Hce and removal of goods

[frustratedt]

just had a call from my wife that a hce visited the house and attached a notice of seizure and inventory the debt is for a company registered at the address but they put my wife vehicle which is in now way associated with the Limited company as being seized need urgent help how do i proceed

[hallowitch]

hang in there mate the experts on this are ploddertom and wonkydonky one or both should be on at some point today

[ploddertom]

Can you say what this was for origiunally? Did they gain access to the home? If a Ltd Co then they may only seize those goods belonging to the Ltd Co. As they have already made a seizure of the car you will need to provide proof of ownership - you will have 5 days in which to do this.

[frustratedt]

they havent taken the car yet put it on a form that its seized company is limited liability company they did not gain entry no one was home car parked on driveway

[ploddertom]

They are allowed to assume it belongs to the Co, as said before you need to provide proof of ownership and do not rely on the V5 for this.

[frustratedt]

i want to get my wife to email them this

Re: Claim of chattels under Rule 2 of the CPR Schedule 1, RSC Order 17

 

I write to you understanding that you or your firm is trying to collect a debt from my address, however I confirm I xxxx

am the owner of the a Vehicle Make\Model Colour Black Registration you seek to levy.

 

This document is emailed and posted to you.

 

I respectfully ask that you leave my property alone

 

 

Yours very truly,

 

xxxx

 

will this suffice my wifes in a state and she needs the vehicle for work i have currently parked it away from the house and am unable to get through to the HCE officer

and they are using form of walking possession agreement schedule 4 regulation 13 courts act 2003

[ploddertom]

In short no. You need documentary proof, a receipt, bill of sale etc. These tiogether with copies of the V5 & Ins Docs are what are required. The alternative is to have Stautory Declaration sworn at a Solicitors - cost approx £10.

[frustratedt]

okay have sent it but will do stat declaration tomorrow and send as well

[Mackintyre247]

You dont need to make a stat declaration because the letter you sent is a rule 2 notice and dont need other proof or V5

 

sol cant post link, search "Rule 2 of the CPR Schedule 1, RSC Order 17" and justice.gov website.

[sgtbush]

you need the v5c AND a bill of sale, the registered keeper of the the vehicle is not neccasserly the legal owner

[ploddertom]

You dont need to make a stat declaration because the letter you sent is a rule 2 notice and dont need other proof or V5

 

Oh yes you do or they will just deny it and drag you through a Interpleader Hearing. Any claim to ownership must be backed up by the requisite proof of same or failing that a SD which if found to be false can result in Contempt proceedings. This is something that should not be taken lightly.

[Mackintyre247]

The Ministry of Justice website is wrong then and rule 2 notices must to be supported by a SD V5 etc but I still dont quite understand how an HCEO can disregard a rule 2 notice. An HCEO can introduce an interpleader hearing but its expensive and would likely fail if the rule 2 notice is proven to have been delivered as described in the example letter above and HCEO loses his application fee.

[wonkeydonkey]

Your wife is making a third party claim to ownership of the car and that requires the route PT has suggested be taken

 

This is not to be confused with a seizure of goods claimed to be 'tools of the trade' the legislation for that is below and differs greatly to a 3rd party claim

Claim in respect of goods protected from seizure

 

Rule 2A

 

(1) Where a judgment debtor whose goods have been seized, or are intended to be seized, by a sheriff under a writ of execution claims that such goods are not liable to execution by virtue of section 138(3A) of the Act1, he must within 5 days of the seizure give notice in writing to the sheriff identifying all those goods in respect of which he makes such a claim and the grounds of such claim in respect of each item.

(2) Upon receipt of a notice of claim under paragraph (1), the sheriff must forthwith give notice thereof to the execution creditor and to any person who has made a claim to, or in respect of, the goods under rule 2(1) and the execution creditor and any person who has made claim must, within 7 days of receipt of such notice, inform the sheriff in writing whether he admits or disputes the judgment debtor’s claim in respect of each item.

(3) The sheriff shall withdraw from possession of any goods in respect of which the judgment debtor’s claim is admitted or if the execution creditor or any person claiming under rule 2(1) fails to notify him in accordance with paragraph (2) and the sheriff shall so inform the parties in writing.

