bailiff took my work van and tools.

[skiton]

Does any have any idea on this.

Is there any statutory time limits on the following:

Penalty charge notice.

Certificate of charge.

Ordey for recovery.

Warrant of execution.

 

Thanks

[High Court Enforcer]

I am unable to find the posts that were made about the statute of Marlborough that were made in the past,but i remember the gist of the post.

Section 15 is simply making it law that no "common"man can not just walk up and take goods for money owed,not in the kings highway nor in the common street.BUT ONLY TO THE KING OR HIS OFFICERS,this means someone who has authority from the crown or his representatives,and bailiffs have been granted a certificate by a judge who is a representative of the crown.

So how is it wrong/illegal to remove that vehicle:?:

 

Correct Welsh1.

[welsh1]

Correct Welsh1.

 

As much as it pains me,thank you HCE.

I find it frustrating when people put up statute examples,and when they are checked,they are either wrong or misleading.

 

It does not help the op when things are wrong or mis quoted.We need to give correct information.

[tomtubby]

Yet another question.

 

From the Ministry of Justice TCE Bill

 

Paragraph 34 – Inventory.

167. Having taken control of goods, the enforcement agent must provide the debtor with an inventory of all those goods taken into control. The form of the inventory, and what it should contain, will be laid out in regulations under paragraph 34(4) it is anticipated that the regulations will contain a draft example of an inventory. It is intended that the inventory will contain exact details of all the goods that have been taken into control e.g. if a car is taken into control, rather than just saying make and colour of car, it should confirm the registration and chassis numbers. Where cash has been taken into control, the inventory will be a receipt which will state the exact amount of cash that has been taken into control.

 

I checked the my Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory and although in my case it was a van, only the Make, Model, Colour and registration number appear to be on it and not the chassis number.

Does this make it null and void.

 

The above is from the DRAFT section of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Bill. Some parts of the TCE bill have been implemented but the part that you refer to above is NOT going to be introduced UNTIL regulation of the bailiff industry has been set up.

[sweep1]

In response to the critics...

 

Distress and removal of vehicles on the public highway

 

BA TU DINH v DRAKES GROUP LTD (2000)

 

The following, is an unreported case, and is very interesting indeed as it concerns a very old legal act called the Statute of Marlborough. This was a set of laws passed by King Henry III of England in 1267. There were originally 29 chapters, of which four are still in force. It is the oldest piece of Statute Law in the United Kingdom which has not been repealed.

 

The valid chapters include C1, C4 & C15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267 which govern the recovery of damages (“distresses”) and which make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts.

 

Briefly:

 

The claim is against Drakes Group Ltd for damages for unlawful distress levied on the claimant’s car, which had been subject to parking penalties incurred by the previous owner.

 

CC (Shoreditch) (Judge Graham) 8/11/2000

 

TRANSPORT - DAMAGES

 

UNLAWFUL DISTRESS: CERTIFIED BAILIFFS:

 

MULTIPLE COSTS BY BAILIFFS : DATE OF PURCHASE : PARKING FINES

 

The claimant established that the bailiffs were liable for unlawful distress to his car by seizing and selling it and won damages accordingly.

 

Claim against a company of certified bailiffs:

 

Drakes Group Ltd ('D') for damages for unlawful distress levied on the claimant's ('C') car, which had been subject to parking penalties incurred by the previous owner.

 

The claimant bought the car on 5 August 1998 and insured it from the following day. However, he did not receive the log book until he paid the balance of the purchase price in October 1998.

 

The previous owner, who had lived at the same address as C, had failed to pay eight parking fines and warrants of execution were issued that Drakes Group Ltd was instructed to enforce. Drakes Group seized the car and sold it at public auction. On 19 November 1998 the claimant reported the car as stolen to the police. He contended that the title had transferred to him prior to the seizure. He argued that he did not open the notices warning of seizure sent to the previous owner who had lived at his address before him because he did not open her post.

 

Drakes Group Ltd relied on the lack of documentary proof of payment at the time of seizure and the fact that the logbook had not yet been transferred to C to contend that he had failed to prove that he had actually purchased the car.

 

An employee of Drakes Group Ltd stated that he had placed a notice of seizure on the car windscreen on 21 September 1998 and gave a location as to where the car was. Drakes argued that the location of the car was different, because it was never parked where the claimant claimed it was, since that space was reserved for someone else. Drakes Group stated that 14 visits were made before the car was impounded and that costs were due for each visit.

 

It was held:

 

(1) The Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced a new system for enforcing parking penalties in London: it transferred the jurisdiction from the magistrates' to the county court amongst other matters.

 

(2) Title in the car had not been transferred on the date of purchase, but on the date that C was given the logbook. The seizure did not occur on 21 September 1998. Drakes Group Ltd apparent overcharging for visits to the car further undermined its defence.

 

It was reasonable and likely that C did not open the previous owner's post. It was unlikely that C would report the car as stolen if he knew that it had received the seizure notices.

 

For those reasons, C had established that the car had been purchased in good faith for value without notice that a warrant had been issued and remained unexecuted.

 

(3) Therefore, the distress was unlawful because it was levied on the public highway in breach of the Statute of Marlborough.

 

(4) Since public auctions generated prices at only a fraction of a vehicle's true value, Parker's Guide was referred to for the assessment of C's quantum. The other ingredient was loss of use. Damages in the sum of £5,955 were awarded plus interest at 7 per cent for two years.

 

Claim allowed. Mr Baker for C. Mr Docherty for D.

 

LTL 26/6/2001 (Unreported elsewhere) Judgment: Official Document No. AC0100422 Lawtel document(s) - 08/12/2006 22:48

[Mr Worried]

From experience, its people who dont know they have a ticket that receive bailiffs. The number of wont-payers are very low, as is the number of cant-payers.

 

Its not a lucrative being a bailiff unless you are in the management heirachy, or a director of one of the large firms of bailiffs with juicy Westminster-like contracts.

 

One of my employees, a rent collector, worked at Equita and described the vast difference in income for a director with a cerificate, and a self-emplyed bailiff. Directors with a ceritifate cherry-pick the assignments for big cars, lavish goods and expensive properties, the common certificated bailiff is left with gone-aways and council flats crammed full of immigrtants with babies with 25 unpaid PCNs.

 

Council tax work pays even less money, the majority are cant-payers and gone-aways. Few people want this kind of work which is why its left to Portugese and Polish immigrants. These either work on a company-sponsored certificate, or work under the supervision of a certificated director based in the office. They rarely earn more than £400 a month and rely on tax credits to supplement their income.

 

 

Thats a lot more than I currently earn.

 

Mr W

[welsh1]

In response to the critics...

 

Distress and removal of vehicles on the public highway

 

BA TU DINH v DRAKES GROUP LTD (2000)

 

The following, is an unreported case, and is very interesting indeed as it concerns a very old legal act called the Statute of Marlborough. This was a set of laws passed by King Henry III of England in 1267. There were originally 29 chapters, of which four are still in force. It is the oldest piece of Statute Law in the United Kingdom which has not been repealed.

 

The valid chapters include C1, C4 & C15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267 which govern the recovery of damages (“distresses”) and which make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts.

 

Briefly:

 

The claim is against Drakes Group Ltd for damages for unlawful distress levied on the claimant’s car, which had been subject to parking penalties incurred by the previous owner.

 

CC (Shoreditch) (Judge Graham) 8/11/2000

 

TRANSPORT - DAMAGES

 

UNLAWFUL DISTRESS: CERTIFIED BAILIFFS:

 

MULTIPLE COSTS BY BAILIFFS : DATE OF PURCHASE : PARKING FINES

 

The claimant established that the bailiffs were liable for unlawful distress to his car by seizing and selling it and won damages accordingly.

 

Claim against a company of certified bailiffs:

 

Drakes Group Ltd ('D') for damages for unlawful distress levied on the claimant's ('C') car, which had been subject to parking penalties incurred by the previous owner.

 

The claimant bought the car on 5 August 1998 and insured it from the following day. However, he did not receive the log book until he paid the balance of the purchase price in October 1998.

 

The previous owner, who had lived at the same address as C, had failed to pay eight parking fines and warrants of execution were issued that Drakes Group Ltd was instructed to enforce. Drakes Group seized the car and sold it at public auction. On 19 November 1998 the claimant reported the car as stolen to the police. He contended that the title had transferred to him prior to the seizure. He argued that he did not open the notices warning of seizure sent to the previous owner who had lived at his address before him because he did not open her post.

 

Drakes Group Ltd relied on the lack of documentary proof of payment at the time of seizure and the fact that the logbook had not yet been transferred to C to contend that he had failed to prove that he had actually purchased the car.

 

An employee of Drakes Group Ltd stated that he had placed a notice of seizure on the car windscreen on 21 September 1998 and gave a location as to where the car was. Drakes argued that the location of the car was different, because it was never parked where the claimant claimed it was, since that space was reserved for someone else. Drakes Group stated that 14 visits were made before the car was impounded and that costs were due for each visit.

 

It was held:

 

(1) The Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced a new system for enforcing parking penalties in London: it transferred the jurisdiction from the magistrates' to the county court amongst other matters.

 

(2) Title in the car had not been transferred on the date of purchase, but on the date that C was given the logbook. The seizure did not occur on 21 September 1998. Drakes Group Ltd apparent overcharging for visits to the car further undermined its defence.

 

It was reasonable and likely that C did not open the previous owner's post. It was unlikely that C would report the car as stolen if he knew that it had received the seizure notices.

 

For those reasons, C had established that the car had been purchased in good faith for value without notice that a warrant had been issued and remained unexecuted.

 

(3) Therefore, the distress was unlawful because it was levied on the public highway in breach of the Statute of Marlborough.

 

(4) Since public auctions generated prices at only a fraction of a vehicle's true value, Parker's Guide was referred to for the assessment of C's quantum. The other ingredient was loss of use. Damages in the sum of £5,955 were awarded plus interest at 7 per cent for two years.

 

Claim allowed. Mr Baker for C. Mr Docherty for D.

 

LTL 26/6/2001 (Unreported elsewhere) Judgment: Official Document No. AC0100422 Lawtel document(s) - 08/12/2006 22:48

 

 

This just shows that a bailiff had acted wrongly, by taking a car belonging to someone that they had no LEGAL AUTHORITY to take.

the statute of Marlborough comes into force because as soon as the bailiff took a vehicle he had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to take he is not acting within section 15 of the statute,which is,someone acting under the authority of the king or his officers(the bailiff had been authorised by the crown to seize A's goods but had mistakenly taken B's goods).The bailiff would have been correct if he had removed the vehicle and it had belonged to the person listed on the parking tickets.

 

The statute of Marlborough was made to stop people taking the law into their own hands and just turning up at some ones address who owe them money and taking goods in lieu.

The statute makes it very clear that you must use the law of the land to enforce.

[skiton]

Sent letters of complaint todayu recorded delivery, to both bailiff and local authority. Be interesting to see both responses.

[tomtubby]

Sent letters of complaint todayu recorded delivery, to both bailiff and local authority. Be interesting to see both responses.

 

You need to make SURE that you address the letter for the CHIEF EXECUTIVE and it needs to be marked as a FORMAIL COMPLAINT.

[skiton]

Update.

Sent letter of complaint to JBW (signed for RD) 8/6/10 had letter from them of acknowledgement 10/6/10 and that I would receive reply in 10 working days. Had another letter from them 16/6/10 say still investigating would receive reply shortly. Well no reply received.

Also sent SAR 8/6/10 again had reply of acknowlegement but now 40 days has expired and no reply.

 

Have now sent complaint to the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies along with all copies of replies from JBW.

 

Will keep you updated.

[tomtubby]

Update.

Sent letter of complaint to JBW (signed for RD) 8/6/10 had letter from them of acknowledgement 10/6/10 and that I would receive reply in 10 working days. Had another letter from them 16/6/10 say still investigating would receive reply shortly. Well no reply received.

