Jump to content


tomtubby

Taking Control of Goods 2013 and the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court fines.....

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2022 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

It's just like having happy contrails back:loco:

 

Be careful what you wish for :lol:


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He already does come back according to him


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Sorry for the late reply, been off to work. Anyhow, back now and still full of the joys of spring.

 

Shall I let you into a little secret? I had the bailiffs at my door recently regarding council tax. They were demanding the debt plus £277.50 - £42.50 for 2 visits in March and £235 for a visit in April. Obviously this is already against the new regs, but never mind.

 

They said they'll take my car. I told them it was on HP, they said they'll take it anyway. Oh dear, another unlawful threat. God job I know where I stand, so I gave them short shrift and sent them on their merry way.

 

Tired of the shenanigans, and accepting that yes, I did owe the council tax, I borrowed some money from my father and paid the arrears on-line. I phoned them to ask them to confirm the debt has been paid, which they said they would once the system had updated my account, and they did!

 

I have since confirmed that no further deductions were or would be made in relation to any fees and they confirmed 'no', the debt with them has now been satisfied. So now that just leaves the bailiff wanting his £277.50. So can he now use the liability order to recover his fees? Can he enter my home to 'levy' (in old language) on my goods? I don't know why I'm asking these questions.

 

However, what I will ask is who on here believes that yes, he can now use the liability order to do all those things and that I must now pay him, even though he himself recovered not one shiny penny for the council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you say, had the bailiff not called three times, you would not have gone to your Father yet to pay the Council tax, so they did have the effect that the Council wanted

ie you coughed up. Without their visits the Council would still be waiting wouldn't they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka
From what you say, had the bailiff not called three times, you would not have gone to your Father yet to pay the Council tax, so they did have the effect that the Council wanted

ie you coughed up. Without their visits the Council would still be waiting wouldn't they.

 

 

Hahaha. What a ludicrous, immature comment. No, no, no. I had offered to pay the council at a rate I could afford, and they refused. I still paid them at that rate anyway, and had been for 3 months before the bailiff arrived. So even though the council were receiving and accepting my affordable payments, they still hired some goon.

 

Dad had already offered to lend me the cash 3 months ago, but I declined. I had simply got tired of it, wondering what law the bailiff would break next.

 

I notice you had nothing to say about the bailiff's illegal threats, but what more should I expect by the cheerleaders on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall I let you into a little secret? I had the bailiffs at my door recently regarding council tax. They were demanding the debt plus £277.50 - £42.50 for 2 visits in March and £235 for a visit in April. Obviously this is already against the new regs, but never mind.

 

They said they'll take my car. I told them it was on HP, they said they'll take it anyway. Oh dear, another unlawful threat. God job I know where I stand, so I gave them short shrift and sent them on their merry way.

 

 

 

Panaka,

 

I have to confess that once again you do confuse me. You say that the bailiffs charged you £42.50 for "2 visits in March and £235 for a visit in April" and that apparently this is "already against the new regs". I hate to say this but it would seem that in fact the fees are entirley legal.

 

When the new regulations took effect on 6th April account had to be made of cases that had already been subject to some sort of enforcement "prior" to 6th April and in this respect, the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 came into force on the same day. Under these regulations it specifically makes clear that if a bailiff had previously LEVIED upon goods BEFORE 6th April that he can continue with enforcement AFTER 6th April but in doing so he MUST charge the fees that were applicable before 6th April.

 

In cases where a levy had NOT been made BEFORE 6th April (such as your case) the enforcement agent can continue with enforcement AFTER 6th April and in doing so he MUST charge fees outlined in the NEW regulations.

 

Accordingly, the criteria as to the fees that can be charged AFTER 6th April wholly depend on whether or not a levy had been made upon goods BEFORE 6th April. In your case NO levy was made before 6th April and therefore the bailiff is allowed to charge an "Enforcement Fee" of £235.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Even though you are wrong on that, it makes no difference to me, as firstly, the new regs would make that £277.50 bill into one of £310, so I'm up on the deal there; and secondly, they can charge me whatever they damn well want, they won't get it.

