Mark1960
-
Posts
200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Mark1960
-
So you are saying that firstly you arranged a payment plan with B&S over the phone & they accepted this without wanting to come & invite you into a walking possession agreement? & also the £1800 is for three separate accounts from three separate councils?
-
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Appologies for not making myself clear. Do not under any circumstances pay the £180.Just write (copying the council in) explaining that no goods had been levied on and that you had previously only received a single visit from a bailiff in which a fee of £24.50 is applicable under the A&E regs. If the bailiff has returned a second time,£18 is chargeable so in essence,one visit will cost you £24.50 & 2 visits (combined) will cost you £42.50. If you are in a position to pay the remainder of the council tax arrears,I would do so,only make your payment directly to the council.These bloodsuckers will not let this go easily but as long as you are prepared to communicate,they can do little other that post idle threats.By paying the arrears off,you are no longer in debt so there is no excuse for the bailiff to return & charge more extortionate fees.I would envisage it will take several letters & that you will eventually have to complain to the council but eventualy,they will have to credit the £180 van fee.
-
Within the letter that they put through your door,was there a blue sheet titled "Notice of Siezure of Goods"? If so,they've probably levied on your car.Charging £180 to attend in a van that is not capable or removing a car does not comply with Schedule 5 of the A&E Regs so you need to write to them informing them of this.Always copy the council in. If they have not levied on your car,you need to write informing them that as they have no levy,they need to amend the "van fee" to a second visit fee which is £18.I would pay the council tax arrears off,if you are in a position to do so.
-
I do have some actual experience of county court proceedings,including a pending hearing over bailiff conduct & fees-As I said,experience would not be essential in that instance so I'm not sure why you're waxing lyrical over such a minor,trivial point.
-
"basic grasp of procedure"?? I'm still waiting for any of you to explain how the levy on that other thread was legal when no act of impounding took place.
-
As the discussion was about the changes due to take place in April 2014,it was pretty clear that the scenario was a hyperthetical one (unless of course you thought I could see into the future) Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?
-
If you care to re-read my post,it should be clear,even to you that the hyperthetical scenario I had created involved removing a vehicle on a first visit.Like most of the hot air that comes from the bailiff side of the argument on here,you may talk about/threaten to remove vehicles on a first visit when a debtor refuses to enter into a controlled agreement but in practice,it rarely,if ever happens due in no small part to the consequenses of civil action.
-
Really???? Well as we were on about April 2014 onwards,it should be pretty obvious that no-one has had any experience but my original answer should have helped the penny drop for you as to why it would not be looked upon favourably by a judge-Not that experience is needed to have made the statement in the first place.
-
Hi, We were speaking about scenario's next year when part 3 comes into force.Of course not all enforcement comes after CCJ's & debts like Council Tax & parking fines rarely see the debtor afforded the opportunity to speak in court. Bailiffs are driven by the incentive of commission so they will clearly like the debtor to have a feeling of helplessness-The truth is that debtors are far from helpless.Bailiffs working for LA's for instance have a duty to ascertain if a debtor is vulnerable,what their financial circumstances are,if a debtor is in receipt of income support,housing benefit,etc,etc-To simply charge in & remove goods because a debtor refuses to enter into an agreement is not really a valid option.In these circumstances,9 times out of 10,the removed goods will be a car-Even if bailiff companies had enough tow trucks at their disposal,they would never risk the backlash incurred by multiple mistaken removals.
-
How am I out of context? We have for the past 2 pages been discussing the essence of the word "agreement".You are now moving the goalposts. The likeyhood is that anyone strong enough to stand up to a bailiff regarding the "agreement" will also refuse him entry.As a consequence,the only option he'll have is to gamble on levying & removing a car there & then.Whereas visit fees will be higher,removal fees will be controlled and the bailiff will risk court proceedings for wrongful levy/theft etc.It will just not be practical for bailiffs to remove goods on the spot & if bailiffs were to risk this on a daily basis,they would run the risk of being sued collectively for more than they're worth. In addition,it would not be looked upon favourably in a court of law if goods were removed on the first visit,thus not enabling the debtor a reasonable opportunity to address the issue.We are after all still the UK,despite the best efforts of bodies like the DWP and local authorities to conduct themselves otherwise.
