Hello A friend of mine let a DCBL bailiff into her home ( it was 6am, they looked like cops and they pushed into the doorway when the door was opened) They waived a Writ of Control to justify entry and refusal to leave. They now have a list of goods under control - one of these is a computer. While I understand they can take the computer, what is the status of the data stored on the machine? In the meantime, I've applied for a N244 to create a payment schedule as she is vulnerable on health grounds (also the reason for not being able to pay the original CCJ that started all this) Thank you

The following is a copy of a very recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman. This particular decision is a vitally important one as it refers to the correct procedure that should be followed if an individual has had his goods taken to settle another person's debt. In almost all cases, the goods in question would be a motor vehicle. PS: As the decision is very lengthly, I have split it into two separate posts. London Borough of Ealing (15 016 609) Summary: The Council’s enforcement agents were not at fault when they seized Mr X’s car to recover an outstanding penalty charge. But they failed to advise Mr X of his right to make a claim under the Civil Procedure Rules. The Council has agreed to take the steps recommended to remedy the injustice caused. The complaint The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains that enforcement agents acting for the Council removed and eventually sold his car to pay for a debt which related to the previous owner. Mr X says he provided the Council and enforcement agents with proof he had bought the car in good faith but they did not accept it. Mr X would like the cost of the car refunded. He would also like the Council to reimburse him for the cost of possessions he lost when the enforcement agents seized the car and the hire car costs he has since incurred. The History The car referred to in this complaint was formerly owned by Mr Z – who previously lived at the same address as Mr X. The Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr Z. When Mr Z did not respond to the PCN, the Council obtained a court order which allowed its enforcement agents to recover the money owed. On 10 September 2016 the enforcement agents issued Mr Z with a Notice of Enforcement (NOE). This told him that enforcement action had started and gave him 14 days to settle the balance or agree a payment plan. Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the Act”) says that once enforcement agents issues an NOE, the goods of a debtor are “bound”. This means the debtor cannot sell them or give them away. But Schedule 12 of the Act says that if a person buys goods from a debtor which were bound, they can keep them if they can show they obtained the goods: in good faith;for valuable consideration (normally money but can be something else of value); andwithout knowing the belongings were bound. Mr Z did not respond to the NOE and on 28 September 2016 enforcement agents visited his home address. The car was parked outside his home address and the enforcement agents took control of the car. When enforcement agents take control of goods they are deciding which goods they can sell to meet the person’s debt. Once an enforcement agent takes control of goods they are known as “controlled goods”. Enforcement agents will not always remove controlled goods straight away. The enforcement agents posted an inventory to Mr Z’s home which said the car was now controlled goods. They also affixed a notice to the car. To stop the enforcement agents removing the car Mr Z needed to pay the outstanding debt. Mr Z did not respond and the enforcement agents returned to his home on 03 November 2015. They clamped the car and posted a letter to Mr Z asking him to make contact and settle the debt or they would remove the car. On 03 November 2015 Mr X emailed the enforcement agent. Mr X said he bought the car on 20 September 2015. Mr X provided a copy of a handwritten receipt for £3000 and a copy of the “New keeper’s details” section from the car’s V5C (its registration document). When someone buys a car they keep this section and the seller sends the rest of the V5C to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The DVLA then issues a new V5C. Mr X also supplied an email confirmation from the DVLA which showed they had been notified using its online service that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. The DVLA’s online service is relatively new. On 05 November 2015 the enforcement agents visited Mr Z’s home address and removed the car. The enforcement agents had not heard from Mr Z and they did not consider Mr X to have provided sufficient evidence he had bought the car. Mr X emailed the enforcement agents on the same day. He explained he had paid £3000 for the car on 20 September and had already spent £1100 on maintenance. Mr X gave them two days notice and said he would then be seeking legal advice. On 09 November 2016 the enforcement agents emailed Mr X. They set out the events to date and said that “The evidence you have provided to date is a handwritten receipt on a page out of a diary and the new keeper supplement for the logbook. Neither of these documents prove ownership of