Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

[tomtubby]

Something that would assist an Enforcement Officer greatly and would also prevent a great deal of the argument above would be for the DVLA to allow real-time registered keeper checks on vehicles.

 

At present it takes most HCEOs 24-48 hours and those using manual requests much longer.

 

Another and possibly even more sensible option would be to allow the enforcement industry to reverse-check vehicle registrations. This way the debtors details could be put into the DVLA database and in return it could provide details of vehicles registered to that debtor. This would surely improve the recovery of LA, government and court fines/judgment debts.

 

 

I am sure that you will not be surprised to hear my reply which is "over my dead body".......

[lamma]

With mine alongside yours tt.

[brassnecked]

I am sure that you will not be surprised to hear my reply which is "over my dead body".......

 

I think my cat would be very angry with you, as to Mr Flibbles, he is getting very angry, seriously it would open another can of worms where DVLA have not changed details over to a new keeper, or where sheer incompetence at DVLA gives the HCEO/Bailiff incorrect information. Would a HCEO like to go on Watchdog with the gaffer at DVLA to be grilled by Anne Robinson when someones Motability car is taken due to a HCEO being given wrong info by DVLA

[HCEOs]

I knew that would ruffle some feathers but I stand by both of my points.

 

We DVLA check anyway so any mistakes made will be no different. HPI checks show up Mobility cars too.

 

Remember, it would only confirm the registered keeper and not necessarily the owner. At least each levy would almost always be wholly justified rather than listing 3rd party's vehicles in error.

 

As for the reverse-check what's wrong with that?... People who owe money having their assets seized and sold to pay their debt... God forbid....

 

And I'll happy take on Robinson.

Edited August 6, 2013 by HCEOs

[lamma]

"Remember, it would only confirm the registered keeper and not necessarily the owner. At least each levy would almost always be wholly justified rather than listing 3rd party's vehicles in error." Your logic is flawed. First and second sentences contradict.

[danmcr]

It's a shame that some of the bigger companies ruin it for the rest of us. An example would be the company that got caught selling data to a private parking company.

[ploddertom]

 

At present it takes most HCEOs 24-48 hours and those using manual requests much longer.

 

 

Maybe what is need is an electronic system such as Shercar used, competition would be good and am sure plenty of new business could be generated.

[tomtubby]

Is anyone using Shercar?

[ploddertom]

Is anyone using Shercar?

 

Seemingly not but don't see why anyone has not come up with a similar system.

[Mark1960]

So are we now saying (HCEO & danmcr) that if a vehicle is not registered to the debtor,it won't be levied?

 

An example of a bailiff conducting himself professionally,not sure I'd be able to maintain this level of patience:

 

Edited August 7, 2013 by Mark1960
missed something

[danmcr]

So are we now saying (HCEO & danmcr) that if a vehicle is not registered to the debtor,it won't be levied?

 

I don't believe I said or implied such a thing.

[brassnecked]

I don't believe I said or implied such a thing.

 

Oops, so it's business as usual, if it's there levy and possibly if JBW or Jacobs etc clamp it.

 

The reason I stress this, is the recent articles in the press regarding the renting out of driveway and parking space for commuters. See where this is going, it will be even more at a bailiffs peril to levy and clamp if this becomes more widespread, unless there is a robust checking system. Incidentally would proffering a rental agreement with the occupier/debtor to rent the space be accepted as proof by the bailiff? I am angling this to Jacobs who clamp first and ask questions later, in fact with Jacobs the car could be gone before the commuter arrives to go back home at the end of the day.

[danmcr]

Oops, so it's business as usual, if it's there levy and clamp it.

 

The reason I stress this, is the recent articles in the press regarding the renting out of driveway and parking space for commuters. See where this is going, it will be even more at a bailiffs peril to levy and clamp if this becomes more widespread.

 

If a vehicle is wrongly levied then the owner can prove he/she/they are the owner by providing documents such as insurance policy, receipts for maintenance, receipt of purchase and possibly backed up with a V5. Ultimately the owner can seek help from the Court.

[brassnecked]

If a vehicle is wrongly levied then the owner can prove he/she/they are the owner by providing documents such as insurance policy, receipts for maintenance, receipt of purchase and possibly backed up with a V5. Ultimately the owner can seek help from the Court.

 

True, these forms of proof are available but I forsee problems if this driveway rental takes off, as it will undermine your presumptions of ownership, and cast further doubt on using Observer V Gordon as a justification. My comments are not aimed at criticising any particular enforcxer, or company, merely illustrating potential pitfalls that may become extremely contentious in the fullness of time if an enforcer jumps the gun, removes and sells a motor belonging to a commuter renting the space. Jacobs in particular have removed and sold third party motors possibly Observer v Gordon as defence in the past.

[danmcr]

True, these forms of proof are available but I forsee problems if this driveway rental takes off, as it will undermine your presumptions of ownership, and cast further doubt on using Observer V Gordon as a justification. My comments are not aimed at criticising any particular enforcxer, or company, merely illustrating potential pitfalls that may become extremely contentious in the fullness of time if an enforcer jumps the gun, removes and sells a motor belonging to a commuter renting the space. Jacobs in particular have removed and sold third party motors possibly Observer v Gordon as defence in the past.

 

I can agree with you there. Clearly the government will not prevent enforcement against vehicles, so what would you propose happen to prevent such situations? Owner Database? Some sort of new proof of owner document???

