Thanks Ploddertom, will see to that immediately.

If a stay is granted will they have to return the car?

Also I have received no 7 day notice of auctioning the car or anything

I included some things I guess you hadn't had so far but was working on the principle they should be letting you know.

If a Stay is granted then at the very least it will halt all further enforcement and/or fees.

If granted then depending on the terms granted you could ask for it to be returned,

the answer is sometimes yes or sometimes no.

One of the reasons for having done this as we have done so far is to keep your powder dry without revealing too much as the Enforcement Co's do read these threads on a regular basis.

The way forward now is to fill the N244 out making sure it is done properly.

My suggestion is that depending on where you are then take it in person to the High Court in London or to a County Court that also acts a District Registry of the High Court and ask the matter is treated urgently because of the actions of the Enforcement Agents.

A Judge may be found to hear your Application on the spot and hopefully grant it, it may just be an Interim pending a further full hearing.

You will need to pay the Court Fee - £255 - or submit an application for Fee Remission at the time of lodging the application

. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Thanks PlodderTom I understand, I have also sought legal council who have noticed some mistakes but will not post what they are.

Thanks for all your help.

Just make your Counsel is well versed in this type of thing as many are not.

Just make your Counsel is well versed in this type of thing as many are not.

Of course, He specifically deals in HCEO and bailiffs, but this will be after this is done first and if necessary.

Of course, He specifically deals in HCEO and bailiffs, but this will be after this is done first and if necessary.

There are very few legal cases regarding bailiff enforcement reaching courts and much less that go in favour of the debtor. If you are to use Counsel just make sure that he works for a reputable firm. You also need to take on board that 'exemption' would not apply in your case as 'exception' only applies for individuals and sole traders and NOT companies.

Secondly, you cannot avoid the fact that you transferred assets when the goods were 'bound' under the warrant and secondly, your sold that asset at an undervalue.

massive great big loop back to post 2 here...

massive great big loop back to post 2 here...

Oh no no I appreciate that and this is not part of it I do not mean that at all as one of them.

There was around 3 rules broken that's all I can say which went against the rules. We are currently preparing a case in regards to this.

It is a reputable company in dealing with issues like this.

Hi PT one form is called a Notice after entry or taking control of goods says date ref etc.. on the second sheet they have filled out its a car, the manufacturer, the model , reg and colour

 

On the second lot of paperwork Called the Notice Goods Have Been Removed For Sale or Storage, the same details on the second sheet but where it says how to collect your goods they have left the storage location etc.. blank.

The reason for this is quite simple. It is to prevent debtors visiting the pound and attempting to remove their vehicle. There is also the common scenario of debtors being abusive to security staff. To my knowledge, almost all enforcement companies only reveal the name and address of the pound once payment is made.

The omission of the location of the storage pound would not be a ground for disputing the validity of the notice.

 

It is a reputable company in dealing with issues like this.

As long as it is a proper Solicitors practice that is all right. I am just curious as to why you would be wanting to pay Counsel fees (which can be astronomical) to dispute the removal of a vehicle that you yourself have valued at just....£450?

As long as it is a proper Solicitors practice that is all right. I am just curious as to why you would be wanting to pay Counsel fees (which can be astronomical) to dispute the removal of a vehicle that you yourself have valued at just....£450?

It is the principle involved and the way the Enforcement officer brought my wife to tears telling her she will be sued etc

.. It is her dad that will be paying for this as being a father myself no one likes to see their daughter brought to tears.

In addition to this although the car was a Cat C in the past it still presented ok to see suppliers and customers.

Quite honestly though her father paid for a consultation and the Solicitor noticed no less than 3 instances where the proper procedure have not taken place.

It was not as if I said go **** yourselves or anything to the

I was polite and even offered a sum we could afford with a lump sum payment

In regards to the debt I cannot speak publicly in regards to this but it is not a case of you can afford a solicitor why not pay your debt as this is in hand as I know some might see it as this but this is not the case.

Sometimes its just not about the item but the way things are handled and what is worse is it is all over a payment a couple of days late even though I paid every month previous for over a year.