the vehicle.” The enforcement agents did not make reference to the email from the DVLA Mr X supplied. The enforcement agents also said “We notice the vehicle has remaining [sic] untaxed since 20/09/05, it is illegal to keep an untaxed car on a public highway.” The enforcement agents concluded by saying “we are satisfied that all you have done is changed the registered keeper with the DVLA to avoid seizure of the vehicle...As you live at the same address as Mr Z we strongly suggest you decide between you who will be setting the balance as the vehicle will be released to auction on 19 November 2015.” Mr X replied on the same day and said he had “instructed [his] solicitors to take this matter further.” On 19 November 2015 the enforcement agents emailed Mr X and explained they would sell the car at auction unless they received payment. They did not receive payment and the car was sold. In January 2016 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. Because the Council had not considered Mr X’s concerns through its formal complaints process the Ombudsman asked it to do this. The Council provided formal responses to Mr X as follows: The Council was therefore satisfied the car was transferred while a warrant was held against it. If the car had been transferred at the beginning of September then the DVLA would have issued a V5C earlier than the beginning of December. If Mr X remained unhappy he could complain to the Ombudsman. Was there fault causing injustice? The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and does not retake decisions which were properly made by a Council (or parties acting on its behalf). The Ombudsman’s role is limited to checking if there was any fault in the way a council made a decision. If there was no fault or flaw, the Ombudsman may not, by law, intervene in the judgment reached by a Council. This is the case even where the Ombudsman may have given different weight to a piece of evidence or reached a different decision on the same facts. I do not consider the Council’s enforcement agents were at fault when they seized the car Mr X says he bought from Mr Z. This is because of the following: Mr X says he bought the car on 20 September 2015. This was after the enforcement agents issued the NOE and when the car became “bound”. The enforcement agents took control of the car on 28 September 2015 but Mr X did not contact them until 03 November 2015 when they clamped the car. Mr X showed the enforcement agents an undated handwritten receipt and an undated “change of keeper” section from the V5C. Mr X says he bought the car in good faith, for valuable consideration, and without knowing it was bound goods. Mr X also sent the enforcement agents an email from the DVLA showing he had told them he was now the registered keeper. I note the enforcement agents did not directly refer to this in their email dated 09 November 2015 – they simply mentioned the undated documents. But they did also say “we are satisfied that all you have done is changed the registered keeper with the DVLA to avoid seizure of the vehicle.” They also noted the vehicle was not taxed from 20 September 2015. A vehicle’s tax is automatically cancelled when the DVLA’s online system is used to register a change of keeper. I am therefore satisfied the enforcement agents did take into account all of the information provided by Mr X. But they did not consider Mr X to have provided enough supporting evidence that his purchase of the car was genuine. This was a decision they were entitled to take and meant they were entitled to seize the car. I also note that: Mr X did not provide the enforcement agents with any proof of insurance from 20 September 2015. Arranging insurance is normally the first thing a person does when they buy a new car. I asked Mr X about this and he said his insurance company needed a copy of the V5C before they could insure it. This is not normal practice. Mr X did not provide the enforcement agents with any evidence he had withdrawn money from the bank to pay for the car. As part of my investigation I asked Mr X about this. He said he borrowed the money from his brother and repaid it instalments. In response to my enquiries Mr X told me he sent the Council a revised V5C in late October / early November. The Council did not return it and so Mr X had to apply for a duplicate – this is why the V5C he has was issued in December. Mr X cannot provide proof he sent the V5C in late October / early November and the Council says it has no record of receiving the document. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish exactly what happened. Mr Z did not provide any evidence in support of Mr X’s case. Mr X sent me bank statements for October, November and December 2015. These show payments to the DVLA each month with a reference number which matches the car’s registration number. Mr X says these payments were for the car’s vehicle tax. But there is no evidence Mr X showed this evidence to the enforcement agents. For the reasons set out above I cannot uphold this part of Mr X’s complaint. This decision should not be seen as setting any precedent about what constitutes evidence of ownership. Each case should be considered based on the evidence provided and the particular circumstances of the case.

