Third Party Goods/ Interpleaders and the serious potential to damage the new Bailiff Reforms on 6th April

[tomtubby]

This particular thread of mine is very likely to be the most serious one that I have written for a long time and concerns the proposed implementation of a stunningly awful clause contained in Part 6 (Third Party Claiming Controlled Goods) of the new regulations on Bailiff Reform that is due to take effect on 6th April 2014.

 

When the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform was released 2 years ago many people either failed to notice or did not realise the very serious implications of Paragraph 60 (Third Party Claiming Goods) and, accordingly, Part 6 (Third Party Claiming Controlled Goods) has now been introduced and will take effect from 6th April.

 

My opinion is that this clause has the serious potential to damage the regulations and expose local authorities, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the DVLA and Local Government Ombudsman to complaints at a level never seen before.

 

In 2012, realising the serious implications for debtors AND creditors (in particular local authorities) if Paragraph 60 was implemented, we contacted many organisations including enforcement companies asking that they OPPOSE this clause. Most of those contacted were unaware of the consequences and readily agreed. In our own 47 page response to the Consultation Paper we outlined very clearly why this clause should be removed.

 

Given that so many companies in the 'enforcement sector' were also opposed to Paragraph 60 it came as a huge shock to discover a few months ago that the Ministry of Justice had nonetheless implemented this draconian, unjust, unfair and unworkable clause into Part 6 (Third Party Claiming Controlled Goods) of the new regulations.

 

Following the implementation I was asked to write an article for a well known trade journal that is distributed to local authorities, all government agencies, enforcement companies, Members of Parliament and many more.

 

Following the publication, there have been a lot of developments surrounding Part 6 which I will explain shortly.

 

In the meantime, in order for the public to understand the seriousness of Part 6 I have been granted permission to provide a copy of my article on the forum. Mindful that visitors who are not members cannot access PDF attachments you will see below below that I have provided a 'word copy' of the 3 page article.

 

Could anyone wanting to respond wait a short while until after I have uploaded the PDF.

[tomtubby]

Firstly, as a reminder the following is the 'little horror' exposed in the Ministry of Justice's Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform:

 

 

Legal Remedies*

 

175. We intend to provide legal safeguards by bringing into force paragraph 66*of Schedule 12 to the TCE Act which provides remedies available to a*

debtor against an enforcement agent who breaches the prescribed*procedure for taking control of goods or acts under an enforcement power* that is defective.

 

Where the debtor chooses recourse through the court it* may order goods to be returned to the debtor and order the enforcement* agent or related party to pay damages for the loss suffered by the debtor.*

 

176. We will also bring into force and implement paragraph 60 of Schedule 12*to the TCE Act which sets out the procedure to be followed where a third*

party claims the goods taken into control by the enforcement agent are*

his and not the debtor’s.*

 

177. The regulations make provision for the court to determine the amount the*third party should pay into court in respect of an amount equal to the* value of the goods and the enforcement agent’s costs of retaining the* controlled goods pending the court’s decision on the claim. In addition,* the regulations make provision about how any underpayment is to be* determined. Regulations 47 and 48 set out the detail.

[tomtubby]

The following is a 'word copy' of Page One of the article written for CCR Public Sector magazine.

 

THIRD PARTY GOODS ACT: DAMAGING ENFORCEMENT?

 

 

 

"Under the Consultation Paper on ‘Bailiff Reform’ last year, many people either failed to notice or did not realise the very serious implications of Paragraph 60 (Third Party Claiming Goods) and, accordingly, Part 6 (Third Party Claiming Controlled Goods) has now been introduced and will take from 6th April.

 

My opinion is that this clause has the serious potential to damage the regulations and expose local authorities, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the DVLA and the Local Government Ombudsman to complaints at a level never seen before. Furthermore, I believe that Part 6 will inevitably lead to an unprecedented rise in ‘reckless’ levies in particular, given that the new regulations do not provide for a complaints body.

 

In simple terms, assuming a bailiff were to visit a debtors’ property to pursue a liability order for unpaid council tax, and in doing so levied upon

a vehicle that does not belong to the debtor then, under Part 6, the third-party owner of the vehicle will need to make an Interpleader application to the County Court and may be required to pay into court an amount equal to the value of the goods (the motor vehicle) or to a proportion of it as directed by the court, together with any amounts in respect of the enforcement agent’s costs of retaining the goods.

 

Furthermore, if the enforcement agent disputes the value of the goods, any underpayment is to be determined by reference to an independent valuation! This legal remedy is to protect the third- party goods from being sold to pay somebody else’s debt.

