Bailliff seized company car. Help!

[seanamarts]

I think they should of left something like this;

Address of Premises:

THIS NOTICE is left by an Officer of the Sheriff of ...........

 

• TAKE NOTICE:
  1. A formal seizure of the goods at the above address has been made under a Writ of Execution directed to the Sheriff by the High Court. The Sheriff accordingly has conduct of the execution.
  

 

 

• 2. The goods seized are now in the custody of the Sheriff, as an officer of the Court, and must not be removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. This will remain the position until the sum due under the execution has been paid in full. The only exceptions are goods of the type referred to in section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. (This section is set out overleaf). Enclosed with this NOTICE is a WALKING POSSESSION AGREEMENT in the form prescribed by law. You must read this agreement and sign it to acknowledge the seizure and hand it to the Sheriff’s Officer attending your premises or return it to this Office. Failure to sign the Walking Possession Agreement may result in the removal of the goods seized without further notice pending disposal by public auction.
  

 

 

• 3. The judgment debt of £ and £ costs of execution are due under the Writ [together with £ interest and Sheriff’s Charges] or [You must be in touch IMMEDIATELY with this Office so that you can be told the exact amount due for interest and Sheriff’s charges].
  

 

 

• 4. Payment must be made to this Office in CASH or by BANK DRAFT. Payment by cheque may be accepted if the Sheriff agrees but may be subject to such charges (if any) as are made by his bankers for special clearance.
  

 

 

• 5. If payment is not made and the execution proceeds, the Sheriff’s officers or their agents will attend and remove the goods seized for sale by public auction or as the Court may direct.
  

 

 

• 6. If any of the goods seized are not your property, you must tell the owner about the seizure and he must write to the Sheriff claiming the goods.
  

 

 

• 7. If any of the goods seized are the subject of a hire purchase or any similar agreement, you must send full details in writing to the Sheriff.
  

 

 

• 8. If any of the goods seized are not liable to seizure by virtue of section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (set out overleaf) this Office must be sent full details in writing within 5 days of the seizure or within such greater period as the Court may, on your application, allow.
  

 

 

• 9. You must inform this Office if another bailiff seizes, levies on or distrains the goods to pay another debt and you must inform that bailiff of this seizure.
  

 

 

• 10. You must also inform this Office of any Petition in Bankruptcy or application to liquidate a limited company that may have been or is subsequently served on you.
  

 

 

• 11. The goods seized are all those referred to at 2 above but, in case there is any doubt, the following items ARE INCLUDED IN THE SEIZURE:
  ..........
  ..........
  ..........
  Dated the day of 199 Signed:
  Address:
  [Reverse of form:
  Section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides as follows—
  
  • " (3A) Every sheriff or officer executing any writ of execution issued from the High Court against the goods of any person may by virtue of it seize—
    
    • (a) any of that person’s goods except—
      
      • (i) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;
        

       

      • (ii) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family; and
        

       

     

    • (b) any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to that person." .
      

     

  "

Im just picking and reading up on this I could be wrong so please check with regards to this

[Certificated Bailiff]

If there was more than one visit made you need to find out how many visits were made;the charges bailiff's are supposed to charge for each visit (CAB can tell you this).

Most importantly get a deatiled breakdown of the charges from the Bailiff, he is legally obliged to give you this information. Once you have recieved them you may condsider if the charges were 'reasonable' and if you feel they are not drop me another line.

I think that you might find that there are fixed costs or guidlines on the charges a bailiff can charge for attending in addition to the number of visits they can charge for ....dont quote me on this but you might find some prices on the department of constitutional affairs (DCA) as o the price bailiff's are able to charge for visits.

 

Goodluck.

 

Certificated Bailiff (CB)

[mkb]

If there was more than one visit made you need to find out how many visits were made;the charges bailiff's are supposed to charge for each visit (CAB can tell you this).

Most importantly get a deatiled breakdown of the charges from the Bailiff, he is legally obliged to give you this information. Once you have recieved them you may condsider if the charges were 'reasonable' and if you feel they are not drop me another line.

I think that you might find that there are fixed costs or guidlines on the charges a bailiff can charge for attending in addition to the number of visits they can charge for ....dont quote me on this but you might find some prices on the department of constitutional affairs (DCA) as o the price bailiff's are able to charge for visits.

 

Goodluck.

 

Certificated Bailiff (CB)

 

CB - as a certificated bailiff, can you not let the OP know what the charges should have been if there is an agreed schedule? I would expect a CB to know exactly what is legal & what is extortion.

[mkb]

I would also like certificated bailiffs opinions on my thread please

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/241987-pcn-fees-bailiff-think.html

 

Thank you

[zooman]

or even a certified bailiff....

[twonames]

bailiff companies have different fee structures with different clients

 

not including the statutory fees.

[High Court Enforcer]

Im just picking and reading up on this I could be wrong so please check with regards to this

 

This is the prescribed format as approved by the MoJ and the HCEOA.

 

This is the paperwork that is left on a first visit and is called a Notice of Seizure (or 'Notice of control of goods').

