Jump to content


Bailiff Refuses To Return My Vehicle despite Proof of Ownership


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2434 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My friend purchased a car from an associate of her sister on the 30th jan 2015,

with cash payments made in instalments of £300 throughout January

until the 30th jan as part of this arrangement my sisters friend would be allowed to to drive the vehicle for another month after my purchase.

 

 

She became the official owner with a signed receipt and new keepers slip awaiting the log book on the 30th january.

 

 

Following month feb 6th bailiffs seized the vehicle with a warrant on the previous owners name as she was awaiting the full log book

and the bailiffs refused to accept her new keepers slip with the receipt and bank statements.

 

 

The following week she received the log book from dvla and provided it as bailiffs requested and

they refused to release the vehicle saying the debt is bound to the vehicle and they will sell it in auction as soon as possible.

 

Below is a copy of the reply sent by the Bailiff.

 

Please can somebody advise me? Thanks in advance.

 

After reviewing you documents, we rejected your claim.

 

Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 paragraphs 4 and 5,

the property of the named debtor becomes bound to them,

preventing the sale or disposal of those goods from the time the Warrant of Control is issued.

This does not prejudice title in the goods that a person may acquire, provided they have done so in good faith,

for valuable consideration and without notice.

As such the goods are bound to the named debtor and we would suggest that you revert to the person you claim to have purchased the vehicle

from for remuneration as they had no right to dispose of the goods in the first instance.

 

Under paragraph 60 (4) (a) of Schedule 12 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

if you are to make an application to the Court, you must deposit the value of the vehicle into Court when making the application.

CPR 85 sets out the procedure for claims on controlled goods, which you will be required to follow.

 

I would suggest however, as an alternative, that you discuss the matter with the named debtor,

and simply ensure that the Warrants of Control issued against them are discharged,

thus securing the release of the vehicle.

 

In the event that either payment in full is not made, or an application to the Court including the value of the vehicle is not made,

then vehicle will be entered into public auction.

 

Your claim has been treated as one being made pursuant to CPR 85.

If you are in any doubt as to your position you should seek competent independent legal advice as a matter of urgency.

 

Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC or our Enforcement Agent would be vigorously defended

and in the event that you are unsuccessful Newlyn PLC will request the court to award costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Newlyn have stated the correct position.

 

The person who sold the car was aware that bailiffs had obtained a warrant before disposing of the car. They were deliberately trying to prevent the bailiff from making a recovery from the car.

 

But someone more knowledgeable will hopefully be along later and they will confirm.

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the bailiff companies response is correct. They debtors goods are bound by the court. It will now be for the court to decide who owns it unless the debt is paid.

The court may not accept the proof that the sale was legitimate so be prepared to lose the money and possibly costs on top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure that it is quite as clear cut as the above posters have indicated

but you will have to ascertain certain details from the seller of the car who may have duped you

though that should become clearer in time.

The Law has recently changed

 

 

when bailiffs now send out a Notice of Enforcement giving at least 7 clear days notice

from the day the letter is received by the debtor before enforcement [eg seizing a car] can begin.

 

 

Also from the time that the letter is received, all goods belonging to the debtor that are not exempt become bound to the bailiff

and are not allowed to be sold.

 

 

So if you bought the car on the 30 th Jan and the car was seized on the 6th Feb

it does look as if the seller may have known that bailiff action was underway

and sold the car to prevent it being seized which now lumbers you with the problem.

 

In order to get a clearer picture there are details which you will need to find out.

 

1] how much is the car worth and how much is the debt and the bailiff fees.

 

2] where was the car seized and is it still there? and were you present when it happened

 

3] when did the seller receive the Notice of Enforcement and what date was stated on it when enforcement could begin.

 

4] has the seller of the car been informed by the bailiff that the car has been seized

 

5] there would have been a Notice placed on the car when it was seized-who has that notice?

 

6]now that the seller has been paid, are they in a position to pay off the debt and the fees

 

You stated in your first post that you bought the car over the month of January.

 

 

When did you make your first payment?

 

 

It is perhaps a pity that you were unable to complete the sale in the early part of January

when you might have managed to avoid falling foul of the Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure, but are not the goods of the debtor bound once the judgment has been issued? Not at the start of the Enforcement process?