 

The vast majority of complaints regarding Part 6 will inevitably arise following the enforcement of road traffic debts in and around London by way of bailiffs’ automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)-equipped vehicles.

 

As an example, for reasons that are unclear the warrant of execution has upon it the vehicle registration mark (VRM) of the car that had been driven by the vehicle keeper when he/she incurred the penalty charge notice (PCN). The bailiff company will provide their certificated bailiff with a memory stick containing details of all unpaid PCNs and this will be uploaded onto the onboard computer within the ANPR equipped vehicle and the bailiff will then attempt to intercept the vehicle in order to seize it.

 

Enforcing a PCN by this method means that the bailiff is not seeking to enforce a warrant against the named debtor and instead, he is seeking only to seize a car that had been driven by him/her on the day of the contravention!

 

Given that the PCN will likely have been issued at least nine months earlier (or even more) many times the vehicle that is seized has changed ownership and accordingly, from April 6th the new owner would be required to abide by Part 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and make an interpleader application in order to avoid his/her car being sold for the previous owner’s debt.

 

A further area of concern is that during the past year many London councils are contracting with the Metropolitan Police to set up ‘road blocks’ with bailiff companies in order to pursue unpaid parking tickets. During the first week of September there were approximately three such ‘roadside operations’,( as they are commonly called) What happens is that when a vehicle registration number is detected by the bailiff’s ANPR equipment the vehicle owner is asked by police officers to “pull over” whilst the police check the drivers identity etc before introducing him to the certificated bailiff. In all such operations a removal vehicle will be parked nearby.

 

Under Part 6, if the vehicle has changed ownership the new owner will very likely find himself under duress to make payment of the previous owner’s debt in order to avoid paying an amount “equal to the value of his car into court to secure an interpleader application”.

 

Worryingly, we have recently received a lot of enquiries concerning bailiff enforcement by ANPR when pursuing parking tickets issued by one particular London authority which has recently signed a bailiff contract and they are only now registering debts at the Traffic Enforcement Centre for parking contraventions in 2009!!

 

Once again, the warrant has upon it the registration number of the car involved in the contravention in 2009 and, in the intervening four years, the vehicle may well have been sold and – given that the bailiff is seeking to locate the vehicle and not the debtor –the new owner could be faced with the prospect of an interpleader application, and will very likely also be forced to make payment of the previous owners’ debt"

[tomtubby]

The following is a 'word copy' of Page Two of the article written for CCR magazine.

 

THIRD PARTY GOODS ACT: DAMAGING ENFORCEMENT? Page 2.

 

 

 

New address for the vehicle keeper.

 

"A further point regarding the enforcement of an unpaid parking charge notice is that many local authorities and bailiff companies are failing to abide by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 75.7(7) when a new address is identified for the vehicle keeper.

 

Under this clause, if the address of the debtor changed after the date on which the warrant had been issued, the Local Authority must apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for permission to amend the address on the warrant.

 

Sadly, there have been thousands of requests made for permission to amend the address and yet, in every case that I have come across, the respondent’s address changed before and not after the date on which the warrant had been issued and the reissue request should not have been made

 

Unfortunately, under CPR 75.7(7) there is no provision for the local authority to provide any evidence of the date on which the respondent moved address !!!

.

A final point on the matter of the address on a warrant of execution in relation to a PCN, is that many local authorities, in their contracts with bailiff companies, provide that the enforcement company must undertake ‘pre debt’ address cleaning checks. This practice has remained the case for many years, with one company openly stating that “with errors in DVLA input and variations in address fields by processing contractors, 20% of all

warrants of execution issued need their addresses cleansed”.

[tomtubby]

Thee following is a 'word copy' of the last page of the article written for CCR Public Sector magazine.

 

THIRD PARTY GOODS ACT: DAMAGING ENFORCEMENT?

 

 

 

Interpleader in the High Court

 

"At present, interpleader applications are almost exclusively used in relation to third-party claims for writs of fi fa enforced by High Court enforcement officers (HCEO), and such interpleader claims are heard in the High Court. I have personally never known of an interpleader application in relation to unpaid council tax or parking charge notices.

 

At present, with High Court enforcement, if a third party claims that goods have been seized then, under Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) Order 17 (Rule 2) it is a very simple matter indeed for the third party to send a letter to the HCEO within seven days of seizure providing suitable evidence of their claim and under RSC Order 17 (Rule 2a) the enforcement company must “without delay” forward a copy of the third party claim to the judgment creditor, who then has seven days in which to either admit the claim –in which case the goods are released –or to dispute the claim, which will then mean that the claim would be referred to court for an inter-pleader.

