If a Vehicle has been seized by bailiffs....what you shouldn't do !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It would be good for instance to see a case brought soley on the HP issue without the backdrop of previous arguments colouring proceedings.

 

 

I agree to a certain extent. What needs to be made clear here, is that it was the 'Ori' case that highlighted the change that had been made to the new regulations (where the word 'interest' had been replaced by 'beneficial interest'). The Treasury Solicitor imposed the change for good reason. It is a subject that I brought up under the One Year review as an 'unintended consequence'. Whether a redraft be will made...we will have to wait and see.

 

As I have mentioned many times before, if a debtor takes legal proceedings against an enforcement company or local authority they should be made aware beforehand of the following:

 

The enforcement company will instruct solicitors to represent them.

 

If the Judges find against the debtor, he could order the debtor to pay significant legal fees incurred by the enforcement company/local authority.

 

Almost always, the

Judge hearing the case will consider the behaviour of the debtor

leading up to court proceedings (i.e 'cut clamp, obstruction, persistent evader etc).

 

He will question the debtor as to the reason why the debt was not paid.

 

If the claim is one regarding a complex issue (such as 'beneficial interest' /vehicles seized that are subject to Hire Purchase), then the debtor should be warned that if the court ruled in his favour, the local authority/enforcement agency would very likely make an application to appeal the decision.

 

I do not have any problem at all with a company or a well off member of the public issuing proceedings against an enforcement company. Where I do have a problem, is that in all the cases that I have ever reported about on this forum (and by this…I mean since 2007) none of the debtors were in a financial position to fund litigation in the first place....let alone be able to afford to fund a ‘cost order’.

 

Another common feature is that almost without exception....none of the debtors had ever previously set foot in court and were hopelessly prepared.

 

Finally, in relation to 'case number three', I have no idea what the case concerns and I do not know whether or not the individual is a litigant in person, or has legal representation.

[Bailiff Advice]

Sorry BA, not trying to upset you or anyone else but I am trying to learn and understand things in law and

the way the enforcement agencies work but you have confused me with this thread as in post number #2 you state the following:

 

 

 

Case number three:

 

This case is far more serious and given that it is subject to current legal proceedings, I can only give brief details.

 

A vehicle has been seized and the owner 'claimed' that the vehicle was not his. He claimed that it was 'supposedly' owned by his brother.

 

The debtor was encouraged to issue proceedings against the local authority. After suspicious were aroused, the debtor advised the court that he had been lying all along and that he was really the owner of the vehicle. Without this confession, he could have been facing a charge of perjury.

 

The above would indicate you knew a lot about the case

 

 

Dave, thank you for your post and it is good to hear that you are wanting to learn and understand how enforcement agents work. Hopefully, my detailed explanation regarding cases one and two have assisted you in this respect.

 

With regards to case number two (where the vehicle has recently been sold) there have been some very recent developments. If you require more information, please let me know.

 

With regards to case number three, it would seem that a motor vehicle has been seized and an interpleader application submitted. A quite common procedure.

 

Whether the debt in question is for council tax arrears or road traffic debts...I simply don't know. Is the vehicle in question owned outright....subject to finance...or subject to Hire Purchase? I don't know and it would be wrong to guess.

[UKDomains]

I have a problem where EA don't check car details. I had an outstanding council tax bill, and a well known bailiff firm came out about 3 years ago, seized a car, charged me extra for the privilege and would not listen to what I had to say and kept on insisting I had to pay the extra fees (this was under old fee structure about 4 years ago)

 

I eventually even got my MP involved and all the time the local police were looking for a stolen car.

 

The car actually belonged to someone about 8 doors up the road who had parked in the road near my house. I believe the car's owner came to an out of court settlement with the bailiff company in question.

[brassnecked]

I have a problem where EA don't check car details. I had an outstanding council tax bill, and a well known bailiff firm came out about 3 years ago, seized a car, charged me extra for the privilege and would not listen to what I had to say and kept on insisting I had to pay the extra fees (this was under old fee structure about 4 years ago)

 

I eventually even got my MP involved and all the time the local police were looking for a stolen car.

