Showing results for tags 'enforcement'.
-
3053548.thumb.jpg.6ea05a752ac6bbf38ae4e7be9676053a.jpg)
There has been much debate on the forum regarding the important subject of 'vulnerability' when a debt (usually council tax arrears) is being enforced by a bailiff. Many posters have different opinions as to whether or not, when vulnerability is identified, the account should be returned to the local authority and bailiff fees removed, or managed by the enforcement companies in house Welfare Dept etc etc. Whilst opinions will no doubt vary on this very important subject, it may be of interest to know what the Local Government Ombudsman's view is of this subject. If a debtor wishes to have a complaint considered by the Local Government Ombudsman, they must first take their complaint to the relevant local authority and exhaust the first stage and second stage complaints procedure. The complaint may then be considered by the LGO. All Local Government Ombudsman's decisions are reported on-line. These reports are made public 3 months after the final decision. The local authorities name is revealed but the complainants details are not. -
I have received a NTK, I was not the driver. In answer to the stickies questions: 1. 24/05/2016 2. 20/06/2017 (27 days after incident by my calculation) 3. 22/06/2016 (posted second class) 4. No 5. Yes (but you cannot see anything of the car park, only the car) 6. No 7. Civil Enforcement (Liverpool) My partner and her friends all received the same notice on the same day (3 drivers and 3 cars). They had all met at a KFC in Christchurch, Dorset for lunch and were in the restaurant the whole time. They have exceeded the allowed time of 75 minutes - looks like they were in there for about 110 minutes. One of them has since been back to the car park and tells me that it is 'plastered' in signs which all three of them insist were not there at the time of the infringement. (I do not know if there were any signs at all, or just not clearly visible and obvious). Thanks. -
I have recently been doing some research into legalities of purchasing debts and enforcing them.. From what i've read online and social media sites When a DCA purchases your debt you do not have a contract with them. you run up a bill with BT avoid paying for 3-4 years then lowell/cabot etc crawl out of the woodwork and decide to chase you for said debt.... however technically you never entered into a contract with lowell/cabot etc only the original creditor when you ask for documentation regarding your contract with said DCA they can only provide you with copies of the original contract with the original creditor which is no longer your debt as the DCA has purchased said debt. in effect the DCA has paid your debt off for you you have no contract with the DCA therefor do you have to pay?.. .. i challenged Lowell a few weeks back and guess what they agreed that my account was indeed paid off and no longer worth them chasing me for it, it wasn't statute barred by any means just me challenging them.. I can post the letter I received from Lowell to show you how i did it and if someone could give me their input on what i've done or simply remove my post if moderators do not agree with it -
Just when I though I was getting my life under control a letter drops through the door from Court Enforcement Services of Waltham Abbey. They want 25% of £3515 by 23rd September or they will commence enforcement procedures. Another visit from bailiffs of any kind will push my partner over the edge. We are having enough trouble as it is and now with this out of the blue! The debt by the way is for some solicitor's fees I owe from a couple of years ago. What can I do as I can't find £879 by next Wednesday? Desperate!! -
The following guidance is featured today on SCOOP. http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news http://businessadvice.co.uk/tax-admin/efficiency/a-guide-to-bailiff-enforcement-procedures-for-non-payment-of-business-rates/
-
Hi all, My spouse regularly visits a salon near Preston (part of a row of shops off the main road). Usually the parking is pretty full and the only way to park is adjacent to the shop (i.e. a Pizza shop) if there's a free space. A sign was put up on the corner of the Pizza shop advising parking penalties (some months before), but when the staff were asked at the salon they said to ignore it as the Pizza shop is closed during the day. Just before Christmas a £50 parking ticket was noticed on the windscreen on exiting the salon and this has been followed up by a letter raising this to £100 threatening pursual and court action. My view is that there is no contract between the driver and the parking company and as the shop is closed during the day there is no material loss and the "Parking Charge" amount grossly exceeds reasonable charges in any event. The driver is not named so they have written to the registered keeper I feel it is prudent to respond robustly in writing - quoting some of the legalise in the court defence thread but I'd appreciate a steer as to how to proceed. Any assistance gratefully appreciated. Trafalgar -
