If a Vehicle has been seized by bailiffs....what you shouldn't do !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

When it comes to bailiff enforcement, it is very rare indeed for a bailiff to seize goods within a property. In fact, household items are taken in less than 0.1% of cases.

 

By far the most popular item to seize is a motor vehicle. Typically, a vehicle would raise significantly more than 'household' goods and more importantly, a vehicle would normally be easy to locate (either on the debtors driveway or outside of the property) making seizure and removal a lot simpler.

 

If a vehicle has been taken, and the debtor considers that the vehicle should be 'exempt' (for instance, the vehicle may be subject to finance or the debtor considers that it is 'necessary' for self employment etc), then the solution is to submit a simple 'Part 85' claim to the enforcement company.

 

In many cases, a vehicle may have been seized in relation to a previous owner's debt. If so, the new owner (and not the debtor) would be required to submit a simple 'Part 85' claim.

 

In the past two weeks, there have been reports of three instances where debtors have failed to follow the proper procedure....and in each case...the debtor has found himself in a much worse situation (and in once case, could have been facing a charge of perjury).

 

Case One:

 

The debtor complained on social media that her vehicle had been clamped by a bailiff. The debt was hers and the vehicle was registered in her name. The debt was around £400. The advice that she was given on 'social media' was to 'transfer' the vehicle to her husband !! This is a extremely foolish step to take given that the regulations specifically state that goods become 'bound' from the date on which the Notice of Enforcement is sent. This regulation was put in place to stop debtors selling their goods to evade bailiff enforcement.

 

On ‘social media’ she was introduced to a known ‘bailiff baiter’ who offered to speak to the bailiff. The call was terminated by the enforcement agent.

 

The outcome was that her car was taken. This step added an additional 'sale' stage fee of £110 to her debt. The lady then spent the next few days trying to convince the enforcement company that the vehicle 'belonged' to her husband.

 

She was advised that if the car really did belong to her husband that he (and not her) would need to submit a 'Part 85' claim and that, as part of the claim

he

would be required to provide the following:

 

Evidence of the date that he acquired the vehicle.

 

Evidence of the how he paid for the 'purchase' (bank transfer, cash etc).

 

Evidence that he purchased road fund licence.

 

Evidence that he insured the vehicle.

 

Given that the 'sale'

to the husband was 'bogus', the husband could not truthfully submit a 'Part 85' Claim. The debtor contacted me as the enforcement company had advised her that the debt had increased to almost £700 to include storage fees. She paid the full amount to recover her vehicle.

[Bailiff Advice]

Case number two:

 

This case was one for unpaid council tax and the debtor had an extremely smart looking 'works' vehicle. The vehicle was 'sign written' with the name and contact details of his pluming business . The debt in question was approx £600. His vehicle was clamped.

 

He too, took his question onto 'social media' and there were in excess of 250 replies. A large number of them advised him to 'cut off the clamp' or to 'sit in the vehicle'. He chose the 2nd option.

 

The debtor complained that his wife had contacted the council two days earlier and had set up a payment arrangement to pay the debt. As is the case with this particular 'social media' site, the same 'bailiff baiter' as mentioned in the above case, offered to telephone the bailiff. This proved most unhelpful indeed and again, the call was terminated by the enforcement agent.

 

On 'social media' he was asked whether he used his vehicle for self employment . This was a vitally important question given that if the vehicle was for 'self employment' (and in particular given that it was heavily signed), it should have been 'exempt' from seizure.

 

The debtor responded to advise that he no longer used the vehicle as he was employed by another company!!!

Crucially, he also stated that the vehicle was merely used to 'store' his work tools. In this respect, the vehicle would not in any way be considered exempt.

 

Police were called and he was removed from the vehicle and arrested (later released).

 

The vehicle was taken and once again, the debt increased by way of the statutory 'sale stage' fee of £110. He was urged to contact the local authority regarding the 'supposed' payment arrangement that his wife had set up two days earlier.