-
Not much use after April 2014 though when Part 3 kicks in. "To take control of goods an enforcement officer must enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor"
-
No_I am under the impression that some kind of impounding must take place. That said,without an agreement,a levy soon becomes abandoned anyway so I guess an agreement is pretty crucial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe that's why its called a "Walking Possession Agreement" as opposed to just a "Walking Possession"? Just a stab in the dark like.
-
Nit picking again ELRG-Happy now?
-
How can I be in error? In the case on the other thread,the debtor was not present-The bailiff simply cast a net over all vehicles in the immediate area and posted a worthless piece of paper through the debtors letterbox.No act of impounding took place.Goods are required to be seized & then impounded.Impounding is the "securing of goods" and is usually carried out by the bailiff stating his intent.This cannot be completed if the debtor is not present.
-
Well why didn't you say so in the first place? If the debtor is not present,the debtor has not entered into a controlled goods agreement has he? Even today,in a debtors absence,impounding has not taken place as the bailiff will not have been able to make his intentions known. OK-I see where you're coming from-You want to nit-pik the validity of a WP where the debtor is present but refuses to sign.If it was that simple to just levy on goods there would have been no need to have required "close possession for the past few centuries would there?With the costs involved in modern day enforcement,close possession is not a valid option therefore it is rarely,if ever undertaken.An unsigned WP (constructive WP) is implied as opposed to agreed.The bailiff must then take regular steps to ensure that the goods remain in the custody of the law or they will soon become abandoned.Again due to costs involved,this is rarely if ever maintained & people like HCEOs merely rely on the general publics ignorance. I would refer you to a quote from Philip Evans who worked for many years at the MOJ & is highly respected in the enforcement sector: "taking" walking possession is always risky and should never be done
-
Have I what? Got much right or gone to the library? I've got everything right but I never go to the library. Hope this helps
-
Yeah right-Interpretations of Head H being applicable when no goods have been removed are correct as well in your little bubble eh?
-
I've got a court case lined up at present.Some of the interpretations of case law & indeed legislation that my council (via their solicitors) have used is laughable-Quality entertainment.So don't start preaching about "interpretating"-Very rich coming from the bailiff who interprets agreements to have been made when one side is not even present. For clarity-An agreement needs to be made by both parties so the levy on the other thread is invalid.Secondly your "understanding" that this (incorrect) notion will continue next year is also incorrect as you will have no doubt have now read the relevant sections of the TC&E Act that I posted. I suggest that you get your own facts right before embarrassing yourself further by criticising other websites.
-
Oh dear-Don't get much right do you? Ever thought of going to the library & digging out a couple of old John Kruse books?
-
It might well be for a HCEO & we all bow in homage to your undoubted powers. To the mere private bailiff who is acting on behalf of the council & not the courts,they worked on both occasions that I used them.
-
No-I use the tedious letters that they now send me for that purpose.
-
Have a read of Schedule 12,Section 13 (1)f the TC&E Act 2007 (due to come into force next April) Further clarity can be found in Shedule 12 Section 13 (4) of the same act.
-
Yeah-That's where I downloaded my removal of implied right of access notices from-Worked a treat as well.
-
I think the operative word in your sentence is "agreement".How you expect an agreement to have taken place when one party is not even present is beyond me.That is aside from the fact that in the debtors absence,no act of impounding could have taken place.
-
Again I would argue that impounding has not successfully been completed.That is enough IMo to dispute the levy in the Stanford & Green thread-As I've said previously,the TC&E Act part 3 which will also come into force next year,clearly states what is expected in order to constitute a valid levy.A walking possession must be an agreement that is entered into by both sides,a bailiff cannot eimply slap a levy on a vehicle & then post paperwork through the letterbox.I addition,the debtor is required to acknowledge that the goods are now in control of the enforcement agent. I believe an unsigned walking possession is not worth the paper it is printed on-The difference at present is that bailiffs will argue differently-Next year,they will no longer be able to do so as legislation on this matter is more transparent.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS