Taking charge of a non debtors vehicle

[Leakie]

BA

 

What happens if they take the goods for sale and there is not enough to cover the debt,

is it the same as before, that they need to claim X 6 value of goods to cover what is owed.

And can they still charge the sale stage and storage,?

[Bailiff Advice]

BA

 

What happens if they take the goods for sale and there is not enough to cover the debt, is it the same as before, that they need to claim X 6 value of goods to cover what is owed.

 

And can they still charge the sale stage and storage,?

 

In answer to your two questions. The regulations provide a clause that the enforcement agent should not take control goods unless the proceeds would cover the debt and enforcement costs.

 

In answer to your second question...if goods have been removed, then yes, the sale stage fee of £110 applies. Sadly, storage charges also apply.

[brassnecked]

Are Equita trying to add the Sales fee on top of the Enforcement fee irrespective of whether they have a controlled Goods Agreement or not?

[Leakie]

Thanks BA

I thought that may be the case,

So if the value of goods will not cover this then it should be sent back to the creditor?

The second part was meant to be linked to the first, as in I assume that they should take Sale fee and storage into consideration ,

before removal, or can they threaten this as leverage for payment.

I am only trying to high light this

 

I do not know BN I'm unfortunately involved with Newlyns

But it would not surprise me where Equita are concerned.

[Peterbard]

Goods can be taken if under their value is under the total amount due. It is bad practice if the difference is large but it is not against the statute or regs to do so.

 

In fact, there is provision in section 13 for just such a case, where the proceeds do not meet the total amount at auction.

It prescribes how the sum raised should be apportioned.

sensibly it would be bad practice to take something that is grossly under value.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Goods can be taken if under their value is under the total amount due. It is bad practice if the difference is large but it is not against the statute or regs to do so.

 

In fact, there is provision in section 13 for just such a case, where the proceeds do not meet the total amount at auction.

It prescribes how the sum raised should be apportioned.

sensibly it would be bad practice to take something that is grossly under value.

 

Unless it is the only thing to take.

Example. Guy owes 200k and has a £20k car. Should it not be taken? Should the creditor not be entitled to at least some of his money back if the debtor is refusing to pay anything?

[Leakie]

Grumpy if they had a £20000 car they probably have more assets

but some one on the bread line would only have a car of the value of say £800,

and would need the car to get to work, no work no more money.

so what would you do different, if at all.

[Leakie]

Thanks for your input DB

[Peterbard]

Unless it is the only thing to take.

Example. Guy owes 200k and has a £20k car. Should it not be taken? Should the creditor not be entitled to at least some of his money back if the debtor is refusing to pay anything?

 

Yes indeed the sensible limit would be when the sum recovered would provide no significant return for the creditor.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes DB, exactly that.

[Bailiff Advice]

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

 

I could not fault Jacob's yesterday at all. I had an extremely upset debtor on the phone. He had received a visit from an enforcement agent and was given until the end of the day to make payment for an unpaid penalty charge charge notice of just under £500. Failure to pay would have seen him car removed. He had 'buried his head in the sand' as he was undergoing treatment for cancer. He could not afford to pay the debt in full as he was only in receipt of ESA.

 

Within 15 minutes of contacting the Welfare Team, the account was put on hold, and within an hour, a payment arrangement had been set up (over 4 months) and letters of confirmation emailed direct to the debtor. It was only when reading the letter, that it was noticed that the agreement is for the first payment to be made by the end of next month (31st May).

 

PS: When vulnerability can be proved, enforcement companies are more often than not, willing to assist.

[brassnecked]

I could not fault Jacob's yesterday at all. I had an extremely upset debtor on the phone. He had received a visit from an enforcement agent and was given until the end of the day to make payment for an unpaid penalty charge charge notice of just under £500. Failure to pay would have seen him car removed. He had 'buried his head in the sand' as he was undergoing treatment for cancer. He could not afford to pay the debt in full as he was only in receipt of ESA.

 

Within 15 minutes of contacting the Welfare Team, the account was put on hold, and within an hour, a payment arrangement had been set up (over 4 months) and letters of confirmation emailed direct to the debtor. It was only when reading the letter, that it was noticed that the agreement is for the first payment to be made by the end of next month (31st May).

 

PS: When vulnerability can be proved, enforcement companies are more often than not, willing to assist.

 

That is good news indeed. A big thumbs up for Jacobs in that case, now as to Equita, don't think they would have been as helpful.

[Bailiff Advice]

That is good news indeed. A big thumbs up for Jacobs in that case, now as to Equita, don't think they would have been as helpful.

 

We must live in hope !! My main criticism of Equita is the long delivery time for the letters (and as a consequence, the extremely short 'compliance stage').

[ploddertom]

We must live in hope !! My main criticism of Equita is the long delivery time for the letters (and as a consequence, the extremely short 'compliance stage').

 

Well maybe if we can keep collecting them they should be forwarded on to the MOJ for action.

[brassnecked]

Well maybe if we can keep collecting them they should be forwarded on to the MOJ for action.

Absolutely, the Capita Group think they are above the law.

[Bailiff Advice]

Absolutely, the Capita Group think they are above the law.

 

And they may be right !!

[brassnecked]

And they may be right !!

Time they were brought up and investigated.