equita Cars exempt from clamping by council tax bailiffs

[E Munch]

If a courier's van is the only vehicle available, is used only be the debtor and is worth £1350 or lass it is hard to see how it would not be considered exempt. It is essential for use personally by the debtor in their employment or business.

The OP's case however is sufficiently debatable that an enforcement agent could reasonably take control of it and leave the court to decide if it was correct if the debtor made a claim under the Civil Procedure Rule 85.8 and 85.9.

[Bailiff Advice]

It has always been the case that actual removal of household goods is exceedingly rare (less than 0.5% of cases). However, vehicles have always been a far better asset for bailiffs to remove but it should be stressed that the bailiff would much prefer payment of the debt instead. Have you made a payment proposal?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

So taking a couriers van would be a no no possibly, how can he carry 100 parcels on the bus?

 

As long as worth in excess of 1350 it can be taken. Regardless of what its used for.

[brassnecked]

As long as worth in excess of 1350 it can be taken. Regardless of what its used for.

 

Unless it is on a lease where the courier will never own it surely that would be exempt? , as an owner driver on say DHL would have a lease with maintenance included, but the vehicle goes back at the end of the contract.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I'm sorry, I thought we were just talking about business use exemption, not lease or hpi exemption.

 

Completely separate issues.

[brassnecked]

I'm sorry, I thought we were just talking about business use exemption, not lease or hpi exemption.

 

Completely separate issues.

True, but we have managed to highlight the distinction here as they often get confused. Most unlikely but perhaps one or two EA companies might chance their arm with the Beneficial Use judgment from that injunction argument and try to take a lease motor anyway.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

No, I don't believe they would as beneficial interest would be in the form of monetary value and therefore a lease vehicle has no beneficial value.

Beneficial interest isn't talking about USE of. Purely talking in money terms.

An EA trying to remove a vehicle that has been PROVEN to be a lease vehicle would be putting his certificate at risk.

[brassnecked]

No, I don't believe they would as beneficial interest would be in the form of monetary value and therefore a lease vehicle has no beneficial value.

Beneficial interest isn't talking about USE of. Purely talking in money terms.

An EA trying to remove a vehicle that has been PROVEN to be a lease vehicle would be putting his certificate at risk.

Excellent Grumpy, the difference has been highlighted.