Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2704 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

The vehicle owner where he proves title has in law what is called legal ownership, whereas in the courts the enforcement agent may have what is called 'equitable ownership.' Legal ownership is watertight whereas equitable ownership is merely discretionary. So, ownership can be legal or equitable, ie where one has the legal the other may have the equitable interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

I am sorry but I cannot agree with you on this and also, trying to secure the release of a vehicle using this argument will merely achieve a quick refusal of a 'Part 85' claim.

 

As I have said earlier, goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' from the date of the Notice of Enforcement. Accordingly, any attempts to dispose of an asset will be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed. It is the, "property in the goods" which is bound. The title remains with the debtor, or if the goods are sold in good faith, it transfers to the assignee.

 

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.

 

It makes no difference if title passes, because the property is still bound, the bailiff can take control of goods due to the enforcment power bestowed on him and under the act.

 

5(1)An assignment or transfer of any interest of the debtor's in goods while the property in them is bound for the purposes of an enforcement power—

(a)is subject to that power, and

(b)does not affect the operation of this Schedule in relation to the goods, except as provided by paragraph 61 (application to assignee or transferee)

 

Where goods are sold in, "good faith" the act treats them as, "co-owned" goods.

 

(2)These apply as if the assignee or transferee were a co-owner of the goods with the debtor—

(a)paragraph 34 (inventory);

(b)paragraph 36 (valuation);

©paragraphs 39 to 41 (sale);

(d)paragraph 59(6) (remedies after payment of amount outstanding).

(3)If the interest of the assignee or transferee was acquired in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice, paragraph 50(6) applies as if “co-owner” included the assignee or transferee.

 

This means that after sale, the co owner gets the first payment out of proceeds, pro rata to the total amount paid and the ammount owed.

 

(6)If there is a co-owner of any of the goods, the enforcement agent must—

(a)first pay the co-owner a share of the proceeds of those goods proportionate to his interest

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It follows that, if the goods have been bought for a realistic price, there would be no reason to seize. As after sale there would be no proceeds left to pay onto the creditor.

However if the goods were bought for a unrealistically low ammount , all the assignee(co owner) would get is that ammount back, the rest would be appositioned as per section 13 fees regs.

Also it means that the EA was correct in seizing the goods, even if from the assignee, and no action can be taken against him.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also mention that if anyone's has their car taken, they should not be swayed into believing that submitting a Statutory Declaration to the enforcement company will suffice. It will not.

 

Last Monday I was contacted by an individual whose vehicle had been taken for the previous owners debts.

 

Unfortunately, the vehicle owner came across one of the many sites springing up on the net offering to draft a Statutory Declaration for the individual. He paid a fee of £175 for this 'draft'. Bizarrely, he was advised that enforcement companies accept these documents as sufficient evidence. NO THEY DO NOT!!!!! His claim was rejected. Fortunately, late on Friday, with my assistance, and a properly completed 'Part 85 Claim", his car was released.

 

I intend starting a new discussion thread on the subject of these Statutory Declarations later today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the new legislation was supposed to ensure that EC's agents only took goods belonging to debtors and that they should be making sufficient enquiries about ownership.

 

If insufficient checks are being made, perhaps the law needs to be tightened, so that EC's are required to pay a financial penalty, if they take goods owned by a third party and reasonable enquiries would have revealed this.

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

There are no errors here, the seizure of goods under these circumstances are permitted under the act. The act was also brought Into use to recover sums owed to thecreditor of course.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no errors here, the seizure of goods under these circumstances are permitted under the act. The act was also brought Into use to recover sums owed to thecreditor of course.

 

Of course there are errors and deliberate actions.

 

TCE makes specific reference to goods owned by the debtor, that can be sold.

 

They cannot knowlingly take control of goods owned by a third party, but in fairness i don't think you are saying this.

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

There may be, but none here.

 

If you read my piece above , it explains the mechanism. As for the point regarding debtors goods , this is defined as goods which the debtor has an interest in, of course section 2, and the interest in defined in the post above.

