rossendales Rossendale's Enforcement Agency voicemail

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

They cant enter garage if its attached as long as its locked.

 

Cut the chain on gates, tow caravan out the way or lift car.

 

Genuine question.

 

How does that sit with the TCOGR 2013, Section 20...

 

"The enforcement agent may enter relevant or specified premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12 respectively, or re-enter premises under paragraph 16 of Schedule 12, only by—

(a) any door, or any usual means by which entry is gained to the premises (for example, a loading bay to premises where a trade or business is carried on); or

(b) any usual means of entry, where the premises are a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, hovercraft, a tent or other moveable structure.

 

Surely to god, jumping over a wall or gate isn't a "usual means" of entry?

 

That is entry to the premises(house etc) itself, meaning via a doorway etc. Court has already ruled garden etc can be accessed over walls, hedges, fences, cutting locks on gates etc.

[hyperjase]

Pity about garage, not feasible option. Looks like I'm out of options, with a 9 month old baby this situation just becomes impossible. Parking farther away, parking on another drive it's just ridiculous.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think that you would need to also be careful about the caravan as that could be seized?

[caledfwlch]

I think that you would need to also be careful about the caravan as that could be seized?

 

A very good point.

 

I find the argument re insurance a bit daft, though can see why EA's are trying it on, surely Insurance is no more proof of Ownership than any other such as the V5. My Brother bought a 32" HD Television, he lives at home with our Mother, the TV is in the living room, but Brother never uses or watches it, it is the Mother who makes the use of it, but Brother still owns the TV, and has the Receipt, paid for on card, so under the insurance argument, despite being presented with proof that my Brother owns the TV, the EA who has called a few times, and seen the mother watching the TV through the window every time, has managed to get entry into the house, and is thus ignoring the evidence of someone else owning the "asset" and is determined to take the TV for my mothers debt.....

 

My mate drives a van for work, he is often in an unliveried van his employer owns the vehicle but he is insured to drive it, would the EA be backed by the Courts in seizing just because of who is insured to drive, despite being presented with a wealth of proof that my mate does not own the vehicle, and is simply allowed to drive it

 

What if Hyperjase gets down to the local Court (or local solicitors) and swears a Stat Dec that the Car belongs to him and is on Finance, anyway, though if on Finance, its actually owned by the Finance Company I guess, perhaps an SD stating that the Car belongs to Jase and is subject to a finance agreement between Jase and X Finance Company, since he is paying the finance, he clearly can even prove he is making payments.

 

Jase - Insured to drive his car, has plenty of documents, including a financial contract with the HP Firm and bank statements showing Jase's wages from Jase's bank account are paying the Finance Company monthly, as per the agreement between Jase and X Company, with to show his ownership of said vehicle

Jase's Wife - also Happens to be insured to drive Jase's Car, yet the EA can seize? Ludicrous. What if Jase's Wife is also insured to drive her dad's car, can the bailiff seize if he sees it?

[hyperjase]

It is a can of worms and I'm truly concerned but in the position we're in I don't see much of anything being resolved until the DRO completes.

 

Re the caravan, I have a receipt in my name again - surely they have to prove she'd get use from it despite the fact we haven't used it in some 10 months!

 

Car is paid from a joint account but comes out when I'm paid (same day) so I could prove my earnings pay for it?

 

What a minefield!

 

Re the caravan, it's a 24 year old model and likely worth a few hundred pounds, I spotted an amount of £1350 floating around (ie it has to be a value above that) - that possibly puts the caravan off the list?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

A very good point.

 

I find the argument re insurance a bit daft, though can see why EA's are trying it on, surely Insurance is no more proof of Ownership than any other such as the V5. My Brother bought a 32" HD Television, he lives at home with our Mother, the TV is in the living room, but Brother never uses or watches it, it is the Mother who makes the use of it, but Brother still owns the TV, and has the Receipt, paid for on card, so under the insurance argument, despite being presented with proof that my Brother owns the TV, the EA who has called a few times, and seen the mother watching the TV through the window every time, has managed to get entry into the house, and is thus ignoring the evidence of someone else owning the "asset" and is determined to take the TV for my mothers debt.....

 

My mate drives a van for work, he is often in an unliveried van his employer owns the vehicle but he is insured to drive it, would the EA be backed by the Courts in seizing just because of who is insured to drive, despite being presented with a wealth of proof that my mate does not own the vehicle, and is simply allowed to drive it

 

What if Hyperjase gets down to the local Court (or local solicitors) and swears a Stat Dec that the Car belongs to him and is on Finance, anyway, though if on Finance, its actually owned by the Finance Company I guess, perhaps an SD stating that the Car belongs to Jase and is subject to a finance agreement between Jase and X Finance Company, since he is paying the finance, he clearly can even prove he is making payments.

 

Jase - Insured to drive his car, has plenty of documents, including a financial contract with the HP Firm and bank statements showing Jase's wages from Jase's bank account are paying the Finance Company monthly, as per the agreement between Jase and X Company, with to show his ownership of said vehicle

Jase's Wife - also Happens to be insured to drive Jase's Car, yet the EA can seize? Ludicrous. What if Jase's Wife is also insured to drive her dad's car, can the bailiff seize if he sees it?

 

Insurance, correct. But its an INDICATOR of the subjects interest in a car.

 

For your brothers tv, he has the receipt so it will be fine. If it was husband and wife rather than son and mother, then it would still be seized as courts do often agree that the subject would then have a 50\50 interest in the item.

 

He wouldn't be the main driver, he would be part of the fleet insurance. Its easily provable in that circumstance.

 

Stat Dec might work. Others may know more on that.

 

You forget, the wife isn't just insured to drive the car, she is the MAIN driver. Ot doesn't prove anything, bit as I said, its n indicator. And its a marital asset. The main issue is the finance. I still don't, and I don't intend, to tale finance goods so that will be down to the ea that attends.

 

Ludicrous to you caled, bit we spend 95% of our time as ea's chasing people trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and that's why we need to be like this. The other 5% pf the time are the innocents that get up in the regulations and it makes things difficult for them.

 

Re the caravan, it's a 24 year old model and likely worth a few hundred pounds, I spotted an amount of £1350 floating around (ie it has to be a value above that) - that possibly puts the caravan off the list?

 

£1350 is for a tools of the trade claim. However, if you have a bed made up in there and claim to be living in the caravan, then it cannot be touched as it becomes a dwelling.

[hyperjase]

We're not married, common law - does that change things?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Not really. It complicates things as it then comes down to our feelings on length of partnership, likelyhood of courts siding with us etc. But essentially, its the same thing. If you have been together 6 weeks, then it would matter. 6 years, courts may see you as a partnership.

[brassnecked]

A very good point.

 

Jase - Insured to drive his car, has plenty of documents, including a financial contract with the HP Firm and bank statements showing Jase's wages from Jase's bank account are paying the Finance Company monthly, as per the agreement between Jase and X Company, with to show his ownership of said vehicle

Jase's Wife - also Happens to be insured to drive Jase's Car, yet the EA can seize? Ludicrous. What if Jase's Wife is also insured to drive her dad's car, can the bailiff seize if he sees it?

 

If the bailiff was to rely on the injunction judgments, and the beneficial interests argument, he might try it on with the fathers car, but he would have to then apply for his car back under the regulations with providing proof etc. There are a great many circumstances where people drive cars that don't belong to them, named drivers etc.

 

As to partnerships, living together as in Common Law, would allow an EA to claim items are joint, especially as DWP have the "Living together as if married" as the arbiter for joint claims.

[hyperjase]

Will go for the caravan idea, that will solve that issue. Just worried about the car, moving to other location isn't really feasible. I suppose I will have to look at it as if they do take it (despite the fact I can prove its (a) on finance and (b) solely in my name) we will just have to deal with the debt insofar as my two step sons work and could help out.