Dear Forum, Thank you for having me and hopefully someone will be able to advice me in the right direction. I few months back, I was parked in a public car pack in Kingston, London. It was a pay and display car park and i did pay and display for my time. I was in a rush and i didn't realise that I have actually parked in a section of bays reserved for disabled drivers which meant my pay and display ticket was invalid as I did not have a disabled badge. The parking attendant issued me with a PCN notices. At the time, I was away in Scotland for a family thing by the time I got back the PCN had become a demand notice. I tried to appeal but thy were not having it. Then I kind of got distracted with my work and forgot about it until i have a visit from a enforcement agent. The total was now £358.50. this caused me so much stress and lack of sleep and concentration at work. I was so distressed as this is a big amount for a PCN. I called them up and negotiated to pay them two payments of £179.50. I have paid the first payment and the second one is due on Monday. Here is my issue. My name is Mujahid, on the Enforcement Notice to me, then have spelt my name as Mujaad. This is obviouly totally wrong. With this in mind, can I legally refuse to pay the balance. Also, can I turn it back on them and go after them for the distress, upset and trouble they have caused me and my family??? Thank you kindly in advance Muj -
Hi Everyone - hopefully the good people of this forum can help. Between december 2013 and november 2015 i lived in a 3 bedroom small property with oil central heating. The electric meter for this property is not situated at the property, but some mile away in a field, via another field. When we moved in we werent able to take a meter reading, and subsequently couldnt for the 2 years we were there. Swalec managed an actual reading at the end of 2015 having not done one for many many years, and came up with a figure of £2900+ for the 2 years useage! I tried arguing this with them, but subsequently had a ccj issued, which was then transfered to the high court. I was not at the property as I have moved, and may have missed some of the correspondance. I fully admit that we do owe money for electric, however £3k for 2 years in a small property... impossible! It is now at the stage where at my new property ive received a visit from someone - i was out so i dont know if a bailiff or court officer (is there a difference) Is the writ that was issued at my previous address still valid for my new address? How can i go about getting this set aside in order for me to put my case in front of a court. I feel that swalecs negligence is partially to blame in all of this. Hoping someone can help, I have a pregnant fiance who has lost our last 2 and a lovely little 5yo who could really do without this stress. Thanks -
All Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions appear on the LGO website six months after the date of the decision. Personal information about the complainant is naturally removed but the name of the relevant local authority is made public. For this discussion thread I have only selected important decisions that concern council tax enforcement where a liability order had been obtained and passed to an enforcement company. Although the following decision relates to events prior to the new regulations taking effect (April 2014) it is nonetheless a very important one to refer to. The decision date was August 2014 and was published November 2014. The local authority is London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the complaint made by the debtor was that: The debtor was vulnerable and the local authority should not have referred to account to bailiffs. That the council forwarded payments to the bailiff company. The council refused to recall debt from the bailiff company.
-
Hi Everyone.....it's my first post here, I hope someone can give me a little bit of advice Yesterday lunchtime there was a huge knock on my door, answered the door and was greeted by what looked like 2 police officers (all in black, stab proof vests, walkie talkie) - my heart was in my mouth. They asked to speak with my husband (who wasn't in). They showed a badge and advised they were enforcement agents from the court to collect a debt for an unpaid council parking charge from 2014. Total amount owed £422. One of them radio'd to someone to tell them "stand down I've made contact". They came in and explained that bailiffs were following behind (30-40 mins) and should I not pay they would add fees on. I was absolutely in a bit of a panic, unsure what to do. I actually remember the debt and stupidly thought we had sorted it (we disputed owning the car at the time of the parking charge). The enforcement agents were polite and friendly but they said there was no option but to pay (if I couldn't pay or get someone to pay) then bailiffs would follow and they had already gained entry. So, I paid £422 on my debit card. He wrote me out a receipt and gave me details of who I needed to contact if I did dispute the debt (DVLA firstly then go to Northampton County Court with the evidence). He also showed me some paper trail on his ipad thing which said that someone had been at 7.08 on a Friday in January (I am in everyday with children so deffo not true). Now the panic is over I am feeling somewhat stupid. I looked at the receipt and it is from Marstons!!!!!! So, were they just bailiffs dressed up to look all official???? We have had no correspondence from the bailiffs (this I can guarantee as I work from home so get the post each day) I am guessing that this £422 is mainly fees???? How can it be fees when they have only just come??? So - I guess the question is what can I do? Anything? Other than the handwritten receipt I have no documentation (I had to call the enforcement agent to find out the court reference!!). Any help would be gratefully received. Thank you for reading. Luau -
