just to correct Leakie post #203: The Notice of Enforcement was 19/08/2015 The date of vehicle removal / car seized was 10/10/2016. I must thank Bailiff Advice for sorting this out as there was never any disagreement with a debt being owed to the bailiff firm. It was purely the area about if they able to take control of the goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning from the date of the notice of enforcement. when there is no arrangement with the enforcement agent. this was never about, if any sums of money are owed, solely, may they take control of goods. Bailiff Advice has worked to get the vehicle returned and back into my possession. without additional cost, all fees such as storage and tow truck fees were removed . The sum owed was never in dispute: £75 Compliance stage £235 First Enforcement stage have now been agreed to be paid. The £235 was never contested in any way Dodegball Only the bailiff action itself. Many thanks Bailiff Advice, I think all parties concerned acted to correct this matter , and the debt owed to the bailiff firm at the end of the day has to be paid as the were duly owed the sums as stated above £310 in total. This was never about the money, regardless if money was paid to the council or otherwise only may they take control of goods and as such the the vehicle after the period of the NOE had expired and no agreement or arrangement was in place with the enforcement agency. To which, I have my vehicle back . FINAL UPDATE !!!

I understand where you all are coming from. I just felt that technicalities whether slight or major were in place to allow the system to operate properly to a set standard. That is why I do not disagree with what fees firms are allowed to charge in legislation only that if legislation stipulates one thing then they cannot do another. if that slight technicality means bailiffs have to adhere to legislation as it is set out so be it.

I have not changed my mind on the fees owed., I should not have to pay to get my property back. Which was taken. I want my property back without being strong armed into pay or we will not release your vehicle bailiff tactics when it should not have been taken in the first place under NOE letter and no agreement particular circumstances. I am left puzzled Newlyn took the vehicle and the Part 85 claim went to them yet The council had the additional fees cancelled when i was under the assumption that the tow truck fees and storage fees are third party fees and /or the only fees left to collect £310 were the Enforcement company fees Compliance fee of £75 and Enforcement fee of £235. I am trying to get my vehicle returned as if the action of it being taken had not happened as it should not have happened if their documentation is out of date expired and the the law to enforce is invalid . After claim 85 has failed to return said vehicle without meeting the bailiff costs is there further action you would recommend newlyn are still holding my vehicle which they should not have taken as they have no agreement to produce for me to have broken apart from the whisper in the air that i paid the council so somehow that is an agreement with the bailiffs. When they get the certification every 2 years, they are asked to produce the documents they will use when enforcing and they show the agreement form debtors have to sign to say they had an agreement that has been broken so enforcement action took place , they now see that this document is not needed any longer. yo do not need an arrangement agreement We dont need agreement forms anymore it is a subliminally aligned contract with pro rata payments from the council, all our payment arrangement are on auto pilot .. (no terms , no conditions , no amounts, no time scales but your on an arrangement ??)

They could do whatever they want but the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement. That is legislation. no court extension was involved and the enforcement agent had not entered into an arrangement with the debtor for the repayment

Newlyns sent me back a response email which I posted #76. I was very specific in my email stating it was the NOE letter that had expired and they came back in response that i had stated L/O issued was expired, which is not the case. As can be seen in my email and their response. #76 If i worded my email not to be clear to them please advise. I am not trying to get anyone to say anything just to be simply answer clearly on the points as they stand without if this and if that and not jumping around with things that while in force like the l/o do not over rule the point. Sometimes I know i can be very particular and maybe not come across in the correct manner. It's the years of being firm but fair when dealing with people means I just spell it out as it is and without thought for how it comes across. Leakie puts it in a better way then I can. 1- If there was not a controlled goods agreement in place 2- The NoE had Expired 3- Would the EA be able to legally, take the car in lieu of payment. 4- If they are which part of the legislation covers it. Answered clearly enough : if the EA does not regard the payment made as the initiation of a payment arrangment. is this in legislation in anywhere

You are correct Leakie with the points you have stated as they are

following on from what you have said it removes power to take control of goods, does that mean, they cannot then take my car that he met on the roadside on the day, because the power to take control of goods was removed. It was not under a controlled goods agreement. Can i fill this out on a section 85 and get my vehicle back as that is what my sole concern is. I am sure that this issue means that they have not purged their computer system to put on hold expired NOE letters as I have knowledge to cross reference a number of others would have gone before me under similar circumstance totally unnoticed.

I am here to discuss the matter as outlined. I am writing what i read and defining it as i read it. I am writing my source what part of legislation I would be using and what it means to me as I read it and asking if i am correct in my understanding. If my belief after reading it is "nonsense" I am here to get corrected on that part which I have read and misunderstood. When I cite something and another part arises then I move on to the other part, that has been used to address my initial statement and the debate/conversation moves forward and I gain a better understanding of the the whole and not just the part. I am not trying to get one over anyone. I came here saying one thing Noe expired and no arrangement in place and it has been said that payment to the council can be regarded as an arrangement with the bailiff. i ask then if i had a direct debit payment to the council would that payment also be regarded as entering into an arrangement with the bailiff. I have said I await help to get a section 85 so i am listening and acting accordingly with what has been said as the correct course to take. I hope the discussion and understanding is still open and relevant and I am not taken out of hand as being malicious trying to get one over on someone, when I have had my vehicle taken and i dont see who i am getting one over on; when at the end of the day I am trying to get it returned and the correct process undertaken. Should I pay to get something returned when it should not have been taken in the first place. I can freely fill out the section 85 and collect my property if the mistake is clear and not my own.

