Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3523 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Appologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If it has, it's been lost in very long threads.




The requirement of the third party to pay a £80 fee, and potentially a deposit to "the value of the disputed goods" has been portrayed as a negative develment.

However, it seems to me that there will finally be a costs for any bailiff casualy seizing third party goods.


I am assuming the bailiff pays the fees if the third party is successful.


Am I correct in this assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the fee is increasing to £155 later this month. In Interpleaders I have dealt with in the past "Pass the buck" operates whereby the "Bailiff" asks the creditor whether they accept the claim or not. If accepted then the goods are released, if they don't then it goes to Interpleader and if the "Bailiff" loses the creditor foots the bill.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running




Link to post
Share on other sites

ploddertom is right, it is for the creditor to admit or dispute the third party claim so it is them that ultimately bear the costs if the ownership is proved.


It will be interesting to see how bailiffs and their work providers (LA / HMCTS etc) deal with these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking more about straight forward cases.


I.e. you have taken control of my car regarding someone else's debt ( I am the third party). I send the HP agreement / invoice for the car, all in my name with the application and £80.

I'm hoping that in these e the court will not ask for a 'deposit', and that I will get my costs and car back.


Edit: yes, the debtor may ultimately foot the cost, but surely the bailiff / court return the money to the third party and the amount is added to the debt?


Or are we saying that if your car gets seized for your neighbours CT debt it costs you £80 to get it back? Not even the MOJ could come up with that?


Edit 2: So straight forward cases, i.e evidence based ones like that shouldn't even get to interpleader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MOJ envisaged the interpleader where there was an element of doubt about the owner, but on provision of the actual proof, if a Creditor and EA then decided to push for interpleader and they wouldn't release the vehicle then an injunction to prevent sale may be an option, under Human Rights Act if the creditor is HMCS or a council , if innocent cannot afford to pay say £9K in valuation of car, fees and storage into court. As HCEOs has indicated on another thread, interpleader would not or should not be the status quo if proof shown that is kosher. If they ignore the proof then they deserve a kicking in court.

We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread


The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...