Hello, on Saturday evening i thought i'd give the Mrs a break and take us all to a restaurant in Bromley, we arrived and parked at 18:50. Looking at the signs it was a bit confusing i went to check the hours of operation also attached everything looked fine and i was happy that i managed to find parking on a busy evening. The restaurant was really busy and they told us we only have an hour as they have further reservations, we sat down to eat knowing we will be back just after 20:00, but that's besides the point. I am really surprised to be getting a ticket outside of the operation hours, and the 5 mins max stay just doesn't add up. I am appealing just need a bit of help please Regards fro

My problem is this..... I have a Controlled Goods Agreement with Bristol and Suitor.. My problem is this.. My monthly Income of Housing benefit and Job seekers... Minus my Rent and the Controlled goods agreement leaves my with just £55 a month. The Controlled goods agreementis £200 per month for 5 months. ** Is the a way no negotiate a lower monthly fee ?? *** (As im an trainee Accountant and I need to go job hunting in London ) I have been unemployed for almost 18 months after breaking both my legs !!! and my only pais of shoes have fallen a part . SORRY, feeling depressed.... now my life is just falling apart !

I am confused here. I am currently being persued for a previous HP debt which in fact I am making payments for but I dont have the car which is a different story. I am concerned that one day my new car will be clamped even though it is on HP. It seems that when you look at web advice...some say it is protected and some is not. So...if I have a vehicle on HP: Can it be clamped. Can it be removed.

Hi everybody, I have a van Toyota Hiace from 2004. I bought it this summer (July) and from the beginning I regularly bring it to my garage. I spent around £700 in 7 months for maintenance. Initially I did a general service, i changed some mechanical parts, tyres, and recently I did the MOT. A couple of months ago the orange light of the oil turned on, i checked the oil and it was full. I spoked with my mechanic about it and about the fact that the van was doing some smoke at the start. The mechanic cleaned the filters and told me that the light was probably caused by an electric malfunction and that there was no risk in driving the van. On the 21 of December my colleague was driving the van when it stopped in the middle of the road and started to do a weird sound. After several trial the van started and he manage to reach home. When we went to the closest garage (which is not my usual) they say that we were running without oil and the engine failed and need to be replaced. I went to my garage and they confirmed that i need to replace the engine. The cost of my van is £2200 + the work done that are around £700. Replacing the engine with a second hand one is going to be around £600 work and £500 cost of engine. I would like to understand if my garage has some responsibilities on what happened. If I bring my van regularly there, I asked about the specific issue with the oil lights and they tell me that i can run without problems and after few weeks the engine get damage so badly that I have to replace it do they have any legal responsibility? Thank you. Filippo

Yet again another debtor has been found guilty under section 68.1 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 for interfering with controlled goods and also for criminal damage. Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds. In this particular case, the brief background is that Croydon Council issued a penalty charge notice and the debt remained unpaid and was passed to their bailiff contractor; Confero Ltd to enforce. The enforcement officer attended the property and located the vehicle. A wheel clamp was applied and the relevant statutory notice posted through the door. The owner of the vehicle forcibly removed the wheelclamp and drove away in the car. Later that same day he was arrested by the police and charged with the following: Criminal damage (to the wheel clamp) Theft of the motor vehicle. Intentionally inferring with Controlled Goods without lawful excuse. The vehicle was removed to the enforcement companies car pound. He was bailed and had a first hearing at court earlier this year (May). The individual claimed that he had not received statutory notices from Croydon Council and accordingly filed an Out of Time witness statement. It is assumed that this had been rejected. At Bromley Magistrates Court yesterday (5th October) he was cleared of the charge of theft of the motor vehicle but was found guilty of the other two charges (criminal damage to the wheelclamp) and interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse. He was fined a total of £1,598

Those of you that happen to have the Enforcement Agent (EA) and demanding money to clear your debt you really should get to grips with what is a must on these forms, and what happens if you cannot keep to the agreement... Please have a read here as it could help you understand CLEARLY what could happen in this case for the link it is here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/bailiff-has-issued-you-with-a-notice/bailiffs-notices/controlled-goods-agreements-bailiffs/ As you can see the EA MUST follow a strict regime before a CGA is correct.... The link has visual forms that you can read now and get to grips with it. Most of all the person signing it must either be you or someone the has your PERMISSION to do so. Whether or not the EA believes that the 3rd party has a verbal agreement that they can sign for you, it does not state that this needs to be in writing, this could cause issues if the other person is your partner. So maybe consider not giving your permission in the first place then the CGA will be void if a 3rd party signs it without permission... Finally this If a Controlled good agreement doesn't keep to the rules If a controlled goods agreement doesn't keep to these rules, the bailiff won't have control of your belongings and you can do the following: refuse to let the bailiff in if they try to come back – they won’t be allowed to force their way in write to the bailiff firm to explain that you will not be making any payments under the controlled goods agreement because it isn’t valid take the bailiff firm to court to get your belongings back, if they've already been taken. If you’re given a controlled goods agreement that doesn’t keep to the rules, this can give you more time to look at other options to stop the bailiff action, such as: negotiating with your creditors to pay back what you owe applying to the court to suspend the bailiff action choosing a formal debt solution, such as a debt relief order or bankruptcy. Please spend time reading all of the links within the original link it will be of use to you in the long run...