It is the principle involved and the way the Enforcement officer brought my wife to tears telling her she will be sued etc

.. It is her dad that will be paying for this as being a father myself no one likes to see their daughter brought to tears.

 

In addition to this although the car was a Cat C in the past it still presented ok to see suppliers and customers.

Quite honestly though her father paid for a consultation and the Solicitor noticed no less than 3 instances where the proper procedure have not taken place.

There are almost 6 million debts passed to bailiffs each year and I can assure you that many visits result in a debtor or partner being in tears. That is not a good reason to head to the courts. I appreciate what you have said about the car being used to visit suppliers but that does not change the fact that you have placed a value yourself on the car of just £450.

It sounds to me (and I do hope that I am wrong), that your father in law may have paid a 'telephone consultation' fee of £35 to somebody who he located on the internet who advertises his services as that of a 'Paralegal'.....'working with solicitors'. If so, please be assured that this 'Paralegal', is NOT a solicitor. Furthermore, no reputable solicitor would allow anybody else to 'draft proceedings' for them. It would not be permitted under the solicitors indemnity insurance.

If you are tempted to use the services of a 'Paralegal', ask for EVIDENCE of any previous court successes.

Not a para legal, we visited them with an appointment he is a solicitor.

Regardless of the amount of the car there have been mistakes made and the proper procedure not followed and if won will hopefully help future people in my situation and making sure everything is done properly.

Again though I clarify he is a solicitor and not a paralegal

Have you notified CES there is a prior Writ to theirs in existence. If not then you should do so ASAP - you will need to give them details.

Have you notified CES there is a prior Writ to theirs in existence. If not then you should do so ASAP - you will need to give them details.

Hi Ploddertom I did via email, with no responses as of yet

Have you notified CES there is a prior Writ to theirs in existence. If not then you should do so ASAP - you will need to give them details.

Another writ, even a prior writ, will have no bearing UNLESS the car had been taken control of on that prior writ.

It is the principle involved and the way the Enforcement officer brought my wife to tears telling her she will be sued etc

.. It is her dad that will be paying for this as being a father myself no one likes to see their daughter brought to tears.

 

In addition to this although the car was a Cat C in the past it still presented ok to see suppliers and customers.

Quite honestly though her father paid for a consultation and the Solicitor noticed no less than 3 instances where the proper procedure have not taken place.

 

It was not as if I said go **** yourselves or anything to the

I was polite and even offered a sum we could afford with a lump sum payment

 

In regards to the debt I cannot speak publicly in regards to this but it is not a case of you can afford a solicitor why not pay your debt as this is in hand as I know some might see it as this but this is not the case.

 

Sometimes its just not about the item but the way things are handled and what is worse is it is all over a payment a couple of days late even though I paid every month previous for over a year.

Just be careful. I see solicitors take on these cases all the time only to lose time and time again.

The sticker on the car is not necessary if you were there during clamping and a siezure notice was handed over. A court has already heard one of those and the court sided that the requirement was just to inform the keeper/owner that car was clamped.

Regarding your wife crying, i sympathise with you but enforcement is a harsh thing at times and will upset people. EA's are blunt. We are not there to be a friend or a shoulder to lean on, we are there to remove assets if you dont pay. Thats it.

Regarding car value, the EA will do a HPI check and that will give him a value. He will work off that and reduce it accordingly for auction purposes. He will NOT listen to your value of the item and is not required to listen to it.

You have advused that the vehicle is used by you in the course of your employment at a limited company for seeing clients. That is not a tools of the trade claim. A builders van or his tools would be tools of the trade.

A pc for a website designer would be a tool of the trade.

You can get public transport to see clients so that wont stand up to scrutiny.

If anything is missing from the car, report it as stolen. Taking it to court without any evidence isnt going to go anywhere.

If the EA has a copy of a form 2 and a copy of a form 4 for the removal and its correctly filled in, then i cant see fault there. The EA would have added full fees at the removal.

The EA wouldnt be at fault even the car was worth 400. He can remove an item over the value of a removal cost. It doesnt have to clear the full balance or even a significant portion.

Im sorry, but unless there is something major that you have not told us, you could be opening yourself up to huge legal costs and a substantial solicitos bill.

