Jump to content
Bailiff Advice

What you should and should not do, if your car has been taken by a bailiff for somebody else’s debt? Discussion Thread

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1386 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

In the first instance, don’t delay…but whatever you do….don’t rush into issuing an injunction (more on this in my second post).

 

Why has my car been taken?

 

In most cases, the vehicle would have been taken because it had been identified by a bailiff using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) in relation to unpaid penalty charge notices owed by the previous owner. Why this happens is because the warrant carries upon it the vehicle registration number of the vehicle involved in the parking contravention.

 

Will the bailiff company give me my car back?

 

Unfortunately, without documentary evidence being provided to support the sale, the vehicle will be unlikely to be released.

 

Why is this?

 

Bailiff companies frequently come across cases where a vehicle has ‘allegedly' been 'sold’ in order to assist the ‘real owner’ evade payment of their parking debts. In other words, it can be fairly common for 'sales’ to be ‘bogus’.

 

It is vehicle owners such as these, that are to blame for genuine purchasers being required to provide so much documentary evidence.

 

What do I need to do?

 

In the first instance,
ask a question on the bailiff section of the forum.

 

If your car has been taken, you will need to contact the enforcement company as soon as possible to make a
Part 85 Claim
. This claim must be submitted
within 7 days
. Almost all companies will ask you to provide the following five items as evidence. Most of the larger companies have their own set Questionnaires.

 

V5c Log Book

 

If the purchase was a recent one, this document can be difficult to provide as it can take up to 4 weeks for the new V5c to be processed by DVLA. If this document is not available, you should provide the tear off New Keeper supplement from the Log Book.

 

Proof of Purchase.

 

If payment for the vehicle purchase had been made by bank transfer, this is ideal. If payment had been made by cash….this can be problematic. Most enforcement companies will request evidence by way of a bank statement showing cash being withdrawn a few days before the purchase.

 

You will also be required to provide
a copy of the sales receipt.

 

How the purchase came about.

 

If the car was purchased via eBay, Gumtree, Auto Trader or a garage etc, then a copy of the advert and receipt will be required. If the purchase has been via a friend or relative, this can be problematical. Once again, please post a question on the forum.

 

Copy of vehicle insurance.

 

This will be one of the most important documents. It is a criminal offence to keep a vehicle on a public highway without insurance and all enforcement companies will require some evidence that the new owner has obtained insurance within a day or so of the purchase. If the vehicle is not kept on a highway, evidence of SORN registration should be provided.

 

Evidence that road fund licence has been purchased.

 

Most new vehicle owners will tax their vehicle online with DVLA and will either make a one off payment or monthly instalments. A copy of the bank statement evidencing that road fund licence was obtained around the time of the purchase will need to be provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen after the evidence has been provided.

 

The rules governing this are outlined under Part 85.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and put simply, the following steps must be taken:

 

Within 3 days of the Part 85 Claim (and supporting evidence) being submitted to the enforcement company, the company must then serve a copy on the creditor (usually the local authority). It is the creditor...and not the enforcement company that decides the Claim.

 

The creditor, has just 7 days to consider the Part 85 Claim and they must give their decision in writing to the enforcement company within this time period of time and no later.

 

Within 3 days of receiving the creditors decision, the enforcement company must write to the Claimant to advise them whether the claim is accepted or rejected.

 

If the creditor accepts the claim, they will not be liable to the enforcement agent for any fees or expenses incurred by the enforcement agent after receipt of that notice by the enforcement agent.

 

If the creditor (usually the local authority) accept the Part 85 Claim, the warrant ceases to be exercisable and the enforcement company must make the vehicle available for collection. The rules do not provide for the vehicle to be delivered back to the Claimant.

 

If the creditor (local authority) rejects the Part 85 Claim, the claim would need to be decided by the court. However, I have assisted with these claims for many years (a similar procedure was in place for debts enforced by High Court Enforcement Agents prior to 2014) and it is almost always the case that as long as the Part 85 Claim is properly put together with the supporting documentary evidence to support the sale....the vehicle will be released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this should be made a sticky.

Well explained in plain English, nice one BA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Monday, the importance of providing evidence to the enforcement company was highlighted in court. A litigant in person issued an injunction after his vehicle was seized in relation to the previous owners debts. The correct course as detailed in my above post, should have been to submit a 'Third Party Claim' under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules.*

 

In actual fact, at the hearing last Monday, (six weeks after the vehicle had been seized) the Judge agreed that the claimant had acquired the vehicle in good faith and the evidence that he eventually provided (at the hearing) was sufficient proof. He provided copies of his bank statement showing the 'flow of funds' and the updated V5c and evidence of insurance.

 

Nonetheless, he was harshly criticised by the Judge for using the wrong procedure and he was ordered to pay the Counsel's costs, and a proportion of the solicitors fees.

 

 

Background to the claim.

