Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'debtor'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 46 results

  1. Hi all, I am new to this site so please forgive me if I have posted in the wrong place. I have been fined £1200 by a magistrates court around 2 months ago. At the time I was not able to pay and was instructed by my solicitor to state that I could pay in instalments once I had an income to avoid a harsher punishment by the judge who was not in the best of moods on the day. I was advised by my solicitor and court staff to contact the collections department for fines to offer an amount I could pay monthly, every offer I ever made was refused for a payment plan but they kept telling me I could still make payments if I wished to do so. To this day, I genuinely have been unable to make any payments. Since becoming unemployed prior to this fine, I had to find a way to create an income. I set up a private limited company in August 2018 working from home selling goods online. I am the director of this company and 100% shareholder. My question is, now that I have started to receive letters from the court stating that further collection acticiry will take place, can bailiffs or court officers take control of assets/stock belonging to the private limited company which I am the director of? Any help would be appreciated as I am expecting a knock on the door any day now. Every week any money I make is being reinvested into existing and new stock, packaging, supplies etc. I am not yet paying myself a wage. I started this company with a surprise tax refund cheque and through selling my personal belongings as I needed to create a source of income as I was struggling to find work. This has paid off as my business is now getting somewhere so to speak. If I have missed any crucial information please forgive me and I will reply asap to any questions or requests for further information. I want to know whether what I have now finally built could be taken away by bailiffs / court collection officers!! Kind regards Hks91
  2. Does lending money to a friend create a legal contract..
  3. We had a second charge against our home of aapx. £24k about 10 years ago. we have been paying £30 per month since then. So the current balance will be around £20k. My family want to help me remove this charge. Can someone please give me any advice on how to best approach this. A sample letter to write to the debtor maybe asking for a discount to settle and release the charge. Thank you. GH
  4. My friends vehicle has been seized and a notice of sale has been received. I am the debtor. I have included this debt in my bankruptcy which was approved a day after the bailiffs came. The Official Receiver accepted evidence that this vehicle was not my asset. My friend has provided a receipt, a bank statement, a sworn statement and a letter from DVLA confirming the car has not been in my name since February 2017. The v5 was temporarily in my name for insurance purposes as I was borrowing the car. The owner has submitted an N244 application. I have submitted a form 4 in relation to a massive list of complaints about the bailiffs conduct. I have also written complaints to both the bailiffs (DCBL) and the creditor (UKCPM) The vehicle was due to be sold this Monday but I have not seen it on the auction website. It has been reported to the Police and they have said it is a civil matter. DVLA have also been made aware. The original creditor and bailiffs are refusing to respond to any emails. On the last phone call I had with them I was told the evidence provided was not enough to prove my friend owned the vehicle as I have to prove I never purchased it. I have emailed them asking if they would like a years worth of bank statements to prove no funds ever left my account for this vehicle. I have no idea how else I can prove I never purchased it or how else my friend can prove it is his. The only response I have had from DCBL is that the vehicle will not be returned until after the N244 application hearing. Does this mean they are planning on charging the owner storage fees if the Judge deems the vehicle is in fact his? If the Judge for some unknown reason deems this vehicle is owned by me can they legally sell it if I have been made bankrupt? I have spoke to CAB, national debtline, payplan and a whole load of other agencies. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
  5. Devon County County (16 017 119) Decision date: 17th August 2017. Published on the LGO website: 17th November 2017 Vulnerability and bailiff enforcement is a subject that is of great importance and sadly, it is a subject that is very much misunderstood. The LGO have made a number of decisions regarding the 'definition' of vulnerability and the following case is another one where the LGO confirm that a 'vulnerable' debtor must provide evidence to demonstrate how their vulnerability affects their ability to deal with the debt. PS: The following is a shortened copy of the decision. A full copy can be accessed from the link at the foot of the post. Background: (9) Mr B has received 5 penalty charge notices (PCN) for parking offences since 2014. A parking enforcement officer placed two on the car and Mr B received three through the post. On the telephone, Mr B told me that he did not take account of parking laws as he believes there is a law from the year 1600 that means he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere. (16) The Council has said that Mr B first used the words’ vulnerable’ about his wife and him both having Blue Badges on 3 December 2015. (17) The Council said it advised Mr B on 5 July to contact the bailiffs for them to consider his ‘vulnerability’ and for him to provide them with whatever evidence they need to confirm his status as vulnerable. The Council advised Mr B that if the bailiff did deem his to be a vulnerable household the Council would withdraw the warrant and cease activity. (18) The Council said Mr B did not supply the bailiffs with supporting evidence. It has said the blue badge issued to Mr B, shows they have met the criteria of limited mobility to have a blue badge issued but may not necessarily be vulnerable. (19) The Council says that Mr B thinks that his vulnerability means that he is exempt from paying these fines. The Council says