 

Approx 5 days later, he reported that the payment arrangement set up by his wife was in fact for the

current

(2016/2017) council tax and was not in any way connected to the Liability Order that was being enforced !!

 

He returned to 'social media' to plea for help as he had received notification from the enforcement company that his vehicle was due to be sold. He was adamant that it's value was less that the 'exempt' figure of £1,350. He received no assistance at all.

 

His vehicle was sold at auction on 19th July. It was advertised as being a 'previous' works vehicle. The sale price was £1,400.

 

Case number three:

 

This case is far more serious and given that it is subject to current legal proceedings, I can only give brief details.

 

A vehicle has been seized and the owner 'claimed' that the vehicle was not his. He claimed that it was 'supposedly' owned by his brother.

 

The debtor was encouraged to issue proceedings against the local authority. After suspicious were aroused, the debtor advised the court that he had been lying all along and that he was really the owner of the vehicle. Without this confession, he could have been facing a charge of perjury.

[Peterbard]

Case number two:

 

This case was one for unpaid council tax and the debtor had an extremely smart looking 'works' vehicle. The vehicle was 'sign written' with the name and contact details of his pluming business . The debt in question was approx £600. His vehicle was clamped.

 

He too, took his question onto 'social media' and there were in excess of 250 replies. A large number of them advised him to 'cut off the clamp' or to 'sit in the vehicle'. He chose the 2nd option.

 

The debtor complained that his wife had contacted the council two days earlier and had set up a payment arrangement to pay the debt. As is the case with this particular 'social media' site, the same 'bailiff baiter' as mentioned in the above case, offered to telephone the bailiff. This proved most unhelpful indeed and again, the call was terminated by the enforcement agent.

 

On 'social media' he was asked whether he used his vehicle for self employment . This was a vitally important question given that if the vehicle was for 'self employment' (and in particular given that it was heavily signed), it should have been 'exempt' from seizure.

 

The debtor responded to advise that he no longer used the vehicle as he was employed by another company!!!

Crucially, he also stated that the vehicle was merely used to 'store' his work tools. In this respect, the vehicle would not in any way be considered exempt.

 

Police were called and he was removed from the vehicle and arrested (later released).

 

The vehicle was taken and once again, the debt increased by way of the statutory 'sale stage' fee of £110. He was urged to contact the local authority regarding the 'supposed' payment arrangement that his wife had set up two days earlier.

 

Approx 5 days later, he reported that the payment arrangement set up by his wife was in fact for the

current

(2016/2017) council tax and was not in any way connected to the Liability Order that was being enforced !!

 

He returned to 'social media' to plea for help as he had received notification from the enforcement company that his vehicle was due to be sold. He was adamant that it's value was less that the 'exempt' figure of £1,350. He received no assistance at all.

 

His vehicle was sold at auction on 19th July. It was advertised as being a 'previous' works vehicle. The sale price was £1,400.

 

Case number three:

 

This case is far more serious and given that it is subject to current legal proceedings, I can only give brief details.

 

A vehicle has been seized and the owner 'claimed' that the vehicle was not his. He claimed that it was 'supposedly' owned by his brother.

 

The debtor was encouraged to issue proceedings against the local authority. After suspicious were aroused, the debtor advised the court that he had been lying all along and that he was really the owner of the vehicle. Without this confession, he could have been facing a charge of perjury.

 

The last one sounds very familiar, wasn't there a similar case a little while ago where someone stated he had not owned a vehicle which had been seized, olny to be rumbled in court, at least this time the debtor came clean I suppose.

[Leakie]

BA case number 1

 

If there is a receipt for the payment of the vehicle, made by some one else ( not the debtor )

Why would the owner of the vehicle, have to prove if they taxed and insured the said vehicle.

The proof of payment should be enough.

the keeper of the vehicle is responsible, for tax and insurance.

so surely a receipt should be enough.

 

And if a receipt can be produced as proof of ownership

why should it have to go through the courts to accept who the rightful owner is,

The receipt should be enough proof

 

Seems to me that it has been swayed to much in the the favour of the EA.