 

 

The Claimant’s position is that he purchased the vehicle on
1st September 2016
. It should maybe be mentioned that the vehicle had been clamped 5 months earlier. The clamp appeared to have gone missing.

 

Following the seizure, the ‘new owner’ contacted the enforcement company to make enquiries. They emailed him on the
8th September
asking for documentary evidence to be provided (such as outlined in my initial post). He was given a deadline of 20th September to respond. Without this evidence, his claim could not be forwarded to the creditor for their consideration.

 

The Claimant provided very little. All that he provided was a copy of the ‘new keeper supplement’ and with regards to the vehicle insurance, he merely provided an insurance document showing him to be a named driver on somebody else’s policy.

 

Before the deadline date of 20th September (and most importantly, before the creditor could consider the claim), the Claimant decided to issue an injunction. This was a
foolish decision
and a costly one.

 

 

At the Hearing

 

 

At the hearing, (6 weeks after the seizure) the Judge informed the Claimant that the hearing was to consider the application for an injunction and that if the defendant wished to challenge the Claimant’s title to the goods, the case would have to be set down for a 90 minute hearing at a future date in the New Year. This would mean the car remaining in storage for a considerable period of time.

 

In court, the Claimant agreed that that he had not done all that he reasonably could to ensure that the matter was resolved without taking up valuable court time and putting the enforcement company and creditor to unnecessary expenditure.

 

It was stated that he failed totally to engage with the enforcement company. He provided no explanation as to how he became aware that the vehicle was for sale. However, in court, he did provide a copy of his bank statements showing a withdrawal of over £4,000 a few days before the purchase. He also provided the V5c from DVLA (which showed its processing date to be
before
the expiry period given by the enforcement company (of 20th September 2016).

 

The Judge stated that he could well understand why the company requested a copy of a bank statement stating that 'sometimes, people are disingenuous and attempt to avoid paying by giving their vehicle to someone else' and that it would be obvious that if a person could show how they paid for the vehicle, that this would go a long way to showing who the owner really was.

 

He stated that the V5 and the bank statement were
‘vital documents’
and that the moment they came available, they should have been presented to the enforcement company.

 

The Clamant was a litigant in person but the Judge was not sympathetic to this. He stated that if litigation is to be approached, then at the very least, documents should have been disclosed to the enforcement company because doing so, would have likely lead to the case not being necessary at all.

 

In relation to the V5 and bank statement, the Judge informed the Claimant that it was 'common sense' to provide theses documents to the enforcement company as soon as they became available. In regards to the bank statement, he stated that this document was
‘especially important’
to show whether the dates
‘matched up’.

 

Most importantly, he informed the Claimant that he had made
the incorrect application.

 

 

Comments from the Judgment:

 

 

'The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on Thursday 8 September 2016 with a list of things it wanted to decide whether to contest the claim. This is not a statutory list. But nevertheless it stands to reason that if all relevant information is provided, then going to court is less likely'.

 

'The Defendant had reasonably asked for evidence of the flow of money'.

 

 

In regards to the subject of costs:

 

 

The Claimant requested a refund of his issue fee (of £308). The Judge refused this stating that the application for an inunction was taken out
before
the date given by the enforcement company for the Claimant to provide documentary evidence (20th September).

 

He concluded by advising the Claimant that he had not done enough to avoid the case having to come to court and the defendant was therefore unfairly put in a position of having to pay to defend the injunction.

 

The Claimant was ordered to pay the Counsel fees and a contribution towards the solicitors fees. He was given 21 days to make payment. He indicated that he could not afford to make such a payment and would not be paying. On hearing this, the judge reduced the period to the standard 14 days.

 

An order was given for the Claimant to collect his car from the enforcement companies storage pound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to evidence of VED, would a print out of an online confirmation and a Direct Debit schedule for the vehicle suffice? Many people including myself tax vehicles on line using a smartphone.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With regard to evidence of VED, would a print out of an online confirmation and a Direct Debit schedule for the vehicle suffice? Many people including myself tax vehicles on line using a smartphone.

 

That would certainly be sufficient evidence and no enforcement company should find fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes very Instructive.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread, so if receipt not available would the V5C tear off and the VED be enough by themselves, along with a Cert of Insurance for the vehicle? JBW and Jacobs in the old days (Pre April 2014) would probably still have seized and sold even with production of those three pieces of evidence.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to put a dampener on a great thread

In the past you have said a receipt or proof of payment is needed as well,

As tax insurance and v5 is not proof of ownership?

Stand corrected if wrong or does it depend on the EC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to put a dampener on a great thread

In the past you have said a receipt or proof of payment is needed as well,

As tax insurance and v5 is not proof of ownership?

Stand corrected if wrong or does it depend on the EC?

 

post#1 Proof of purchase

Proof of Purchase.

If payment for the vehicle purchase had been made by bank transfer, this is ideal. If payment had been made by cash….this can be problematic. Most enforcement companies will request evidence by way of a bank statement showing cash being withdrawn a few days before the purchase.