Also sent SAR 8/6/10 again had reply of acknowlegement but now 40 days has expired and no reply.

 

Have now sent complaint to the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies along with all copies of replies from JBW.

 

Will keep you updated.

 

Why are you not complaining to the COUNCIL ????

 

I would be VERY interested to see the response from ACEA...

[ploddertom]

 

Have now sent complaint to the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies along with all copies of replies from JBW.

 

 

Don't expect much joy there then.

 

PT

[skiton]

Update.

Have complained to the council twice and no reply.

 

SAR arrived today 21/7/10, 2 days outside the 40 day period. breakdown of charges:

Fine £125

Sending letter £11.20

Levying distress or attending to levy distress but where the levy is not made £38.68

Attendance to remove goods £141

Removal of goods £175

Where distress is withdrawn or no sale takes place £5

Total + vat £560.80

 

My work van and tools are exempt from seizure so due some money back there. I will wait for reply from ACEA before going down the court root.

[JH101]

If your two complaints (in writing, identified as complaints, ideally "formal complaints") to the Council have been ignored, try ringing the Local Government Ombudsman on 0300 061 0614.

 

They will tell you they can only get directly involved once you have had three formal replies from the Council.

 

But they will make damn sure the Council knows about your complaint.

Edited July 21, 2010 by JH101

[JH101]

The item for "attendance to remove" is odd.

 

"Attendance to remove" is short for "Attendance to remove where no goods were removed". But in your case it is not the case that "no goods were removed" -- your van was removed!

 

I suppose what they're trying to claim is costs for their bailiffs being there. But their bailiffs were already there, making the levy on you. So there is no additional cost involved in the bailiffs coming to you.

 

Of course this is a subsidiary point. The key point remains that your van, and especially your tools, should never have been removed in the first place.

[Vicki202]

Can i just ask a question it has been stated that the stuff inside your van was not allowed to be collected and there for stolen the van was also removed illegally why have you not reported it all stolen to the police ?

[Vicki202]

I would also be putting a list together of what this is costing you the days wages you are missing and so on and charge this to the bailiff company as loss of earnings

[skiton]

Can i just ask a question it has been stated that the stuff inside your van was not allowed to be collected and there for stolen the van was also removed illegally why have you not reported it all stolen to the police ?

 

I wasn't aware that my van and tools at the time were exempt from seizure, I did how ever get the van etc back the next day after I paid up. I did learn before then that work related vehicles and tools are exempt from seizure, this is way I am taking this action.

[Vicki202]

I would then still report that your van was stolen and the goods inside of it now that you have the information behind you to state they should not of taken it and i would also bang in for loss of earings for the day you did not have the van they are not to no how many hours work they have lost you seen as your self employed it would also get there backs up and show them people are fighting back

[skiton]

Update. Well it's taken a long time but finally had a reply from the ACEA. They cannot find any grounds upon which to uphold my complaint, due to the fact that there was no signs on the van to indicate that the vehicle was a trade vehicle and that no tools were visible inside the vehicle and that the vehicle is insured for both bussiness and social, domestic and pleasure purposes, indicates that the vehicle is not an exempt vehicle.

So before I proceed with court action I have written again to the ACEA to ask them to provide any legal information that requires my van to be sign written in order for it to be classed as a trade vehicle, and also to explain how the bailiff could not see any tools or equipment inside a locked vehicle that has no windows.

[skiton]

Any help on the above post would be great. Thanks

[wonkeydonkey]

Well that is no surprise is it, they would defend their own to the death. Interesting ...bailiffs with Xray vision? It is correct that if the vehicle is not insured solely for business purpose then technically it is not exempt but I cannot comment on their claim that it apparantly must also be sign written but would be interested to hear the outcome of your request for the appropriate legislation supporting that claim.

 

WD

[babybear39]

Bailiffs CANNOT take essential items for work. End of. Write recorded to the local authority ombudsman copying in TS and the bailiff company.

[Voxter]

yes they can.....have to leave £150 worth though.

[babybear39]

Voxter take a look at the legislation and then get back to me