If the proof of payment had been presented to the EA, and the took the vehicle away.

It should be reported to the police as a theft?

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

Of course it is impossible to pre-date a receipt.

[Leakie]

So what if that is the case a receipt can not be proof in any legal case

so what is the point of a receipt. in legal terms

The police accept this as proof of payment and ownership.

 

So the Ea should accept this as well

 

Can not be the case one or the other in law not both

[Peterbard]

The police would do no such thing, the point of a receipt is to record a sale between the two contracting parties.

 

Generally the two parties have contrasting intersts, the recipient is to prove who is right in regard of ownership. When both parties have the same intersts it proves nothing at at all

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The police may accept just a receipt in certain circumstances leakie, but they are not dull.

When looking for fenced goods, believe me, a receipt is worth nothing.

 

A receipt can be made by anyone. We ask for proof, a receipt adds weight to proof, but by itself, is not normally accepted.

If he bought it, he will have taxed and insured it and so will easily be able to provide proof of such.

If its not accepted in any circumstance, then the third party can take it to interpleader and ask a judge to decide.

[Peterbard]

I think the third party would employ section 85 of the CPR nowadays Grumpy.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Old habits.

[brassnecked]

Old habits.

Careful with them. Would then email's from DVLA confirming tax shown by new owner be persuasive?

[mikeymack2002]

A receipt proves nothing. Let alone the new owner has taxed or insured it. But hey HO neither is required if sorn.

 

A V5 is not proof of ownership either.

 

[Off topic remarks edited]

Edited July 31, 2016 by honeybee13
Off topic comments removed.

[Leakie]

Thanks Grumpy for your reply,

I know the police would not always just accept a receipt.

 

Just to give an example

Family struggling financially, The old car becomes beyond economical repair,

They need a transport, for getting to work etc

 

Parents buy the car from a dealer, but let them use it, until they get back on there feet.

 

So the debtor has transport, but they must tax and insure

how would that work out.

 

What I am trying to say it is not always black and white.

 

Can you give your view on this Grumpy as you are an EA

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

We see that as a gifted asset and therefore likely to be seized.

It would be up to the claimant to admit or dispute the 3rd party claim from the father and every claimant is different.

[Leakie]

Thank you for that Grumpy

 

I understand what you are saying,

Good to get an opinion from an expert on the ground, as such

 

Shame most EA's are not the same as you and HESO

Edited July 31, 2016 by Leakie
spelling

[Bailiff Advice]

Can I make a very important point about this thread. The cases outlined above are 100% genuine.

 

In relation to the first two cases, these featured recently on one of the many 'beat the 'bailiff' pages of the largest 'social media' site in the world.

 

Even though the site is a household name, the Consumer Action Group moderators do not like posters referring to it by name and instead, prefer us to use the term 'social media'.

 

In relation to the 3rd case, what I have written above is again 100% accurate.

[colin11]

The big problem with the Social Media site you refer to is that the debtor who is getting advice is told not to interact with the Bailiff at all and ignore him, So the bailiff is stood outside being ignored, With a sizeable asset, The debtors car

 

Eventually the tow truck arrives, And the debtor is still told to ignore, or advised to get in the car as they can't take the car with someone sat it it

 

As time and time again has shown, The bailiffs are members of the Social Media site, And they are watching as the idea is planted in the debtors head to "sell the car" to a friend or relative, And encouraged to falsify a bill of sale, No one ever advises that when the car is transferred to the new owner, The cars tax then becomes invalid and the insurance company needs to be informed

 

The debtor is then encouraged to file complaints often on ECHR grounds

 

 

 

 

At this point, The debtor is abandoned and ignored by the people giving advice, And the debtor is then on their own facing huge fees to get their cars back

[Bailiff Advice]

Colin,

 

You have removed the names of the posters who provided 'advice' to the debtor in relation to the 2nd case that I have written about above. Hopefully, the moderators will allow the attachment to remain.

