A few days ago I was sent a text by a resident nearby relating to a PCN issued and not challenged and that there were 2 EA's in the home. They were looking to take control of goods to pay for the debt which was made more difficult to deal with due to the severe disability of the named debtor.

The background is as follows...

The debtor has a Motability car and is the registered name on the V5. But, the registered keeper is unable to drive due to their condition and Motability have allowed a family member to be the named driver. This is normal practise to have a contract to allow a 3rd party to drive for the hirer.

The issues that have come to light is that the driver has had many PCN's over a few months. This is completely separate to the one that I had dealt with recently and for a different debtor. Most of the outstanding PCN's have been made subject to a repayment plan but 2 have already gone to enforcement.

The issues for me are that as the registered keeper the debtor is responsible for the outstanding balance of these two debts. Unfortunately for this debtor the driver has intercepted the letters from the LA and chose to ignore them totally. Hence a WoC being issued by the TEC in Northampton.

My issues are that the family were at home just as the EA's arrived and thinking that they were family left the door ajar for them to gain peaceful entry. The EA's had already walked and had started to talk to a person in apparent control of the premises. Unfortunately the name debtor was in bed resting in a bedroom in the next room.

At no time did either of these EA's attempt to speak to the named person but did so freely to a family member. The debtor was just 15ft away from the EA's in the next room (bedroom) The issue is several fold. These are listed below and in no particular order.

1. Peaceful entry gained

2. Discussing the debt with a 3rd party without a signed or agreed DPA release form or authority to discuss.

3. Taking a family member to the kitchen and trying to arrange payment.

4. Heated discussion between 3rd party and forceful EA (at times)

5. EA attempting to take control of goods when goods in the property would not cover the debt and fees.

6. Using BWV and in the presence of a minor under 6

7. Trying to take goods needed for the care of the debtor

8. EA trying to take goods that are exempt under the guidelines

9. Debtor being subject to a consideration of mental capacity and awaiting an appointment for this.

At some point the resident text me and asked for my help. I had already printed off a copy of the guidelines and had highlighted several important points to help stop the enforcement and give the agents time to seek further advice from their office and or the OC.

I was asked who I was and then handed the EA's a signed DPA release allowing me to assist the debtor. This was accepted and then it was my turn to make a few points that needed to be said the EA's. At this point we the EA's and I retired to the hall to talk about what was going on.

This is where they acted better and took more notice. With this I then gathered some documents that showed just how serious the medical situation was for this debtor. This included a care plan issued by the LA. Copies of the DLA awards and EA award. Medical letters and appointment cards as well. More than enough information to satisfy both agents.

After about 10 minutes of talking both agents agreed to retire from the situation to seek advice from the offices and OC... So far there has already been a letter to the LA with evidence of severe vulnerability and I am about to draft a letter to ask the LA to take this back in house due to the complex issues regarding this particular debtor.. More to folow Sorry for the long post but it is very complex...

The letter I am drafting will be for the LA to take control of this debt and make it subject to the repayment plan already in force. Minus the EA's fees of course. The LA are very well aware of the debtors medical conditions and that they were not responsible for the PCN's, but as the registered keeper than know that they must deal with this issue.

These tickets have been issued during the past 6 months and are OOT to appeal, even with a SD completed. The only option will be to plead to the LA in this circumstance to take the debt back and agree a better repayment plan. I already know this is an option and will ask for the LA to consider this fully and agree with my thoughts and hopefully take these two back in house. The reasons for my request are within the LA's remit under the guidelines to do so and will include the highlighted guidelines for them to consider.

I must say once the heated discussion was settled both EA's did in fact leave the home to seek further advice. This is the second time these Agents have attended and tried to take goods and not to agree a reasonable payment plan. If I can get these final two PCN's returned then all the better.

My concern is that they have already gain peaceful entry once, on the first attendance they did not gain entry. So my questions are if they have now gained peaceful entry but no control of goods agreement made or signed can they now force entry due to this?

Secondly can the LA be asked under exceptional circumstances to have the debt returned to them and deal with this under the already agreed payment plan minus the fees?

Your thoughts please!

Well done for getting the EA's to leave. As there was no CGA, they might not be able to re-enter as nothing was listed, however other Caggers can give more clarity to this point. The council need to be pursued regarding calling the dogs off if possible as it looks like nulla bona , insufficient goods applies. Was the equipment for the debtor's care they wanted to take, life and death stuff? If so the press might be interested if things go pear shaped later.

Thanks BN: No CGA entered into nor signed, what a relief that was:

I have currently spent at least 2 hours drafting a response from the email from the Traffic Enforcement Officer.

I have detailed a complete medical disclosure as to the medical condition/s of this debtor still needs refining on the finer points.

The finer points in this instance are highlight yellow in my attachment.

