Can a Bailiff(EA) take my partners goods on a Council Tax debt

[Peterbard]

I have seen this question come up on several forums.

 

The bailiff can enforce and take control of goods belonging to anyone on the liability order.

 

The council tax regulation state that a summons for a liability hearing may be addressed to two or more joint taxpayers in joint names.

 

The TCE permits enforcement of more than one individual on a single enforcement power.

 

So it is a matter of looking to see who the summons is addressed to, or alternatively whose name the bill is in.

 

DB

Edited April 7, 2016 by Andyorch
edit

[brassnecked]

Tough luck on the visiting boy/girlfriend when the EA has their car away and they have to do a Third Party Claim to try to get their motor back when the EA refuses to believe their eyes at the different address on the V5 and utility bill proffered as proof.

[neil_tp]

Even a EA is not that stupid.

[brassnecked]

Even a EA is not that stupid.

The BF/GF would have to prove non residence, or EA would assume they lived with the debtor. They are that greedy.

[Peterbard]

Yes , tough luck is about right.

 

Any disagreement regarding taking into control of the goods cannot be exercised at the scene unfortunately. although all proof regarding ownership should be taken into consideration by the bailiff, as his duty dictates. The decision to take the goods is his to take.

 

After the event the individual can take recourse under section 75 of the CPR and if he is still aggrieved is entitled to take action against the bailiff under section 68 of the act, or in the court regarding his licence,

 

This brings me to the next post which is regarding the situation where an enforcement action is just taken against one of the parties (ie either partner).

 

The requirement here would be to determine if the debtor can be classed as having a financial interest in the goods, and therefore is to some degree co owner. The requisite section is in section 3 of schedule 12.

 

“co-owner” in relation to goods of the debtor means a person other than the debtor who has an interest in the goods, but only if the enforcement agent—

(a)knows that the person has an interest in the particular goods, or

(b)would know, if he made reasonable enquiries;

 

Here we again see that the test does not have to definitive.

'

[neil_tp]

The BF/GF would have to prove non residence, or EA would assume they lived with the debtor. They are that greedy.

 

 

They don't have to prove anything, and of course you don't have to have any dealings with the EA.

[brassnecked]

They don't have to prove anything, and of course you don't have to have any dealings with the EA.

 

Who doesn't care if it is a commuters car they snatch from outside the debtor's house that is parked up for the say.

 

If it was a non resident BF/GF they would have to deal with the EA to get their car back. If partner is on insurance even if BF non resident they might regard that as enough to have it away, as in a" Beneficial Interest" ( per that County Court decision on the Injunction that appears to have opened the way for an EA to snatch anything even on HP) even though not owner and vehicle registered to a Third Party at a different address.

[neil_tp]

Again, even an EA is not that stupid, just to seize any vehicle with no checks is suicidal to their certificate.

[Peterbard]

Returning to the original question of EAs taking goods of the debtors partner.

In order to safeguard his license and indeed his liberty in severe cases, the EA needs to be able to justify how he arrives at the decision to take control of goods. Ignoring evidence is not an option.

 

When considering to take goods in a family home, it will be difficult to deny that the EA assuming both parties have a financial interest isreasonable.

He will assume, that the goods were purchased out of family funds no matter what the name on the receipt says.

 

Indeed if this were a divorce settlement for instance. both parties would be contesting the did have a financial interest for the very same reasons.

[brassnecked]

Returning to the original question of EAs taking goods of the debtors partner.

In order to safeguard his license and indeed his liberty in severe cases, the EA needs to be able to justify how he arrives at the decision to take control of goods. Ignoring evidence is not an option.

 

When considering to take goods in a family home, it will be difficult to deny that the EA assuming both parties have a financial interest isreasonable.

He will assume, that the goods were purchased out of family funds no matter what the name on the receipt says.

 

Indeed if this were a divorce settlement for instance both parties would be contesting the did have a financial interest for the very same reasons.

Yes DB, the concept of joint ownership will be exploited to the max, only issue is any adult game by the PS4 games, and TV in 12 year old Johnnie's bedroom, EA will have them away and try to have Johnnie's probably exempt laptop with all his schoolwork away if he can. .

 

It is a possibility albeit remote even if a BF is non resident, but the debtor is insured to drive the vehicle, the EA might well try to invoke beneficial Interest as an excuse to take the motor if the BF was there with the car at the time of his visit. That situation is not as uncommon as thought regarding insurance cover for named drivers living at another address from the RK.