 

The car actually belonged to someone about 8 doors up the road who had parked in the road near my house. I believe the car's owner came to an out of court settlement with the bailiff company in question.

That sounds like the Jacobs MO. did they refund you the fees? One of theirs tried to seize my motor when I was parked on the phone opposite a debtor's house where they had already clamped a car.

[UKDomains]

No, this was Rossendales. About 6 months after the Blaby Council and LGO report. Shows you they didn't really care.

[josephbloggs]

The problem is that bailiffs can NOT perform dvla checks for council tax so there is no way of ever knowing 100% whos any car is unless they happen to have a parking fine as well or they admit its theirs

[Bailiff Advice]

The problem is that bailiffs can NOT perform dvla checks for council tax so there is no way of ever knowing 100% whos any car is unless they happen to have a parking fine as well or they admit its theirs

 

Absolutely right. DVLA access is only available online for road traffic debts (not that it is needed anyway as the warrant of control states upon it the vehicle registation mark). This was a main complaint with the 'Blaby' report.

[UKDomains]

Absolutely right. DVLA access is only available online for road traffic debts (not that it is needed anyway as the warrant of control states upon it the vehicle registation mark). This was a main complaint with the 'Blaby' report.

 

BA, out of curiousity, why did the LGO and then the Blaby council afterwards consider it was unacceptable "for the bailiffs to carry out a levy on the vehicles without a DVLA check" ?

 

And why are they not allowed to do DVLA checks for Council Tax? Is this because it is in essence a civil matter?

[colin11]

Just to give a bit of insight into case 2 And how getting help from the social media site can get debtors into more trouble

 

Here is a redacted screen shot of the point his van went from just a place he stored his tools in, to a van that he used for work

 

He also sat in the van as it was being hooked up to the tow truck and had to be removed by the police

 

 

 

As you can see, He clearly stated he didn't use the van for work as he had a job now working for someone else

 

The van was then sold on Ebay for the sum of £1,420 and the debtors tools were returned to him

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201623278358?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

 

Now he is being encouraged to make a claim against the council, Bailiffs and the recovery people

 

 

 

Here you can see the debtor with encouragement, Is now ready to follow all complaint avenues and is encouraged that he can win

 

 

He is claiming that he has lost his job because of the loss of his tools, Even though they have been returned to him, And is claiming loss of earnings

 

I will leave it up to you to decide what success he will have, But bear in mind, Dukes will have all the posts screen shot and held in evidence

[Leakie]

I did not realise that for council Tax they can not check the registered owner,

So a receipt should be acceptable as proof of ownership, as long as it is not obvious it has been made to evade the debt.

well if that is the case the reg need to be changed,

It is becoming obvious to me that there needs to be checks before a levy is made

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Now he is being encouraged to make a claim against the council, Bailiffs and the recovery people

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63928[/ATTACH]

 

I will leave it up to you to decide what success he will have, But bear in mind, Dukes will have all the posts screen shot and held in evidence

 

He is saying that that he has 'proof' that his partner made a payment arrangement with the council before the bailiff visit !!!

 

Surely he hasn't forgotten that he displayed a copy of the email from the council which said this:

 

The arrangement made on 4th July 2016

related to the current years council tax from 1.4.16

and outstanding council tax which arose from when your council tax support ended on 11.1.16.

 

We would

not

have entered into an arrangement with you for the debt that has been passed to Dukes at the time because any arrangement on that debt would need to be made with them.

 

I repeat again, if a genuine Part 85 (interpleader) claim is submitted, it is cases such as these that make enforcement agents view these claims with suspicion.

