Hi BA

If a car is used for Work as well as Private use,and under the value threshold,

would this be exempt ?

(work as in transporting tools of the trade and Materials)

If this is the case what proof, would be needed to prove this is the case?

Leakie

Sorry to butt in. But as I am sure BA will agree;

If your job is transporting tools then the vehicle would be exempt.

If your job is, say a plasterer and you are transporting your tools in order to perform this occupation, then the vehicle would not be exempt, there is a ton of case law on this very subject.

Thanks for the Reply Dodgeball

My Case

I am a plumber.

I could not carry all the tools I need, on public transport,

or materials for that mater

Not only that if I had to use Public transport I would not be able to get too a majority of my clients..

I can get larger items delivered but not all.

Leakie

There will be a list no doubt on BAs post which states that exemption does not mean more convenient or even cheaper, it means the ability to do the work.

So if it was a tool you actually used it would apply but not the means of transporting them, there are other options even though they may be financially restrictive.

This is not to say that the EA will take the car in this situation.

On instruction he and the creditor my decide that taking your vehicle was counter productive in that it would remove your ability to repay.

Thanks again DodgeBall

It would be in my case as it would not be viable due to cost to even try to work.

I have to carry a wide range of tools and materials. more than can be carried in one hit so to speak.

A job for 1hr £20.00 bus 5.50 return to the nearest town

then taxis to the job return, £12.60 this is just one example.

I am sure you would not work for this amount. £1.90 for 1hr

this would not cover travelling time.

It is not as if my clients are all in the same place, on a normal day,

I could travel 60 miles for 2-3 jobs but I am only able to work in between school hours,

As I am a single parent.

Leakie

I am not saying this is the situation i would like leaky just the way it is.

However most of the case law is before April 14 and it depends on the situation now to an extent. The fact of the matter is that it is upto the EA when he attends, no complaint can be raised during the taking of goods procedure, so if he is confident in his beliefs he can seize the vehicle,not withstanding any possible or imaginary consequences to him or his license he will.

So personally I would do everything in my powerwer to ensure the bailiff does not have the opportunity.

How many times have we seen posters elsewhere being advised that the EA cannot do this or cannot do that, only to be told guess what, they have.

Thanks again

I understand what you are saying

the trouble is the EA has to much power and if he/she does not keep to the law /rules there is no penalty,

So this causes the Ea to do what he/she wants with no come back,

if this is the case the Law is an ass. And the people who make these laws are just as bad.

it may sound like sour grapes, but this is not the case , Remedy is not affordable to most people as they are struggling in the first place.

I may not agree but that is life.

Thanks for your superior knowledge

Leakie

Posts in this thread have been removed from an Information / Stikky thread identified below.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456387-Bailiff-enforcement...Can-a-bailiff-take-my-car-....Is-my-car-exempt-...I-need-my-car-for-work-etc%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

Thanks for the Reply Dodgeball

 

My Case

I am a plumber. I could not carry all the tools I need, on public transport, or materials for that mater

Not only that if I had to use Public transport I would not be able to get too a majority of my clients..

I can get larger items delivered but not all.

 

Leakie

I note that you are also a single parent. As Dodgeball has already mentioned, it is far better to avoid goods being removed by entering into a payment arrangement during the Compliance stage when bailiff fees are capped at £75).

However, to answer your question, if the vehicle is below the 'threshold' (£1,350) and it is clear that the vehicle is used for your self employment then in almost all cases that I come across, commonsense will usually kick in and the enforcement agent will (reluctantly) accept a payment arrangement at the property.

If the vehicle is clamped (or worse still removed) then it really is a simple prodecure to send a 'Part 85 Claim' to the enforcement company. As long as the documentation is properly put together then in almost all cases that I have assisted with, the vehicle will be released very quickly.

Part 85 claims work very well indeed and in fact, at the beginning of last week I had my first ever rejected 'Part 85' claim (self employed builder with the debt being against his limited company.). The enforcement company argued that 'exemption' only applies to individuals and as the road traffic debts (sadly rather a lot of them) were against a Limited Company and the vehicle registered in the name of the debtors limited company that 'exemption' does not apply.

Ah that £1,350 threshold is way too low, a mobile Hairdresser could have more than that in kit with some scissors costing north of £200, a Chef easily £1,500 in knives etc.

Looks like a sole trader might be OK whilst the Ltd Co lopses out in some circumstances.

Incidentally some Sole Traders, and Couriers rent long term now, as it is easy to change vehicles at will and prices are getting competitive with Contract Lease (again where ownership remains with the Leasing Co.