it disagrees with Mr B’s interpretation. It considers he is still liable to pay these fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how these fines are paid, e.g. deferring payment periods, accepting lower instalments until debts paid. (20) The Council has asked Mr B to provide supporting written evidence of his ‘vulnerability’ for it to find out if there are other conditions from which he suffers that may fit his interpretation of vulnerability, e.g. Mental health, depression, post- traumatic stress, at risk of self-harm, inability to understand and engage with the process. The Council says that if Mr B does meet any of these criteria, then it may withdraw the warrants and close the cases. Mr B has not provided supporting evidence. Analysis from the Local Government Ombudsman: (23) Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid. The TEC is the court appointed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport to deal with registration of debts arising from penalty charge notices. I can find no fault on this point. (24) Mr B complains the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies. For completeness, I will ask the Council to send me its electronic records showing the warrants but I can see no evidence of fault on this point. (25) Mr B believes that under the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2010, (updated 2015) as soon as he told the bailiff company finds out he is vulnerable (with no explanation) they have to withdraw. He believes that he does not need to provide details of his details of his vulnerability; it is then the Council’s job to prove he isn’t. (26) The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, part 2, regulation 10 set out the circumstances in which an enforcement agent may not take control of goods. It says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of a debtor where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present. The legislation does not give any further guidance about how a vulnerable person is defined. (27) Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he has not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He considers that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not. (28) It cannot be right that a person can say they are vulnerable and all outstanding debts are written off without them giving further information. If this was the case, then there would be no way for the Council to enforce any debt collection as anybody could claim vulnerability without evidence. I do consider it reasonable for Mr B to explain why he considers himself to be vulnerable. (29) In any case, a vulnerable person still has to pay the fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how the debtor pays the fines, e.g. deferring payment periods or accepting lower instalments. It should also allow the vulnerable person time to get help and advice. (30) I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. The Council gave Mr B the opportunity to appeal the PCN’s and to appeal to the court. No further recovery action has been taken once he told the bailiffs and Council he is vulnerable. However, I do consider it reasonable for him to give details of his vulnerability if he wants the Council to consider removing the warrants. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-017-119
  6. With an unconfirmed report about an incident last week that led to a bailiff being hospitalised with serious injuries, the public need to be aware that it is a criminal offence under Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, to obstruct a bailiff/enforcement agent (link below). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/paragraph/68?view=plain Only a few days ago another person was convicted at trial in Nottingham of this offence. http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/bailiff-handed-100-compensation-after-684830
  7. When the Taking Control of Goods regulations came into effect in 2014, they not only provided a much clearer and fixed fee scale, they also introduced a fairer system whereby, in order to keep bailiff fees to the barest minimum, (of just £75) the debtor is given the opportunity of avoiding a personal bailiff visit (and an enforcement fee of £235 being applied) by paying the debt (including the Compliance Fee of £75) by the date outlined on the Notice of Enforcement....or alternatively, by agreeing a payment arrangement with the enforcement company. Most payment arrangements are for a short period of approx 3-4 months (sometimes even more). Where problems have arisen since 2014, is that many people receiving a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff company, try to avoid paying bailiff fees by visiting the local authorities website and making an online payment of just the debt owed to the council. Such avoidance methods do not work. This is because, the regulations are very specific in that once the Notice of Enforcement has been issued, the debt owed includes the compliance fee of £75. Furthermore, and this is again in the regulations, any payments made after the Notice of Enforcement has been issued must first be applied towards discharging the Compliance fee (of £75). The bottom line is that if a payment is made to a local authority (minus bailiff fees) after the date on when a Notice of Enforcement is issued, the enforcement company are entitled to their compliance fee (of £75). The effect being that any payment made to a local authority (minus bailiff fees) must be considered as merely a part payment and accordingly, the warrant is not satisfied…and bailiff enforcement can.....and will continue. Since 2014, debt avoidance websites have inundated local authorities with many hundreds of Freedom of Information requests enquiring as to whether councils retain these online payment or pass the compliance fee to the enforcement company etc. These pointless requests have achieved absolutely nothing. There have been quite a few Local Government Ombudsman’s decisions regarding this scenario but a very recent one is of interest because, in this particular case, the local authority adjusted the amount of the Liability Order but failed to inform the enforcement company. The debtor also paid the council direct (minus bailiffs). A have copied the decision in the next post.
