So from now on, even if its a £100,000 Bentley purchased by the debtor and used daily by the debtor, but registered to his wife, it cant be siezed? I think not ba. We do NOT accept a v5c as proof of ownership and nowhere in the regulations does it state that it is.

Its an indicator of ownership, but not proof.

 

However, if what you are saying is correct, then a financed car registered to the debtor is fair game? As you say, the v5c is proof of ownership and therefore the finance company cant argue that?

The named person on the v5 is not always the person that owns the vehicle the DVLA state this. The Police also have their version as far as the '84 Act goes and it can be found here >> https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q743.htm

'A registration document (V5) is not proof of ownership. The registered keeper should be the person who is actually using / keeping the vehicle and this is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle or the person who is paying for it.'

I have on;y just seen this and find it very interesting so I hope you dont mind me offering my two penneth.

I have seen legislation which states that the vehicle is to be considered to belong to the person who s named on the V 5(unless proven otherwise), but the only ones I have seen are contained in the traffic enforcement regs. These wouldn't apply to enforcment and the debtors /third parties assertion to ownership in regards of taking control of goods, unless there is legislation somewhere which says it does.(not that there isn't any of course).

As far as i knew the situation regarding taking a vehicle was the same as taking any other goods under control.In that all evidence would be considered by the EA and if the debtor disagreed on the matter he could file a section 85 complaint. Is this not the case ?

The thread is going off topic and we are in danger of getting told off by the moderators as they do really do like discussions to take place on the proper section of the forum. I have written a number of times about this subject on the forum in the past and provided relevant legislation (some of which seems to copied elsewhere). That legislation has been updated and as mentioned, I will provide a copy of the article shortly.

The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not appropriate.

Had a visit from bailiff at 7am this morning, this years council tax!!2015-2016..

 

 

didn't let them in and don't intend to, car was outside but in my son's name...he asked for log book and insurance...(isn't log book enough proof?)...

.

Now he has seen those documents would it be illegal for him to attempt to clamp it?

Given that the visit was yesterday and that the enforcement agent has examined the documentation, I would think that he is satisfied that the car belongs to your son. He cannot make any enquiry with DVLA.

As the enforcement visit has taken place, a fee of £235 has been added to the account. The officer is aware that he is not going to be allowed to enter your home and given that the car is not yours, the company would now be much more inclined to accept a payment proposal.

....As the enforcement visit has taken place, a fee of £235 has been added to the account....

To which account has the £235 fee been added?

Sorry outalwla but i will have to sign off, just spat my tea all over the keybourd

To which account has the £235 fee been added?

Sorry outalwla but i will have to sign off, just spat my tea all over the keybourd

Obviously not the debtor's council tax account according to Birmingham City:

I take great care in making sure that I provide accurate information. Honestly, I am correct on this particular subject (and my information is based upon the Court of Appeal).I will pm some info to you over the weekend.

 

Using the scenario above (the £100k Bentley). In fact, the new regs do permit the car to be seized in some cases. The new clause allows for 'jointly owned' goods to be taken into control.

Ok thanks.

Obviously not the debtor's council tax account according to Birmingham City:

"

Enforcement agent fees are due to the enforcement agent and not to the council. They will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority

.

 

What an excellent response from Birmingham City Council !!!

Enforcement agent fees are due to the enforcement agent and not the council.

Absolutely right

They will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

And quite right so because the amount showing on the council tax account will be the amount that is due to the council (and this will not include enforcement agent fees).

They will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

 

And quite right so because the amount showing on the council tax account will be the amount that is due to the council (and this will not include enforcement agent fees).

Therefore, any money paid to the council in respect of the debtor's council tax account must be paid against that debt, otherwise the local authority is breaking the law.

Therefore, any money paid to the council in respect of the debtor's council tax account must be paid against that debt, otherwise the local authority is breaking the law.

Can I just please correct you on this point. It is only your own personal theory that councils would be breaking the law. As you well know, your own local authority refused to allocate your payments in the way that you instructed and another Liability Order has recently been issued against you and once again, you are warning the council about your theory on 'allocation' of payments. I suspect that they will once again ignore your instructions.

Spend some time like I do looking around on forums (in particular the various Facebook pages) and you will see the ever increasing cries for help from debtors who have either defied the clear instructions on the Notice of Enforcement (or more commonly) taken notice of poor information on website and tried to avoid bailiff fees by paying the court or the council direct. This may have worked in the early days of the new regulations but now.....it fails miserably. Most seriously though is that by the time that the enforcement company are aware of the 'direct payment' the Compliance stage would have ended and with it, the opportunity to make a payment proposal. In most cases, the account is passed to an individual enforcement officer and the statutory enforcement fee of £235 is aded to the account. Poor advice is costly debtors an absolute fortune.