 

Further attendances will be in a different format and each HCEO company use there own variations.

[High Court Enforcer]

or even a certified bailiff....

 

Not sure if you're being funny, but it is CERTIFICATED bailiff and not certified as is usually banded round here..

[High Court Enforcer]

Anyway, lets get back to the original posters questions...

[seanamarts]

Not sure if you're being funny, but it is CERTIFICATED bailiff and not certified as is usually banded round here..

Not being pedantic here HCE but we are all CERTIFICATED,

 

certified Aadjective

1 certified

 

endorsed authoritatively as having met certain requirements; "a certified public accountant"

 

 

 

2 certified, qualified

 

holding appropriate documentation and officially on record as qualified to perform a specified function or practice a specified skill; "a registered pharmacist"; "a registered hospital"

 

 

 

3 certifiable, certified

 

fit to be certified as insane (and treated accordingly)

 

 

 

 

YOUR CERTIFIED

Edited January 14, 2010 by seanamarts
added

[MARTIN3030]

Its no real suprise that users are so confused given the number of alleged bailiffs and Hceos we have posting on the forums.

But most active CAG members in these forums are not stupid,and will decide for themselves.

[seanamarts]

Its no real suprise that users are so confused given the number of alleged bailiffs and Hceos we have posting on the forums.

But most active CAG members in these forums are not stupid,and will decide for themselves.

my apologies if I overstepped the mark

[twonames]

Its no real suprise that users are so confused given the number of alleged bailiffs and Hceos we have posting on the forums.

But most active CAG members in these forums are not stupid,and will decide for themselves.

 

can you elaborate on that post MARTIN,

 

I for one found CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS posts, odd, I appreciate he/she may have been trying to help but advising people to contact the CAB for fee structure IMO, is stating you have knowledge of your own, considering you are supposed to be Certificated,

 

HCE IMO nearly always gives correct information, and speaking for myself I try to give accurate information based on experience

[MARTIN3030]

"can you elaborate on that post MARTIN,"

 

What I CAN elaborate on is this;

 

Over the last few weeks members have been reporting posts,there have been a number of accusations,suspicions and general concerns,that our bailiff forums have been the focus of some unwelcome attentions.

 

Obviously members have no way of knowing if a person comes here and says he/she is a bailiff.

They can be forgiven for suspicions,given that in the past,we have had bailiffs here whose presence has,shall we say been not for all the reasons that were expressed.

 

Its not unreasonable to assume nor hold the view,that we have active contributors on these threads,whose objectives remain to disrupt and flame.

 

The site is first and foremost for consumers,and those people who have problems with a range of issues,whether it be bank charges or bailiff warrants.

I find it very hard to believe that any bailiffs, debt collectors or others,want to come here and genuinly assist our members-this is based essentially on being here for more than 3 years and seeing none of it.

 

Bailiffs will ALWAYS have a vested interest in consideration of their roles.

 

Many people have worked hard to make available guidance and information for people here-there is no justification in my eyes for any bailiffs at all to feel compelled to put the record straight on legislation,fair practice,or evaluation-we simply have access to all that,and have some very educated people in this area.

 

It is a matter of concern,that these forums should be attracting the reports that site team has been getting during the last couple of weeks.

 

All I will say is that we will not allow these forums to be infiltrated nor manipulated by those seeking to disrupt or confuse our members.

Those concerned will know who they are,and I trust that they will credit us with a little intelligence.

 

Thats all I want to say for the moment.I hope those who this is directed at take heed.

[kbdavies]

Secondly, the vehicle has to be for the sole use of the debtor personally. As the debtor has already admitted that several people drive the car this wouldnt apply

 

HE said that the other people who drive it are employees of the company

therefore the car is used for employees to do there job

 

Correct. Hallowich.

[kbdavies]

well put, what would stop the company hiring a car to continue working?

 

If i follow this logic, then anything can be seized by a bailiff. Nothing would be exempted - As it can all simply be replaced!

[twonames]

Myself personaly have been a member of CAG since 2007, I use the forum to aquire Knowledge, test my knowledge and , sometimes if i can help others without being to biased.

 

You do have other posters on here who thrive off bailiffs/ HCEO's posts, regardless if they are informative or not, all they want to do is engage in a slagging match.

 

Some members of CAG, are not willing to listen to different points of view or even listen to responses to questions to which are correct, I.E. the arrest by private bailiffs thread.

[MARTIN3030]

"You do have other posters on here who thrive off bailiffs/ HCEO's posts, regardless if they are informative or not, all they want to do is engage in a slagging match."

 

Yes of course....simply because they dont want them here.

 

Can you imagine any Caggers being welcome on a forum run by the bailiff industry ?

 

Credit today (The debt collection industry forums) made their position quite clear on this when CAG members tried posting there.

 

Why should it be any suprise ?

[twonames]

If i follow this logic, then anything can be seized by a bailiff. Nothing would be exempted - As it can all simply be replaced!

 

No not really , a self employed driving instructor whos car is modified to accomadate a learner driver would be exempt, an ice cream van, recovery truck, gas engineers modified van, a bailiffs modified arrest van ect all would be exempt in my opinion.

