Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2220 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest alreadyexists

I don't know about DB correcting you but please allow me to correct you:

 

I did not say that repealing Reg 45A was an unintended consequence. It could not have possibly remained in it's previous format. I have actually stated this several times.

 

What I said was an unintended consequence was the fact that also included in reg 45A was a requirement to contact the debtor to notify them that a LO had been obtained. I'm sure that even you would agree that it cannot possibly have been intended to have a situation in statute whereby a council can obtain a LO and then pass the debt straight onto bailiffs to do all the dirty work because the council can't be bothered with the paperwork?

 

It makes no difference to me as anyone who is being advised by me will simply get enforcement taken back, if no prior contact has been made by the council. The problem arises because the vast majority of people do not know their rights to complain if guidance is not followed and others who obtain the appalling advice that they can't do anything because the council were not "legally obliged" to give notice. Anyone who tells a debtor that there is nothing they can do because the council were not "legally obliged" to notify the debtor, quite frankly should not be advising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest alreadyexists

Have you still got the paperwork and inventory, listing the key? It is very unusual for a bailiff to take a key without a vehicle because it is worthless on its own.

 

Was the key the only item taken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Personally, I would contact the fines manager at the magistrates court and explain what has taken place.

 

State that you have complained to Marston and that you are not satisfied with their response. State that the bailiff had no right to take a solitary key as it was worthless. Include evidence that the key was taken and that you have tried to complain to Marston

 

As creditor, the court are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agents. Ask that the court instruct Marston to return the key or pay for the cost of obtaining a replacement.

 

Hopefully, you will get somewhere and not have the need to go to court. Obviously if you are still not satisfied after complaining directly to the court, you are still free to issue proceedings. I would get three quotes though. £500 does seem steep as others have alluded to. It could well be that Marston would settle this rather than fight it. On the face of it, you seem to have a good claim and it would cost a lot more to fight it than it would pay you the cost of a replacement key.

 

Remember, your argument is twofold, firstly the key should not have been taken in the first place and secondly the key seems to have been lost whilst in Marston's control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Brassnecked is correct.

 

If the partner was not living with the OP at the time, then the OP is NOT liable for the debt. However, if the car (or goods inside the home) is jointly owned, then the bailiff may still take control of it. If the motorbike is owned by the OP then it is exempt from enforcement.

 

Given that the accommodation appears to have been a temporary refuge, I would say that it is unlikely that there would be joint liability. Therefore, the debt will be solely in the partners name. It is also probable that no forwarding address will have been left with TBC.

 

The only issue appears to be the £235 enforcement fee. The fact that there are two letters suggest that an enforcement visit may have taken place.

 

If the OP still has the NoE, I would be interested to know the date of the NoE and the date that B&S demanded payment (this is usually preceded by " 23.59 hours on..."

 

B&S have, in the past failed to give 7 clear days notice on their NoEs and subsequently 14 days notice as per the advice of CIVEA. This MIGHT be a reason to dispute the £235 fee if it has been charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

It is extremely unlikely that the OP will be able to claim a refund because they were "not the debtor"

 

Bailiffs are trained to ensure that they stress to third parties that any payment they make is voluntary.

 

Thus negating the ability to subsequently claim that they were coerced, hoodwinked, etc.

 

It is frustrating because often, third parties are under intense pressure as their own goods are under threat.

 

However, the bailiff is supported by legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how it could be deemed fraud.

 

A bailiff may take control of goods that he reasonably believes to be those of the debtor. If they are subsequently proven to be owned by a third party by way of a Part 85 claim, they will be made available for collection by the third party.

 

If (as in this case) a third party wants to pay the bailiff in order to prevent goods being removed then it cannot be claimed that the bailiff has fraudulently taken the money as he will have made it clear that the payment was made voluntarily.

 

There are abuses that regularly take place but it would be difficult to convince anyone on the balance of probability. It would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what would be required for a conviction of fraud to happen.

 

This is one thing that we cannot prevent so we just have to accept that it happens and concentrate on actions that we can provent or challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
Alternatively, we could simply ensure our fines are paid before letting it get to this stage...

 

It's amazing how the ostrich is never to blame for it's own misfortune.

 

I don't think that anyone has claimed the ostrich is not to blame.

 

However, I don't think it is too much to expect the bailiff to enforce in accordance with legislation. After all that is why it's in place and it's in place for a reason.

 

Part of the reason why the enforcement industry has such a bad reputation is because it's members have in the past decided that adhering to legislation is optional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
That does not seem to be the case here as the bailiff seems to have threaten to take goods before establishing whether they had the correct debtor. They then made the OP pay a sum of money when they knew that the OP was not the debtor. To me that is fraud.