As for the 'goods attempted' are in fact needed goods for the welfare safety and needs of this debtor.

'Life and death' more health and safety more than anything, scooter, electric armchairs, other essential aids and so on.

In this case there is a cooker and a microwave, both needed due to meals on wheels (reheating) and carers preparing food for future use.

Debtor unable to cook, unsafe and not possible.

A decent table with 4 chairs when one is deemed needed. At least two are due to difficulties in feeding themselves (assisted by family and carers)

A TV in both rooms both needed, due mobility issues and being bedridden on occasions. (activity needs)

Press a possibility but not until all avenues travelled.

Finally Carer respite is also need and I will arrange this independently tomorrow.

I have covered as many of the relevant fact as I can without identify the debtor and or EA's involved. I am also going to consider asking the LA to make this unusual situation a mitigating issue which I may go into in the very near future. As I may need to fine tune my drafted letter.

taking-control-of-goods-national-standards 1 edited.pdf

As said the EA rely on the signed CGA for re entry. Unless they have secured goods on the premisses by other means. In which case they can enter under warrant.

Hi DB

Nothing noted nor signed in the end as they left before this was done to seek further advice from the office/OC. The only item of value and is exempt outside was a very beaten up old class 3 mobility scooter. The definition of this is here >> https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules

I have drafted the letter of consideration to the Officer named in the email and can now only email it to the family for them to forward the this Officer tomorrow.

Time will tell if I am successful, either way I will post updates as and when they arrive or made known to me...

Would those reading the edited guidelines agree with the numbers that I have highlighted?

Please bear in mind the officer is accredited with these letters after their name.. LLB (Hons) MCIHT MIHE

The above shows me they are well adverse to the law and legally qualified. Going up against a DCA is one thing but this, wow its a whole new ball game is it not?

Drafted letter completed using the national guidelines and the medical condition/s of the debtor. It has now been forwarded to the family for approval. Unable to post due DPA issues. But have run it past a legally qualified person and been given the ok by them. This is including the correct referencing of the law in it all..

Its now a waiting game...

Drafted letter completed using the national guidelines and the medical condition/s of the debtor. It has now been forwarded to the family for approval. Unable to post due DPA issues. But have run it past a legally qualified person and been given the ok by them. This is including the correct referencing of the law in it all..

 

Its now a waiting game...

Hope all goes well for the "accidental" debtor.

 

 

The background is as follows...

 

 

The debtor has a Motability car and is the registered name on the V5. But, the registered keeper is unable to drive due to their condition and Motability have allowed a family member to be the named driver. This is normal practise to have a contract to allow a 3rd party to drive for the hirer.

 

 

The issues that have come to light is that the driver has had many PCN's over a few months. This is completely separate to the one that I had dealt with recently and for a different debtor. Most of the outstanding PCN's have been made subject to a repayment plan but 2 have already gone to enforcement.

 

Unfortunately for this debtor the driver has intercepted the letters from the LA and chose to ignore them totally. Hence a WoC being issued by the TEC in Northampton.

In addition to the above comments, I note that the individual already has a payment arrangement in place regarding other penalty charge notices. I would hope that the irresponsible driver who has been hiding the correspondence, has been taken to task for the deplorable way in which he or she has exposed the vulnerable person to bailiff action.

Only a short while ago, I received an enquiry from a lady whose contract with Motability had been cancelled because she had incurred approx 10 penalty charge notices. In case, you are unaware, a person is considered a 'persistent evader' if they have more than three penalty charge notices at warrant stage.

Lastly, you have said that the registered keeper is unaware of the current contravention. If so, then there is a very simple solution and that it to file an Out of Time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. If accepted, the penalty charge notice will be 'rewound' to the Notice to Owner stage.

Just had an email from the family member that caused this issue, suffice to say I am meeting them tomorrow they have approved the draft letter and I will print it off for them and take it personally to the document receiving stand at our LA to get proof of receipt and I will know that the letter has been handed in properly.

Riot act being read to the driver and other points of law being discussed with them. Will not be pretty to hear but will have a positive ending and a full understanding that they must not put such a vulnerable person in this position ever again.

Otherwise it will be them on the receiving end of my fury and wrath. By defending the rights and obligations and protection of this poor soul.... It will never happen again rest assured..

Further to BA's post above trust me the fullest of my ability it was made known to this driver how serious this is/was. Although a family member I showed them exactly where they were heading and how serious these issues are. Suffice to say I had already spoken to Motability Legal as I have regular contact with them and as a former service user. They are fully aware and have also stated what is at risk.

When you reduce an offender to tears whether male or female due to their inappropriate actions you know you have hit the mark. It was not pretty I can tell you!

