Rossendales bailiff with LO from CSA - Statutory Declaration needed for OH's stuff?

[ims21]

Thread moved to the Bailiff forum

[tomtubby]

PLEASE note that with CSA arrears there is no need to allow the bailiff into the property. He may only gain entry by "peaceful" means. Neither of you should allow the bailiff into YOUR partners property.

 

If you have a car outside of your home there is a risk that it could be seized. Be careful.

 

I am pushed for time right now but should be able to get a template stat dec over later.

 

Have Rossendales applied any charges to your account?

 

If so...can you provide details.

[JonniBravo]

My partner owns a car, but from what I read the car cannot be seized and the burden of proof lay with the baliffs to prove the car is mine, which it is not, can they really take my partners car?

 

In addition I guess the worst time for them to call would be when my partner goes to work in which case we have to open the door, because my partner needs to be at work on time, I am really worried about this, any other time of the day they would not be able to gain access.

[sgtbush]

ARE YOU MARRIED TO YOUR NEW PARTNER????

important question

 

if you are not then they cannot sieze the car but it is up to the owner to prove the car is thiers

if it cannot be done on the doorstep by way of a form V5C ( registration document) and a bill of sale, the bailiff can levy upon the car, which gives you

5 days to submit the relevent info, this is known as replevlin

 

If the bailiff believes that that you own the car…he can take it. There is Case Law that shows that the onus of proof is on you, not the bailiff to prove ownership of the vehicle, and that it is “not reasonable to expect the bailiff to make enquiries as to ownership”.

Edited December 4, 2012 by sgtbush

[JonniBravo]

I am not married to my partner, but I read that they cannot take the car

Edited December 4, 2012 by ims21

[unclebulgaria67]

Found the info below from the DWP site. I really think that you should be contacting the CSA to make them fully aware of your situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If the non-resident parent is not employed, or if the deduction from earnings order is ineffective at recovering the arrears within an appropriate timescale, the CSA will seek to obtain a liability order. This is a legal recognition of an amount of debt accrued over a specified period. The CSA can then take further steps and these vary across the two jurisdictions – England & Wales and Scotland. These include:

•

The use of bailiffs to seize assets (in England & Wales) or the attachment of assets by Sheriff Officers for sale at auction (in Scotland);

•

An order to put up for sale the non-resident parent’s residential property (in England & Wales) or the registration of an Inhibition which prevents the non-resident parent transferring or disposing of heritable property and may affect the parent’s ability to obtain credit, loans or mortgages (in Scotland);

•

Driving licence disqualification;

•

Deduction of maintenance payments and/or arrears from the non-resident parent’s bank account;

•

A Freezing Order, preventing the parent from selling or transferring ownership of an asset,

•

Recovering arrears from a deceased parent’s estate; and

•

Imprisonment.

Further information can be found

 

https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance/nonpayment-what-happens

[JonniBravo]

I have told the CSA that I have no income, I have offered to send them details of this but they declined, I even explained that me and my partner would send them a budget sheet with a small amount from my partners income as a gesture to demonstrate I was willing to pay but this was declined, they said there was nothing they could do and it would have to wait unitil the bailiff action returns to them in 3 months.

[seanamarts]

ARE YOU MARRIED TO YOUR NEW PARTNER????

important question

 

if you are not then they cannot sieze the car but it is up to the owner to prove the car is thiers

if it cannot be done on the doorstep by way of a form V5C ( registration document) and a bill of sale, the bailiff can levy upon the car, which gives you

5 days to submit the relevent info, this is known as replevlin

 

If the bailiff believes that that you own the car…he can take it. There is Case Law that shows that the onus of proof is on you, not the bailiff to prove ownership of the vehicle, and that it is “not reasonable to expect the bailiff to make enquiries as to ownership”.

I find your statement a little misleading.

 

Regardless of whether you are married or not the debt is your's it cannot be made your new partners debt because you have got married. If that is the case can you back this up with the relevant legislation.

 

Before a bailiff can take the said vehicle he has to make sure that the car belongs to the debtor. If he does take it then said bailiff and creditor will be in a certain amount of trouble.

[JonniBravo]

I find your statement a little misleading.

 

Regardless of whether you are married or not the debt is your's it cannot be made your new partners debt because you have got married. If that is the case can you back this up with the relevant legislation.

 

Before a bailiff can take the said vehicle he has to make sure that the car belongs to the debtor. If he does take it then said bailiff and creditor will be in a certain amount of trouble.

 

Thank you this was beginning to get me very worried, my partner came home from work early today, she really is not taking this well. Has anyone got a copy of a statutory declaration.

 

And would it be wise to offer say £10-£20 a month till I can afford more?

 

Could I pay this direct to CSA, I dont have an account or reference to them and they said they could not accept any payment from me is this correct

[brassnecked]

A bailiff should seek proof of ownership before levying or towing, and they would be in trouble if they took and sold a car just because it was parked outside a house and it transpired it was randomly parked and then reported stolen by the owner

[seanamarts]

Has anyone got a copy of a statutory declaration.

 

I have just requested to see if CAG has one some where. I'm afraid I get lost in the library

[sgtbush]

I find your statement a little misleading.

 

Regardless of whether you are married or not the debt is your's it cannot be made your new partners debt because you have got married. If that is the case can you back this up with the relevant legislation.

 

Before a bailiff can take the said vehicle he has to make sure that the car belongs to the debtor. If he does take it then said bailiff and creditor will be in a certain amount of trouble.

