Bailiff Took Car

[stan5131]

Im hoping someone can help my friend and will try and give as much information.

 

My friend sold her car in August to a neighbour.

Due to illness and being on sick and in and out of hospital, she could no longer afford the running costs.

 

Three weeks ago she received a hand posted letter from a Bailiff for a bus lane ticket which she had no prior knowledge of.

 

The bailiffs visited again and she refused them entry.

 

The next day, the neighbour who bought the car came round furious saying the bailiffs clamped the car and had it towed off within half an hour.

 

He told them that he was the owner but they said he would need to pay £500 to stop them towing it off.

When I say neighbour, he lives on the next estate so it wasnt even any where near my friends house.

 

They have both made numerous phone calls to the bailiffs offices (Marsdens) and been given nothing but the run around.

They asked the new owner to fax proof of ownership which he has, but everything he has faxed

- which they asked for - isnt good enough.

 

When he asked what would be good enough, they said they didnt know!

 

The new owner made a complaint to the police but they didnt want to know and flatly refused to get involved.

 

He has also tried to complain to the authority that instructed the baiiffs and has done this in writing but they are giving him the run around too.

 

They have now had the car for 3 weeks for an original debt of £100 for which they have taken an Audi TT and they now want neary £1000 to get the car back.

 

The new owner wants my friend to refund him the money for the car, which she hasnt got as this money was used to pay all her debts and rent arrears due to being ill and out of work.

 

What next?

[i hate bailiffs]

Unless you can record phone calls they will properly not get too far keep a paper trail

 

The car should be reported as stolen it is theft so not a civil case as the police will make out

 

Get on to local MP

[stan5131]

They have both contacted the police several times to report the car stolen but they dont want to know and said its not a matter they can deal with.

 

There was no clamping order for the car either.

[ploddertom]

Sorry got confused - long day

[ploddertom]

deleted

[stan5131]

PlodderTom, do you have any ideas? thanks

[ploddertom]

These things aren't my forte and got mixed up originally because of the different addresses, which in this case didn't apply.

 

I note you say she never received any prior notification until the Bailiff turned up.

 

If that is the case then I suggest she rings the Traffic Enforcement Centre tomorrow morning

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/frequently-asked-questions

and in particular ask for exactly what address was on the Warrant - she will need the PCN number.

 

As for the neighbour it should be enough he has furnished all the relevant details required that they asked for.

 

In my view they are being obstructive and the Council that issued the ticket should be informed

and told a claim is being made for all out of pocket expenses including car hire & reimbursement of the monies paid.

[stan5131]

She has now filled in a PE7 and another form with Traffic Enforcement. All this has been sent to the council. The council say she owes the Bailiffs £455 but the Bailiffs are asking nearly £1k. Its all been a nightmare and nobody is listening. The car is due to be sold on Friday.

[dx100uk]

i think we've had this before here

if remember correctly...

 

you certainly need to go BACK to the police and demand it is recorded

and you get a crime number.

 

any PC that fails to do this, you should take down their collar number

and ask to speak to the inspector.

 

the car has been stolen, the bailiff had no right to take it

and has no right to hold it

nor charge for its release.

 

dx

[stan5131]

The owner of the car made an official complaint with the police, even spoke to an Inspector who told him the same - its a civil matter and the car hasnt been stolen. They wouldnt log it as stolen or even record and give a crime number. Total waste of tme.

 

Just wondering if local MP could do anything, or does anyone know of a solicitor that specialises?

[brassnecked]

Yes contact MP ASAP, also new owner should send an Invoice with a letter Before Action to the council for all costs as per hire of replacement car, etc, giving them 7 days to respond, after which action will be initiated in County Court for recovery, as they are 100% liable for their bailiffs "mistake" aka theft, and subsequent consequences Presumably Owner now has V5 and a reciept for the money paid for the car? If so perhaps Marstons are trying it on, as in a case involving Jacobs the vehicle had already been sold within days. Perhaps this is the case here.

 

Complaints to ACPO and the IPCC as this is prima facie theft, Marstons refusal and denial of owners right to have the vehicle returned, constitutes the mens rea for theft as in taking and intending to permanently deprive the lawful owner of the vehicle.

[tomtubby]

Firstly, the car CANNOT now be sold as an Out of Time witness statement has been filed. All enforcement is now on hold and no additinoal fees can be added.