Take the case of one particular forum. Debtors are advised that 'Parliament" has apparently never introduced a fee scale for the collection of unpaid court fines' and that debtors receiving a letter from Marston or Collectica should pay the court direct. Of course this is absolute nonsense. Every day (almost without fail) debtors post a question to advise that they too had taken the instructions (to avoid bailiff fees by paying the court direct) only to receive a letter from the court advising that their payment has been forward to Marston etc and that the 'Compliance fee' of £75 will be deducted by them and the balance apportioned in line with legislation. The response that these people are given is that they should complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (whether this is before or after the bailiff has forced again is not known!!!).

Can I just please correct you on this point. It is only your own personal theory that councils would be breaking the law. As you well know, your own local authority refused to allocate your payments in the way that you instructed and another Liability Order has recently been issued against you and once again, you are warning the council about your theory on 'allocation' of payments. I suspect that they will once again ignore your instructions....

Please get you facts right before posting utter **** like the above.

EDIT:

For a start, final column of Page 34

Please get you facts right before posting utter **** like the above.

 

EDIT:

 

For a start, final column of Page 34

Thank you for the above link. I have been receiving copies of the publication for many years and always enjoyed reading Paul Russell's legal pages (it is great to be reminded about an excellent of his concerning credit cards.

I have no intention of debating the centuries old case (1814) of Peters v Anderson with you and having read responses to your many FOI requests on the subject of 'allocation' of payments it is clear that most local authorities do not agree with the interpretation. Clearly it will be for a court to decide.

In my above post I stated that your own local authority did not agree with the 'allocation' clause in Peters v Anderson. You have said that I am wrong. Let me explain:

In making the above post I relied upon two posts made by you in the past couple of days: They are as follows:

and the following:

Once again this thread is going off topic and is not at all fair to the person that started this thread. I see that you are waiting to hear from North East Lincs Council as to whether or not they will abide by your instructions to allocate payments in the way that you wish. If they agree, could you please post back with an update.

Thank you for the above link. I have been receiving copies of the publication for many years and always enjoyed reading Paul Russell's legal pages (it is great to be reminded

about an excellent one of his concerning credit cards. I have no intention of debating the centuries old case (1814) of Peters v Anderson with you and having read many responses to your FOI request it is clear that most local authorities do not agree with the 'allocation' of payments interpretation. Clearly it will be for a court to decide.

 

In my above post I stated that your own local authority did not agree with the 'allocation' clause in Peters v Anderson. You have said that I am wrong. Let me explain:

 

In making the above post I relied upon two posts made by you in the past couple of days: They are as follows:

 

North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax due to

misallocating monies

to a sum that had arisen from a previous year's summons costs

and the following:

With it pretty much confirmed that NELC has Grimsby Magistrates' court on its side, the need to tread with more caution is obvious. Who knows to what devious depths it will sink in trying to obtain its fraudulently secured costs.

 

The email sent earlier should put a stop to any plans it might have of

misallocating money as it did last time.

.

Once again this thread is going off topic and is not at all fair to the person that started this thread.

Nothing has changed. You are still wrong. Please get your facts right before posting utter **** like the above.

It is all irrelevant in any case, because since April last year any common law mentioned here was replaced by the statute.

The total amount due is payable and owed to the EA until the enforcement power ceases, no matter who it is paid to. As said many many time and confirmed many more times by hapless debtors who have followed this nonsensical theory.

There will be no case law required here , although it may be required for the odd court to refer the debtor back to what it says in the legislation

In my above post I stated that your own local authority did not agree with the 'allocation' clause in Peters v Anderson. You have said that I am wrong. Let me explain:

Before you start making spurious statements, make sure you are fully aware of the facts. Suggested reading. Look at para 71 and start again.

Are you on NELC or Grimsby Magistrates court's payroll or something?

Before you start making spurious statements, make sure you are fully aware of the facts. Suggested reading. Look at para 71 and start again.

 

Are you on NELC or Grimsby Magistrates court's payroll or something?

Outlawla,

I have briefly read the very detailed witness statement from the council and notice that in paragraphs 67 and 68 reference is made by North East Lincolnshire Council to comments that were made by you on two other forums. Given the serious allegations that have been made by you against this local authority I think that it would not be right for me to comment any further.

All that I will say is that if this were my account...I would have just paid the £60.

As mentioned above, I will not be commenting any further.

Outlawla,

 

I have briefly read the very detailed witness statement from the council and notice that in paragraphs 67 and 68 reference is made by North East Lincolnshire Council to comments that were made by you on two other forums. Given the serious allegations that have been made by you against this local authority I think that it would not be right to comment any further.

 

All that I will say is that if this were my account...I would have just paid the £60.

 

As mentioned above, I will not be commenting any further.

If you are referring to my allegations of perjury (NELC) or for perverting the course of justice (Grimsby Magistrates' court), then neither are mentioned in the witness statement, so why change the subject?