At the end of my rant which last nearly 20 minutes. I then said sorry for the way I spoke to them, but they personally apologised to the RK and told me they had been so insincere that they were embarrassed that they were caught out taking advantage.... I don't think this will happen again, if they get a ticket it will be paid in full within the 7 days....

As a former CEO the OOT time application would fail at the initial stage and would be a waste of time applying. Admissions have been made to state they were responsible and what they did was indeed deplorable. I could try it but it will fail so no point in starting that avenue. None of this would have happened if the RK had chased up the blue badge application from early last year.

I will offer my assistance on that too.

I have also reminded the driver of the criminal offence of using a badge when the holder is not present and have already taken steps to make sure the badge if issued is to be held at the holders home address at all times, unless the holder is in the car, this is to prevent the misuse of it....

A final update on this tragic episode. The Enforcement company as well as my Council has now made a final decision on this matter it is as follows:

1. EA debt recalled

2. All fees removed

3. Balance added to the ongoing payment arrangement.

4. No further enforcement action on this PCN (new PCN's will NOT receive this level of intervention by myself or the LA) A very last olive branch))

5. No other PCN's now out for enforcement

6. My LA to look deeper in to vulnerable debtors at all levels. (Being invited to discuss my observations on this matter)

7. This includes rent arrears and other items including care and so on....

Finally yet another vulnerable debtor assisted for free and for me a job well done....

Nice result Mikey..I will mark your thread title to reflect the outcome.

Regards

Andy

Thread moved to the main Bailiff forum

Excellent outcome.

Thanks guys n girls it was blinking hard work due to the complex issues of ownership, driver and vulnerabilities. Once all of this was researched as I do it became easier to conclude.

Hopefully this allows other debtors to speak to the LA's and EA's earlier this can only help in the long run. Fortunately I did not need or use the 'welfare Departments' and debtors should make any vulnerabilities known earlier rather than later.

Because of this issue I am now going back to 'school' so to speak and look deeper in to schedule 12 (especially) to learn a different way to help in the long run.

brilliant MM

Thanks BN as this thread was about a vulnerable debtor I have decided to look in to this at a much deeper level...

Part of this research is coming under the umbrella of Vulnerable debtors and a side search of debtors and a 'disturbance of the mind'. The latter is in regards to vulnerable debtors that have mental health issues and the like....

These debtors have been subject to various Ombudsman reviews over the years and makes for very interesting reading, but only if you want to understand the complexities of debt and mental health and it effects.

If you want to try and follow feel free too do so then if you do want please start here >> http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/127/127-vulnerable-consumers.html

Although this will be heavy reading it could be worth your while as posters and responders have quite often had to deal and advise debtors that have personal issues of the mind and/or other... I will start a new thread on this topic at a later date...

Ahem, yes remarkable

I don't understand this comment DB? The one above...

Ahem, yes remarkable

+1.

I don't understand this comment DB? The one above...

Yes ok. well i find a lot of this confusing, much(if not all)of the points you berate the EA for are legitimate practices, the authority seems to have agreed a repayment plan even though they know the debt is not that of the person in question.

Is there a thread on here about this ?

Could we see a copy of the final letter you mention, Just for clarification and to assist others who may want to follow your lead ?

Also I find it hard to understand why the person was not just advised to send n OOT statement and thus avoid interaction with the bailiff at all.

Yes ok. well i find a lot of this confusing, much(if not all)of the points you berate the EA for are legitimate practices Their failure to deal with this debt within the guidelines, the authority seems to have agreed a repayment plan even though they know the debt is not that of the person in question. The RK does not drive nor holds any form of driving license, but is the RK so is responsible in law for the debt although did not commit the contravention..

 

Is there a thread on here about this ? On this account no on a different account/debtor yes

 

Could we see a copy of the final letter you mention, Just for clarification and to assist others who may want to follow your lead ? I do not upload 3rd party information without permission it would not be given in this case due to reasons not needed on a forum...

Also I find it hard to understand why the person was not just advised to send n OOT statement and thus avoid interaction with the bailiff at all an OOT appeal would have failed in this instance as is complicated by a 3rd party to RK .

As you can see this is complicated but I have answered as best as I can in this instance...

Sorry but the person who committed the offence is responsible for the fine MM.

I still do not understand what is meant by you and i still see no reason why a OOT was not the correct course of action.

You also mention that this was the EAs second visit, was the vulnerability not mentioned previously, surely it would have been apparent.

You also state about responding to the TCO about the bailiff actions, why would that be ? Aloo the TEC does not issue WOCs, that would be the authority, it go4es on and on.

DPA letter ?

"I do not uploadicon 3rd party information without permission it would not be given in this case due to reasons not needed on a forum..."

Odd that you can't upload this info, no matter if the details are redacted, yet you can discuss the same case in detail. Hmm.

Odd. If it smells of bull it probably is