 

There are so many genuine cases where a vehicle should be considered 'exempt' /or belong to a third party. Sadly, it is cases like the above (debtors trying to evade payment of a government debt) that make enforcement companies view all 'exempt' claims with so much suspicion.

 

The harm that these individuals are heaping on genuine debtors or claimants is atrocious.

[Peterbard]

I think it is the case that many of these cases have a severe credibility problem.

 

Although the judge should consider each case in context with applicable law, when it is new law and there is not precedent case to rely on, a judge may sometimes interpret based on the merits of the litigant as well as the pleadings, shouldn't happen but often does.

 

It would be good for instance to see a case brought soley on the HP issue without the backdrop of previous arguments colouring proceedings.

[Peterbard]

I think it is the case that many of these cases have a severe credibility problem.

 

Although the judge should consider each case in context with applicable law, when it is new law and there is not precedent case to rely on, a judge may sometimes interpret based on the merits of the litigant as well as the pleadings, shouldn't happen but often does.

 

It would be good for instance to see a case brought soley on the HP issue without the backdrop of previous arguments colouring proceedings.

 

Incidentally it would also be good to see a case brought by someone upto the task.

[Peterbard]

I think probably the top of the list of what not to do is litigate, at least not without seeking all other remedies first.

 

Certainly if anyone offers you an introduction to a solicitor after only reading a couple of paragraphs of your problem, they are not acting in your best interests.

[Bailiff Advice]

The big problem with the Social Media site you refer to is that the debtor who is getting advice is told not to interact with the Bailiff at all and ignore him, So the bailiff is stood outside being ignored, With a sizeable asset, The debtors car

 

Eventually the tow truck arrives, And the debtor is still told to ignore, or advised to get in the car as they can't take the car with someone sat it it

 

As time and time again has shown, the bailiffs are members of the Social Media site, and they are watching as the idea is planted in the debtors head to "sell the car" to a friend or relative, And encouraged to falsify a bill of sale, No one ever advises that when the car is transferred to the new owner, The cars tax then becomes invalid and the insurance company needs to be informed

 

At this point, The debtor is abandoned and ignored by the people giving advice, And the debtor is then on their own facing huge fees to get their cars back

 

One of these 'social media' sites has almost 50,000 members. It is also what is known as a 'closed' group. In other words, debtors asking a question, think that apart from the small group of individuals who may be answering their question, their posts are 'secret' and cannot be viewed by anyone 'outside of the group'. What they are not told, is that enforcement companies, bailiffs, banks and finance companies are 'members' of these 'closed' groups and they are able to read the posts and view documents.......in 'real' time.

 

In both the cases where vehicles had been taken, the well known 'bailiff baiter' (Chrisy Morris) telephoned the bailiff. His involvement had the usual effect of hastening the arrival of a tow truck.

 

Interestingly in both cases, (as is usually the case) Chrisy M abandoned the debtor.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Case number three:

 

This case is far more serious and given that it is subject to current legal proceedings, I can only give brief details.

 

A vehicle has been seized and the owner 'claimed' that the vehicle was not his. He claimed that it was 'supposedly' owned by his brother.

 

The debtor was encouraged to issue proceedings against the local authority. After suspicious were aroused, the debtor advised the court that he had been lying all along and that he was really the owner of the vehicle. Without this confession, he could have been facing a charge of perjury.

 

It is all very odd indeed, but, within minutes of starting this thread, three individuals on a separate 'social media' site, claimed that this particular case (Case three) relates to an ongoing court claim regarding a vehicle that is subject to hire purchase and where the matter of 'beneficial interest' is at stake.

 

I am completely baffled as to how anyone could possibly link both these cases. I will reiterate once more that what I have written above is 100% accurate.

[HCEOs]

I have always been of the opinion that if I believe that the vehicle ownership details were merely changed to prevent enforcement then I will take the vehicle and let it be thrashed out in the proper manner. The amount of times I've seen debtors disappear into a room and come back with a hand written receipt from a family member dated yesterday . To date, I have never had a car returned because it was a 'genuine sale'.

[honeybee13]

Off topic post removed.

 

HB