 

If a courier used his van solely for the purpose of deliverying parcels this would be exempt, whoever if he used it for personal use as well the it would not be exempt, it even states this in the magistrates act.

 

Is that car essential to your companies trading, can you trade withou it?

[twonames]

"You do have other posters on here who thrive off bailiffs/ HCEO's posts, regardless if they are informative or not, all they want to do is engage in a slagging match."

 

Yes of course....simply because they dont want them here.

 

Can you imagine any Caggers being welcome on a forum run by the bailiff industry ?

 

Credit today (The debt collection industry forums) made their position quite clear on this when CAG members tried posting there.

 

Why should it be any suprise ?

 

 

Why would you not want a correct answer to a question, thats what this forum is about, amongst other things.

 

Me personally am trying to implement a forum for bailiffs ect, which would be more than accomadating for debtor/customers to post on .

[gezwee]

I think we need to get back on track for the OP with the fees levied issue.

 

Whilst the levying of the OP's vehicle is possibly disputable I get the impression it'll be a hard fought battle to see this argument through.

 

Whereas the fees levied do clearly appear to remain invalid.

 

It requires some clear guidance on here with regard to fees and whether they would be deemed proportionate if placed in dispute and recovery attempted.

 

Gez

[High Court Enforcer]

I originally came here because I had received several template letters that were being offered by a poster on this forum.

 

It became very clear that much of what was being advised was incorrect.

 

I personally know of several cases where the comments and suggestions of certain posters actually cost consumers money.

 

Since then, I have been fairly active on here and whilst some 'haters' will disagree, I have given a lot of informative advice, especially regarding High Court Enforcement, a subject that many people are confused by.

 

Not everybody likes it, some just want a slanging match but the fact remains that I have educated many of your posters with my knowledge.

 

But yes, if 'Certificated Bailiff' wants to contribute, then they need to contribute and show some knowledge of the business not just direct people to the CAB....

[kbdavies]

Well,Thanks to everyone for all the info. You have all been very helpful.

Its been a bit difficult sifting through it all, and the existing laws do seem subject to interpretation (don't know who's), and which side of the bed the Judge woke up that morning.

I have decided to fight this. At the very least the bailiff fees seem extortionate, at most, his actions illegal.

There was no adequate time given from the time the bailiff visited the property, and when the vehicle was towed (3hrs).

No documentation whatsoever was left after the vehicle was seized and towed. There also seem to be other irregularities. The bailiff crossed out the info regarding how many days i had to pay of the Notice of Seizure. He informed my wife the vehicle was going straight to the Auction. The Notice of Seizure mentioned "Nottingham County Court" instead of "Northampton County Court". Yes a typo presumably, but, i intend to fight this with anything i have.

On checking the bailiff register, his name came up, but with no employer shown. I will be writing to them to confirm if he was working for the company at that time, or was self employed.

It also seem the council were not even entitled to give the bailiff my details under the Data Protection Act!

[kbdavies]

No not really , a self employed driving instructor whos car is modified to accomadate a learner driver would be exempt, an ice cream van, recovery truck, gas engineers modified van, a bailiffs modified arrest van ect all would be exempt in my opinion.

 

If a courier used his van solely for the purpose of deliverying parcels this would be exempt, whoever if he used it for personal use as well the it would not be exempt, it even states this in the magistrates act.

 

Is that car essential to your companies trading, can you trade withou it?

This is the problem. The car is a company car, and any employee who is authorised can drive it. The vehicle is for delivery of goods to the clients, and for client visits and meetings. I would regard this as an "essential" tool of the business.

[gezwee]

Well,Thanks to everyone for all the info. You have all been very helpful.

Its been a bit difficult sifting through it all, and the existing laws do seem subject to interpretation (don't know who's), and which side of the bed the Judge woke up that morning.

I have decided to fight this. At the very least the bailiff fees seem extortionate, at most, his actions illegal.

There was no adequate time given from the time the bailiff visited the property, and when the vehicle was towed (3hrs).

No documentation whatsoever was left after the vehicle was seized and towed. There also seem to be other irregularities. The bailiff crossed out the info regarding how many days i had to pay of the Notice of Seizure. He informed my wife the vehicle was going straight to the Auction. The Notice of Seizure mentioned "Nottingham County Court" instead of "Northampton County Court". Yes a typo presumably, but, i intend to fight this with anything i have.

On checking the bailiff register, his name came up, but with no employer shown. I will be writing to them to confirm if he was working for the company at that time, or was self employed.

It also seem the council were not even entitled to give the bailiff my details under the Data Protection Act!

 

I IMHO think the fee issue would be the way to go kbd, somebody else (can't remember who without hitting the back button and trawling through the thread again) touched on the subject in an earlier post..... seemed to infer there was sub-contracting enforcement and additional fees charged by self employed peeps afoot which fell outside of the scope of HCeO charges.

 

If theres a genuine fee then so be it but anything disproportionate by virtue of subcontracting collection activity should be disputed.

 

Gez