Bailiiff takes 3rd party goods, refunded and more

[mikeymack2002]

See here >> http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Bailiff-tried-television-says-Derbyshire-landlord/story-28724803-detail/story.html

 

 

From Scoop

[Bailiff Advice]

See here >> http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Bailiff-tried-television-says-Derbyshire-landlord/story-28724803-detail/story.html

 

From Scoop

 

I was trying to ascertain from the story when this had occurred (before or after the new regs were introduced). At least with the new regulations, enforcement agents can no longer rely upon the Toseland case as justification to allow them to 'assume' that all goods in the premises belong to the debtor.

 

I am surprised to read that the complaint had centred on a payment of just £60.

[Bailiff Advice]

At the weekend I was compiling for my own website details of important LGO decisions from the past 12 months. All the reports centre on the new regulations and cover complaints concerning both council tax and unpaid penalty charge notices.

 

I will look at starting a new thread on the subject as well.

 

PS: There are some excellent decisions concerning one of my favourite subjects....The Traffic Enforcement Centre.

[Bailiff Advice]

At the weekend I was compiling for my own website details of important LGO decisions from the past 12 months. All the reports centre on the new regulations and cover complaints concerning both council tax and unpaid penalty charge notices.

 

For example:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/14-018-992

[brassnecked]

For example:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/14-018-992

This shows that third parties still are liable to lose their goods when the bailiff calls for a previous occupant due to council intransigence/incompetence in the face of evidence.

[Bailiff Advice]

There are loads more like that. I will post another one tomorrow.

[brassnecked]

There are loads more like that. I will post another one tomorrow.

Thanks BA, this is a problem that was forseen even with the new Regulations.

[caledfwlch]

In the Derby article, the LA involved appear as usual to have fought the Landlord's claim due to reasons he was not claiming.

 

Nowhere does the Landlord appear to say he doesn't believe the EA should have visited, his claim was based on the fact the EA threatened to remove 3rd party goods.

 

It's disgraceful that LA's are wasting tax payers money fighting when they are clearly in the wrong.

[brassnecked]

In the Derby article, the LA involved appear as usual to have fought the Landlord's claim due to reasons he was not claiming.

 

Nowhere does the Landlord appear to say he doesn't believe the EA should have visited, his claim was based on the fact the EA threatened to remove 3rd party goods.

 

It's disgraceful that LA's are wasting tax payers money fighting when they are clearly in the wrong.

It's what they do best throw money away defending the indefensible, to save an Officer having a red face and admitting they were wrong. They are the Council so in their opinion are never wrong.

[caledfwlch]

It's what they do best throw money away defending the indefensible, to save an Officer having a red face and admitting they were wrong. They are the Council so in their opinion are never wrong.

 

Amen to that Brother!

 

Common Purpose is a nasty little Trojan Virus infesting all sorts of places.