Like to see Marstons v Hertz in a High Court argument over ownership, as even relying on that dodgy judgment, the beneficial interest surely cannot apply to pure rental.

Posts in this thread have been removed from an Information / Stikky thread identified below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456387-Bailiff-enforcement...Can-a-bailiff-take-my-car-....Is-my-car-exempt-...I-need-my-car-for-work-etc%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

I notice that many other stickies need closing as well.

Ah that £1,350 threshold is way too low, a mobile Hairdresser could have more than that in kit with some scissors costing north of £200, a Chef easily £1,500 in knives etc.

 

Looks like a sole trader might be OK whilst the Ltd Co lopses out in some circumstances.

 

Incidentally some Sole Traders, and Couriers rent long term now, as it is easy to change vehicles at will and prices are getting competitive with Contract Lease (again where ownership remains with the Leasing Co.

 

Like to see Marstons v Hertz in a High Court argument over ownership, as even relying on that dodgy judgment, the beneficial interest surely cannot apply to pure rental.

I absolutely agree that the £1,350 is far too low but we must not lose sight of the fact that prior to the regulations coming into effect in April 2014, there had been no limit at all.

Whilst this figure is low it does however broadly mirror the limit imposed by the Insolvency Service in cases where a debtor is subject of a bankruptcy petition.

On a personal basis, the figure has been a 'lifeline' as it has been of assistance since 2014 in getting Part 85 Claims accepted for low income families and self employed debtors. It has also been of assistance to students (usually with road traffic debts) who tend to have low value vehicles.

In regard to the OP here, the goods are under the limit, the problem is to ascertain if the car even qualifies for tools of the trade exemption.

The question posed was can a bailiff take my car, in other words can the bailiff legally take my car.

Yes he can because the rules regarding defining tools for trade are so restrictively narrow.

The case law is all before 2014 regarding this and there is little or no detailed information within the TCE. So it is another case of developing law.

Bailiffs are very wary of cases being found against their intersts , which is another reason why section 85 claims are settled quickly.

Whether he decides to take a vehicle or not is dependant on a number of factors. Firstly, can he legally do so. Then, is it worth him doing so,

Whist It is clear that a car of such a low value would not represent much of a dent in the amount outstanding under a power, fees charges etc being what they are.

It is also true that an EA will often take a car under control just to get the debtors attention.

Thanks for all of the input,

It goes to show that TCE has made it a bit clearer,

but still has a lot of grey areas,

I appreciate What you say about early intervention as to save costs,

It is very easy to say if you are not in this position,

But when you are in this position it is not always at the top of your list.

as there may be other creditor putting pressure on as well.

and putting food on the table,keeping the children warm and keeping a roof over your head takes priority.

With regards to my car it is not obvious it is used for work.,on site, only the tools in the boot.

the only thing that I can do to prove it is for work is show a copy of the insurance work and social use.

But the good point that Dodgeball made, the EA would probably clamp the car to put on the pressure.

The trouble is it would only work if you are a won't pay, and not a can't pay.

The EA knows this and also knows that there will be no come back on himself by doing this.

If there was a come back for the EA then thing may change.

Leakie

I think the important thing to remember is that whatever position you are in or why you may need the car, that really isn't their problem. We need to get out of the way of thinking that it's going to make a difference if it causes us a problem, because as far as the bailiff is concerned it IS your problem - they're not interested, they are simply there to do a job and will do what they can to complete that job.

I'm not taking sides, believe me I know how tough it is but you have to realise that the whole point of the regulations is to try to get people to pay. The reason for the £1350 limit is that it is not considered fair that a debtor has an expensive car at his disposal that nobody can touch, while the creditor is out of pocket.

I think the important thing to remember is that whatever position you are in or why you may need the car, that really isn't their problem. We need to get out of the way of thinking that it's going to make a difference if it causes us a problem, because as far as the bailiff is concerned it IS your problem - they're not interested, they are simply there to do a job and will do what they can to complete that job.

 

I'm not taking sides, believe me I know how tough it is but you have to realise that the whole point of the regulations is to try to get people to pay. The reason for the £1350 limit is that it is not considered fair that a debtor has an expensive car at his disposal that nobody can touch, while the creditor is out of pocket.

on the flip side a plumber would be pushed onto the dole without a vehicle, if Self Employed not entitled to benefit, in all probability so kids in care and plumber on streets with extra fees to pay from no income with the Storage fees etc.

Ea loses out as can't make payment arrangement, no income to debtor, the taxpayer loses for the cost of keeping a child in care is probably higher than keeping someone in prison. Lose Lose. You cannot get blood from a stone.