  8. A man who attacked a bailiff with a pick axe handle has been jailed Martin Pritchard admitted assaulting Josef Minoli who had come to his house to collect unpaid magistrates court fines. He had received a telephone call from his stepson to inform him that the bailiff was at the property looking to collect the debt. When Pritchard arrived back at his house in Wrexham, he became abusive telling Mr Minoli to ‘get the the f*** out”. He then hit the bailiff in the midriff with the pick up handle causing him to fall to the ground. The enforcement officer had been on his phone to the police during the attack. When officers arrived, Pritchard had already fled the scene, but was picked up later. Mold Crown Court heard that Pritchard had arrived back at his house with another person, assaulting the bailiff and then beginning to count down as he held the axe handle over his head. The debtor had been before the court on a number of previous occasions. Mr Pritchard's Barrister stated in court that her client had lost his temper because his step son was alone at the house. The court fine was paid later that day and this, together with the fact that Mr Pritchard’s mother was unwell and that he helped look after her children, was taken into consideration by the Judge. He was jailed for 5 months.
  9. I started an important thread earlier today concerning a recent court judgment where a debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 in costs after losing his claim against Harrow Council and their agent; Newlyn. The background and Judgment can be read by way of the following link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.(32-Viewing)-nbsp To ensure that the original thread does not go 'off topic', discussions about the judgment can be posted here.
  10. The countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse has written in his latest Bulletin about the important subject of bailiff fees when debtors make payment to the creditor (i.e. Magistrate Court, local authority etc). This is a subject that has been discussed often on the forum and thankfully, with the regulations now having been in place for two years, most local authorities understand that if a direct payment is received from a debtor after the account has been forwarded to the enforcement agent, that the Compliance fee of £75 needs to be deducted at source and the balance apportioned on a pro rata basis in line with regulations. The position with Magistrate Court fines is very much simpler. If a debtor makes a direct payment to the court (either in person or on-line), after a warrant of control has been issued, all courts write to the debtor to advise that the entire payment has been forwarded to the enforcement agent so that they (the EA) can deduct their fees in line with legislation. A extract from John Kruse's excellent article is copied in the next post: PS: An detailed explanation of how direct payments are allocated and the pro rata distribution can be read here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453047-Bailiff-enforcement-Setting-up-a-payment-arrangement-and-whether-you-can-pay-the-court-or-the-council-direct
  11. When the enforcement regulations were overhauled in 2014, they provided a radical change whereby, a debtor could repay their debt by way of a payment arrangement (usually over a period of approx 3-4 months). Such payment arrangements need to be set up within the very strict time frame outlined on the Notice of Enforcement. This period of time is referred to as the 'Compliance stage' and as long as a payment arrangement is agreed by the date and time given on the notice, an enforcement visit will not be required, and this will save the debtor incurring an enforcement fee of £235. The ‘compliance stage’ is also the period when cases of ‘vulnerability’ should be bought to the attention of the enforcement company (and evidence provided where possible). When the Notice of Enforcement is sent, a Compliance fee of £75 will be added to the principal debt. It is important to make clear that the Compliance fee (of £75) is not a fee for just sending a letter. It is a fee that covers many different costs incurred by the enforcement agent including the setting up of Welfare Departments, training and setting up and managing payment arrangements etc, etc. The second radical change introduced in 2014 was the provided that where the proceeds of enforcement are less than the amount outstanding, that the payment should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between the creditor and enforcement agent. With the ‘Compliance stage’ allowing for short term payment arrangements, the government were concerned that this could cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss until the total debt was paid (and they recovered their fees) and that this could undermine the fee structure and could lead to enforcement agents acting in an aggressive manner in order to recoup the entire debt. It was for this precise reason, that the regulations provide that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds. This is explained in more detail in the following Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf It has been interesting to observe over the past 3 years the way in which 'debt avoidance' websites reacted to the compliance fee with literally hundreds of Freedom of Information requests being made to councils around the country questioning how each council dealt with 'direct payments' and whether they retained the payment...or forwarded it to the enforcement agent. The advice from these groups has remained unchanged...pay the council direct online the principal debt (minus enforcement agent fees). With Magistrate Court fines, in every case where a payment is received after a case had been passed to an enforcement agency, the court will forward the payment to the enforcement agent so that they can deduct the compliance fee (of £75) and apportion the balance in line with legislation. If the debt in question is a local authority issued penalty charge notice or a liability order, some councils manage direct payments in different ways. Some forward the entire payment to the enforcement agent....some forward just the compliance fee and others keep the payment. Regardless of the internal procedures, the fact remains, that paying the council (or creditor direct) does not avoid paying bailiff fees and this has been the subject of an important legal case details of which are posted below.
