Rundels making me miss my exam resit. Data protection and possible break in.

[brassnecked]

So a little light relief. Bailiff clamps a white van parked outside a debtor's house, unfortunately it is on hire to a courier company nothing to do with the debtor, bailiff refuses to remove clamp when told to do so after courier in company uniform tells him he is not the debtor and shows him stops on his tracker. Police are called bailiff demands courier opens back doors to seize parcels and demands police help him. Who is going to jail. Courier Bailiff or both?

 

Reason for the scenario. Third party goods is still extremly contentious still with the bailiff seeming to win everytime against innocents who have diddly squat to do with the debt.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

For transparency, if anyone does have a high value vehicle clamped before a bailiff has attempted to gain access to the premises, there is an option available for you to make a complaint to the local authority, quoting paragraph 66 of the Taking Control og Goods: National Standards:

 

66. Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.

 

It should be noted that you would need to offer alternative goods to surrender to the bailiff that were of proportionate value to the debt. Your argument would clearly be that if the bailiff had not attempted to gain entry to the premises, he would not have taken reasonable steps to have satisfy himself that the goods taken into control were proportionate to the debt.

 

If entry has previously been refused then this argument will not stand up.

 

 

If such a complaint to the local authority were to be rejected, the following is the likely decision that would be reached by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman:

 

Value of Ms B’s car

 

Miss B argued the bailiffs should not have seized her car as it is valued well in excess of the debt. She felt it was excessive.

 

Paragraph 66 of The Ministry of Justice guidance “Taking Control of Goods; National Standards” states “Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.”

 

The Council stated bailiffs are entitled to take control of goods sufficient to cover the debt. It stated “all goods must be valued prior to removal. If the goods are considered to be way in excess of the value of the debt then alternative goods would be taken into control.”

 

Miss B’s car was expensive.

She valued the car at around £52,000.

It seems to me it would have been immediately evident that the car’s value was far in excess of the debt.

 

Good practice would be for the bailiff to attempt to speak to the debtor before looking for goods to take into control. As it was, the bailiff took control of Miss B’s vehicle before knocking the door and attempting to obtain payment or considering other goods. I do not consider the practice followed by the bailiff was appropriate. However, the car was never removed, so this did not in itself cause injustice to Miss B.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-015-253

[Peterbard]

In post 30 you said this:

 

"Wrong I'm afraid.

 

If you purchase a vehicle in good faith, you are not responsible for the previous keeper's penalties. You are not "the debtor" and it doesn't work like log book loans do."

 

You then seem to mention log book loans for some reason.

Now you seem to have dropped the part highlighted and are stating the trite position that the only person who can be guilty of an offence is the one who committed it. I think we all know this.

 

As for the debtor "surrendering other goods". It does not work like that I am afraid the bailiff calls and chooses goods which are available to him Once goods are taken under control he is under no obligation either legally or under guidance to change them.

You make it sound like a swap meet.

[unclebulgaria67]

Another thread hijacked for debate !

 

Where is the OP's case in this discussion ?

[Peterbard]

Another thread hijacked for debate !

 

Where is the OP's case in this discussion ?

 

not so bad in this case as it seems the OP has gotten all the answer they need although I admit it would be better in the discussion forum.

[Peterbard]

The case (as usual) is not really relevant. The debt was paid and the clamp removed immediately - There had been no injustice.

 

However, the LGO supports my argument that the bailiff should knock a door first to either try to obtain payment or seek to take control of goods of a proportionate value.

 

Injustice will occur if the car remains clamped for a period of time AND the debtor has offered to surrender goods of a proportionate value.

 

Thank you for providing us with a link to the decision. It will be of great help when challenging bailiff bad practice in the future.

 

With respect, you seem to have problems holding on to the same argument BAs quote is entirely relevant i is your comment regarding removing the clamp that is not. We are talking about the practice of taking goods under control not what happens afterward.

[Peterbard]

If you read just what is quoted from the legislation and leave out your additions you will see the real truth.

 

Bailiffs should take goods which are of the sum required to pay the debt, but only if they are available at the enforcement stage.

 

There is no facility for a debtor to approach a bailiff once goods a seized and offer other goods in exchange, except in your imagination If you disagree please show the legislation minus your comments.

 

If the debtor wanted the goods on the premises and of a lesser value to be considered he should not deny entry.

 

(2)An enforcement agent may take control of goods of higher value on premises or on a highway, only to the extent necessary, if there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance—

 

The section above does not say the bailiff should embark on some banter with the debtor where an exchange of goods under control can be negotiated. Goods have been seized.