A SIX year old disabled boy from Swindon is receiving letters from the courts and the threat of bailiffs – for not paying a penalty charge notice. Brandon Blades, is autistic and can’t cope with crowds, public transport or unfamiliar spaces – he has been provided with a car as part of his disability allowance to help him get around. The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14506018.Courts_chase_Swindon_six_year_old_in_parking_ticket_fiasco/
-
A few days ago I was sent a text by a resident nearby relating to a PCN issued and not challenged and that there were 2 EA's in the home. They were looking to take control of goods to pay for the debt which was made more difficult to deal with due to the severe disability of the named debtor. The background is as follows... The debtor has a Motability car and is the registered name on the V5. But, the registered keeper is unable to drive due to their condition and Motability have allowed a family member to be the named driver. This is normal practise to have a contract to allow a 3rd party to drive for the hirer. The issues that have come to light is that the driver has had many PCN's over a few months. This is completely separate to the one that I had dealt with recently and for a different debtor. Most of the outstanding PCN's have been made subject to a repayment plan but 2 have already gone to enforcement. The issues for me are that as the registered keeper the debtor is responsible for the outstanding balance of these two debts. Unfortunately for this debtor the driver has intercepted the letters from the LA and chose to ignore them totally. Hence a WoC being issued by the TEC in Northampton. My issues are that the family were at home just as the EA's arrived and thinking that they were family left the door ajar for them to gain peaceful entry. The EA's had already walked and had started to talk to a person in apparent control of the premises. Unfortunately the name debtor was in bed resting in a bedroom in the next room. At no time did either of these EA's attempt to speak to the named person but did so freely to a family member. The debtor was just 15ft away from the EA's in the next room (bedroom) The issue is several fold. These are listed below and in no particular order. 1. Peaceful entry gained 2. Discussing the debt with a 3rd party without a signed or agreed DPA release form or authority to discuss. 3. Taking a family member to the kitchen and trying to arrange payment. 4. Heated discussion between 3rd party and forceful EA (at times) 5. EA attempting to take control of goods when goods in the property would not cover the debt and fees. 6. Using BWV and in the presence of a minor under 6 7. Trying to take goods needed for the care of the debtor 8. EA trying to take goods that are exempt under the guidelines 9. Debtor being subject to a consideration of mental capacity and awaiting an appointment for this. At some point the resident text me and asked for my help. I had already printed off a copy of the guidelines and had highlighted several important points to help stop the enforcement and give the agents time to seek further advice from their office and or the OC. I was asked who I was and then handed the EA's a signed DPA release allowing me to assist the debtor. This was accepted and then it was my turn to make a few points that needed to be said the EA's. At this point we the EA's and I retired to the hall to talk about what was going on. This is where they acted better and took more notice. With this I then gathered some documents that showed just how serious the medical situation was for this debtor. This included a care plan issued by the LA. Copies of the DLA awards and EA award. Medical letters and appointment cards as well. More than enough information to satisfy both agents. After about 10 minutes of talking both agents agreed to retire from the situation to seek advice from the offices and OC... So far there has already been a letter to the LA with evidence of severe vulnerability and I am about to draft a letter to ask the LA to take this back in house due to the complex issues regarding this particular debtor.. More to folow Sorry for the long post but it is very complex... -
If the EA company is charging £75 just for sending a letter, why can they not sent the notice registered post, and have proof when this was received, rather than assuming, the debtor has received it ? -
Yesterday, a most extraordinary report was given on a social media site regarding a hearing at Luton Crown Court that concluded yesterday with both defendants being cleared of theft and false representation. The report itself (written by a McKenzie Friend) is utterly astonishing and frankly; resembles a poorly written fairy story. As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yesterday), I will give accurate facts on the background to this case (which sadly, yet again demonstrates appalling bad behaviour by a debtor attempting to evade payment of a penalty charge notice).