 

I notice that you, too, have nothing to say on the 'taking the HP car'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panaka

 

I notice that you, too, have nothing to say on the 'taking the HP car'.

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you but this is a favorite subject of mine!"!!

 

You may care to know the "common" response from most enforcement companies on this point which is as follows:

 

"The Courts have held that seizure of goods subject to hire purchase is entirely lawful as the debtor will have value in the goods which can be realised by sale of them and by discharging the hire company's value directly to them"

 

The enforcement companies commonly will then respond with this:

 

 

In Singh v Sandy 2012 His Honour Judge Pain QC stated as follows:

 

 

 

"I cannot accept as a matter of law that the fact of an HP Agreement per se prohibits a bailiff levying on a vehicle"

 

and that:

 

"There is no reason why the vehicle could not have been levied against, recovered and potentially sold, subject always to the owner....the finance company having "first call" on any proceeds".

 

 

PS: I am quite happy to be quoted as saying that I do NOT agree with the stance taken by HH Judge Pain regarding goods subject to hire purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Reply from the police:

 

"A bailiff can seize a vehicle unless it is in hire purchase, finance agreement or used by you in the course of your employment."

 

Citizens advice bureau:

 

"A bailiff cannot take a vehicle which you're paying for on a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement."

 

Bailiff advice online:

 

"The bailiff can only take a vehicle that is owned by you."

 

Bailiff's own guidelines:

 

"If the HCEO seizes goods that do not belong to the Debtor or are under a hire purchase agreement, then the third party needs to provide evidence of this to reclaim them."

 

So now you even try to back up the bailiffs claims that they can take a vehicle that does not belong to you. Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An EA cannot take goods CLEARLY owned by a 3rd party, since you do not own the car until the final payment, then the Hire Purchase company will apply for the goods back if taken control of and removed to be returned to them, But a simple DVLA check will clearly show you as the registered keeper but the legal owner being XXX

 

 

This is why the EA should do a HPI check to see if there is outstanding finance on the vehicle

 

 

You will also probably find In the terms and conditions of your agreement that you must not allow this to happen and if it does you must notify them it has, so they can recover their goods back.

 

 

Also somewhere in my mind is a quote that the EA cannot take control of goods if in use by a 3rd party, I will clarify this later as it is late in the day


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Judge Main's ruling was simply that a bailiff is not required to do a HP check. Of course, they are wise to do so otherwise it would cost them money.

 

In my case, I even showed them the HP agreement, and they still said 'it doesn't matter, I can still take it'. Have they acted illegally yet anyone?

 

Goods that are in use by any party cannot be taken if this would cause a breach of the peace. That recent BBC programme shows activity that cannot be used now - no more using the police to stop a vehicle on behalf of the bailiffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panaka;

 

Bailiff Advice Online:

 

"The bailiff can only take a vehicle that is owned by you"

 

 

So now you even try to back up the bailiffs claims that they can take a vehicle that does not belong to you. Nice.

 

WRONG. I stand 100% by the above comment that "the bailiff can only take a vehicle that is owned the debtor".

 

I merely posted the "common response" that is being sent by enforcement companies citing the case of Singh v Sandy. As I have stated above (in post 33) , I do not agree with the finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panaka;

 

Judge Main's ruling was simply that a bailiff is not required to do a HP check.

 

Interesting....and how would you know this?

 

OMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka
Panaka;

 

Judge Main's ruling was simply that a bailiff is not required to do a HP check.

 

Interesting....and how would you know this?

 

OMG

 

 

Have you not read it then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you not read it then?

 

 

 

No. I have not read a copy. Instead, I have seen correspondence from various enforcement companies that quote from the case (which is a Form 4 Complaint). I am aware that the Judge also disagrees with the LGO's finding in Blaby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Ah, so you are assuming that the bailiff's interpretation of this ruling is correct? How naive. Ok, just to clarify (and you can see where this ruling is referenced here: ww.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?401311-Advice-Needed-for-Council-Tax-Phoenix-Commercial-Collections/page2)

 

The ruling was that a bailiff was under no obligation to check the ownership of a vehicle, so applying a levy on a car he could reasonably assume belonged to the debtor was not against regulations per se. However, there was no remark on whether the levy is recoverable if the debtor proves a car is on HP. I know from experience that it is indeed non-enforceable.