This is going to be, I fear, a bit of a long winded post, so apologies for that right from the start. Yesterday (23rd June), my property was visited by an "enforcement agent" (I'm going to say bailiff from now on, as it's quicker to type) from Bristow & Sutor. I wasn't home, but my partner was (the debt (council tax) is in both our names). It is important to note that I am NOT trying to get out of paying the council tax for a second, I know that has to be paid, but I do need advice on this controlled goods agreement. Anyway... The bailiff knocked on the door and my partner answered it. He (the bailiff) then went on to explain why he was there. He told her that he was there to make an arrangement to pay, which was fine, we owe it, so we've got to pay it, I don't have any real problem with that (apart from their fees ) but she was pressured/intimidated into signing it. All of the paperwork for this 'agreement to pay' was filled in by the bailiff, and my partner was told to sign it. Thinking that she was only signing an agreement to a payment plan, she signed it (we've had words ) but in fairness to her, the bailiff was suggesting that he had all sorts of powers to force entry etc etc, she was told that the sheaf of papers that the bailiff was filling in was all to do with the changes in the law in April. As I said, she was more or less intimidated into signing this paperwork on the doorstep. He then left her with copies of the paperwork. An important point to note at this point is that at no time did the bailiff set foot inside the door When I got home, I looked through the paperwork that she'd signed, and it's a "Controlled Goods Agreement" (Walking Possession as was). This 'agreement' states that the bailiff has "taken control of our goods" and unless the payment plan is kept to (which we can't afford to pay, but the bailiff refused to negotiate) they'll be back to seize our goods which they've apparently taken control of. A couple of points I've noted from the 1st part of the paperwork is that it is filled in incorrectly (albeit minor errors). 1). The bailiff has spelt my partners name incorrectly. 2). The "Enforcement Stage Fee" doesn't add up. As I understand it, that should be £235 plus 7.5% of any amount of the debt over £1,500. This actually means that the 'enforcement stage fee' is 20.575p higher than it should be. Yes, I know, it's only 20 and a bit pence, but it means that it's not factual. But now, the more important things. In the 2nd part of the paperwork, the bailiff claims that he has entered the property (he hasn't) and then issued a "Notice After Entry" and claims to have taken control of our goods. However, on the next sheet, the bailiff has ticked the box marked "I have taken control of the following" and then listed... "As previous inventory" Now, I've lived here 18 years, and unless the bailiff has snuck in disguised as the guy who fixes washing machines, no bailiff has EVER been inside the front door, so by my reckoning there cannot be a "previous inventory" and perhaps it would be more truthful to have written "as previously invented". So, the main point of this post is to ask your advice. Are we under threat of these goons coming back to try and force entry (although that sounds like a silly question now I've typed it). Is this document valid, or can I take it up to the bathroom to use as we see fit would be a better question. My partner is now terrified that they'll come back while I'm at work, and I don't know what to tell her. Help!

quick question can a bailiff force entry after peaceful entry and control of goods signed are failed to make payments under agreement

I wonder if somebody could clarify the situation re: Controlled Zones. I have been issued with a PCN for parking in restricted area of Control Zone. I did contest it, stating that no curb markings, yellow lines - so I assumed okay? They replied, refusing my appeal, stating that in Controlled Zones, it is not a requirement for any yellow lines, curb markings etc? So is it right then, that all is required are two 'controlled zone' signs, displayed (one on either side of road) at entrance to Controlled Area (high st) - at either end of course. But apart from that, the Council do not have to place any further signs or warnings along the whole of the Street (zone). Any advice - much appreciated thank you Nadia Phillips:x