 

What you friend also needs to do is to call TEC and ask them to confirm the precise address on the warrant. This is to ascertain whether there has been a problem with the address.

 

She should have received a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery and all these documents ( which are statutory notices) are sent before a bailiff visit. Unless there is something wrong with the address, these letters should have been received.

 

Marston Group will almost certainly require the following:

 

Copy of Sales Receipt for the car.

 

Proof to support how payment was made

 

Most importantly...a copy of the insurance certificate or cover note that should if possible be for the same day as the purchase.

 

If these docuemnts are available, then this shouold satisfy Marston Group.

 

Many times, a simple letter headed Third Party Claim will suffice. Please check if your friend has the above documents.

[ploddertom]

How's this gone today.

[old bill]

Marston Group have been involved in some very dodgy seizures of motor vehicles as of late. Also, I am currently dealing with a number of cases, on another site, where it has been shown that Marston Group bailiffs have lied to the police and the courts. Also, a large number of complaints have been made to OFT Credit Fitness Team against Marston Group some of which are sufficiently serious enough to bring into question Marston Group's fitness to hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence. More and more OPs are being advised to report misconduct by Marston Group bailiffs to HMCTS Enforcement Managers. It will only be a matter of time before HMCTS call time on Marston Group's contract and OFT do likewise with their OFT Licence.

[brassnecked]

I agree OP should complain to OFT on Credit Fitness also, along with reminding the Council who are wholly liable for marstons, about Blaby Council and the LGO regarding their bailiffs rottendales who did something similar in levying, but not removing third party vehicles. this is much worse as the car was actually taken.

 

As Op indicated the car was taken three weeks ago, the likelihood is that the car has already been sold, so Sharkstons are stonewalling, in full knowledge they have messed up and are trying to bluff and bully to cover their sorry jive asses.

 

Sadly the police are as inept and wrong on bailiff law as usual.

[old bill]

I am wondering if it is in the OP's interest to obtain the details of the bailiff's certificate from Marstons and then write to the District Judge at the certificating court(s). As we know, a cagger did this and the bailiff had their certificate revoked without a Form 4 being submitted or a hearing taking place.

[brassnecked]

I am wondering if it is in the OP's interest to obtain the details of the bailiff's certificate from Marstons and then write to the District Judge at the certificating court(s). As we know, a cagger did this and the bailiff had their certificate revoked without a Form 4 being submitted or a hearing taking place.

 

It is certainly an option, I am concerned that the car given the time before OP posted here may already have been sold, and the bailiffs are trying to say that they are entitled to do what they did, and as to the legal owner, tough, suck it down and stand the loss.

 

Actually if the owner was to send a letter before action to marstons and the council for the return of THEIR property wrongly seized, giving them 7 days or action will be taken for recovery of cost of vehicle and consequential losses in the county court with the council and sharkstons as joint defendants; might that focus their minds?

[old bill]

The onus that Marstons acted lawfully falls entirely upon Marstons, not the owner of the vehicle their brainless bailiffs seized and had no right or power in law to do so. If the car has already been sold, I am afraid the mug who purchased it at auction does not, in my considered judgement, have proper title, no matter what he or the police may argue. The police, incidentally, may well be guilty of a breach of statutory duty of failing to investigate a crime reported to them. They are not trained or proficient in bailiff law and, therefore, they should have dealt with it as a crime until the contrary was proven.

 

The OP should insist the vehicle is returned, even if it has been sold. Because it was wrongfully seized, the seizure and subsequent sale are both illegal. The OP still has proper title in the vehicle. If Marstons are unable to recover the vehicle, then the OP is in a better position to insist on a vehicle of BETTER value than that of the vehicle wrongfully seized is provided as a replacement. Marstons may try and negotiate this down to equivalent value, but that only applies to civil litigation where a civil tort has occurred. In this case, it appears Marstons were told it was a third-party vehicle, in which case their bailiffs acted recklessly and, in my opinion, dishonestly, also, as they knew they had no right or power to take the vehicle or sell it.

 

As to a Letter Before Action, I would be inclined to cite the local authority as 1st Defendant, Marstons as 2nd Defendant, the bailiff as 3rd Defendant and the Removal Contractor Marstons used as 4th Defendant. The Removal Contractor needs to be warned the vehicle used to remove the OP's vehicle may be liable to forfeiture due to the legality of Marstons' actions. It also needs to be made clear to Marstons and their Removal Contractor that a course of action through the criminal courts is being considered, in addition to any civil proceedings.