  12. In May 2015, I started a thread on this forum regarding a debtor (Mr OR) who had followed advice from the internet and had issued an injunction against a local authority after his vehicle had been clamped by a bailiff. The debtor considered that his vehicle should have been exempt as it was subject to finance. Unfortunately, his injunction failed as the Judge ruled that there could be a ‘beneficial’ interest in the vehicle. Mr OR was ordered to pay the local authorities costs of £3,200. This was in addition to his own costs (the fee for the injunction alone was £395). A link to this popular thread is below. So far, it has received almost 13,000 views. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?445251-Goods-on-HP-a-Judge-says-they-can-be-sold(1-Viewing)-nbsp In Sept 2015, I started a similar thread on here to warn members of the public that if they have a vehicle that is subject to finance, they need to ensure that they provide evidence that there is no ‘beneficial interest' in the vehicle. Even that thread has received almost 6,500 views !! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago, another debtor (Mr MH) also issued an injunction to prevent an enforcement company selling his vehicle (a mini cab). This vehicle was also subject to ‘hire purchase’. The difference with this case, was that the ‘value’ of the vehicle was approx £14,500, and the amount required to settle the obligation under the hire purchase contract was just £6,300 (leaving an ‘equitable interest’ of approx £8,200). The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal. Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake. PS: I will not be giving the name of the debtor, the local authority or the enforcement company. The facts of the case are all that is important.
  13. Hi folks, i need somebody to inform me what the empty spaces are needing as ive re read this block several times and its not clear to me.
  14. The following is a short extract from a press release that featured on SCOOP yesterday regarding the trial of a debtor (Danny Williamson) who threatened bailiffs with knives and an imitation gun when they attended his property seeking payment of £1,100 for a fine relating to alleged traffic offences. From the report, it would seem that the debtor had claimed that he had not known of the debt. Bailiffs stated that they would be taking control of his vehicle. He was finally arrested at gunpoint by armed police. Judge Ian Graham handed Mr Williamson a 12 month prison sentence at Basildon Crown Court yesterday suspended for 18 months, and ordered him to pay £520 in court costs. Further details can be read here: http://www.basildonstandard.co.uk/news/14875264.Grandad_grabs_a_fake_gun_to_scare_away_two_bailiffs/ http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news
  15. 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...
  16. 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).
  17. I applied to Littlewoods Catalogue via an application form way back in the 1990's. Although I have just a small debt of £160, this is now included in an IVA. The IVA has been enforced since June 2012; I've had no contact with Littlewoods since the IVA was granted. I wish to seek under I believe a section 75 request to see if there is any actual credit agreement with the catalogue company. The debt is still listed with Littlewoods and does not appear to have been sold on. Can anyone please provide me with template letters? Thank you.
  18. "When a bailiff from one of Britain’s biggest firms of debt collectors called at gymnastics instructor Ronald Grant’s flat last November little did he realise that his life was about to be turned upside down. Within 15 minutes it descended into a hallway brawl, followed by Grant’s arrest, interrogation, and the police charging him with common assault. As a result of the incident, Grant claims his life has been wrecked and he has lost his income." More on this this story please read here http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/15/bailiff-rights-dispute-jbw-police-enforcement
  19. This morning I had a visit from a Marston EA. I was at work and my partner didn't hear the bell so the EA left a card. The cards is for the attention of my stepson (Ben) who hasn't lived with us for over 10 years but as he moves around a lot often gives are address for post etc... He has no room or property of value in the house (just a few items of clothing etc..) The card states they called today to execute a warrant of control by Hertfordshire magistrates court. The debt is for £640 I rang the mobile number on the card to explain that Ben doesn't live with us and has no property of value in the house and the man said it doesn't matter and he will be back in an hour and a half with a locksmith and police and will take goods to cover the debt. Can he really do this? The house is mine and my partners as are all the possessions in it. I've left work to come home but am sitting here not at all sure what I can do if they do return. How do I prove someone doesn't live here? How do I prove any items in the house are not Ben's? I'm concerned that if I go back to work they will break in and I'll come back to the house with a bunch of stuff missing. I have contacted my stepson and he said he didn't know what this was about. I treid to talk to the court but they wont tell me anything (or do anything) because I'm not the debtor. Any advice would be very much appreciated. Many thanks Andy
  20. 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
