Sorry "The Watcher" you are wrong on this one. The Bailiff can only seize goods that "belong to the debtor" and the Law is very clear on this, there is no "right to presume" at all. If goods are seized that do not belong to the debtor the owner of the goods has the right of redress against the Bailiff by way of a third party ownership claim. It is fair to say however that if a Bailiff is informed that goods do not belong to the debtor then it would be expected that some sort of proof or details of ownership should be given to tha Bailiff, which he is then required to verify. Should he not wish to verify these details and continue with seizure of goods and ultimately the sale of them, then he will be personally liable for the value of the goods either on a double or triple indemnity basis and quite rightly so.

Yes, The charge is for a percentage of the debt as advised on other replies and fis payable once the seizing of the goods has taken place, there is an additional charge for issuing a W.P.A. based on a daily rate.

Sorry you are wrong. A Bailiff may not levy on "tools of the trade" which would stop you from earning a living. An example would be a Driving Instructirs car or a Taxi/Minicab drivers vehicle, but using the car to take the post to the post post office does not constitute a tool of the trade. You can walk, cycle or catch a bus for this purpose.

Hi, very interesting situation. Firtsly has your girlfriend received a Notice of Assignment regarding the debt? Secondley, there is no such thing as full and final settlement under english law unless it has been agreed in writing prior to payment. Don't make the mistake of sending money in F & F and expecting it to end there, they will be able to come after the balance, all they have to do is inform you that it is not accepted in F & F and is a part payment. However there is some good news. 1).If the money was paid by way of a cheque from a "Third Party" in F & F then they are obliged to accept it as such if the cheque is cashed. 2). You can also send a cheque for F & F on the basis that the £550.00 is agreed but that the aditional costs are disputed. You would then need to include another sum on the cheque as well as the £550.00 which relates to the disputed amount. I would siggest that a covering letter using similar format to this statement be used. I admit the sum of £550.00 being owed to you but dispute the remiander of the claimed debt. I therefore enclosed a cheque to the value of £555.00 in Full & Final Settlement of this claim, (hopefully they will think that it is merely a mistake). This should also be written on the back of the cheque and an instruction given to the Bank to return the cheque to you upon clearance. If they then encash the cheque at £555.00 they have technically eccepted the additional £5.00 as settlement to the balance and will not be successful if they try and claim the rest of the balance.

Wrong I am afraid, a "Levy" (seizure of goods) does not require a Walking Possession Agreement to be signed. A W.P.A. is a written request from a debtor that the Bailiff does not remove the goods seized at the time and that they will not be removed from the property or sold or disposed of. Goods must have been seized in order for a W.P.A. to be given but seizure does not rely on a W.P.A. as it is done prior to the W.P.A. The Bailiff can sieze any goods that belong to the debtor and can remove them at the first attendance if he so desire's. The idea of the W.P.A. is to give the debtor time to raise the money and to allow the Bailiff to make more charges for return attendances.

Hi there, seems to me that you are one of the thousands that are being abused by Rossendale's. They are well known for their deliberate abusde of the legislation as was seen on the BBC "Whistleblower" programme. They rely heavily on applying as many attendance fees as they can, inlcuding "removal Van" fees when no actual attendance has been made. A Bailiff is allowed to seize goods that belong to " a debtor" and only goods that so belong. If the car has been transferred to your fiance it would need to have been done before it was seized. On the matter of the Walking Possession Agreement, this has to be signed by you or a person (over 18 years old) acting on your behalf. It is an agreement from you that the seized goods will not be removed or transferred to someone else. If you did not sign it, it is not legally binding. If you have paid the debt they cannot enforce it further, irrespective of whether they received the money or the council. If you paid the balance to the council they must cancel the Warrant against you. You have options now: If they return, do not allow them entry into your house, they have no right unless they can "gain peaceful entry", don't give it to them, insist on seeing the "Bailiff's License" "Bailiff's General Certificate" (which should have been issued at a County Court) and the Liability Order, as it is a legal requirement that he has both upon him when he attends. If he fails to produce both or tries to force entry call the Police, he is committing a Criminal Offence under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act and the Freedom from Harrassment Bill if he cannot prove the "Liability Order" and even if he has it , it does not allow him to Force Entry. The Police have no right to "Force Entry" into your home either for what is technically a Civil Matter and even a Bailiff needs a Warrant from a Magistrate to do so. The only exception is when you have allowed him into your house, have signed a Walking Possession Agreement and then you try to stop him at a later date. You must however appreciate that Police Officers are not given training in Bailiffing legisalation and tend to believe what the bailiff says to them. If this happens you need to take the number of the Police Officer and inform him that he is aiding and abetting a criminal offence, (attempting to obtain money by deception) and make a formal complaint to the Officer for this, that he should seek advice from a suitably qualified superior and that if he assist's the Bailiff in such unlawful action you will hold him personally liable for a claim for "Damages". You can also complain to the local Magistrates Court regarding the action's of the Bailiff who can be held liable for "double damages" for an irregular levy and triple damages for an illegal one. What I would do is remove the vehicle from your property so that he can't take it. Get the details of the Court where his license was issued and make a formal complaint to the Chief Clerk and object to him holding a Bailiff Certificate. Contact BBC Watchdog. Contact the Council in writing (Recorded Delivery) stating that if they don't remove the Warrant you will sue them, as the Bailiff's have made unlawful fraudulent charges with regard to the attendance of the van. Go and see the CAB and get their duty Solicitor to formalise a complaint for you.

Hi, Sorry for the delay in replying but I have just returned from holiday. The most important thing to remember about an offer of settlement is whether it is made as a "Without Prejudice" offer. If it is then you cannot use this as evidence at any subsequent Court Hearing. However should they not make the offer with this statement you can issue proceedings and know that you will get a Judgment at least to the amount oferred, plus the Court costs of Issue. You are also allowed to claim 8% interest on private accounts which should be worked out on a daily rate. If it is a business account you can claim 11.75% per day pursuant to the Late Payment Commercial Debts (Interest) Act.

Hi, thanks for the reply. In fact a claim can be listed as "Small Claim" if both parties request it and it is considered to be "a simple claim". The Civil Procedure Rules allow for this in order to reduce the amount of time taken by the Court's when allocating a claim and for hearing purposes. The most important thing is that if you request "a track" that is not the normal one for the amount, you need to explain why, which is what they have not done. It is no doubt a way of reducing the "cost" factor for the bank if they loose, as the maximum costs that will be allowed in the Small Claims Track is only £50.00 plus mileage if the Judge is sympathetic to the claim. Anybody else in the same boat should look at this point in particular as for claims over £5k it could well be worth using a Solicitor on a Conditional Fee Arrangement. This initself will encourage the bank to possibly offer a settlement before going to trial.

I have issued against Lloyds for 6 years totalling approx £14,000.00. They have lodged a Defence on the basis that the Charges are not penalties but rather "Service Charges", chargeable under their T & C's. It is very strange that they have also indicated that the case should be heard under the "Small Claims Track"???? This might of course be that they do not want to run the risk of incurring any legal costs, which they would do if the case was allocated to the correct track i.e. "Fast Track" and I used a Solicitor. I have asked for the claim to be listed under the Fast Track on the Allocation Questionnaire and it will be very interesting to see what track the Court lists the claim for.