 

That is true in most cases but there is an exception which is why I meant to ask what the debt was for.

 

Schedule 12 Part 2

 

The procedure

Binding property in the debtor's goods

 

4(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.

 

(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

 

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

 

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Below is a copy of the reply sent by the Bailiff.

 

Please can somebody advise me? Thanks in advance.

 

After reviewing your documents, we rejected your claim.

 

Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 paragraphs 4 and 5, the property of the named debtor becomes bound to them, preventing the sale or disposal of those goods from the time the Warrant of Control is issued.

 

This does not prejudice title in the goods that a person may acquire, provided they have done so in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice.

 

As such the goods are bound to the named debtor and we would suggest that you revert to the person you claim to have purchased the vehicle from for remuneration as they had no right to dispose of the goods in the first instance.

 

Under paragraph 60 (4) (a) of Schedule 12 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 if you are to make an application to the Court, you must deposit the value of the vehicle into Court when making the application.

 

CPR 85 sets out the procedure for claims on controlled goods, which you will be required to follow.

 

I would suggest however, as an alternative, that you discuss the matter with the named debtor, and simply ensure that the Warrants of Control issued against them are discharged, thus securing the release of the vehicle.

 

In the event that either payment in full is not made, or an application to the Court including the value of the vehicle is not made, then vehicle will be entered into public auction.

 

Your claim has been treated as one being made pursuant to CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position you should seek competent independent legal advice as a matter of urgency.

 

Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC or our Enforcement Agent would be vigorously defended and in the event that you are unsuccessful Newlyn PLC will request the court to award costs.

 

On the one hand it is good to see that a claim to the goods has been properly made as provided for under CPR 85 but Newlyn's have made some errors in their reply.

 

Firstly, they state that the goods (in this car the motor car) become 'bound' from the date when the warrant had been issued. This is incorrect. The true position is that; in the case of a warrant of control for road traffic debts, goods become 'bound' from the date the warrant had been received by the enforcement agency.

 

Secondly, Newlyn are also incorrect when they say that if you make an application to court under CPR 85 that you must make a payment into court of the value of the vehicle. The true position is that it is for the court ....(and not Newlyn's) to decide whether a payment should be made and if so...how much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand it is good to see that a claim to the goods has been properly made as provided for under CPR 85 but Newlyn's have made some errors in their reply.

 

Firstly, they state that the goods (in this car the motor car) become 'bound' from the date when the warrant had been issued. This is incorrect. The true position is that; in the case of a warrant of control for road traffic debts, goods become 'bound' from the date the warrant had been received by the enforcement agency.

 

Secondly, Newlyn are also incorrect when they say that if you make an application to court under CPR 85 that you must make a payment into court of the value of the vehicle. The true position is that it is for the court ....(and not Newlyn's) to decide whether a payment should be made and if so...how much.

Well Newlyn would rather the OP didn't know that, as they have likely already put the car into an auction, in all probability.

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 OTHERS

 

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

On the one hand it is good to see that a claim to the goods has been properly made as provided for under CPR 85 but Newlyn's have made some errors in their reply.

 

The application that has been made is commonly referred to as an 'Interpleader' and rather pleasingly, we do not see many such applications on the forum. It is well known that the Ministry of Justice are reviewing all cases that end up at court to establish whether the enforcement companies, debtors and the courts are using this procedure correctly.

 

I was a very fierce critic of these 'Interpleader' applications in the lead up to the new regulations coming into effect in April 2014 and I wrote various media articles on the subject and even took my concerns to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. I also wrote a series of threads on the subject on this forum.

 

My concern was that a debtor should not have to take a dispute to the court and that instead, there should be a 'preliminary' stage (along the same lines as the previous High Court Enforcement regulations) whereby any dispute at all about a motor vehicle (or any other goods) should first be made 'informally' to the creditor (in this case the local authority) first. Thankfully, my proposal (with only slight amendments) was introduced into the regulations and I am very proud of the part that I was able to play in this.

 

There are very few cases that end up in court with most disputes now being settled informally (as the regulations intended).