 

However, this is in contrast to another ruling, the name of which escapes me but I'll find it, that states that it is a reasonable expectation for a bailiff to confirm ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panaka,

 

Ah, so you are assuming that the bailiff's interpretation of this ruling is correct? How naive.

 

This particular thread is of vital importance and for reasons known only to you you decided to post on this thread (instead of many others that I had started) comments that appear to be aimed at me in particular. As to why you picked THIS thread over all others is most odd and in particular given that your own experience of bailiffs concerns council tax and NOT Magistrate Court fines !!

 

What is also worrying is that your replies tend to misinterpret what I have said. Your above comment is evidence of this. I had already stated openly that I do not agree with the Judge's comment.

 

HH Judge Main's Judgment is a very lengthly one indeed and is in respect of a Form 4 Complaint. Enforcement companies have chosen to select paragraphs that suit THEIR own purpose. The Judgment is NOT binding and is merely the view of one Judge.

 

Furthermore, since 6th April checking ownership with DVLA is now even more important given the strict criteria outlined in Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007 that an EA may only take into control goods OWNED by the debtor. This equally applies to goods on Hire Purchase.

 

As I said previously this thread (and the subject of court fines) is of vital importance and the site team have indicated that it should be made into a STICKY.

 

PS: It is a shame that you chose this thread to post on instead of the Taking Control of Goods 2013 General Discussion one. If you had posted there I would have been able to respond with a lot more information to support MY opinion regarding exemption of goods subject to Hire Purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

To be honest, it's difficult to unravel the threads that are actually yours considering the different profiles you use. But that's beside the point.

 

I am more concerned by the consistent 'siding' with the bailiffs, supporting their tactics and poo-pooing tried an tested legal challenges by misinterpreting regulations and rulings. The stance seems to be 'you can't beat the bailiffs', a position currently taken in regards to fees, despite being informed by several sources that these fees are indeed unenforceable using a warrant.

 

The only fees enforceable on any warrant are the debt and any expenses incurred by the creditor. Bailiff fees are not included as when the warrant is approved, it cannot be known what the bailiff fees will total.

 

You also continue to make no comment on the illegal behaviour of recent bailiff actions posted on here. I can only assume that you have some vested interest in ensuring bailiffs are supported.

 

It's nothing personal as I don't even know you, but it is concerning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panaka,

 

I will address your last comment first. With respect I do indeed think that you know me and the remarks are indeed "personal".

 

Your flippant remark that it is difficult to "unravel threads that are mine" given the "different profiles" is very serious indeed. For the record, on this site I used to be known as Herbie and changed the name to Tomtubby approx 5 years ago. I have never used another name and have no need to do so.

 

By comparison your posts almost mirror those of Mr B on a certain "Help Forum". The very same person who is responsible for the ridiculous "Magicians Choice" trick (and the same person who used to post on this very forum under a variety of "profiles".

 

Today I received an inquiry from yet ANOTHER debtor who had lost a claim at Bromley County Court using the information from that "Help" site. She was ordered to pay costs of £2175. Another poor debtor has a application shortly for a Charging Order on his home after being encouraged by those who run the site to issue a claim against a local authority and bailiff company. The site "owner" even drafted the claim (of course for a fee) and predicable, the debtor lost in court and was ordered to pay approx £6,000 in costs to the bailiff company. A further case from January of a debtor ordered to pay in excess of £4,500 also springs to mind. Proof is of course available.

 

You may well be concerned by the way in which bailiffs "misinterpret regulations and rulings" in order to "support their tactics". Bailiffs have been known for years to act recklessly and they will use any loophole in regulations for a financial gain.