 

Having this process in place quite rightly puts the onus of responsibility on the judgment creditor and, crucially, there are no costs involved and the third party owner is not at a financial disadvantage. This initial stage does not involve a court and, most importantly, if the evidence supports the third party’s ownership, the seized goods will be released within just seven days of notice being given to the judgment creditor.

 

Before writing this article I spoke with a director for a large High Court enforcement company who has attended many interpleader hearings in the High Court over the past seven years and he said that he is not aware of any case where an interpleader claimant has been ordered to make payment into court to secure the claimed goods. I am therefore at a loss to understand why the Ministry of Justice included Part 6 into the regulations.

 

Applying a levy fee.

 

It is a well-known fact that bailiffs have, for many years, levied upon vehicles that are not owned by the debtor to enable the bailiff to apply a levy fee and also, many times, an attending to remove fee to the debtor’s account. This practice was the subject of an article for the IRRV’s Insight magazine in April 2010 written by Andrew Hobley; Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), following many complaints from the public. Mr Hobley stated that this practice is ‘likely to result in a finding of administrative fault’ by the Ombudsman and he therefore encouraged all councils to ensure their written policies clearly provide that: ‘bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership and that failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be subject to a public report against the local authority’.

 

Despite Mr Hobley’s article, bailiffs continue to levy upon vehicles not owned by the debtor and in doing so, would rely upon the legal case of Observer v Gordon. It was therefore of little surprise that in December 2010 the LGO issued a Local Settlement Report against Rossendale Borough Council in relation to the way in which their bailiff provider, Equita Ltd, had levied upon a vehicle not owned by the debtor and where no evidence was provided that a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory had been provided.

 

Once again, some bailiffs took little notice of the reports from the LGO and continued to levy upon vehicles not owned by the debtor and, following further complaints, in July 2012 a highly critical report against Blaby District Council was released by the LGO. On the matter of the legal case of Observer v Gordon, chief ombudsman Dr Jane Martin stated in her report that the circumstances of that case ‘are quite specific’ and accordingly, was ‘not relevant’. She made a finding of maladministration against the local authority for their failure to check ownership with DVLA. Despite this latest LGO report, the ‘practice’ of levying upon a vehicle that is not owned by the debtor continues, and only a week ago I received an enquiry from a member of the public, regarding a bailiff enforcing a liability order for unpaid council tax of £668 and where the bailiff levied upon nine vehicles parked in a small car park next door to the debtor’s property. In this particular case, the debtor did even not own a car !!

 

Inundating the courts

 

Finally, at present interpleader claims are almost always heard in the High Court in relation to writs of “fi fa” and, commonly, such applications take on average 6-8 weeks before being heard.

 

The Ministry of Justice has stated that approximately just 45,000 writs of “fi fa” were transferred to High Court enforcement companies last year. By comparison, last year approximately 1.7 million liability orders were passed to bailiff companies in relation to unpaid council tax and national non-domestic rates, with approximately 1.5 million warrants of execution in relation to unpaid parking charge notices.

 

Under Part 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 there is the serious potential for county courts in England & Wales to be inundated with interpleader claims.

 

Part 6 will ensure that bailiffs are rewarded for reckless levies whilst the third-party owner is at a serious financial disadvantage. This cannot be right"

 

END

[tomtubby]

The attachment below is to a PDF copy of the article as it appeared in CCR Public Sector publication.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49406[/ATTACH]

 

c copyright CCR-PublicSector, December 2013.

[tomtubby]

It would now appear that local authorities ( and in particular; the Department for Communities & Local Government) have finally realised the very serious implication for THEM of Part 6 in that the "Interpleader Application " must name the LA and be served upon the LOCAL AUTHORITY. It will be for the councils' legal department to deal with such applications.

 

On the positive side, the onus will on on the bailiff to establish ownership and I would think that most local authorities will be putting pressure upon the bailiffs to ensure that they do so.

[tomtubby]

At this present time ( and this may change) the "Third Party" will be require to pay a fee of £80 for the application. However the real issue is that they are also required to pay into court the value of the goods seized!