I have seen claims like this take houses from people due to debt built up fighting them.

Im not saying dont do it, im just saying be very careful.

Oh and if the solicitor claims the writ expired after 12 months, it didnt. It would have renewed for a further 12 months from the date of default on the file, even if you subsequently brought it up to date.

Thanks for this, in regards to the form it was not handed over until they left this is including the taking control of goods, they did not also fill out the when to make payment section either which it states in the taking control of goods act this has to be done.

I am not saying I would be taking them to court over my wife crying this was just a mere statement that displeased me.

The item is to be reported stolen tomorrow as it is not written down on any sheets given.

They posted both the taking control of goods and the remove for sale at the same time as they left.

I know they were there to do a job I get that part but over a 3 day late £20 payment and even though I offered a lump sum of all I could afford they were just plain rude.

Even if the court goes in their favour they will not gain access so not get another penny apart from the pittance they will get for the car where had they just accepted the lump sum and payments thereafter they would have got their money. Not only this but they was speaking about what was owed in front of a neighbour which was recorded on Video and did not provide me any documents or ID when requested Again on video.

I did not value the car to them just merely informed them that it was a previous Cat C and maybe the value may not be what they think hence why I made an offer to pay.

Just be careful. I see solicitors take on these cases all the time only to lose time and time again.

 

I'm sorry, but unless there is something major that you have not told us, you could be opening yourself up to huge legal costs and a substantial solicitos bill.

 

I have seen claims like this take houses from people due to debt built up fighting them. I'm not saying dont do it, im just saying be very careful.

 

Oh and if the solicitor claims the writ expired after 12 months, it didnt. It would have renewed for a further 12 months from the date of default on the file, even if you subsequently brought it up to date.

Just to re-iterate, a writ is valid for 12 month (and can be extended). If a payment arrangement is set up, the 12 month period will run from the date of the default and not from the date of the writ.

As I have said before, very few if any legal cases initiated by debtors succeed in court. If an enforcement company receive a legal claim, then will not roll over and settle your claim. Their will ensure that they defend any claim and this is understandable as they have a contract with a local authority client to protect. In all cases, the enforcement company will instruct solicitors and they are far more experienced in the enforcement law than any solicitor that you would find.

As the Taking Control of Goods Regulations have only been in place since 2014, there will continue to be a need for courts to interpret legislation and in that respect, there have only been a handful of cases coming before thee courts. On such case of importance is the following (Mr Aderemi Bola v London Borough of Harrow and Newly Plc).

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.(32-Viewing)-nbsp

The interest from the public in the 'Bola' case has been such that the thread and the additional 'discussion' thread that I started have been viewed over 53,000 times. To clarify, after I had publicised the case. Mr Bola initiated a number of applications to 'appeal' the decision. His lost his appeal applications. The significant cost order against him stands.

 

Regardless of the amount of the car there have been mistakes made and the proper procedure not followed and if won will hopefully help future people in my situation and making sure everything is done properly.

A decision from a lower court will not be of much help to the public. The Bola v Harrow and Newlyn case was very different indeed as it dealt with the vitally important subject of whether or not a debtor can avoid paying bailiff fees by paying the local authority (or court) direct and in that respect, all enforcement companies rely upon this judgement and having read the very lengthly transcript (of over 100 pages), it is plainly a significant judgment.

If you really wanted to complain then I would urge you (and anybody else in the same position) to get in touch with your local MP to complain at the way in which debts of just £600 can be allowed to be transferred up to the High Court for enforcement and in doing so, allow fees of over £1,000 to be added to the debt. Why in heavens name electricity companies use this method of enforcement is beyond me.

In 2012, I provided a very detailed response (almost 50 pages) to the government under their Consultation on Bailiff Reform. In my response (a copy of which is somewhere on the internet), I argued that the limit of £600 should be increased to a sum of around £5,000. I was also very critical of the need for High Court enforcement to have Stage One and Stage Two fees. I have just completed a Discussion Paper on this very subject.

Thanks for the information, although an interesting read I do not think it applies to my case. In addition I am not disputing fees but certainly.

MP has also been made aware of the situation.

Thanks for taking the time to reply