 

With respect, your claims that fees are not enforceable has no merit whatsoever. Can you imagine the Government putting regulations into place that provide that the tax payer should fund the cost of bailiffs and furthermore, that if bailiffs wished to pursue recovery of fees that they should all take CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

 

Next you will be trying to claim that a Notice of Enforcement has to be GIVEN to the debtor in person !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Sorry mate, but I have no idea who you are. I contribute to many forums but have tended to avoid this one due to general the 'roll over and let the bailiff poop all over you' stance. I believe I know the site you are referring to, and it's probably 'JasonDWB' you specifically refer to. I've actually seen myself referenced there recently. Cocking you leg up the wrong tree there.

 

Bailiff's deserve zero respect and are nothing more than hired guns who regularly intimidate the most vulnerable in society, taking money from those who can least afford it, destroying souls. I have been on the end of their threats and know the illegal actions they will readily make, and the illegal fees they will apply.

 

This site consistently gives space to supporting the bailiff, and that, my friend, is unforgivable. The collective fight must be to make the bailiff's life as difficult as possible.

 

I obviously have no info on the cases you refer to so can make no comment on the advice they were given. If it was blatantly stupid, then shame on that advisor. The 'profiles' situation is clear, as certain posters that support you are never here at the same time.

 

The 'Magicians Choice' thingy has certainly worked for me. You also say:

 

"Can you imagine the Government putting regulations into place that provide that the tax payer should fund the cost of bailiffs and furthermore, that if bailiffs wished to pursue recovery of fees that they should all take CIVIL PROCEEDINGS."

 

No, of course the Government has not put in such regulations, which means that should you pay the government creditor direct (be it the council or whoever), they most certainly will not be passing on any 'fees' to the bailiff. The simple fact remains that a bailiff can only skim off his fees if you pay him direct or he sells your goods. A court or council is never going to pass their money onto a bailiff.

 

If he wants to pursue you for sidestepping him and his fees after you have paid your debt, his only option is.... wait for it... to take you to court. I don't see why you cannot grasp that. That has been for (wonkey) donkey's years the only option for any individual or company wishing to recover money they believe is owed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I obviously have no info on the cases you refer to so can make no comment on the advice they were given. If it was blatantly stupid, then shame on that advisor. The 'profiles' situation is clear, as certain posters that support you are never here at the same time.

 

I would be very interested as to know which "profiles"you believe tomtubby is using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be very interested as to know which "profiles"you believe tomtubby is using.

 

Welsh1........ that makes two of us .....oops we are here at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only my personal opinion but, I think that since Panaka has corrupted this very important thread by way of personal attacks on TT, it would be a good idea for the site team to remove the posts that are not applicable to the subject matter (mine included) then turn it into a sticky whereby people looking to obtain the facts relating to

Taking Control of Goods 2013 and the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court fines.....

 

can find them with ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is only my personal opinion but, I think that since Panaka has corrupted this very important thread by way of personal attacks on TT, it would be a good idea for the site team to remove the posts that are not applicable to the subject matter (mine included) then turn it into a sticky whereby people looking to obtain the facts relating to

Taking Control of Goods 2013 and the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court fines.....

 

can find them with ease.

 

I have to agree,panaka is the most obvious troll since the billy goats gruff,and detracts from the serious debate and good advice being given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Panaka

Troll... moi? Our survey says 'eh-eh'. Just a concerned poster on other forums who felt standing by and seeing clearly incorrect info being given was no longer an option. It's clear who are the shill posters who are.

 

Let's just say that the naivety of believing that bailiff companies are promising to work with this site to ensure their lily-white doorstep challengers abide by the law.... well, recent events are showing how effective that's proving to be. £120 for every 10 minutes anyone?

 

Look, as I say, it's nothing personal, just concerning that a site purporting to be advising those dealing with rotten bailiffs also has such a cosy relationship with them. Naturally, the default feeling is to remove all of these posts and pretend none of this is true rather than allow others to come to their own conclusion. If the posts were horribly abusive, threatening, racist, or whatever, then sure, delete them.

 

But to suggest deleting simply because you disagree... that is a dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2022 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...