Marc Gander - The Consumer Survival Handbook


A 220 page introduction to all things consumer related by our own BankFodder.

Includes energy companies, mobile phone providers, retailers, banks, insurance companies,debt collection agencies, reclaim companies, secondhand car sellers, cowboy garages, cowboy builders and all the rest who put their own profits before you.

£6.99



Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Jun 2018

    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgeball View Post
    So you are saying two married people living in the same property do not have a joint interest in their goods(furniture tv etc).

    Yes. Because two people are married and living together does not mean they have a beneficial interest in the goods the other person owns.



    As an example, a married couple exist, and they both own cars. They each saved for a car from their own wages, and paid for the car from their own bank account which is in the sole name of the car owner.



    The car belongs to the person who bought the car, it is not jointly owned.


    The husband has a credit card debt in his sole name and a CCJ, the bailiffs visit. There is no joint and several liability for the debt. The bailiff's clamp the wife's car. She proves she bought the car using a bank account in her sole name in to which her wages are paid, shows the receipt for the car and the bank statement, all in her name.



    Are you saying that the bailiffs can legally seize the car and auction it off to pay the husband's debt because he has a 'beneficial interest'? Because that is not the case, the husband has no beneficial interest and the car is not jointly owned.


  2. #22

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    We also should remember that the EA only has to believe that there is an interest, in the case of a married couple I think it would be difficult to prove he was at fault to hold such a belief.

    I also think that most marriages and partnerships contributeicon to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.


  3. #23

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    You are trying to dig too deep here, it is a simple , everything depends on the circumstances, the bailiffs initial reaction will be that jointly used property is indicative of a joint interest, this seems reasonable. If the debtor wants to challenge they can later in court, the EA will not be sanctioned for the belief.

    No one said anything about beneficial interest? Just common sense.

    If someone wants to argue that there live partner has no interest in there joint goods, please go ahead.

    Also again you are talking abput who is responsible for CT. That is not the issue, as far as the TCEA is concerned, it is about what is in the regs say, it may be anything a fine for instance. The TCEA is about enforcement, ...as repeatedly said


  4. #24

    Default Re: Council tax debt - who is responsible to pay

    a discussion thread is now created

    please post here not on the OP's thread now


  5. #25
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Jun 2018

    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgeball View Post
    I also think that most marriages and partnerships contributeicon to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.

    I agree, and where goods are jointly owned there is a beneficial interest but marriageicon does not mean that all goods are jointly owned between spouses.


    All the non-debtor party whose goods were seized would need to do is show evidence that the goods aren't jointly owned but are solely owned and the goods should be released.


  6. #26

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Goodfellow View Post
    I agree, and where goods are jointly owned there is a beneficial interest but marriageicon does not mean that all goods are jointly owned between spouses.


    All the non-debtor party whose goods were seized would need to do is show evidence that the goods aren't jointly owned but are solely owned and the goods should be released.
    Yes although that does not stop the goods being lawfully seized of course, and there is an issue of the amount of time goods were owned , it may be held that goods, even though initially bought by one party would become jointly owned over time and joint usage.
    Pretty much in the hands of the judge. On the death of one party, the goods ,unless otherwise stated would go to the other, beneficial interest?

    Perhaps this is an issue which all debtors should be aware of not just CT debtors, but it is something which they should keep in mind .


  7. #27

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by ss002d6252 View Post
    The OP has stated his partner is not resident at the property with him so she cannot be held jointly liable for the council tax charge on the property under s6 or s9 of the LGFA 1992. If she had been resident she would have been jointly liable under s6 or s9 (except in the case of an odd situation under s9 but there's nothing to suggest that applies here). It looks like the council took all this in account and the liability order is correctly against the OP.

    The above being said, the specific enforcement of the liability order by the enforcement agents is actioned separately to the legislation which lead up to the granting of the order. As can be seen in this case TACE (and it's surrounding legislation) does not always sit easily or nicely with council tax legislation.

    A couple living separately may well have intertwined interest in goods sufficient to satisfy Schedule 12 but a look at each and every situation would be needed to make the determination of ownership.
    Yes and it really is not a matter of the CT at all, but if there is evidence of co-ownership. perhaps section 85 claims would prove necessary to prove ownership or none ownership in this case.


  8. #28

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan the cat View Post
    Hello everyone

    I had equita bailiffs clamp my Mrs car for my outstanding ctax bill.
    She showed them her v5, insurance etc but they said they needed a receipt of purchase (which she didn't have with her at the time but has since found) to prove it was hers. They clamped the car and said they'd be back in the morning.

    The police were called and allsorts.

    If they don't accept the v5, insurance (in her name I'm not even a named driver), mot and the purchase receipt
    can I just sit on the car and refuse to let them take it?

    I'm going to be putting a complaint in anyway.

    Thanks.
    Reading this, it may be there is a case for the EA to show a reasonable belief that the car was jointly owned, if the two parties were unattached it would be cut and dried that they did not. But it is possible in these circumstance's for both parties to have an interest because of their relationship, I would argue, and no matter who bought the car.

    I suppose until there is a case to clarify??


  9. #29
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006

    Posts
    646

    Default Re: Council tax debt - equita bailiffs clamped Mrs car

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgeball View Post
    Reading this, it may be there is a case for the EA to show a reasonable belief that the car was jointly owned, if the two parties were unattached it would be cut and dried that they did not. But it is possible in these circumstance's for both parties to have an interest because of their relationship, I would argue, and no matter who bought the car.

    I suppose until there is a case to clarify??
    Yep, until there's a case to clarify then it's open to interpretation and I can see why an enforcement agent would hold a reasonable belief until evidence shows otherwise.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
We use cookies to personalise content and ads and to provide social media features. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners. See details