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

[avfc1]

Think this may be a misunderstanding.

 

 

If the EA was actually in the debtors house, there was no need to levy upon 3rd party goods.

 

 

Also, if the advice had been given, the EA would hardly likely share this with the debtor, thus arming him/her ammunition for replevin.

[brassnecked]

I presume this is a transitional case (broken arrangement) as clearly the '7 clear days' Notice of Enforcement could not have expired yet?

 

And if that really was the advise regarding 3rd party goods there are going to be some serious issues.

 

Especially if the police allow the EA to take the third party car. It is in all our interests that the EA is clear on what they can do, and seizing third party goods is not one of them.

 

The warrant is to the address and not the individual, hogwash so the Ea can have the third party car I wonder which of the usual suspects this EA is from?

 

TT I hope you advised the person that the EA has no right to take the car, and that the p;olice cannot force them to let the EA have it

[tomtubby]

This article from May 2013 demonstrates very clearly WHY these 'interpleaders' could be a complete disaster for wronged debtors:

 

 

http://www.shergroup.net/blog/?p=1975

 

 

It is a known fact that the debtor will likely be a Litigant in Person and will be faced in court by Solicitors representing their clients who have pretty deep pockets !!

[brassnecked]

This article from May 2013 demonstrates very clearly WHY these 'interpleaders' could be a complete disaster for wronged debtors:

 

 

http://www.shergroup.net/blog/?p=1975

 

 

It is a known fact that the debtor will likely be a Litigant in Person and will be faced in court by Solicitors representing their clients who have pretty deep pockets !!

 

That is assuming the third party can afford the cost, as that was an ET case and a company burn & phoenix in the link, we aare more likely to see a rise in claims on cars taken for previous owner pcn, or neighbours car for council tax, despite the alleged check and balance that the EA AND Creditor must be certain that the goods actually are the debtors, but they chose to ignore offered evidence and push the interpleader, innocent cannot afford, so they move to sell. I see that there may be a chance to gain an injunction using Form N16a barring the sale if the evidence is on balance in favour of the innocent using a Human Rights argument as in denial of right to fair trial, right to enjoy goods without interference etc.

[lamma]

I am shocked !!!

I am not. The first of many.

[Fair-Parking]

Its been a very long time since I posted but the incident this morning highlighted by Tom Tubby is already in grave danger of developing a new identity of wrongful assumptions.

 

First I should correct TT on one small aspect - although the police were mentioned they did not attend. Secondly the person who was hijacked by the pair of 2 dimensional Marstons bailiffs/enforcement officers/self employed bounty hunters did not get it wrong. Nor was it a broken agreement. It was the first visit for an alleged parking ticket. I know because I was part of the conversation and spoke to both them.They both confirmed to me that they they been recently taught by Marstons that the house and not a person was was the subject of the 'warrant' (which they never had)

 

Nor was either the house owner or car owner a 'debtor' as the latter remains the subject of allegations written on a PCN ('the officer who issued this tickets BELIEVES etc...') and never proven in court.

 

What we have is Marstons pre planned way of sidestepping the new regulations and using them to their advantage.

 

The MOJ has been hoodwinked because it listens to too many bailiff companies and not enough from those who know exactly how the bailiff deceit has evolved intro strategy.

[brassnecked]

You have confirmed my worse fears FP, that the Enforcement companies have decided to enforce on their own interpretations, so under their reckoning they would be taking the car from the address even if the debtor had moved and the car was the property of a new occupier, irrespective of the status of any PCN in the name of the previous occupant as they had a mickey mouse warrant to that ADDRESS, if it is for a criminal fine then they could get into all sorts of trouble if they try that one..

[tomtubby]

And this will prove WHY the 'Interpleader' procedure could prove to tarnish (or even to destroy) these new regulations.

[brassnecked]

And this will prove WHY the 'Interpleader' procedure could prove to tarnish (or even to destroy) these new regulations.

 

That check and balance that says the Creditor and EA must be convinced that the disputed goods are indeed the property of the debtor will count for nothing if they interpret as Marstons seem to have done in the case above, as even providing evidence of good title in the goods will be of no avail if the EA on the ground at the door, says no the warrant is to the address so new occupiers car is seized into a Controlled Goods Order.

 

In that case surely there are serious DPA issues as the EA will have discussed a deb with a third party, not to mention ECHR and Human Rights Act?

[mikeymack2002]

It's about time that the MOJ need to inform the Police the real and in plain terms what the EA can/not do under the circumstances? if the MOJ cant be bothered then this will just get even messier in the future.

 

 

MM

[HCEOs]

It's about time that the MOJ need to inform the Police the real and in plain terms what the EA can/not do under the circumstances? if the MOJ cant be bothered then this will just get even messier in the future. MM

 

I agree.

 

I would also like to see the Police acting properly and arresting those that obstruct an Enforcement Agent or those that interfere with controlled goods.

 

To add, hopefully the new regulations make it much simpler for Police.

[brassnecked]

I agree.

 

I would also like to see the Police acting properly and arresting those that obstruct an Enforcement Agent or those that interfere with controlled goods. What if the goods are third party and the owner comes back as the EA is listing them, takes control shows EA proof, gets in car EA calls police and police arrest owner?

 

To add, hopefully the new regulations make it much simpler for Police.

 

Trying to be devils advocate, as if the goods are NOT the debtors but the EA refuses offered proof, shouldn't the EA be arrested, or should the owner be cuffed and dragged off for obstructing the EA "stealing" his property?

[avfc1]

It's about time that the MOJ need to inform the Police the real and in plain terms what the EA can/not do under the circumstances? if the MOJ cant be bothered then this will just get even messier in the future.

 

 

MM

 

 

What are these offences? Prey tell.

 

 

Theft, harassment, fraud (& dare I say trespass) spring to mind-Nothing new here. Same allegations, same refutes by police officers that "its a civil matter"

 

 

Same old same old.

 

 

HCEO's may get a little more assistance with "interfering with controlled goods" although I think he may be a tad optimistic to expect help in the "obstruction" aspect. Think you'd have to accept that this goes with the territory of being an EA.

[mikeymack2002]

Due to the personal details and DPA I am unable to divulge this info, suffice to say it's not a good thing for a debtor to face. Sorry

 

 

MM

[Fair-Parking]

We seem to be drifting away from the introduction of the Act and the reality of its consequences. This morning's enforcement based on the new Act is a new direction we should all remain focused on.

 

The bailiffs did not invent this scenario themselves as it was far too complex for a pair of 2 dimensional objects to have dreamt up on their own. Nor does it really serve any purpose to suggest what now exists as the new form 4 complaint. Even these rather slow bounty hunters would argue that they were merely following their 'training' and that in any event they could hardly be expected to know everything about a new law that was just 24 hours old. Thus any complaint about them is unlikely to be viewed by a judge as being entirely justified. This is much deeper.

 

The audacity of today's action isn't something that was the result of a few drinks in Marstons Valentines Day. This was a planned strategy and a very callous one. The interpleader was meant to be a way of balancing and then rectifying the misdemeanour of wrongful seizure. Bailiffs wouldn't see it that way - this was an opening to take more that they are entitled to and then let those afflicted fight you later. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and if you have got it by fair means or foul then it is you that dictates and not those deprived. Take the car or the money and worry about the consequences later. Let them storm your castle.

 

First the fact that the court fee for an interpleader rose overnight from £80 to £155 is hardly an incentive for anybody to gamble, even on an decent bet. Marstons and others know that and will make as hard as possible to for a litigant in person to get justice. Barristers and solicitors threatening thousands of pounds of costs will be waiting for the inexperienced and claimants who still naively believe that law and justice are one and the same thing. Bailiff legal teams will soon take advantage of that

 

It may therefore be wise to look upon this morning's enforcement as an opening gambit in a less than honest scheme of warfare to secure more profits. However I should also thank Marstons for playing their rather dangerous hand on the first day and alerting us.

 

I would like to think that the MoJ would reconsider what they have created but then it wouldn't matter that much as the MoJ never thought to introduce a governing or disciplinary body to oversee their quest to make bailiff enforcement 'fairer'. I'm not sure that the fees charged today were in line with the new regulations but again it doesn't matter as there is nobody to complain to.

 

We must be the only country in the world that can introduce rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty and still imagine that we have acheived something worthwhile. In the meantime the MoJ would be last organisation to wake up and realise that their pally bailiff allies that they work so hard to protect are just taking the ..... out of them.

[ploddertom]

Do we know what the end result of this morning's debacle was?

[Fair-Parking]

The amount demanded was paid. We await to see if they wish to fight to get back what was unlawfully taken

[avfc1]

Do we know what the end result of this morning's debacle was?

 

 

This is important.

 

 

It could well be that the 2 chimps merely wanted the extra revenue that an "abortive" tow truck visit will bring. This will undoubtedly go on, as it did under the old regime.

 

 

As "Fair Parking" was a witness to the comments as a 3rd party, his evidence could be invaluable in a complaints procedure that could ultimately go out of the relevant authorities hands.

 

 

If nobody is prepared to do anything other than cry on the internet , not much is going to change is it?

[Fair-Parking]

Just to let everybody know. I've have literally just received an email form the MoJ congratulating themselves on a job well done for introducing this new invitation for bailiffs to make more unlawful money.

[brassnecked]

Was the third party car removed, and who paid up the innocent or the debtor?

 

Either way it is Dodge City without a Wyatt Earp.

[lamma]

What is ignored in the new rules and yet is very well understood in the corridors of power is that most people will not be able to demonstrate good title to their goods.

To be frank it smacks of state sponsored piracy to me.

[brassnecked]

What is ignored in the new rules and yet is very well understood in the corridors of power is that most people will not be able to demonstrate good title to their goods.

To be frank it smacks of state sponsored piracy to me.

 

The Panorama programme highlighted just how eye watering the storage fees are as in £1800, so if that has to be paid in as well on top of value sales fee all other fees and value of car it is game over for many innocents if EA pushes for intepleader

[lamma]

Possession in nine tenths of the law as the saying goes. Quite right it is only nine tenths, it is that other ten percent that opens the door.

Should it go to Interpleader title would still need to be shown. Most cannot do that.

Ask yourself which of your goods you can show good title to ?

Take five minutes and go through your top twenty items.

Sobering isn't it.

I can see a blooming cottage industry springing up around this as this state sponsored piracy gets worse.

[brassnecked]

Possession in nine tenths of the law as the saying goes. Quite right it is only nine tenths, it is that other ten percent that opens the door.

Should it go to Interpleader title would still need to be shown. Most cannot do that.

Ask yourself which of your goods you can show good title to ?

Take five minutes and go through your top twenty items.

Sobering isn't it.

I can see a blooming cottage industry springing up around this as this state sponsored piracy gets worse.

 

 

Duncan Smith wants to seize and sell benefit cheats houses, so how long before an EA tries to seize a house for a parking ticket, after they change the law to accommodate this?

 

Another point regarding caravans, they are fair game, but supposing the caravan is the home, is it still fair game as in a traveling family, where seizure renders them effectively homeless?

 

That would get to the Human Rights activists quick smart.

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked.

 

Under the exempt goods if a caravan or mobile home is the main living accommodation for the debtor then that item is exempt. If however a caravan is sitting on a driveway and is used for family holidays and weekend breaks....then it can be seized.