Taking charge of a non debtors vehicle

[Leakie]

Sorry for bring this up again

 

If the vehicle is not owned by the debtor, and is clamped or towed.

then surely this is a breach of Data protection, as some one who is not the debtor

will find out about the warrant?

[renegadeimp]

Bailiff shoudl have done checks before, might be trying to foce them to interpleader. However, bailiffs also know a lot of debtors try to sell their vehicle to family and friends, even though the debtor retains use of the vehicle.

[Leakie]

But as I have said is it not a breach of the DPA

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

No need for bailiff to do checks. Just has to have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle belongs to the debtor.

No, its not a breach of dpa.

[renegadeimp]

How would it be?

[Leakie]

I am not sure, this is why I am asking.

 

As soon as some one else is involved then they will know about the warrant.

and as the EA will not speak to anyone else apart from the debtor, as soon as they have enforced,

on some one else's property, they become involved,

As we know the V5C is not proof of ownership

[Leakie]

I am not trying too find a loophole, just something that has come up in threads

[brassnecked]

No need for bailiff to do checks. Just has to have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle belongs to the debtor.

No, its not a breach of dpa.

A Jacobs bailiff tried to seize my car, whilst I was parked opposite a debtor's house, on the phone to my Council Clerk regarding a Public Meeting later that day with the local MP, he had already clamped the debtor's car but decided I was the debtor, so would have my motor as well. When I told him I was a local councillor,and threatened to take his picture he was really annoyed, he drove off turned round and drove at my car swerving off at the last minute. Under the new rules he probably could have had me done for obstruction. He breached DPA as he addressed me in the debtors name and mentioned the details of the debt whilst i was on the phone and the Clerk could hear his ranting. Next time I see him I will more than Obstruct him, he will be filmed and on YouTube.

 

And that Grumpy is why I am so negative with bailiffs.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

So he clamped a car that he had no reason to believe was a debtors?

Why did he believe you were the debtor?

If he believes you are the debtor, and the car has been identified as possibly belonging to the debtor, o he saw you leaving the debtor property and confronted you but you refused to show id or conform who you were, then he would have been right to continue.

Why did he confront you? Why did he think you were the debtor?

[brassnecked]

So he clamped a car that he had no reason to believe was a debtors?

Why did he believe you were the debtor?

If he believes you are the debtor, and the car has been identified as possibly belonging to the debtor, o he saw you leaving the debtor property and confronted you but you refused to show id or conform who you were, then he would have been right to continue.

 

Why did he confront you? Why did he think you were the debtor?

 

Simply because I pulled up opposite the debtor's house to answer a phone call, he had already clamped a car which belonged to the debtor outside the debtor's house, and as he saw me pull up and on a phone he came over to quiz me as to whether I was Mr x of the property opposite, when i said no, he intimated I was lying, I told him I was a local community councillor and on the phone to the Council Clerk, he became abusive and i made as if I was going to film him with the phone. he then stormed off. I had not got out of the car or made any indication I was going to any property, I was just answering the phone.

 

But this bailiff was from Jacobs who have form for taking third party motors.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Ahh, Jacobs, that explains a lot lol.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

You do get bad bailiffs, I will fully agree with you there. But don't tar us all.

You get bad, lying, scheming and stealing councillors, but does that mean that I should hate every councillor?

[unclebulgaria67]

That is the problem Grumpy. We see too many reports about EA's acting in ways that don't help the industry, i suspect most EA's act properly and therefore their actions are not subject to complaint. But those who are acting badly are creating additional risk to their colleagues in the industry. One recent report on here suggested that EA's were acting out pretending they were part of a Police operation, where they approached a home owner talking into a walkie talkie, asking when the team were following behind to break into a house. It was the wife of a debtor who answered the door and frightened her into paying her husbands debt. And in the particular case, there was no right of forced entry.

[brassnecked]

Ahh, Jacobs, that explains a lot lol.

It certainly does. You get good and bad in all professions, and EA's, Councillors and cold callers are no different, Politicians however cannot be trusted at all.

