Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

avfc1

Banned
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About avfc1

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. This is important. It could well be that the 2 chimps merely wanted the extra revenue that an "abortive" tow truck visit will bring. This will undoubtedly go on, as it did under the old regime. As "Fair Parking" was a witness to the comments as a 3rd party, his evidence could be invaluable in a complaints procedure that could ultimately go out of the relevant authorities hands. If nobody is prepared to do anything other than cry on the internet , not much is going to change is it?
  2. What are these offences? Prey tell. Theft, harassment, fraud (& dare I say trespass) spring to mind-Nothing new here. Same allegations, same refutes by police officers that "its a civil matter" Same old same old. HCEO's may get a little more assistance with "interfering with controlled goods" although I think he may be a tad optimistic to expect help in the "obstruction" aspect. Think you'd have to accept that this goes with the territory of being an EA.
  3. You really need to have a read of the previous National Standards Unfortunately, due to my post count, I can't post a link so Google National Standards for Enforcement Agents
  4. Think this may be a misunderstanding. If the EA was actually in the debtors house, there was no need to levy upon 3rd party goods. Also, if the advice had been given, the EA would hardly likely share this with the debtor, thus arming him/her ammunition for replevin.
  5. I hope you've told the debtor to get these quotes recorded? A fit & proper person is expected to have sufficient knowledge of the law & the procedure of taking control of goods. Misleading a debtor is improper conduct This EA has displayed total lack of the 2 elementary requirements to hold a certificate.
  6. A further point to note (& this is just IMO) An EA has other options to take control of goods-A Controlled Goods Agreement surely should be offered before removal? The issue of clamping is now clarified as well so that is another option. Also many creditors insist that their agents give a debtor time to pay before goods are removed. If an EA ignores all this and fast tracks to the removal stage, there can be little sympathy for him/her if he/she gets it wrong. After all, the purpose of these visits is surely to ascertain fundamental facts? What about if the car belonged to a nurse or doctor who was on an "emergency call out" shift? Yes we're all speculating at this stage but I'm not as concerned as many regarding wrongful interference with 3rd party goods.
  7. Whilst there is no harm whatsoever in a DVLA check, the "Registered Keeper" has no impact whatsoever on who owns the vehicle. I believe DVLA checks are no longer instantaneous in any case so if an EA was relying on this, he would need to wait something like 48 hours for the result.
  8. The duty & onus is entirely on the EA to ascertain ownership of a vehicle before removing. Any such removal will be 100% illegal. This extends to a car sitting on the debtors drive that belongs to his wife/her husband. I know there is a thread regarding a failed claim and costs awarded from yesterday but third parties should not be associated with this-If your car is illegally removed or interfered with, you are fully entitled to issue court proceedings. I honestly feel that people are worrying far too much about the illegal interference of 3rd party goods. "Sorry guv we made a mistake-Honest" will not be an acceptable defence.
  9. Well in that case, it makes no difference if their advisory or law because an unscrupulous bailiff will still adopt that attitude. Any genuine breach of the NS, including the scenario you mention will leave anything that occurs thereafter open to challenge.
  10. I think the bailiff companies are definitely the real winners here. The debtor does have better protection but at a price. Instead of being ripped off with "raked up" fees, the bailiff or EA as they're now called can make a killing legitimately. My interest is going to be in the percentage of debts recovered. A bailiff company collecting for Council Tax for instance is motivated only to get to the visit stage which will rake in £300+. A car on the drive will be advantageous to the creditor as the EA will levy (& rake in more fees). No car on the drive = no more money for a second visit. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. If anything, it will put competition for contracts on a more even playing field as success figures will be more important than ever.
  11. They may be only advisory but many creditors include in their contracts clauses that demand EA's (bailiffs) adhere to the National Standards.
×
×
  • Create New...