The OP chose to make payment in order to prevent the son's goods being taken as most parents would have done in that situation. Nobody "made " the OP pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

If you have 3 separate charging orders, this must have been a frequent issue and the council will almost certainly have attempted using bailiffs and trying to make an attachment of earnings order, prior to reaching this crisis point. It will also be the case that once the charging order has been obtained, you will have had opportunities to address the debt by way of paying in installments. The council's argument is likely to be that they have attempted all of these options and none have been successful, hence the application for a sale. What were the dates of the 3 charging orders and what previous attempts had been made to repay the debt?

 

LFI has made some valid points, most importantly, the fact that you will be liable for hefty costs involved in the application. Further to that advice, is it possible for you to take a loan out for £5k or even re-mortgage? Can you get access to any amount of money that could bring the debt down to about £4k?

 

Given the severity of your situation, I would urge you to consider seeking advice from the CAB as it costs you nothing.

 

As LFI aslo correctly stated, it is unlikely that a council would succeed in forcing the sale of a £285k house for a debt of just £5k, if a reasonable repayment offer is in place, even less likely given young children are housed there.

 

I would also consider writing to the council , heading the communication: "Formal Complaint - Stage 1" I would then state that you consider that the council are acting disproportionately and unreasonably by pursuing this course of action. especially given that 3 young children are housed in the property concerned. Remind the council that it is extremely unlikely that a court would want to make a family homeless in these circumstances, especially as you have offered to repay the debt at £100 per month and from (insert date) you can increase payments to (insert amount) per month.

 

Ask that due to the unreasonableness of the council's action, the disproportionate action given an amount of just £5k is owed and the fact that an offer has been made to repay, the council instruct their solicitors to place action on hold. As the council will be aware that a court would be extremely reluctant to force a sale of the house given your offer to repay in installments, the action seems futile and will only succeed in placing a debt that is already proving difficult to repay, even further away from settling. Should the council continue with their action despite this complaint, you will produce this letter to the court on every occasion that costs fall to be discussed.

 

You can send the complaint preferably by email or alternatively by post. Head the email URGENT complaint re Proceedings to Force sale of House. Given the severity, I would send the email to the CEO of the council and also the recovery manager (you may need to find the email addresses)

 

Do not hang about with this. Get to the CAB, asap. Ask about the possibility of obtaining legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

County Court bailiffs are traditionally slow and not very effective. Hence the reason why so many people transfer up to HCEOs.

 

I doubt you will get your fee back but you can certainly transfer up (provided that you are owed more than £600)

 

Talk to HCE and let them tell you what you need to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
Thank you everyone. I find it bizarre that people would take time out of their day to knowingly give wrong advice on here. Takes all sorts I suppose

 

Nobody knowingly gives wrong advice. However, some people are mistaken in their opinions.

 

A bailiff cannot have a second bite of the cherry. Once he has listed goods on a CGA, he cannot come back in and take control of more UNLESS he has reasonable belief that the debtor has taken more goods onto the premises. The legislation is Regulation 24(2) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013:

 

(2) The enforcement agent may enter the premises on a second or subsequent occasion only—

 

(a)if the enforcement agent has reason to believe that, since the occasion of the enforcement agent’s last entry, there have been brought on to the premises further goods of the debtor of which control has not yet been, but may be, taken; or

(b)where the enforcement agent was prohibited from taking control of particular goods at the time of the original entry by virtue of regulation 10(2) (control not to be taken of goods if those goods are in use and the enforcement agent considers that a breach of the peace would be likely if an attempt were made to take control of them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

I personally don't think that having a charge over your house is a good idea - Especially if the council add the costs of obtaining it to your debt.

 

As the controlled goods do not meet the councils own criteria, in terms of value proportionate ti the debt, the correct thing to have done was for the bailiff to have returned your account back to the council. However, this would mean that all bailiff fees would have been removed.

 

How long were you making payments before you defaulted?

How much were you repaying monthly?

How many different years tax are being collected?

 

The bailiff wants to make another visit to your home because he can add another £110 in fees. It is important that you stop this from happening. I would phone B&S up asap (they man their phone lines today). You will probably only get a girl on the end of the line who is there to take payments but she should be able to update your case notes/file. Tell her that the goods controlled are less than 30% of the debt. Therefore, B&S appear to be in breach of the council's code of conduct. You have emailed the council and ask that a note of this can be added to your file in order to prevent a further visit until the council have investigated.

 

I would personally try to get hold of the head of revenues on Monday and try to discus your options. Although the case is with B&S, the council can still instruct B&S to set the repayment plan back up. Alternatively, if you are in employment, the council could consider an attachment of earnings. Even if the goods were to be sold, the majority of the debt would remain unpaid so there still needs to be a long term solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

I note that the sale fee has already been applied. If the account is returned back to the council then it will be erased. However, if the account is not returned to the council and your repayment plan is set up again with B&S, then you need to challenge this.

 

Am I correct in thinking that you contacted B&S over the telephone regarding the second LO? They then asked for 2 x £1500 payments which you did not make (and also failed to make your monthly £200 payment)?

 

How many times has a bailiff visited your home in total?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

He could well have overcharged you in any case. He appears to have charged for 3 visits when only two have taken place.

 

You could well have alerted us to a little [problem] that B&S could be undertaking by delivering the notice by hand in order to add a further £110 to the account.

 

I'm not convinced that the council will take this account back as B&S have done quite a fair bit of work that will go unpaid. Be prepared for the council to accept your proposal to pay off the debt out of proceeds of the house sale but them stating that you must do so through B&S. If the council subsequently agree to take the account back, it will be a bonus.

 

If I were you, I would put in a complaint to the head of revenues regarding the overcharging carried out by B&S.

 

You were rightly charged £235 on the first visit.

However, the visit on Tuesday need not have taken place.

The notice could quite easily have been sent through the post, like all other notices were.

Therefore, the two fees charged on Tuesday need to be removed from your account.

 

 

It is simply an abuse of the enforcement power to charge £386 for hand delivering a notice that could have been given to you for the cost of a postage stamp. A bailiff may only charge an enforcement fee if he visits your property for the purpose of enforcing.

 

 

Clearly, the bailiff did not visit with that intention, his intention was to hand you a notice.

Likewise the sale fee, which could not have been charged in any case as it was not possible on Tuesday to have visited you property for the purpose of transporting goods to a place of sale, as is prescribed in legislation.

As such, you ask for the two fees to be removed from your account.

 

 

Ask that enforcement is suspended whilst your complaint is being considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

It is a minefield.

B&S will kick and scream that the second enforcement fee should stand and will probably offer to remove the sale fee to appease you.

 

 

I would argue strongly that the second enforcement fee should also be removed.

It was very naughty of the bailiff to have acted as he did on Tuesday in order to maximise his commission at your expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

As he has already added the sale fee, he has no financial incentive to return. He doesn't want to remove your goods either.

 

However, the situation is currently in limbo so somehow, you will need to reach some form of agreement with him regarding paying.

 

If you send the complaint into the council, be sure to ask that enforcement is placed on hold whilst the complaint is investigated. You could then text the bailiff, informing him that a complaint has been issued and that you ask that he doesn't return until the complaint is closed. He will probably text back to tell you that only the council can call him off but whether he actually returns is debatable.

 

Hopefully, the council will intervene and some kind of sensible arrangement is put in place without the need to barter with the bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

I think that the campaign needs reviewing as it won't possibly gather any momentum in its present format.

 

The reform that took place in 2014 took 15 years to come to fruition. There is no way that we can expect another reform any time soon. Some of the things listed on the ND campaign page have been addressed. The argument of an independent regulator has been done to death. Fees have also become transparent (although as we have seen as recently as yesterday, they are not ring fenced from abuse).

 

A free, clear and simple way to make a complaint is an excellent idea and this is desperately needed. Currently, the only option available is a complaint about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate which should really only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Many people do not realise this though and think that they are issuing a complaint in the same way as you would about the police to the IPCC. People aren't ware that they expose themselves to the risk of a hefty costs order if the complaint fails.

 

Earlier in the year, John Kruse sought input from various parties on how the new regulations may be tweaked. Hopefully, some of these suggestions will have an impact at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
An excellent thread UB.

 

There have been a few meetings since this campaign was introduced and at the last one, I commented that I had thorughly read through each of the comments made by members of the public and that far from being 'complaints', the vast majority of comments had arisen because of misinformation being given to the public regarding the rights of bailiffs and the fee structure (and much more). One example being internet advice informing debtors to avoid paying bailiff fees by paying the local authority direct.

 

Will there be an independent regulator for the bailiff industry?

 

This is a subject that in fact led to Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 failing to be implemented until April 2014. The current position, is that a few weeks ago a formal letter was sent to the Minister requesting that he revisit this subject. That letter has been endorsed by enforcement companies and representatives of the 'advice sector'. I provided an endorsement on behalf of my business.

 

I hope to be in a position to provide an update on the regulations by the middle of the week.

 

I think it's a tad unrealistic to suggest that it took seven years to determine whether an independent regulator should be engaged or not. It is also worth noting that the four relevant SIs were not introduced until 2013 and 2014 which suggests (to me anyway) that they were rushed through.

 

Regarding misinformation over bailiffs rights, my experience has been that debtors visit online forums AFTER they have taken it upon themselves to pay the creditor directly. Had they visited the forum prior to making payment, the advice would almost certainly have been to sit it out. There will always be misinformation on the internet. Up until recently on here, debtors were being told that a bailiff could apply to a court to force entry if the debtor lived in a big detached house. Furthermore, debtors were being led into the false sense of security that a bailiff needed to re-apply to the court to force entry to residential premises for a business debt. Finally, innocent third parties were being told that their goods were at risk because they were in a relationship with the debtor.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that anyone is concerned with misinformation on the internet as this will always be a problem. The focus is (quite rightly) on influencing subjects that there is an ability to control and do something about.