 

(2)In this Schedule—

(a)references to goods of the debtor or another person are references to goods in which the debtor or that person has an interest, but

 

In addition the property in the goods is bound as also explained in that piece. As said in the very first sentence, the property in the goods is bound, and the assignment of that property does not effect the action of the schedule.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is here tht the property in goods is bound and can be pursued by the baiiff, and when located taken under control.

 

This is the point of binding goods. If the goods should lawfully belong to the third party, they will still be under control until they go back.

 

“controlled goods” means goods taken control of that—

(a)have not been sold or abandoned,

(b)if they have been removed, have not been returned to the debtor (unless subject to a controlled goods agreement), and

©if they are goods of another person, have not been returned to that person;

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If however , as BA says the gods were sold before the binding, that is before the notice is issued or before the EA received the enforcement order.

 

Then full unfettered ownership will pass to the assignee.

 

 

This is the point covered in section 51 of the TCE which states that full title cannot pass to the buyer of the seized goods, if this is the case.

 

51(1)A purchaser of controlled goods acquires good title, with two exceptions.

(2)The exceptions apply only if the goods are not the debtor's at the time of sale.

(3)The first exception is where the purchaser, the creditor, the enforcement agent or a related party has notice that the goods are not the debtor's.

(4)The second exception is where a lawful claimant has already made an application to the court claiming an interest in the goods.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry missed this off , it is quite important

 

(5)A lawful claimant in relation to goods is a person who has an interest in them at the time of sale, other than an interest that was assigned or transferred to him while the property in the goods was bound for the purposes of the enforcement power.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the new legislation was supposed to ensure that EC's agents only took goods belonging to debtors and that they should be making sufficient enquiries about ownership.

 

Absolutely right. However this position is very much influenced by different debt types. For example, from my experience, most 'third party 'claims mainly relate to the enforcement of unpaid penalty charge notices. In this respect, the bailiff has something of a 'head start'. He will have in his possession a copy of the warrant. Upon it will be the VRM of the motor vehicle.

 

Accordingly, before even attempting to enforce the debt, he will know a lot of information about the vehicle. An HPI check would have been carried out to ascertain whether the vehicle is subject to finance or hire purchase. Because of the foolhardiness of one individual encouraging debtors to pursue hopeless legal proceedings, (which they lost), enforcement agents consider vehicles on finance/hire purchase to be fair game to seize.

 

The enforcement company would also know the make, model and value of the vehicle. If that same vehicle was parked in the area where the debtor lives then the enforcement agent can almost certainly be satisfied that the vehicle belongs to the debtor.

 

Where problems usually arises, is where the vehicle has been detected by ANPR on a public highway and has recently been purchased from the previous owner. In such cases, the regulations specifically provide that in order to 'take control' of the vehicle, it must be immobilised for a minimum period of two hours. Enquiries may then be made. If a DVLA search reveals that the debtor is still registered as the keeper, the enforcement agent should ask the new owner for evidence of purchase and supporting documentation. If it is not available, then the vehicle can be removed to the pound and a 'Part 85' Claim would need to be submitted.

 

If the new purchaser has a V5c in his name and the date of purchase was before the date of the Notice of Enforcement, then the bailiff should (at least in my opinion) remove the clamp and allow the vehicle owner to drive away.

 

If the vehicle has been detected by ANPR and immobilised and the owner does not return to his vehicle, then as long as a DVLA search reveals the vehicle as still being registered to the person named on the warrant, then he does not need to make any further enquiries and the vehicle can safely be removed to the pound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very common area of dispute is where somebody (usually a relative) claims that they, and not the 'keeper', own the vehicle. These 'claims' can be difficult to deal with at an 'enforcement agent visit' and are usually dealt with by way of 'Part 85' claims (usually after the vehicle has been removed).

 

The position in law is that the vehicle keeper is assumed to be the owner UNLESS evidence is provided to the contrary. The 'owner' would need to provide evidence of ownership to the enforcement company.

 

It is usually always the case, that a genuine purchaser, can usually provide genuine documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...