 

On Friday very senior figures from the enforcement companies publicly made their feelings known but heavily criticising this requirement with the Managing Director of one High Court Enforcement firm stating that

 

'In my opinion, this Regulation is unjust, impractical and divorced from reality and I very much hope this Regulation with be amended before 6th April. I also hope that in practice a sensible approach will be taken with regard to making the payment equal to the value of the goods'

[tomtubby]

Questions anyone?

[josephbloggs]

i have heard that the costs for removal of goods, be that a vehicle or household goods, are not chargable to the debtor and have to be taken from the £235 visit fee the bailiff adds on.

do you know if this indeed the case?

I understand the new system will rid the companies of using 1st visit bailiffs or levy bailiffs.

given this being the case, and that then companies will be enforcing straight away, and that most bailiffs are self employed on a full payment must be collected basis - and usually get 50% of the fee added, why would a bailiff then hang around on a job to remove a car or household things, when - the cost will ultimately cut into their chance of collecting their wages.

 

given my comment, i feel bailiffs will be merely postmen - only there to post letters adding fees on to debts, and the only winners will be the companies themselves - because they will get minimum of £75 on every debt they collect, and £235 on every job they get paid on - why should the companies care if the bailiff is getting paid? they are self employed and ultimately expendable.

 

people will probably only get one visit to get the fees on to the debt - if the debtor doesnt pay, any further action will be via the post or over the phone.

 

therefore - i do not feel the issues raised on this thread are as serious as being made out to be. the threat of removal of goods has now disappeared from the industry (as of april anyway)

 

if people do not pay and it goes to bailiffs there is no longer the worry of seizure and removal of goods. collection rates will go down massively both from the companies themselves, but also the bailiffs who have less powers than ever before. finally the councils will suffer because those that dont pay them or the bailiffs have no threat to pay.

[tomtubby]

josephbloggs

 

Your EXCELLENT post outlines how most people UNDERSTOOD the new regulations would work.

 

Sadly, events in the past 2 months have proved that despite the governments intention the reality is far different and it would now seem that goods ( in particular motor vehicles) will be taken at a level never before witnesses.

 

After the Consultation period had finished the Ministry of Justice met frequently with various 'stakeholder groups' regarding implementation of the new regulations.

 

As always, the 'devil is in the detail' and accordingly, it was not until the Ministry of Justice finally released the Taking Control of Goods Regulations and the accompanying fee scale that the 'detail' could be considered.

 

Since that time there have been many questions raised with MoJ and it was not until a month ago at the CIVEA Meeting that enforcement companies, local authorities and the advice sector finally realised that there are some VERY worrying aspects to the new regs.

 

On Tuesday I will be in a position to update the previous thread regarding The Taking Control of Goods Regulations.

 

I an 'nutshell' the Controlled Goods Agreements have been messed up. Aaccordingly, it will be much more cost effective to remove goods at the 'enforcement visit' stage. Also, a 'little gem' that had not featured at Consultation stage is that if the enforcement companies actually 'incur' storage fees, they will be permitted to charge these onto the debtor !!!

 

I will address this and other issues when I update the tread on Tuesday.

[lamma]

A bugger's muddle (please forgive my language).

And in line with the draconian nature of the portmanteau Act this is based on.

Sadly, I believe this is just the start.

[old bill]

This is one of my rare visits to CAG.

 

I have been following Tomtubby's progress on this new provision on another site and she is to be commended for the hard work she has put in.

 

What the MoJ has failed to grasp or knows about and hopes the public does not, is the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the processes and practices of civil enforcement. The basis of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the European Convention on Human Rights (aka Rome Convention), which is administered, in the UK, by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and, across the 47 European countries that are signatories to the Rome Convention by the Council of Europe which is responsible for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It is entirely separate from and has nothing do with whatsoever with the European Union, albeit that a number of EU member states are signatories to the Rome Convention and also members of the Council of Europe.

 

The provision within the Rome Convention that has the most significant effect on civil enforcement is Article 1 of the First Protocol. This provides protection of an individual's possessions. In a nutshell, the State has no right to interfere with an individual's enjoyment of their possessions or deprive them of their possessions, other than in exceptional circumstances. In the scenario of civil enforcement, any bailiff acting for a public authority, the definition of which includes government agencies and departments and local authorities, commercial entities performing the function of a public authority or for or on behalf of a public authority and individuals performing such public functions. has no right to deprive an individual of their possessions unless a court or other legally-convened tribunal has adjudged the individual to be liable and has issued lawful authority for the individual's possessions to be taken from them.

 

An individual's rights under the Rome Convention are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and inviolate (cannot and must not be breached) and it is unlawful, by virtue of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, for a public authority to perform any act that is incompatible with an individual's Convention rights.

 

The provisions Tomtubby has highlighted are incompatible with an individual's rights under the Rome Convention, especially if an individual has had no adjudication made against them by a court and no lawful authority has been issued to take their possessions from them, and any civil enforcement company or bailiff who feels they can ignore the Convention does so at their peril. If an individual has pro bono legal representation and pursues a civil enforcement company and bailiff, along with their public authority client, under the Human Rights Act, the cost to not only the public authority, but the civil enforcement company and bailiff also could be astronomical as such cases are heard before the civil courts and losing the case would land them with an order for compensation and costs running into tens of thousands of pounds. If a serious breach and it affects a number of individuals, the financial consequences for local and national government, the civil enforcement industry and individual bailiffs could be crippling.

 

The UK is already attracting international criticism over human rights violations, notably, from Canada and The Netherlands, and there is already talk of hauling politicians before the International Criminal Court.

 

Those who were responsible for making a pig's ear of the legislation should be summarily dismissed from their posts at the MoJ and forfeit their index-linked pensions and gratutities.

[brassnecked]

I would agree with oldbill that Human Rights may be the undoing of this mess, but in the meantime, bailiffs will be bailiffs and seize cars with impunity especially using ANPR from new owners who cannot afford the interpleader. A possible scenario:

 

Car X gets PCN in 2010, keeper moves in 2011, car sold 2012, new owner visits London in 2014, police are having a joint op with say JBW, ANPR identiies vehicle X as having a warrant attached to it police pull in car X JBW seize it, owner shows V5 and insurance, JBW say warrant is on the vehicle as thje VRM is on the warrant. they take the car, owner lives in a rural area and has to get the train home, as they work unsocial hours there is no available public transport for their 40 mile each way commute, they cannot afford the £300 value of vehicle to pay into court, so car is sold by JBW as a result they lose their job. See where this is going?

 

As there is no recourse under the new rules owner is knackered, but under HRA maybe they can claim the value of the lost car and consequential losses due to being thrown onto JSA. All in all a great own goal for MOJ MOJ 1 Common Sense 0

 

I wonder what John Kruse makes of all this?

[old bill]

I would agree with oldbill that Human Rights may be the undoing of this mess, but in the meantime, bailiffs will be bailiffs and seize cars with impunity especially using ANPR from new owners who cannot afford the interpleader. A possible scenario:

 

Car X gets PCN in 2010, keeper moves in 2011, car sold 2012, new owner visits London in 2014, police are having a joint op with say JBW, ANPR identiies vehicle X as having a warrant attached to it police pull in car X JBW seize it, owner shows V5 and insurance, JBW say warrant is on the vehicle as thje VRM is on the warrant. they take the car, owner lives in a rural area and has to get the train home, as they work unsocial hours there is no available public transport for their 40 mile each way commute, they cannot afford the £300 value of vehicle to pay into court, so car is sold by JBW as a result they lose their job. See where this is going?

 

As there is no recourse under the new rules owner is knackered, but under HRA maybe they can claim the value of the lost car and consequential losses due to being thrown onto JSA. All in all a great own goal for MOJ MOJ 1 Common Sense 0

 

I wonder what John Kruse makes of all this?

 

Not quite. The "warrant" is against the person who owned the vehicle when the PCN was issued, not against the vehicle. You can only lawfully pursue the person against whom the PCN was issued as they owe the debt, not the vehicle. If the vehicle changes ownership in the intervening period and this is recorded at DVLA, then a bailiff is not entitled to seize the vehicle as they have no lawful authority to do so as the new owner is not the debtor. An absence or lack of lawful authority exposes the bailiff, civil enforcement company and public authority to Civil Litigation and the bailiff to Criminal Prosecution as well. So the bailiff risks getting it in the neck from both directions.

 

I have spoken to Tomtubby about the lawfulness of these joint operations between the Metropolitan Police and various civil enforcement companies. Taking account of all factors, my conclusion is that such operations are not only unlawful, but illegal, also. Police officers do not have the power in law to stop a motorist in relation to a civil debt and I very much doubt the seizures that ensue are lawful either.

 

On another site where I post, an OP was stopped by one of these operations, a bailiff reached in through the driver's window and attempted to forcibly take the ignition keys. The OP prevented the bailiff from successfully taking the keys and drove off. The police, apparently oblivious to the fact that the bailiff was committing a serious criminal act, stood looking on uneasily. It is my understanding that the OP made a formal complaint to the IPCC in respect of the police's failure to act against the bailiff and took legal action in respect of the bailiff's action, especially as it caused the OP physical injury.