[brassnecked]

I can agree with you there. Clearly the government will not prevent enforcement against vehicles, so what would you propose happen to prevent such situations? Owner Database? Some sort of new proof of owner document???

 

How about a renter displaying an approved badge in the windscreen so an enforcement agent can see at a glance if the vehicle is third party renting the space in working hours, may be peace of mind for a bailiff who is diligent and doing the job correctly, after all DVLA are one of the worse culprits for mess ups., and even if a bailiff checks with them there can be doubt as to the veracity of the information they provide.

[danmcr]

How about a renter displaying an approved badge in the windscreen so an enforcement agent can see at a glance if the vehicle is third party renting the space in working hours, may be peace of mind for a bailiff who is diligent and doing the job correctly, after all DVLA are one of the worse culprits for mess ups., and even if a bailiff checks with them there can be doubt as to the veracity of the information they provide.

 

If I checked the keeper of a car and it was registred 20 mile away from the address it would raise my suspicions that it may not belong to the debtor and would require further investigation before removing.

[brassnecked]

If I checked the keeper of a car and it was registred 20 mile away from the address it would raise my suspicions that it may not belong to the debtor and would require further investigation before removing.

Exactly as you should, sadly many don't and cause unneccesary problems for the bailiffs who do the job correctly.

[danmcr]

Exactly as you should, sadly many don't and cause unneccesary problems for the bailiffs who do the job correctly.

 

Very true.

[HCEOs]

Seemingly not but don't see why anyone has not come up with a similar system.

 

HCE Group have an identical system and Marston have the same but just for in house work.

 

Shercar was always 24-48 hours anyway.

[HCEOs]

The issue of third party goods has always been twofold. CAG will state Enforcement Officers levying on goods they know not to be the debtors and Enforcement Officers stating that they face many fraudulent claims for goods (i.e. I sold it to my brother yesterday).

 

Coming back to the title in the thread there is a clear provision for third party claims in Part 6 of the new regulations.

 

PART 6 THIRD PARTY CLAIMING CONTROLLED GOODS - Application of Part 6

48.This Part applies where a person (“the applicant”) makes an application to the court claiming that goods of which control has been taken are that person’s and not the debtor’s.

Payments into court by third party: underpayments

49.—(1) Any underpayment to be determined by reference to an independent valuation under paragraph 60(5) of Schedule 12 must be undertaken by a qualified independent valuer.

(2) Any underpayment determined by the qualified independent valuer must be paid within 14 clear days after provision of a copy of the valuation to the applicant.

 

Whilst this may prevent the fraudulent third party claims received by Enforcement Officers it will not aid the claims made by Caggers regarding the levying on others goods.

 

The fact is that there is no clear way to prevent third party goods being levied in the course of an EO work. If they are, claims will have to be made in accordance with the regulations above.

[HCEOs]

If I checked the keeper of a car and it was registred 20 mile away from the address it would raise my suspicions that it may not belong to the debtor and would require further investigation before removing.

 

Surely if you checked the keeper you'd have the name anyway no matter how far away it was registered....

[danmcr]

Yes however people with different names can live at the same address inc family members.

[tomtubby]

The issue of third party goods has always been twofold. CAG will state Enforcement Officers levying on goods they know not to be the debtors and Enforcement Officers stating that they face many fraudulent claims for goods (i.e. I sold it to my brother yesterday).

 

Coming back to the title in the thread there is a clear provision for third party claims in Part 6 of the new regulations.

 

PART 6 THIRD PARTY CLAIMING CONTROLLED GOODS - Application of Part 6

48.This Part applies where a person (“the applicant”) makes an application to the court claiming that goods of which control has been taken are that person’s and not the debtor’s.

Payments into court by third party: underpayments

49.—(1) Any underpayment to be determined by reference to an independent valuation under paragraph 60(5) of Schedule 12 must be undertaken by a qualified independent valuer.

(2) Any underpayment determined by the qualified independent valuer must be paid within 14 clear days after provision of a copy of the valuation to the applicant.

 

Whilst this may prevent the fraudulent third party claims received by Enforcement Officers it will not aid the claims made by Caggers regarding the levying on others goods.

 

The fact is that there is no clear way to prevent third party goods being levied in the course of an EO work. If they are, claims will have to be made in accordance with the regulations above.

 

.

Unfortunately I am really pressed for time today and will not have time to properly respond but I can ASSURE you that I am absolutely livid at the inclusion of Part 6. I responded to the Consultation Paper at great length and I put forward some excellent points against Part 6 and I know that many other also raised their concerns.

 

This clause has the potential of encouraging reckless levies like never before and I cannot stress how disappointed that I am with this clause.

 

More later......much more....

[brassnecked]

"PART 6 THIRD PARTY CLAIMING CONTROLLED GOODS - Application of Part 6

48.This Part applies where a person (“the applicant”) makes an application to the court claiming that goods of which control has been taken are that person’s and not the debtor’s.

Payments into court by third party: underpayments

49.—(1) Any underpayment to be determined by reference to an independent valuation under paragraph 60(5) of Schedule 12 must be undertaken by a qualified independent valuer.

(2) Any underpayment determined by the qualified independent valuer must be paid within 14 clear days after provision of a copy of the valuation to the applicant."

 

I agree with tomtubby that this is unworkable and will lead to innocent parties losing vehicleswrongfully as they do not know how to sort it nor can they afford to pay monies into the court for someone elses debt, which is what the section appears to say. Will fees paid by a third party be refunded when ownership is proven?