-
Every day, without fail, I receive an enquiry about an enforcement agent charging 'multiple fees' and in fact yesterday, two enquiries were received on this forum on the same subject. Clearly there is a need to provide guidance on this subject. In 2014, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (and other supporting legislation) came into effect and introduced significant changes to previous bailiff enforcement. The situation now is that when the enforcement agent receives instructions from the creditor (commonly; the Magistrates Court (in the case of court fines) or local authority (in the case of council tax arrears) the enforcement company are under a legal obligation to send to the debtor a Notice of Enforcement. This notice must identity the debt and invite the debtor to submit a payment proposal by the date set out in the Notice. This period of time is referred to in the regulations as being the 'Compliance Stage'. It is important to note that when the Notice of Enforcement is sent, a statutory 'Compliance fee' of £75 will be added to the debt. If full payment is not made, or a payment arrangement set up by the date given, the account will then be referred to an enforcement agent. He is then able to make a personal visit to the debtors property for the purpose of 'taking control of goods'. Once the account reaches this stage....it is much more difficulty to get a payment arrangement set up. It is only at this stage of enforcement that the important subject of 'multiple fees' comes into effect. Prior to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 being introduced, it was sadly the case that the previous regulations allowed bailiffs to charge 'multiple' fees when enforcing more than one debt at the same time.This led to dreadful instances of injustice and in particular, with debtors who had one or more penalty charge notices. To avoid these situations being repeated, the government imposed a condition that 'multiple fees' cannot be applied....in certain circumstances. The actual legislation can be found under Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/11/made?view=plain However, particular attention needs to be given to Item 11(b) as this is where most of the confusion about 'multiple charges' arises.
-
Today I have had the misfortune to be made aware of yet another person who took internet advice after receiving a Notice of Enforcement and was led to believe that if he made payment direct to the Magistrate Court that he would be able to avoid bailiff fees. This person took the advice and paid the court direct and;.....as it always the case.....he received a letter from the court to advise him that his payment had been forwarded direct to Marston Group. He too has now found himself in a position where an enforcement agent has made a personal visit...and the debt increased by way of an enforcement fee of £235. He now owes £310 (to also include the Compliance Fee of £75). This inaccurate advice is costly debtors many thousands of pounds and given that the debt is for an unpaid court fine....the enforcement agent is permitted to force entry. For the avoidance of doubt, all debt streams (council tax arrears, unpaid local authority penalty charge notices and unpaid magistrate court fines) may only be enforced by way of the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act and the fees that can be charged are those under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Worryingly, the debtor has been advised today (by the person responsible for this highly inaccurate advice) that the Magistrate Court have supposedly given him the wrong advice. He claims that the warrant 'ceased' when the payment was made to the court and that the debtor can rely upon section 52.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. Not true: Section 52.8 was substituted under The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 !!!!
-
Approx two years ago the Local Government Ombudsman changed the way in which they record decisions. Previously, when a final decision was made, copies would be sent to the relevant local authority and the complainant. The significance of the change was that all decisions are now made public on the LGO website three months after the decision. There have been quite a few recent decisions made to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning successful Out of Time witness statements to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the position regarding 'bailiff fees'. Up until this decision, most local authorities when notified of a successful Out of Time witness statement will refund some or all of the amount of the PCN...and will then advise the individual that they must contact the bailiff company for a refund. Out of Time witness statements and the Traffic Enforcement Centre are subjects that I am passionate about and this is why I am DELIGHTED to read this very recent decision (made public on 23rd March 2016) from the LGO regarding London Borough of Haringey. The LGO advised