(4) Where the sheriff receives notice from –

(a) the execution creditor; or

(b) any such person to whom notice was given under paragraph (2), that the claim or any part thereof is disputed, he must forthwith seek the directions of the court and may include therein an application for an order restraining the bringing of any claim against him for, or in respect of, his having seized any of those goods or his having failed so to do.

(5) The sheriff’s application for directions under paragraph (4) shall be made by an application in accordance with CPR Part 23 and, on the hearing of the application, the court may –

(a) determine the judgment debtor’s claim summarily; or

(b) give such directions for the determination of any issue raised by such claim as may be just.

(6) A Master and a district judge of a district registry shall have power to make an order of the kind referred to in paragraph (4) and the reference to Master shall be construed in accordance with rule 4

WD

[Mackintyre247]

Thats the one but you might have meant Rule 2 not rule 2a but still cant find where it says it must be SD and V5 must be shown.

 

 

 

 

Rule 2

 

(1) Any person making a claim to or in respect of any money, goods or chattels taken or intended to be taken in execution under process of the court, or to the proceeds or value of any such goods or chattels, must give notice of his claim to the sheriff charged with the execution of the process and must include in his notice a statement of his address, and that address shall be his address for service.

 

(2) On receipt of a claim made under this rule the sheriff must forthwith give notice thereof to the execution creditor and the execution creditor must, within seven days after receiving the notice, give notice to the sheriff informing him whether he admits or disputes the claim. An execution creditor who gives notice in accordance with this paragraph admitting a claim shall only be liable to the sheriff for any fees and expenses incurred by the sheriff before receipt of that notice.

 

(3) Where –

(a) the sheriff receives a notice from an execution creditor under paragraph (2) disputing a claim, or the execution creditor fails, within the period mentioned in that paragraph, to give the required notice; and

 

(b) the claim made under this rule is not withdrawn, the sheriff may apply to the court for relief under this order.

 

 

(4) A sheriff who receives a notice from an execution creditor under paragraph (2) admitting a claim made under this rule shall withdraw from possession of the money, goods or chattels claimed and may apply to the court for relief under this order of the following kind, that is to say, an order restraining the bringing of a claim against him for or in respect of his having taken possession of that money or those goods or chattels.

[wonkeydonkey]

Like i said 2 & 2A are not be confused!!

 

Without proof to a third party claim do you really expect the HCEO to stand back and say 'oh my apologies madam of course if you say the car is not subject to seizure I will simply take your word for it regardless to the fact it is registered to the debtors address and you have the same name'

 

The usual process is the HCEO should carry out DVLA checks before removing the 'seized' goods however, the norm is they do not do this and put the burden of proof on the 3rd party. The claimant quite often fails to admit a claim to goods without solid proof the car is that of a 3rd party, so the car is removed by the HCEO in accordance with being' commanded by the High Court to seize goods and chattels' and the claimant ends up having to battle their way through Interpleader action to get it returned, costs to this action are huge win or lose. Therefore the wise person will follow PT's route and offer solid proof backed by a Stat Dec to shortcut the need for matters to get to the Interpleader stage as opposed to sitting back and 'waiting to see what happens'

 

WD

[frustratedt]

Even if its the same name the actual defendant is a limited company not a person does that not mean anything to the baliffs and would a V5 and stat declaration be enough it was a private sale so do not have receipt.

[wonkeydonkey]

Even if its the same name the actual defendant is a limited company not a person does that not mean anything to the baliffs and would a V5 and stat declaration be enough it was a private sale so do not have receipt.

 

Experience tells me, if they associate the name (being the same as the debtors) to the car in question, they will advocate they have every reason to associate it with the company of the debtor.They possibly would accept the V5, insurance and a stat dec but remember it is the claimant who has to admit the 3rd party claim not the HCEO as they are simply following orders from the High Court by way of the writ.

 

WD

[frustratedt]

Is there no difference between a limited liability company debt and personal debt in the eye of the baliffs

[ploddertom]

Not until you can prove otherwise.

[Mackintyre247]

frustratedt is right, his email is a notice under Rule 2 and stops action taken against the goods and it doesnt need to be SD otherwise rule 2 would say 'declaration' instead of 'notice'. He is not confused with rule 2a not sure how 2a got into this discussion.