 

You will also be required to provide
a copy of the sales receipt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks WD seemed to have missed that point

 

Stand corrected no problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also notice claims that injunction hearings can be held in the small claim courts, thus limiting cost orders.

 

This is not true in bailiff related matters, and people should be aware that if they commence this action they may be liable for full costs if they lose.(or partial costs even if they win).


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for a minute thought I said application to an order, no I said hearing.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this DB ?

why should it be in any different just because they are Bailiffs

Is it to stop discourage claims against them?

just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not because they are bailiffs. There are other stipulations regarding suitability to small claims, listed In direction 27. How complicated the case may be for Instance. The courts decision regarding g which track is assigned depends on the receipt of two questionnaires not one. In the case of most injunctions the court which issues the interim order will assign the hearing court and no questionnaire is sent in any case.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, the same applies to actions under section 66 of the TCE incidentally, contrary to some "advice " which is proffered elsewhere on the web.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new discussion thread regarding Section 66 should really be started. I will PM you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think people are being missled into thinking this is an easy no risk option, the opposite is true unfortunately.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is good information and shows the folly of going about trying to get your car back the wrong way

 

The claimant claimed that he cannot afford to pay the costs awarded against him by the court

 

So there is a good chance shortly after he gets his car back, He will be losing it again to the bailiffs for unpaid costs

 

This shows the importance of getting proper advice from a reliable source before taking action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is good information and shows the folly of going about trying to get your car back the wrong way

 

The claimant claimed that he cannot afford to pay the costs awarded against him by the court

 

So there is a good chance shortly after he gets his car back, He will be losing it again to the bailiffs for unpaid costs

 

This shows the importance of getting proper advice from a reliable source before taking action

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I am absolutely blown away by the number of views that this thread has received in just 3 days (over 1,000 views) and the number of emails and messages that I have received thanking me for outlining the way in which claims should be managed.

 

I was looking back yesterday as some industry publications and I cam across the following that was written by the owner of a High Court enforcement company.

 

We removed household goods and some expensive garden machinery such as a ride-on lawn mower. Ownership of the garden machinery was being claimed by the wife of the debtor.

 

We issued an application because the creditor did not respond (to the Part 85 Claim) within the seven day timescale, although they did subsequently confirm that the claim
would be disputed.

 

There was no response to the application by either the debtor or the claimant to the controlled goods, and no one attended the first hearing.

 

The application was heard by a Master and as no payment had been made into court he made an “unless” order requiring the claimant to controlled goods
to make a payment of £400 into court by a specific date
, in default of which the claim to the goods would be barred.

 

If the payment is made then standard directions for an exchange of witness statements will be applied. We await the impact of the “unless” order.

 

Going forward, we think it likely that most Masters will follow a similar approach by way of making “unless” orders in similar terms in circumstances where the claimant to controlled goods fails to make the required payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think this should be made a sticky.

 

Well explained in plain English, nice one BA

 

Thank you. Your kind words are very much appreciated.

 

The moderating team took notice.....and a new STICKY was introduced yesterday.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470859-What-you-should-and-should-not-do-if-your-car-has-been-taken-by-a-bailiff-for-somebody-else%92s-debt-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

PS: This thread can now continue to be used for 'discussion' purposes and for answering any queries that viewers or regular posters may have regarding 'Part 85 Claims'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal title/ ownership is valid where a transfer of the vehicle comes from its legitimate owner, in terms of commercial law anyway. A V5C should be sufficient to prove ownership therefore based commercial law if it were transferred from its legal owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A V5C should be sufficient to prove ownership therefore based commercial law if it were transferred from its legal owner.

 

If a V5c states that a vehicle had been acquired before the date on which a Notice of Enforcement had been issued, there can be very little argument from the enforcement company. This is because, goods only become 'bound' from the date of the NoE.

 

Before the date of the Notice of Enforcement, a debtor may sell, transfer or gift any of their assets without fear of repercussions.

 

However, if the V5c is dated after the date of the NoE, then that document alone will not suffice under a Part 85 Claim I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a V5c states that a vehicle had been acquired before the date on which a Notice of Enforcement had been issued, there can be very little argument from the enforcement company. This is because, goods only become 'bound' from the date of the NoE.

 

Before the date of the Notice of Enforcement, a debtor may sell, transfer or gift any of their assets without fear of repercussions.

 

However, if the V5c is dated after the date of the NoE, then that document alone will not suffice under a Part 85 Claim I'm afraid.

 

 

The NoE is the procedure under the law for enforcement. At this point there is no enforcement save notice of the enforcement. So, this I believe would be at the compliance stage, ie writing the letter for the NoE, up to the point of attendance at the address at which point (rather unfairly in my view) the enforcement stage commences. Title (legal ownership) to a vehicle whether the vehicle was acquired before or during enforcement does not alter the legal view of title - ownership is ownership, so the V5C were it to prove ownership should be a legally binding at the enforcement stage or the compliance stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...