[Peterbard]

EAs are employed to recover money by taking people's goods with or without their consent, I suppose it must be difficult to do this and be nice about it.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It is difficult at times especially when the majority of debtors that we have to meet are people that do not want to pay.

They will try any and all means to avoid paying and that can often include violence and other illegal methods to defeat us.

The big problem is sifting out the genuine cases that come to us and taking it easy on those.

We are often direct and robust on a visit, as when we meet a wont pay debtor, we normally only get one shot before everything disappears do it has to be dealt with quickly and efficiently. We are not there to make friends. Although I, and many of those I work with, have made good friends with debtors in the past.

[Leakie]

DB

Of course that is there job but the title says non Debtor

 

Grumpy

 

yes I can imagine this is the case

 

is one of the EA,s tactics too take into control of a vehicle on the drive,

that may not be the debtor's just to put pressure on them to pay?

And are there any checks done before the is a levy on said vehicle.

[brassnecked]

Then they would be wrong also

Perhaps I should have let the Jacobs idiot take my car do you reckon then? Then gone to interpleader and the ICO

[Peterbard]

Perhaps I should have let the Jacobs idiot take my car do you reckon then? Then gone to interpleader and the ICO

 

Sorry not read the thread.but if it was your car and the debt was not yours the advice is to show proof to the EA. If after showing what would reasonably considered as proof,he still took the car you commence a section 85 action . if you are still unhappy you can take action under section 66.or against him personally and endanger his licence.

[Bailiff Advice]

A Jacobs bailiff tried to seize my car, whilst I was parked opposite a debtor's house, on the phone to my Council Clerk regarding a Public Meeting later that day with the local MP, he had already clamped the debtor's car but decided I was the debtor, so would have my motor as well.

 

When I told him I was a local councillor,and threatened to take his picture he was really annoyed, he drove off turned round and drove at my car swerving off at the last minute. Under the new rules he probably could have had me done for obstruction.

 

He breached DPA as he addressed me in the debtors name and mentioned the details of the debt whilst i was on the phone and the Clerk could hear his ranting. Next time I see him I will more than Obstruct him, he will be filmed and on YouTube.

 

And that Grumpy is why I am so negative with bailiffs.

 

I am hoping BN that this incident took place under the old regs. The difference with the new regs is the requirement that an enforcement agent may only take control of goods that he reasonably believes belonging to the debtor. Accordingly, there should be a far more checks made before seizing goods.

[brassnecked]

Was old regs just , but this is Jacobs we are talking about.

[Andyorch]

Argumentative off topic posts removed.

[Bailiff Advice]

Was old regs just , but this is Jacobs we are talking about.

 

BN,

 

I do now remember you posting about your previous experience with the enforcement agent. However my experience of Jacobs as a company has been faultless and they too have a very good Welfare Team. It is a shame though that a past experience with the actions of an individual bailiff impact on our future feelings with bailiffs in general.

[brassnecked]

BN,

 

I do now remember you posting about your previous experience with the enforcement agent. However my experience of Jacobs as a company has been faultless and they too have a very good Welfare Team. It is a shame though that a past experience with the actions of an individual bailiff impact on our future feelings with bailiffs in general.

Hopefully they have learned lessons and will be paragons of virtue and not do a Rossendales or Equita and try to add multiple Enforcement fees as Rossendales intimated they can do to a debtor on another thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hopefully they have learned lessons and will be paragons of virtue and not do a Rossendales or Equita and try to add multiple Enforcement fees as Rossendales intimated they can do to a debtor on another thread.

 

We do need to be on the watch out for 'multiple fees' but on this subject, I act with caution. This week alone I had 5 enquiries about 'multiple charges' and in each case, it was found that multiple charges had not been made.

 

My biggest concern by far....is the number of cases where a 'sale stage' fee has been charged. This is a fee that I raised concerns with when the regs were first introduced, (along with storage fees) and one that I continue to complain about.