LB of Haringey that they should refund Miss X the following amounts: Charge certificate surcharge of £65 TEC court fee of £7 Bailiff fees of £310. Analysis: Item 17: As detailed at Paragraph 15, the TEC’s decision to accept Miss X’s late witness statement ordered that recovery action be taken back to the original PCN. While the Council says it has discretion over whether to refund fees in this situation as the TEC’s decision makes no direction on this point, the TEC’s decision clearly directs the revocation of the order for recovery and the cancellation of the charge certificate. These documents form the basis of the Council’s action from December 2013, as well as the further fees added to Miss X’s debt. Item 18. The Ombudsman considers in this situation that as the TEC has withdrawn the basis for the fees, the Council cannot legitimately refuse to refund them. Had the TEC’s decision not intended to result in this action it would be meaningless as it would have no effect. I therefore consider that the Council’s refusal to refund the fees resulting from steps in the process which the TEC has ordered are cancelled, is fault. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-...ties/15-000-612
-
Civil Enforcement Limited claim issued at CCBC It's been acknowledged and notified will defend via NCOL The POC is for 'Outstanding Debt and Damages'and a note 'I will provide the defendant separate detailed particulars within 14 days of service of the claim form' The detailed particulars of claim were received on day 12. They mention Vine v Waltham Forest (2000) 4 ER 169 - When defendant parked they accepted by their conduct the conditions of parking They also point to case of Parking Eye V Beavis Supreme Court Ruling (establish legality of car park operators to charge...) They have added a 'Statement of Truth' and it's signed by their solicitor. They have attached a Schedule of Information which indicates the Site Details and Registration etc the Summary of Terms states it's a Maximum Parking Allowance exceeded I am helping the defendant with this as they have tried to deal with Civil Enforcement directly but got nowhere. The 'Incident' was on 08/04/2015 it's a 5 hour 'stay' but the defendant was over stayed by over 2 hours. The site has a cinema and number of eateries, they were parked for those purposes. I have looked at Received Court Papers From A Private parking Speculative invoice?? I will continue to hunt the threads but a defence needs to be prepared, I am going to see the site as I am pretty sure the sinage is rather poor however I wanted to check the following: If the ANPR camera is located at the 'entrance' to the car park even though you would need to drive over 100m to reach the 1st 'space' (or notice) does the parking notice not need to be displayed at the ANPR site?? Any other threads or specific help would be much appreciated. -
With bailiff enforcement, goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' from a certain date (more on this later). In simple terms, this means that unless the person who acquired the goods did so in 'good faith' .....for 'valuable consideration' and most importantly; 'without knowing about a warrant' then the transfer or sale will not be considered valid and accordingly, the goods (mainly a motor vehicle) can be seized by the enforcement agent. It is becoming a very common situation indeed for debtors to attempt to 'sell' (or transfer) a car to a friend, partner of relative after receiving correspondence or a visit from an enforcement company and given the frequency that this is happening, enforcement companies are naturally requiring 'evidence' of the 'sale'. By way of an example, the following is an ongoing case that was posted on a very large social media site on 5th February: Background: Mother found guilty of obstructing a High Court Enforcement Officer...told by Judge to expect to be sent to prison. - Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions - Consumer Action Group The poster stated that she had received a visit from a bailiff representing Marston Group in relation to one penalty charge notice. She confirmed that she knew of the debt. She refused to speak with the enforcement agent and as a consequence, her vehicle was clamped. Given that the vehicle cannot be removed unless a period of two hours has passed, the enforcement agent left the property. She was encouraged to deflate the tyre on her car and remove the wheel clamp. She did so. Stunningly, she then posted on the site to ask whether it was true that if she took the clamp to the police station, that she would not be prosecuted !!! It would seem that she was another person who believed JasonDWB's (The Guru's) inaccurate theory. She was told to move her car and keep it hidden. The following day, (February 6th) she posted that the enforcement agent had located her car. It was removed to the vehicle pound and the debt has significantly increased by way of the sale stage fee of £110 and she is now also being charged storage fees.