  21. Under section 68.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 it is a very serious offence to obstruct a bailiff. Last week yet another debtor was found guilty of this offence but even more seriously, he was also found guilty of assaulting the bailiff (the bailiff required stitches to his nose). The debt was in relation to an unpaid penalty charge notice. Bailiffs attended the debtors property to request £422. It would seem that previous visits had also been made and on one of the visits, he had sworn at the bailiff before driving off. It was on the 4th visit that the incident occurred. During the one day trial the debtors solicitor claimed that his client had suffered a stroke before the incident and this had led to him being unable to raise his left arm. Unfortunately for the debtor, the medical papers handed to the magistrates did not bear out the stroke claims stating only that Mr Gara had complained of 'weakness' in his arm. After deliberating for 45 minutes, magistrates convicted Mr Gara of assault by beating on March 3rd and also of obstructing a lawful enforcement agent on the same occasion. The presiding magistrate has requested pre sentence reports to be prepared before sentencing at the next hearing on 17th September. http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15681/Bailiff-attacked-by-Thatcham-taxi-driver.html
  22. "A dad who brandished a two-foot hunting knife at bailiffs who were trying to repossess his car has been jailed. Nathan Watson, 27, had already put his children in the back of the Volkswagen Golf in a bit to stop the debt collectors towing the vehicle away." For more on this story please read here http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/dad-brandished-knife-at-bailiffs-1-7407621
  23. Over the past few months a large number of Facebook pages have been set up (mainly by Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land activists). A common feature of these pages is the use of highly dubious methods of 'beating the bailiff'. The most common feature, and one that is sadly costing debtors dearly is the advice to refuse to speak or correspond with the enforcement agent and instead, to pay the amount of the actual 'debt' (Liability Order, parking penalty notice, court fine) direct to the creditor (minus bailiff fees of course). From further reading it would appear that the reason for refusing to 'engage' with the enforcement company is that by 'engaging' the debtor becomes a 'joinder' and therefore is agreeing to a 'contract' being entered into (a daft Freeman on the Land theory and one that has no basis in law whatsoever). A rather worrying suggestion that I have seen on quite a few of these sites recently is the advice to debtors to make a complaint about bailiff fees to the Magistrate's Court under the provision of Regulation 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. This is novel idea and one that again is being sold by 'Guru's' and has no basis whatsoever in law. Of course as with all such scams, there is no evidence whatsoever of any court 'successes'. This is despite the highly inaccurate 'claims' on these Facebook pages that once the summons is laid before the Justice of the Peace that the Justice will either issue a summons directed to the bailiff requiring him to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information or more ludicrously; that a warrant would be issued ordering the bailiff to be arrested and brought to court to answer the charges. A copy of a recent 'template' is provided in the following post.
  24. There are so many press reports recently of debtors being arrested and in this case, found guilty and sentenced to 8 months in prison (suspended). In this case the debtor's car had been moved onto a vehicle trailer by bailiffs from JBW Group and the debtor set the car on fire. Link and word version of story below: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-man-set-car-seized-bailiffs/story-26217852-detail/story.html Desperate Bekim Recica, aged 42, set the Vauxhall Zafira ablaze as a recovery company prepared to remove it from outside his home, Plymouth Crown Court heard. The father-of-five had earlier threatened to kill anyone who came near the vehicle. Nobody was hurt but the car was wrecked and the low loader where it was sitting was damaged, the court heard. Handing him a suspended prison sentence, Judge Paul Darlow told him: “It was explained to you that once the car was seized, it no longer belonged to you. “You clearly armed yourself with petrol and made very determined efforts to set fire to the car despite very clear warnings.”
  25. Six years ago (in 2009) a Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) supporter by the name of Mike Dobson (Mike:of the clan Dobson) drafted a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice which he used to ‘scare off bailiffs’. He advised on the Freeman Ireland website that the notice should be put up at the boundary of the ‘private estate’ and the ‘public access way/street’ and that if a bailiff came to the door of the house they should be politley told that they would be trespassing and that they would have just 60 seconds to leave before a call would be made to the Police. Due entirely to the internet, the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice drafted by Mike Dobson went 'viral' and appeared on the Freeman on the Land’s favorite media outlet; YouTube. In 2010, the notice first appeared on the popular FMoTL forum; Get out Of Debt Free. Within a short time all popular Freeman on the Land websites carried the notice with many of them making their own changes to the wording. In March 2014 I researched the background to these silly notices and started a thread on this subject which to date has received over 12,000 visitors (link below): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from PS: Unfortunately, the internet sites that recommended using this notice were unaware that the notice proved to be a complete and utter failure for it’s author; Mike Dobson (see link below) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from&p=4664219&viewfull=1#post4664219
×
×
  • Create New...