 

An individual has a right to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to protect their person and possessions. If a bailiff takes a chance and attempts to seize a vehicle they have no lawful authority to seize and the driver, who is not the debtor, gives the bailiff a bloody good hiding, the bailiff has no comeback, in law, as they will have acted without lawful authority. The law only protects a person from getting a beating where and when they can prove they are or were acting under lawful authority. On the other hand, if a bailiff attempts to physically remove a person from a vehicle in order to seize it and has no lawful authority to do so, then the person in the vehicle has a right to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to defend themselves. If the bailiff gets a fat lip in the process, that is the bailiff's own fault as they should not be acting in such a manner.

 

The reality is that there are some very dark forces at work in Westminster that seem determined to cause as much chaos and trouble as possible. This new legislation is a prime example of it. I am aware that a growing number of serving police officers are very concerned with what is going on and desperately want to put a stop to the lawlessness that is seemingly being allowed to develop.

[lamma]

I agree.

I point out that ownership is not recorded at the DVLA thus giving them a crack to wriggle through.

And no, ownership should not be recorded at the DVLA to solve this.

[old bill]

It will be down to whether the bailiff has lawful authority or not. No lawful authority, no take third-party goods. Try to take third-party goods, get smack in mouth or seven buckets of crap kicked out of you. I can see bailiffs spending more time in A & E licking their wounds than out doing the job they are paid to do.

[brassnecked]

The bailiff will hope the innocent is unaware they are acting unlawfully, and that plod don't know that this is the case when they pull the car over, for a civil ANPR

[old bill]

The bailiff will hope the innocent is unaware they are acting unlawfully, and that plod don't know that this is the case when they pull the car over, for a civil ANPR

 

I agree with you entirely, BN. I have a feeling it is going to be JBW's Achille's Heel. All it needs is one of Waller's goons to overstep the mark, take a hiding, and for it to come out in court that the goon was acting ultra vires. It would be open season on certificated bailiffs.

[unclebulgaria67]

Could you imagine a situation, where the people who owed the fine or liability, had a neighbour they did not like. If a bailiff took that neighbours car, you could imagine what the consequences might be. I sometimes detect that the bailiff when targeting 'any' car parked near the debtors house is trying to embarass them, so they somehow make a payment. The debtor in the situation of a disliked neighbour, where they may have been previous problems between them, is going to be highly delighted with a bailiff taking the neighbours car.

[tomtubby]

 

I wonder what John Kruse makes of all this?

 

 

John Kruse is a more regular contributor to CCR Public Sector publication ( I wrote 5 articles last year whereas John wrote an article each month). He certainly did like my article and the following is his comment to me on Friday.

 

 

"On the positive side, the onus initially must be on the bailiff to establish ownership; secondly, the draft procedure envisages the claim being passed to the creditor to decide upon as they will be the defendants in court. This will hopefully filter out a lot of the wrongful and negligent levies. If so, only a few uncertain claims should get to court".

[tomtubby]

Old Bill

 

Your posts above are first class and I will be giving more thought to them in the next few days.

[tomtubby]

As a coincidence, a poster on another thread has advised the forum that a car that had been seized by Sherforce in October has finally been released 4 months later!!!

 

The car was not hers and instead, owned by a friend and parked on her driveway.

 

I really do not think that the Ministry of Justice have thought this through properly.

 

The thread is here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405723-sherforce

[old bill]

Old Bill

 

Your posts above are first class and I will be giving more thought to them in the next few days.

 

Feel free to ring me as I am at home most days due to the FMS I have getting worse. Avoid Monday morning, Wednesday afternoon and all day Friday of this week. I will PM you my landline number which is ex-directory.

[brassnecked]

As a coincidence, a poster on another thread has advised the forum that a car that had been seized by Sherforce in October has finally been released 4 months later!!!

 

The car was not hers and instead, owned by a friend and parked on her driveway.

 

I really do not think that the Ministry of Justice have thought this through properly.

 

The thread is here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405723-sherforce

Notwithstanding John Kruse's comment regarding judgment creditors filtering and bailiff/HCEO checking ownership , had interpleaders been in already there is every chance that that car would have been sold on by Sherforce with little or nono redress for the OP's friend, unless they resorted to expensive litigation which Sherforce would throw a brace of barristers to defend. Would they be willing to risk telephone number costs in favour of Sherforce if they lost?