 

 

people that are married have joint financial interests so the car would be levyable, but as they are not then the car cannot be as it belongs to his partner

please read up on replevlin as explained as it is up to the owner to prove the car belongs to them

Edited December 4, 2012 by ims21

[JonniBravo]

people that are married have joint financial interests so the car would be levyable, but as they are not then the car cannot be as it belongs to his partner

please read up on replevlin as explained as it is up to the owner to prove the car belongs to them

 

Replevin mearly states this is a way of recovering items that have been "unlawfully" witheld or removed, it does not state that items can be removed without proof of ownership. I fail to see what law states that a bailiff can legally take a car where ownership is not proved as the previous poster points out the car could belong to anyone.

Edited December 4, 2012 by ims21

[sgtbush]

a bailiff wouldnt just ramdomly levy a car on the street, he would need reasonable cause, ie it was on the drive, then it is up to the owner to stop the levy being done, not the bailiff proving otherwise.

this gives 5 days for the owner to prove they own the goods and not the debtor, at this point the car is not immobilised or removed

before removal their will be checks done to establish the facts but it is far easier to prove on the doorstep

 

anyways their are more concerns about CSA debt than the fine points on levying

An order to put up for sale the non-resident parent’s residential property (in England & Wales) or the registration of an Inhibition which prevents the non-resident parent transferring or disposing of heritable property and may affect the parent’s ability to obtain credit, loans or mortgages (in Scotland);

•

Driving licence disqualification;

•

Deduction of maintenance payments and/or arrears from the non-resident parent’s bank account;

•

A Freezing Order, preventing the parent from selling or transferring ownership of an asset,

•

Recovering arrears from a deceased parent’s estate; and

•

Imprisonment

[seanamarts]

people that are married have joint financial interests so the car would be levyable, but as they are not then the car cannot be as it belongs to his partner

please read up on replevlin as explained as it is up to the owner to prove the car belongs to them

also please read up on the website bailiffonline.com for more infomation

 

there is no website called [EDIT} ( I suggest you refrain from putting any other websites up until they have been checked by site team.)

 

If I am not mistaken is replevin to do with common law?

[seanamarts]

a bailiff wouldnt just ramdomly levy a car on the street, he would need reasonable cause, ie it was on the drive, then it is up to the owner to stop the levy being done, not the bailiff proving otherwise

 

Ahh but they do. this is why they have to prove who the car belongs to before removing it.

[sgtbush]

i apologise

the website is [EDIT]

[JonniBravo]

i apologise

the website is [edit]

 

I have my concerns about this website, I feel there may be an agenda here. Nonetheless I do not have concerns about being sent to prison or any of the other things as the CSA have assured me that so long as I have no income they cannot do this, which is why this is so difficult to understand, they are completely aware of my financial situation, I am on the other hand willing to make a same gesture of payment but I would rather it not be to a bailiff.

[sgtbush]

I have my concerns about this website, I feel there may be an agenda here. Nonetheless I do not have concerns about being sent to prison or any of the other things as the CSA have assured me that so long as I have no income they cannot do this, which is why this is so difficult to understand, they are completely aware of my financial situation, I am on the other hand willing to make a same gesture of payment but I would rather it not be to a bailiff.

 

their is no agenda, i find it a simple and concise place for infomation

[seanamarts]

A replevin writ is a court order granted to a complainant to recover goods that have been unlawfully taken or retained.

In some instances, the complainant will be required to post a bond before the order is granted.

 

I think some one must be reading this wrong

[seanamarts]

I have my concerns about this website, I feel there may be an agenda here. Nonetheless I do not have concerns about being sent to prison or any of the other things as the CSA have assured me that so long as I have no income they cannot do this, which is why this is so difficult to understand, they are completely aware of my financial situation, I am on the other hand willing to make a same gesture of payment but I would rather it not be to a bailiff.

 

Have you spoken to you MP about this, they can often help in these matters.

[JonniBravo]

[edit] states that there is case law that suggests ownership of a vehicle must be provided by the owner, you yourself have stated that ownership must be established prior to taking a vehicle, I have confliting evidence that states;

 

"This rule does not apply to motor vehicles because the Local Government Ombudsman on 10 July 2012 in a report into complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby District Council, in paragraph 8 of the introduction said it "considers it reasonable for the BAILIFF to check ownership with the DVLA"

 

On the other hand, under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, a bailiff who seizes somebody else vehicle then he and the authority are jointly liable for replacing the vehicle for the owner on a like for like basis or a new vehicle if a like for like is one not available. In this case you are much better off not saying anything to the bailiff because he has a problem explaining it away to the owner's motor insurance company."

 

This is clearly confusing I am not saying your wrong sgtbush but something doesnt make sense here

[JonniBravo]

Have you spoken to you MP about this, they can often help in these matters.

 

No I didn't think they could help, I will try tomorrow

[seanamarts]

No I didn't think they could help, I will try tomorrow

You would be surprised what they can do

[tomtubby]

Jonni Bravo... Please refrain from naming other websites. The website that you refer to is mine and I can assure you that there is "no agenda" ( as you had mentioned in post 27).

 

Next point....the website will be coming down over Christmas and be updated etc. With answering over 5.000 queries on the forum...I do not have a lot of free time !!

 

I intend to explain further about "levying upon a vehicle" ( that does not belong to the debtor).

 

Last point on the website..I do not advertise it on the forum and neither do others.

 

There is indeed case law that almost all bailiff companies rely upon which they "claim" gives the bailiff the right to "assume" that all goods within the property are owned by the debtor and that it is the debtor who needs to provide evidence etc. Frankly, my personal opinion is that this particular case ( Observer v Gordon) is NOT sufficient to give the bailiff the right to "assume" that all goods belong to the debtor. In fact, the Local Authority Ombudsman; Dr Jane Martin referred to this case in her excellent recent public report against Blaby District Council.

Edited December 4, 2012 by tomtubby