Section 9 seems very clear and straight forward. I do not feel I have mis interpreted it in any way. The only point that it seemed to bring up, that has been mentioned, If i am correct is that paying the council can be regarded as entering into an arrangement with the bailiffs. To which end direct debits mean we all have third party arrangements set up that will bind us to bailiff firms indirectly and we as a society are not privy to that. I know I have to get the section 85 out quickly outlining my understanding of section 9 as it stands as my point is only the NOE expired. I am willing to accept the loss of the vehicle to clarify the issue. Can you enforce when the NOE expired and no arrangement is in place? They can have a case *** v Newlyn where an NOe has expired payment to the council means you automatically enter into an arrangement with the third party bailiffs so all our automatic direct debits with banks to pay our council tax are pre signed agreements that can be used to tie us into arrangements with bailiff firms without our direct consent. If a payment from your bank goes through to the council you have agreed an arrangement with the bailiffs ....Really??

Agreed they are owed £310 No dispute they are owed money. This has never been a point in contention. My only and one factor is that the NOE had expired and no agreement is in place with the Enforcement Agent and so I as the debtor did not breach any terms of a repayment arrangement with the Enforcement Agent. So the enforcement agent may not take control of goods The L/o being in effect payment to the council being made and dates noted the EA calling/called dates and times can all be dated and time stamped. None of that is stipulated as terms or factors that over rule the NOE expired and with no arrangement in place the enforcement agent cannot take control of goods. It only says if I had an arrangement in place with the enforcement agent then they can enforce. If they were owed £310 with the Noe being invalid they are meant not to enforce how they can get around that with no arrangement well I think they will get around their certification being expired and still enforcing, he owed me money we had a l/o he made a payment to the council on x date ...but your certificate expired you cant enforce...that is madness same way your NOE expired you had no arrangement you cant enforce. If somewhere it stipulates that when a payment to the council is made the Noe letter is automatically reset or a payment to the council is deemed to be acceptance or agreement to entering an arrangement with a third party they are within their rights to keep my vehicle, if not give it back. When has paying your council tax to the council meant you automatically entered a payment arrangement with the bailiffs. If that is true we are all in trouble as we enter arrangements without our knowledge to terms we do not know or agree with. A direct debit with the council to pay your council tax would automatically bind you to a bailiff firm without your knowledge and without you signing an arrangement with the bailiffs, they do not need arrangements forms or a signature they are automatically there with direct debit forms

Where can I get advise on filing the Part 85 accordingly and correctly to lay out the grounds The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement. (2) Where— (a)after giving notice of enforcement the enforcement agent enters into an arrangement with the debtor for the repayment, by the debtor, of the sum outstanding by instalments (a repayment arrangement); and (b)the debtor breaches the terms of the repayment arrangement, the period in paragraph (1) begins with the date of the debtor’s breach of the repayment arrangement. (3) The court may order that the period in paragraph (1) be extended by 12 months. and Newlyn issued the Notice of enforcement 19/08/2015 and took control of goods 10/10/2016. So I should get my goods back. I have 7 days from the 10/10/2016 to present this and the clock is ticking. for clause 2. Newlyns have no arrangement to present as I made none with them and made none with any enforcement Agent. for clause 3. there is no court order to extend by 12months so what they hope to present as documented evidence is nothing, so they have zero documents to disprove the claim

I do not care about the vehicle itself, nor the deep pockets they have trying to fight the case. Once in black and white that NOE date is post 12 moths and that seizure/immobisation and removal is after 12 months L/O is the council debt owed or not is irrelevant can the EC enforce or are they required to uphold that 12 months has past and accordingly not act Can bailiff act when the cert has expired because they are owed a debt .... you cannot enforce they cannot enforce when the NOE is post 12months , i have no agrrangement , not pre seizure let the judge stand and over rule the legislaton if they want but they put it in place . everything has to be alignment to enforce your cert in place , l/o in place etc everything must be valid ..one part not valid makes them unable to enforce l/o expired cannot enforce / cert expired cannot enforce, NOE 12 months expired cannot enforce Judge over ride what is written then as that is what is stated.

the car was seized and immobilised and removed all on the same day 10/10/2016

I do not understand what defines a bailiff call. Is it them attend the premises and leaving a notice yes they have attended the premises and left notices the date of notice of enforcement is 19th August 2105 They bailiff firm may have on other dates posted letters out to the address, I would have to check with them and get the dates of any letters sent out and what the letters contained. But the notice of enforcement was dated 19th August 2015. I have not had any seizure notice nor any contact in any form with the bailiff. I have no arrangement nor conversation with the bailiff Is it was a previous seizure done on the vehicle prior to it being taken away I am sure the bailiff would have on the day on immobilisation done his seizure but It was not seized prior to the date of immobilisation 10/10/2016. I do not have any documents to say the action was done on any other day. They had not seized it days before nor immobilised it days before and left notification days before . it all happened on the same day. They have left me with zero paperwork and the bailiff has given me zero paperwork, even when I met them twice at the vehicle on the same day 10/10/2016 they handed me over no paperwork before taking the vehicle away. The only letter I have from them is the email as above and a letter from them Notice of Sale which came through the post dated 10/10/16 . If what comes through the post is considered "calling / "called" ?. there was no levy on the car prior to the date of seizure, immobilastion and removal It was the usual find car, clamp it, contact as you have the vehicle and leverage remove if unpaid all in the same day they even baby sat the clamp for the duration They had not levied on the car previously to that day. It is in conversation, they can stand up and say "we first contacted Mr ***** on the */*/20** by post /email /text whatever medium they wish to use then the bailiff MR *** called on him at the address of *** st .. and received no response what are you specifically asking when saying called.... When was the levy when was the seizure when was the removal when was the notice asking "Was the taking of the car the first time they called on you?" i dont understand?

I have never seen them at home at my door, the first time I had set eyes on the bailiff was when the car was immobilised with the clamp and they were sitting there waiting in their van.