[*RainbowTears*]

Just to give a bit of insight into case 2 And how getting help from the social media site can get debtors into more trouble

 

Here is a redacted screen shot of the point his van went from just a place he stored his tools in, to a van that he used for work

 

He also sat in the van as it was being hooked up to the tow truck and had to be removed by the police

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63927[/ATTACH]

 

 

As you can see, He clearly stated he didn't use the van for work as he had a job now working for someone else

 

The van was then sold on Ebay for the sum of £1,420 and the debtors tools were returned to him

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201623278358?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

 

Now he is being encouraged to make a claim against the council, Bailiffs and the recovery people

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63928[/ATTACH]

 

 

Here you can see the debtor with encouragement, Is now ready to follow all complaint avenues and is encouraged that he can win

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63929[/ATTACH]

 

He is claiming that he has lost his job because of the loss of his tools, Even though they have been returned to him, And is claiming loss of earnings

 

I will leave it up to you to decide what success he will have, But bear in mind, Dukes will have all the posts screen shot and held in evidence

 

I've followed the above story & read many more about other posters all asking for help on all kinds of matters. From EA to benefits to housing etc, etc.

 

Sadly as they know no better, they accept what they are told without question.

 

Whats also maddening is noone can stop them as if you speak up & try to give the correct advice, you soon find your butt rounded upon & kicked out & banned.

 

I also agree with you, that there's many a bailiff & company reading the posts on there with a lot of interest & are keeping themselves busy copy everything.

[Bailiff Advice]

Case number two:

 

This case was one for unpaid council tax and the debtor had an extremely smart looking 'works' vehicle. The vehicle was 'sign written' with the name and contact details of his pluming business . The debt in question was approx £600. His vehicle was clamped.

 

He too, took his question onto 'social media' and there were in excess of 250 replies. A large number of them advised him to 'cut off the clamp' or to 'sit in the vehicle'. He chose the 2nd option.

 

The debtor complained that his wife had contacted the council two days earlier and had set up a payment arrangement to pay the debt. As is the case with this particular 'social media' site, the same 'bailiff baiter' as mentioned in the above case, offered to telephone the bailiff. This proved most unhelpful indeed and again, the call was terminated by the enforcement agent.

 

On 'social media' he was asked whether he used his vehicle for self employment . This was a vitally important question given that if the vehicle was for 'self employment' (and in particular given that it was heavily signed), it should have been 'exempt' from seizure.

 

The debtor responded to advise that he no longer used the vehicle as he was employed by another company!!!

Crucially, he also stated that the vehicle was merely used to 'store' his work tools. In this respect, the vehicle would not in any way be considered exempt.

 

Police were called and he was removed from the vehicle and arrested (later released).

 

The vehicle was taken and once again, the debt increased by way of the statutory 'sale stage' fee of £110. He was urged to contact the local authority regarding the 'supposed' payment arrangement that his wife had set up two days earlier.

 

Approx 5 days later, he reported that the payment arrangement set up by his wife was in fact for the

current

(2016/2017) council tax and was not in any way connected to the Liability Order that was being enforced !!

 

He returned to 'social media' to plea for help as he had received notification from the enforcement company that his vehicle was due to be sold. He was adamant that it's value was less that the 'exempt' figure of £1,350. He received no assistance at all.

 

His vehicle was sold at auction on 19th July. It was advertised as being a 'previous' works vehicle. The sale price was £1,400.

 

It is this particular case (Case Number Two) that Colin11's post above relates to.

 

This case is still ongoing (despite the fact that the vehicle was sold by the enforcement company on eBay two weeks ago).

 

In the case of this particular debtor, his downfall was to visit a particular social media site (the largest one in the world) and expect to receive specialised advice on the subject of bailiff enforcement.

 

His second mistake was to publish so much personal information and not consider for one moment that the enforcement company would be viewing the site.

 

Going back on his earlier posts, this debtor's works vehicle has been clamped previously in March this year by Marston Holdings. After providing evidence of self employment, the clamp was removed.

 

This time was different. He publicly stated that he no longer used the vehicle for his self employment as he was employed by another company. Instead, he was using the vehicle only to store his work tools. This comment meant that he could no longer rely upon his vehicle being 'exempt' form seizure and this ultimately led to his downfall.

 

It would appear from comments that he made yesterday that he attempted to issue an injunction to stop his vehicle being sold. This was another wrong procedure. Since the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 was introduced, there should be almost no need for injunctions to be used. Instead, in this particular case, if he considered that his vehicle should have been exempt, he should have issued a very simple Part 85 Claim.