 

Newlyn's have stated at the foot of their letter that they will vigorously defend any (court) action. Whilst this may be true, it is actually the local authority (or creditor) and not Newlyn who should be defending such an application !!!! (you known I am right PF xx)

 

PS: I have recently seen a copy of a judgment concerning a debtor who had a dispute about a vehicle that had been taken (the dispute concerned the fact that she considered that her car should be exempt as she used it to go to work).

 

The lady sought advice beforehand and instead of using the correct procedure under CPR 85 she instead, issued an injunction. She was heavily criticised by the judge for failing to follow the correct procedures. It was explained to her that CPR 85 introduced a 'preliminary' stage (which is outlined here) and that if she had followed the regulations correctly any dispute would have been dealt with sooner.....and without wasting precious court time. Her application for an injunction was refused and she was ordered to pay the enforcement company/creditors legal costs of just under £3,000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In HCEO matters, the claim must be put to the creditor for them to either admit or dispute any claim to ownership. It is not for the HCEO/EA to decide ownership. This will be the same for all EAs enforcing under TCGA and is highlighted in CPR Part 85.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In HCEO matters, the claim must be put to the creditor for them to either admit or dispute any claim to ownership. It is not for the HCEO/EA to decide ownership. This will be the same for all EAs enforcing under TCGA and is highlighted in CPR Part 85.

 

100% correct and that is the reason why I posted the following in my post number 12:

 

Newlyn's have stated at the foot of their letter that they will
vigorously defend
any (court) action. Whilst this may be true, it is actually the local authority (or creditor) and not Newlyn who should be defending such an application !!!! (you known I am right PF xx)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most pertinent line is: "After reviewing you documents, we rejected your claim".

 

Surely then the creditor, not Newlyn should have rejected the claim, not Newlyn on their behalf without asking.

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 OTHERS

 

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

I think the most pertinent line is: "After reviewing you documents, we rejected your claim".

 

I have assisted with a large number of these applications (and so far...all have been accepted and a vehicle or other goods released) but it is always the case that the documentation be served on the creditor (although I always suggest copying the EA).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP may want to contact the creditor (the Council) to see if they disputed the claim and that the correct process was followed. The creditor should be able to produce the correspondence asking them to admit/dispute the claim and their decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If OP gave the paperwork to Newlyn, they might have rejected any claim unilaterally and the creditor may not even be aware of the disputed ownership, and the council will always believe and support the bailiff. OP should send details to Creditor asap.

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 OTHERS

 

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

The friend concerned to this matter has been reading the thread and has emailed me this response below.

 

Hi lookingforinfo,

 

To answer your questions:-

1, car is valued at £1800 total bailiff fee is £700+

2. The car was seized on public highway and I was not present at the time the vehicle was seized.

3 the seller claims he only knew the car had been removed after it had been seized.

4. He claims to be unaware.

5 the previous owner has the notice.

6, he will not pay debt as he apparently has more with the same bailiff company.

I was wondering what the legislation schedule 12 section 62 part 5, means by "1) EFFECT of property in goods being bound, sub-paragraph 1 does not take prejudice the title of the debtors goods that a person acquires a)in good faith, b)for valuable consideration, c) without notice.

For the purposes of sub-paragraph 2a a thing is to be treated as done in good faith if it is in fact done honestly( weather it is done negligently or not)."

Does this mean that as I was unaware of the vehicle being bound and I followed the correct procedure for buying the car with money that the title belongs to me?

Also in same legislation 2007/15/schedule 12 " 51 PASSING OF TITLE. A purchaser of controlled goods acquires good title, with two exceptions. 2) Only if the goods are not the debtors at the time of sale. 3) The first expiation is where the purchaser, the creditor, the enforcement agent or related party has notice that the goods are not the debtor's." Which my email to them has given notice and they replied acknowledging this, does that mean even if they sell the car I can claim the proceeds back?

Before I pursue any legal proceedings I’d like to know that I followed all correct procedures and do I have any chance to win based on this legislation or does the property being bound disregard the fact I was unaware (negligent) and bought in good faith with money?

Thank you in advance to all your replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...