 

This, in my opinion, would focus the minds of Marstons' senior management and that of their Removal Contractor whom, I would not be surprised, might refuse to carry out any further work for them. If the Removal Contractor forfeits their vehicle, they can sue Marstons for a replacement vehicle.

Edited November 18, 2012 by old bill

[brassnecked]

Oldbill, the car had been sold by Op, and new owner was who it was taken from

[lamma]

Do we know the date the Bailiffs sold the car ?

 

Did they serve notice and inventpry correctly ?

 

Could be irregular dostress.

"selling without having served notice of the distress with copy of inventory on the tenant; selling within the five or 15 days allowed to reply"

 

It sounds as though it was also an unlawful distress so there is a claim for damages.

"A claim for damages lies for any wrongful distress whether it is illegal, irregular, or excessive"

 

As for title being passed, in the case of an unlawful distress, it can't be.

"An illegal distress is one which is wrongful at the very outset, that is to say either where there was no right to distrain or where a wrongful act

was committed at the beginning of the levy invalidating all subsequent pro-ceedings.

In such a case the distrainor is a trespasser ab initio, and it is no defence that the goods have been applied in discharge of the rent *.

 

As the distrainor has in himself no right to seize the particular chattels,

he can confer no title to them upon a person to whom,

under colour of the distress,

they may purport to have been sold." * = Attack v Bramwell (1863) 3 B & S 520 It looks to me that the bailiff is in a world of hurt and knows it.

[old bill]

Oldbill, the car had been sold by Op, and new owner was who it was taken from

 

Thanks for that, BN. Fibro Fog again.

[old bill]

Yes contact MP ASAP, also new owner should send an Invoice with a letter Before Action to the council for all costs as per hire of replacement car, etc, giving them 7 days to respond, after which action will be initiated in County Court for recovery, as they are 100% liable for their bailiffs "mistake" aka theft, and subsequent consequences Presumably Owner now has V5 and a reciept for the money paid for the car? If so perhaps Marstons are trying it on, as in a case involving Jacobs the vehicle had already been sold within days. Perhaps this is the case here.

 

Complaints to ACPO and the IPCC as this is prima facie theft, Marstons refusal and denial of owners right to have the vehicle returned, constitutes the mens rea for theft as in taking and intending to permanently deprive the lawful owner of the vehicle.

 

I doubt whether ACPO could help in a case like this, but IPCC certainly will be able to help. However, I will check with ACPO whether they have a policy on certificated bailiffs.

[old bill]

Do we know the date the Bailiffs sold the car ?

 

Did they serve notice and inventpry correctly ?

 

Could be irregular dostress.

"selling without having served notice of the distress with copy of inventory on the tenant; selling within the five or 15 days allowed to reply"

 

It sounds as though it was also an unlawful distress so there is a claim for damages.

"A claim for damages lies for any wrongful distress whether it is illegal, irregular, or excessive"

 

As for title being passed, in the case of an unlawful distress, it can't be.

"An illegal distress is one which is wrongful at the very outset, that is to say either where there was no right to distrain or where a wrongful act

was committed at the beginning of the levy invalidating all subsequent pro-ceedings.

In such a case the distrainor is a trespasser ab initio, and it is no defence that the goods have been applied in discharge of the rent *.

 

As the distrainor has in himself no right to seize the particular chattels,

he can confer no title to them upon a person to whom,

under colour of the distress,

they may purport to have been sold." * = Attack v Bramwell (1863) 3 B & S 520 It looks to me that the bailiff is in a world of hurt and knows it.

 

There is also Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council 1993. I agree with you that Marstons and their intellectually-challenged bailiff are well and truly in the brown and smelly stuff.

[old bill]

I have sent an email to ACPO enquiring about their policy on Certificated Bailiffs (if they have one). Once I hear from them, I will post up their response.

[seanamarts]

Do we know anything further on this.

 

From what I can make out it is theft and the police should be involved especially if the car had been registered in the new owners name. The bailiff had no right to take the car.

 

The council are fully responsible of their bailiffs actions. Formal complaints need to be sent to the CEO of the council, the police and Marstons.

 

When was the penalty issued? was it before or after the date of the sale. I dont think this was mentioned. If it was my apologies.