tax in advance) and the new owner must obtain a new car tax on the day of purchase.

 

UPDATE:

 

I have been asked many times since making this thread whether there has been any update on this case. It was only yesterday that the lady sought further help from the social media site.

 

She is complaining that she has done everything that she was told to do by those 'advising' her and that she is now giving up all hope of ever getting the car back and that she has received notification that the vehicle is to be auctioned.

 

She has been hiring a vehicle for the past two weeks and has purchased new car seats for both her children. The hire cost and purchase of the car seats must have cost her well over £500.

 

She is stating that Marston Group will not discuss the car with her and neither will the vehicle pound. The highly inexperienced people advising her do not appear to realise that because of the 'bogus sale' to her husband, she can no longer claim to be the vehicle owner. Quite rightly, Marston Group should only speak with the 'new purchaser' (the husband) and it would seem that he is struggling to provide any 'evidence' that he 'purchased' the car from his wife.

 

I will provide an update when I know more.

[PaulS43]

BA,

 

From what I've been reading about online, this is indeed becoming a common trend.

 

People who post looking for help once the EA/Bailiff has turned up to clamp/bound cars, the OP are being actively encouraged to lie/deceive & behave in a manner they wouldn't normally do.

 

There are so many sites/groups that these people turn too, whether in desperation or hope. That they then blindly follow what they are told to do, whatever the consequences.

 

Yet none of these sites/groups have any formal legalese behind them & despite not doing so, set themselves up like they are the last word on it! It beggars belief...

 

Some (many) of these OP who go seeking help, will sadly find themselves in a much worse off situation than they started with.

 

But there's nothing neither you, me or anyone else can do to stop it.

 

It's akin to dropping a penny in the ocean. You ain't got no chance!

 

But someone, somewhere has to speak up & if your post helps one person to not go down this route, it's a start!

 

The registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of the vehicle. The keeper is responsible for tax and insurance of the vehicle - but that doesn't mean it is his property to sell or have seized, does it?

 

And not that I am facing anything like this at all, my wife paid £800 for the L reg car (now 23 years old) I drive back in November 2006. She paid by cheque. She cannot "prove" she paid for the vehicle nor can I, but it doesn't mean that I as the keeper own it or could have it siezed, does it?

[Peterbard]

 

The problem is that although it is not proof positive if ownership, it is enough to justify the EA taking the vehicle unser control. It iis then for the debtor to prove otherwise with further evidence, under CPR 85.

[Leakie]

DB

 

I can see where you are coming from,

But everyone knows that it is not proof of ownership,

 

Proof is a receipt of payment, but even this can be twisted.

 

In the end it is down to the EA, judgement,

 

My car is registered in my name,

But my mother paid for the car.

I have a receipt in her name, from a trader.

 

If the EA came to my door a seized the car,

I can show him/her both documents,

but I believe they would still try to seize the car.

as Leverage for payment.

 

The only proof that should be used is a receipt, not the V5

[Peterbard]

The EAj ust needs proof enough, so that he can take your goods without his licence being at risk. The car being registered to the debtor is proof enough.

[Leakie]

So you are saying even if there are legal documented receipt.

that some one else actually owns the vehicle,

this is not proof, and they will still have the agro

of going down the CPR 85 route.

Since when have the EA's be above the law,

 

God help us if they are not kept in check

The MoJ needs to sort this,

it only fuels the Freeman of the land Mob.

 

I agree that if the car was transferred into someone else's name,

after the first notice is given then this should go down the CPR 85 route.

But not if this was documented well before action has started.

 

If the EA's were honourable, then this would not be even an issue.

Not saying all EA's are dishonourable. just a majority..

[Peterbard]

 

No Leakie, I am obviously not saying that.

You really should stop trying to make this complicated.

[Leakie]

The EAj ust needs proof enough, so that he can take your goods without his licence being at risk. The car being registered to the debtor is proof enough.

 

I'm not making it complicated.

You have quoted in the past that you were involve in TCE.

so I take it that you know what you are talking about, and respect that.

I am making a comment, on what you have quoted,

[Peterbard]

 

YOu know i reviewed that post before i made it, I thought should i put unless other more persuasive proof is presented, then i thought, no people on here are intelligent enough to take that as read, seems I was wrong.

 

To be honest I gave up on this thread long ago, if the question was regarding the taking of bound goods that been sold .

Then yes the bailiff can take goods sold where bound no matter who they are transferred to or how they are transferred.

 

That really should be the end of it.  I suppose I should add to avoid the obvious question, as long as the originating party was the debtor.