-
Hope the title makes sense but that's the situation. In detail, the debtor and his partner owe just under £5000 to a private creditor, who obtained a CCJ which took the total to just over £5000 including costs. The people are one self employed, with a partner employed in a minimum wage job. The debt remained unpaid and 3 months later the creditor applied for an Attachment of Earnings order (AEO), against the partner obviously as of course he can't obtain one against someone who is self employed. At a court hearing the judge took into consideration the couple's "tentative" financial situation and awarded the creditor £20 a month via an AEO. The creditor wasn't particularly happy with the low amount but the judge said "tough luck". Since then no paperwork has been received by the couple from the court, nor has the partner's employer received anything to enforce the AEO, and no deductions have been made from her monthly pay in the 2 pay packets she has received since the court hearing around 6 weeks ago. a couple of days ago a Notice of Enforcement was received by the couple from a private London Enforcement Officer. The form is genuine. The details include: "Judgement was entered against you by the claimant (etc)..in XX October 2015. The judgement was subsequently transferred to the High Court for enforcement purposes and a writ of control has been obtained. IMPORTANT: The questions here are: 1. Is there an Attachment of Earnings order in force, since neither debtors nor the partner's employer have received any paperwork from the court? I guess I'm asking is, given that the judge awarded the AEO to the creditor at the court hearing 6-7 weeks ago, can he then reject it without it ever being enforced and pursue enforcement via the bailiffs instead? 2. Can the creditor enforce the debt by asking bailiffs to attend AS WELL AS having an AEO in place? I ask this because it was always my understanding that the existence of the AEO prevented the creditor from pursuing any other action at the same time. - or - Can the creditor still do this against the self employed debtor even though the partner has an AEO filed against them? 3. Are the debtors not entitled to be informed that the case has been moved to the High Court and the AEO amended (if any changes have taken place) prior to the Notice of Enforcement being issued? There may be a couple more points I need clarifying later but at this stage I need to establish the legality of the Notice of Enforcement here before making any moves. Thanks in advance. Sorry for the long post, I've tried to keep it as short as while including the relevant details. -
I got a ticket in February for stopping in a no parking area obviously they rejected my appeal it is currently in the hands of the IAS with no decision yet made, today i got a Balance Due Demand for £125 (up from the original £50 for a quick payment) even though its still in appeal, any advice greatly received. Thanks Paul -
This new bill seems to have escaped debate on any of the forums. It was introduced last month in the Commons under the ten minute rule and is due for second reading on the 11th March http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/regulationofenforcementagentscollectionofcounciltaxarrears.html http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151028/debtext/151028-0001.htm#15102833000002 Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of bailiffs and other enforcement agents by local authorities to collect council tax arrears; to establish a code of practice for enforcement agents; to create an independent bailiffs ombudsman to administer the code and to investigate and adjudicate complaints; and for connected purposes. This Bill deals with two interrelated problems which, taken together, are pushing too many people into a debt trap by forcing them to borrow more to pay council tax arrears and unaffordable bailiff fees. The first problem is that local councils are too ready to call in the bailiffs when people fall into arrears on their council tax bill. This is despite guidance that is meant to encourage local authorities to look towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations and thus avoid the bailiffs. The Bill gives people a stronger right to challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option before instructing the bailiffs. -
As an enquirers thread was being diverted I have kicked off this thread to discuss CCTV and BWC. As E Munch has highlighted ICO concerns and DPA on this thread at post# 8 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?457929-Bristow-and-Sutor-%28Council-Tax%29-threatened-ARREST-if-not-pay-NOW...%282-Viewing%29-nbspdress happens to be right number wrong street I will kick off with the other side of the coin as in an aggressive EA is captured on a debtor's doorstep CCTV trying to intimidate a 14 year old daughter who looks 18, with no other adult present. DPA issues? and as it is a private house EA cannot demand footage destroyed and apparently no DPA issue especially if warning that CCTV is recording all visitors being displayed. Compare and contrast with DPA implications for BWC on EA capturing the same incident. Discuss -
Does anyone know if a bailiff can levy goods when the original debt has been paid? The debt was paid to the council in full, and now the council and bailiff company are saying tough, you need to pay the fees of £310 which is more than the debt was for. I know the usual advice of not letting them in and stuff but i can't find a definitive answer on whether they can levy if it's only their fees owing. As far as I am concerned, I paid the Liability Order in full. -
A motor vehicle has always been a most attractive item for a bailiff/enforcement agent to seize and in particular; because of its value and the fact that in many cases, the vehicle is located on the debtors driveway thereby easing the removal process. In 2014 significant changes were made to bailiff enforcement under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 but unfortunately with motor vehicles, the regulations may result in reduced protection for many people and in particular, business debtors. A short while ago I wrote a new STICKY for the forum entitled Bailiff enforcement: A Simple Guide to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. To ensure that the forum does not get clogged up with too many stickies I included with that STICKY a separate Guidance regarding bailiff enforcement and motor vehicle. Given the importance of this subject I thought that it may be useful to post a copy of the guidance (on motor vehicles) on the main forum as well (see copy in the next post). A link to the Guidance is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453292-Bailiff-enforcement-A-Simple-Guide-to-the-Taking-Control-of-Goods-Regulations&p=4800997&viewfull=1#post4800997
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS