Third Party Interpleader Costs

[Thegreenpimpernel]

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

 

THIRD PARTY INTERPLEADER COSTS:

 

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?

[ploddertom]

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.

[HCEOs]

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.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

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.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Deleted irrelavent post. Misunderstood your replies!

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Deleted as above.

[brassnecked]

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.