Bailiffs

[wingnut56]

I urgently need advice,

 

in April 08 I made a verbal agreement with the owner of a boatyard to rent ground for my 2 containers & narrowboat

 

we agreed a figure of 65 pounds a week,

 

I made numerous unsuccessful attempts to gain a rent book or any form of agreement,

he always deferred the matter, at no time have I signed anything

 

I attended my container 31/10/12 to find the owner with a bailiff who had a warrant for 6,700 pounds If I don`t pay this amount by the 7 Nov ,

 

he intends to distrain my containers & narrowboat,

they are going on the assumption that I still own the boat,

it was sold some months ago,

the new owner returns to this country on 4/11/12

I will inform him on the matter ASAP,

 

I have checked my bank & have paid him 11,000 pounds in standing orders other payments into his various bank accounts

and some payments were made by foolishly giving him cash in hand & therefore unrecorded

 

he denies he was ever paid this way the owner is alcoholic and appeared regulary intoxicated

and sometimes in a state of in continence, I have always found him intimidating.

 

The owner has not issued me with a default notice or any type of breakdown as to how he has arrived at these totals

or that he intended to hand the matter over to bailiffs

 

he has also barred me from entering the yard without him being there,

 

can he do that?,

can they take property not belonging to me i.e. the narrowboat?

can they take my containers & van?,

are these exempt as they are my tools,

 

I am sick with worry can anyone help

 

S.O.S.

[unclebulgaria67]

For bailiffs to be involved there must have been a court claim against you.

 

If there has not been a court claim,

 

then I not sure what a baliff is getting involved.

 

They certainly would not be able to apply any distraint.

 

In this situation,

I think I might see if the Police could become involved.

 

They may say that it is a private dispute between you so cannot help,

but I think this boatyard owner appears to be acting unlawfully.

 

If the Police won't assist, then I suggest that you appoint a solicitor to act for you.

 

If you don't have any contract with the boatyard owner,

 

then I cannot see how they are trying to obtain any money from you.

[Let Them Knock]

A landlord can instruct a bailiff (or be one himself) without a court being involved.

 

IIRC it goes back to the Statute of Marlborough (1267) and subsequent statutes.

 

The bailiff will be a Certified Bailiff (an officer of the high court) and this is why there was no court action beforehand.

 

There are certain procedures that should be gone through first though.

 

Sorry I can't be more help but it is about 20 years since I trained as a bailiff and then I wrapped the job after three days.

[dx100uk]

who were the 'bailiffs'?

 

dx

[wingnut56]

Parkinsons Bailiff services

[cerberusalert]

A landlord can instruct a bailiff (or be one himself) without a court being involved.

 

IIRC it goes back to the Statute of Marlborough (1267) and subsequent statutes.

 

The bailiff will be a Certified Bailiff (an officer of the high court) and this is why there was no court action beforehand.

 

There are certain procedures that should be gone through first though.

 

Sorry I can't be more help but it is about 20 years since I trained as a bailiff and then I wrapped the job after three days.

 

It is the oldest piece of statute law in the United Kingdom that has not yet been repealed.

 

The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, & c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of. Chapter 15 sets out places in which "distresses" are forbidden to be taken; these include the King's Highway and the Common Street. In other words, actions to remedy a breach of some kind by one person against another may not be taken in the street etc.

 

Repealed chapters include Replevin;

 

In creditors' rights law, replevin, sometimes known as "claim and delivery," is a legal remedy for a person to recover goods unlawfully withheld from his or her possession, by means of a special form of legal process in which a court may require a defendant to return specific goods to the plaintiff at the outset of the action (i.e. before judgment). In other situations, a party seeking relief may elect to adjudicate the right to possession prior to obtaining immediate relief to obtain the property in question. In such cases, replevin actions are still designed to afford the petitioning party a relatively speedy process for obtaining judgment, as compared to typical lawsuits. The summary remedy afforded by replevin statutes can be thwarted by defendants who contest the claimant's right to possession, by contesting the plaintiff's complaint, and insisting on traditional litigation involving discovery, and in some cases, trial by jury.

 

Replevin actions are often filed by secured creditors seeking to take possession of collateral securing loans or other debt instruments, such as retail installment contracts. A common example is where an automobile finance company initiates a replevin action to gain possession of a vehicle, following payment default. Replevin actions are usually employed when the lender cannot find the collateral, or cannot peacefully obtain it through self-help repossession. Replevin actions may also be pursued by true owners of property, e.g., consignors seeking return of consigned property that the party in possession will not relinquish for one reason or another.

[unclebulgaria67]

It is the oldest piece of statute law in the United Kingdom that has not yet been repealed.

 

The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, & c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of. Chapter 15 sets out places in which "distresses" are forbidden to be taken; these include the King's Highway and the Common Street. In other words, actions to remedy a breach of some kind by one person against another may not be taken in the street etc.

 

What I don't understand in this case, it why the bailiff thinks there is a contract issue for them to get involved with. Surely the landlord would have had to evidence to the bailiff that there was a contract and that there had been a breach of contract, with letters sent advising the tenant of how they can remedy the breach.

 

In this situation, I am not sure what I would advise the OP to do. The Police would probably not get involved, as it is a private dispute, even if there is something smelly going on. The OP could go to the bailiff to explain the situation, but the bailff is hardly likely to take their word, over their clients. The bailiff will presume the landlord is being totally truthful.

 

Perhaps the OP should get a solicitor involved and go down the court route if they need to.

[cerberusalert]

AFAIK the bailiff can't get involved other than as a debt collector, he can't wear his bailiffs hat without a CCJ & certainly can't rely on the Statute of Marlborough.

 

Tomtubby will be better placed to answer I would think.

[ploddertom]

What I don't understand in this case, it why the bailiff thinks there is a contract issue for them to get involved with. Surely the landlord would have had to evidence to the bailiff that there was a contract and that there had been a breach of contract, with letters sent advising the tenant of how they can remedy the breach.

 

 

The Landlord only needs to tell the Bailiff he is owed rent.

[ploddertom]

AFAIK the bailiff can't get involved other than as a debt collector, he can't wear his bailiffs hat without a CCJ & certainly can't rely on the Statute of Marlborough.

 

Tomtubby will be better placed to answer I would think.

 

He can & will act as a Bailiff as no CCJ is required for this.

[cerberusalert]

He can & will act as a Bailiff as no CCJ is required for this.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[ploddertom]

The difficulty the OP has is because there is no paper trail bar bank statements. It is very difficult to defend against what has happened and should look to see if getting an injunction may be a workable solution.