[ploddertom]

How far down the line are you with the DRO application as my interpretation of these that once submitted, fee paid & accepted things go very quickly - a few days at most.

[hyperjase]

National Debtline is due to look at it 29th May I believe, so all being good and no further paperwork required hopefully it won't take long after that but I haven't done this before so keep calling to make sure everything is correct.

[Bailiff Advice]

Silly question maybe but have you advised the enforcement agent that you have an appointment on the 29th to file a Debt Relief Order and that the debt that this warrant relates will be included?

[hyperjase]

Rossendales know this, it was done in writing, they just don't give a toss

[brassnecked]

Rossendales know this, it was done in writing, they just don't give a toss

 

They will have to back ofmf once the DRO is active imho, might need a Formal Complaint to council after DRO in place regarding their agent Rossendales, surely if the council know of the DRO and the debt to them is included they would back off?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It's not that they don't give a toss, its that we get told this all the time. Until you are IN a dro, you can back out at any time. Hence enforcement continues until court action stops it.

[hyperjase]

The point I made to them is that she's not unwilling to make an offer she's unable to - because of her financial position - there are several debts and this is just one of them.

[ploddertom]

The point I made to them is that she's not unwilling to make an offer she's unable to - because of her financial position - there are several debts and this is just one of them.

 

I note what you say above but they will be trying to consider what is classed as priority - Council tax - and what is not - Credit Card - to see if they can get anything.

[Coughdrop]

Have you written to the council explaining your position? If not, you should do; if so, what did they respond?

 

The issue of clamping the car is really a bit of a none issue. The EA would be clamping the car as leverage for payment rather than with any genuine intent to remove it. If the council is daft enough to allow enforcement to continue after you've given them some proof of the DRO in the pipeline, then what is the fear in entering a Controlled Goods Agreement? With the DRO looming large in the very near future, you know enforcement is going to be stopped very shortly anyway, and at least then you'd have free use of your vehicle.

 

I may be missing something, but this appears to be a perfect case for entering into a Controlled Goods Agreement. The whole idea of them was to allow goods to be taken into control of the EA, but allow you continued use of them. Why not just do that if the council play silly so and so? In a week's time enforcement will stop by order of the court, and in the meantime the EA can ascertain any potential equity in your vehicle. One of two things will happen first. Either your DRO will kick in, in which case enforcement stops, or the EA will realise there's insufficient equity in your vehicle and the Controlled Goods Agreement becomes impotent.

[hyperjase]

My partner called the council and explained the situation. Weren't bothered and have said in a letter that action will continue until the my obtain evidence of the DRO going through.

[Coughdrop]

Do you not have any evidence you can give them yet? I appreciate it's not been submitted formally. If you enter a Controlled Goods Agreement, you'll still have use of your vehicle and the EA will ascertain whether or not there is equity in it. Once he discovers there is not sufficient equity the Controlled Goods Agreement will become redundant as long as only your vehicle is listed on it.

 

The intent at this stage is more to scare you into paying, the EA will not, IMO, remove your car. I'm very happy for others to correct me here.

[hyperjase]

I could send a copy of the letter that National Debtline sent to confirm receipt and confirming the waiting list (7 weeks!)

[Coughdrop]

With National Debtline as your approved intermediary, the DRO application should carry a fair bit of weight, as it's less likely to be rejected by the OR. The letter would at least prove your intent and back up the truth of what you are saying. All you can do is try it. If the council refuse to stop enforcement, which they're entitled to do, then I can see no harm in entering a Controlled Goods Agreement with the EA if he is wanting to take control of the vehicle. The vehicle should then be released from the CGA once the EA establishes there is insufficient equity in it, and you will avoid it being clamped.

 

As said before, I'd be interested to hear others' opinions on this, as I'm as capable as anyone of making mistakes.