 

As has been stated, the regulations are working to a satisfactory degree of success. There will be no reform. However, there are some aspects of the new regime that could be improved. As I stated previously, a free and clear way to make a complaint could be considered. Of course, I accept that many debtors are feeling aggrieved and will have a desire to make vexatious complaints which will be time wasting, so there is also a need to consider the cost of offering such a facility and budgeting for a percentage of futile and vexatious complaints. We know that from the forums that many people want to complain about actions carried out by a bailiff that were perfectly acceptable. In the absence of a structured complaints procedure, there certainly needs to be clearer information regarding complaints about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate. Complainants need to be made aware that by going down this road, they are entering a legal process that could result in a costs order being made if the complaint fails. Many people are still starting this procedure, firstly not knowing that it is not a normal complaint procedure but a procedure for the 0.5% of the most serious cases and secondly that there is a great danger of costs being awarded against the complainant. It is very unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

You stated that the subject of a regulator was the reason why the 2007 act had failed to be implemented until 2014 (7 years). So what did you mean?

 

There have been several comments from various people regarding concerns over regulations being rushed through so you will forgive me for accepting their word over yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
Interesting comment about forced entry to a private residential address regarding a business debt. I did not think forced entry was possible to a private address regarding a business debt, unless EA's had reasonable evidence that business assets were held at the address. Simply having a correspondence address linked to a private address would not be enough.

 

It's a problem for small businesses rather than large ones where the directors home is entirely separate to a trading address. The one man band type of business will likely trade from home and this is where forced entry may ocurr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
Not sure we want to get into a debate about bailiff advice type sites. I would regulate them as well, if they charge any fees.

 

Well said. It gets rather boring after the 555th time that BA refers to a"particular website "

 

She may wish to revisit her own site first. A complaint to court should never be "a last resort " that is lunacy.

 

If a complaint would is serious enough then it should be a first resort. In all other cases, it should not be a resort at all and most certainly shouldn't be a last resort. How reckless can you get?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

We are of course referring to complaining about bailiffs here, which pursuant to CPR should be done through the court and certainly no serious advisor would suggest that one should be undertaken as a last resort. That is just madness.

 

I think that a big problem in the past has been that many litigants do not have any assets, which makes enforcing costs orders extremely difficult. It may well be because of this past experience that bailiff companies fought hard for deposits to be placed down in P85 claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

The Citizens Advice information is misleading and I say that as someone who worked passionately as an adviser at Citizens Advice until fairly recently. It highlights my point and the concerns that I have raised.

 

People are confused into thinking that a complaint to court is the same as any other complaint (I used the example of a complaint to the IPCC yesterday)

 

A complaint to the court is a Complaint as to fitness to hold a certificate It is not a complaint that will end with the bailiff getting a slap on the wrist or being ordered to go and stand in the corner with a dunces cap on for an hour.

 

A complaint about fitness to hold a certificate is an entirely different kettle of fish to a complaint to his employer or the creditor about procedural errors. For example, if a bailiff were to divulge a debtors personal data and information about his/her case to a third party, then a complaint to the employer or creditor would be a suitable course of action. You certainly wouldn't then go to court "as a last resort" if your complaint got nowhere with the creditor or agency.

 

I have had the misfortune of seeing the aftermath of people who have failed in complaints to court. At no time did any of them realise that they were entering into a legal process and exposing themselves to a potential costs order. All said that they would not have gone down that road had they been fully aware of the consequences. Why anyone would want to risk this course of action when the reward is so minimal is beyond me. It should further be noted that to deprive a man or a woman of the ability to earn a living by taking his/her certificate away, is a very big step to make and it would not be made lightly. In my experience I am only aware of one case where a certificate was revoked and even then, it was only done so on a temporary basis.

 

I personally do not recommend a complaint to court in any circumstance, especially not as a last resort. The complainant has nothing to gain by doing so and a lot to lose.

 

There is mass confusion regarding complaining about bailiffs and even Citizens Advice have it wrong. I believe that the word "complaint" should be removed from the title and it should be renamed "Application to determine fitness to hold a certificate" or words to that effect. Using the word "complaint is misleading and is often wasting a lot of court time on top of the costs orders that people are being hit with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
There is certainly confusion and I would say that your posts on this thread today are just that !!!

 

Your above post in seriously at odds with your earlier comment from this morning:

 

If a complaint is serious enough then of course it should be a first resort. If you want to complain about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate then you complain to the one authority that has the ability to revoke it - I thought even you would have known that. You are still having trouble identifying the difference between a complaint about a bailiff and a request to withdraw his certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2220 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...