Council Tax Debt Phoenix Commercial Collections Clamped Car - Help Please

[PJB5]

Hi All

 

I have a debt from a previous address which is in dispute.

 

The matter is now with the ombudsman.

 

Today bailiffs visited me and

 

when I looked out the window there was a clamp on my car.

 

I spoke with the bailiff and explained that the car was a 'tool of the trade' and without it i could not work.

 

Further my divorce solicitors wrote a letter confirming this and I provided them with a copy of my insurance that states business use.

Albeit this was amended as I mistakenly thought I could travel to and from my place of work

but apparently that is not the case with Axa.

 

I asked the bailiff on two occasions for documents and

he said he had them but did not provide me with anything.

 

He said I would need to liaise with his office,

Phoenix Commercial Collections,

and send them a fax and left leaving the clamp on the car.

 

I faxed them a letter and the insurance certificate and the solicitors letter at 4pm.

 

When I spoke to them they said they could not deal with it until tomorrow and

 

when I called the bailiff he said he would be towing the car tomorrow, unless I assume he is told not to by his office.

 

I did browse around and there was mention that if he hasn't provided any document regarding the power to seize the car

or the fact he has taken possession the car hasn't as such been seized and I could legally sell it to a friend or relative tonight for a nominal amount

and provide evidence of a bank transfer, receipt and the V5 notice part and they could not touch it,

is this correct?

 

I would appreciate any advice anyone could please give as I am very worried as I am in Court all day tomorrow regarding my divorce.

[ploddertom]

Why do you think the vehicle is exempt from seizure as a tool of the trade?

[dx100uk]

no selling your car does not work either.

 

dx

[PJB5]

Under Section 54 of the Magistrate Courts Rules it expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing a vehicle used in the course of employment and *under section 15 of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 you cannot levy on: ‘Tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are

necessary to the debtor for use personally in a job or business’.

[brassnecked]

Under Section 54 of the Magistrate Courts Rules it expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing a vehicle used in the course of employment and *under section 15 of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 you cannot levy on: ‘Tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are

necessary to the debtor for use personally in a job or business’.

 

Bailiffs may well claim that they can have the motor irrespective of all that that as the debtor can use public transport, although how a tradesman could carry tools and parts on the bus is another issue. They will say that unless the vehicle is soley for the stipulated use without any domestic, and is only insured for the debtor to drive exclusively they can have it.

 

They need challenging with those legal instruments imho

[wonkeydonkey]

For the vehicle to be exempt from seizure it needs to be SOLELY for use in the running of your business. If it used for social, domestic, pleasure and business then the chances are your claim would fail.

[ploddertom]

Under Section 54 of the Magistrate Courts Rules it expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing a vehicle used in the course of employment and *under section 15 of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 you cannot levy on: ‘Tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are

necessary to the debtor for use personally in a job or business’.

 

If that is what you are going to use as the grounds for it not being taken without any supporting evidence then I am afraid you will be doomed to failure. If you are a carpet fitter then of course you need a vehicle to carry out your work but if you are a carpet salesman carrying a few samples then it won't apply as there are other methods of transport available. Unfortunately the costs of alternative transport are not the Bailiffs responsibility.

[brassnecked]

Use of precedent MUST always be backed up by evidence of how it applies, so unless you provide evidence, and there is obviously no other alternative form of transport as in say remote location, 50 mile commute at unsocial hours no public transport or other means say maybe an electric rickshaw, ploddertom and WD are correct

[PJB5]

They've removed it for now.

 

I provided them with proof in the form of a letter from my solicitor confirming it is required and a tool of the trade and also my business insurance certificate. I do work through the night and my contracts with companies state I need to attend call outs within 45 minutes so even during the day I would struggle to reach most places.

[ploddertom]

Why not just say what you do. I was being really serious about what I said previously as have had some experience of these type of matters in the past.