 

The bailiff is fully entitled to process the goods he has taken, he does not have to keep going back ad Infinitum to look at alternatives.

 

Yet again you seek to invent rights available to debtors which they do not have, this seems to be a theme with your advice.

[Peterbard]

"If there is no facility to change the goods as you (incorrectly) claim, then the only alternative would be to release the goods that have not been taken into control in accordance with legislation. This is not my imagination, it is written in legislation. "

 

Where ?? No comment please Just the sections you refer to

 

And how can a bailiff release goods which have not been taken under control ??

 

and why do you keep changing your argument?

[AbrahamL]

The legislation says:

 

 

(2)An enforcement agent may take control of goods of higher value on premises or on a highway, only to the extent necessary, if there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance—

 

If goods of lower value are available, he may not take control of goods of higher value.

[Peterbard]

Also what about cars taken on the highway away from premises Are those actions to be overturned on your idea of offering the debtors sideboard instead

[Peterbard]

The legislation says:

 

 

(2)An enforcement agent may take control of goods of higher value on premises or on a highway, only to the extent necessary, if there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance—

 

If goods of lower value are available, he may not take control of goods of higher value.

 

Yes of course but this is after goods have been taken and under the circumstances where there are no other goods of a lower value at that time

 

What is being said is that the debtor can insist on swapping the goods that have already been taken

[Peterbard]

So no legislation than

 

This is the third or fourth subject you have argued about on this thread Each time your argument is defeated you seamlessly move onto the next one You are not interested in debate you are just point scoring This is of no interest to me

 

As has been said to you many many many times Evidence, please

[AbrahamL]

Also what about cars taken on the highway away from premises Are those actions to be overturned on your idea of offering the debtors sideboard instead

 

Suggesting a car on a highway is replaced by a sideboard is childish.

 

AE points out the legislation states the bailiff may not take control of goods of higher value when lower value goods are available.

 

Your point about “exchanging” goods is also childish. The action against the highway goods only becomes invalid (para.12) when the bailiff notices lower value goods.

[Peterbard]

Yes, if an attempt has not been made to gain access to the sideboard.

 

Life's a bitch for those poor bailiffs at times isn't it?

 

Your professional opinion no doubt

[AbrahamL]

Clause 3.10 of the forum rules suggest it is unacceptable behaviour, so why clause 7 not exercised?

[Peterbard]

Yes of course but this is after goods have been taken and under the circumstances where there are no other goods of a lower value at that time

 

What is being said is that the debtor can insist on swapping the goods that have already been taken

 

NO evidence as requested here still and n answer

 

I think it is also in the rules that a poster should not seek to avoid moderation by signing on as a new user under a different account

 

Just to clarify the question

 

you are saying that it is within the legislation that once goods are taken under control that is taken correctly ie a car is removed when there is no access to the premise the debtor can offer the bailiff less valuable goods and the bailiff must release the vehicle and accept them

 

I say OK where is the section of the act which states this

 

Also, could you explain what you mean by goods being released which have yet to be taken under control, please?

[Peterbard]

Suggesting a car on a highway is replaced by a sideboard is childish.

 

AE points out the legislation states the bailiff may not take control of goods of higher value when lower value goods are available.

 

Your point about “exchanging” goods is also childish. The action against the highway goods only becomes invalid (para.12) when the bailiff notices lower value goods.

 

If you look at the post I made I refer to a car away from premises para 12 states that the premises must be within a reasonable distance. SInce there are no other goods available what does this say about your premise

[Peterbard]

Post 30 I would argue that a bailiff should attempt to gain entry to a debtors property to ensure that goods of a proportionate value are seized. Failing that, a debtor should be given the option to surrender goods of a proportionate value, rather than a £10k vehicle for a £500 debt.

 

Post 29 There is nothing in writing about surrendering goods - Nobody said there was. I stated that I would use it in an argument. I have successfully used it in an argument before, where a high value vehicle was clamped for a PCN debt of £512. The bailiff was ordered to return and remove the clamp from the council. I would urge all debtors to do this if they have goods levied that are of disproportionate value to the debt.

 

Debtors do not present goods to bailiffs They do not say I have a tv at home wouldn't you rather have that The bailiff has the right to attend and search for goods to take under control Please show one instance in any legislation or regulation which says the debtor can present goods in order to release a car which has been taken under control incidentally even if this was the case the action would not be void,

[BazzaS]

If anyone is unsure of anything, I will be more than happy to explain. However, moving forward, Dodgeball's childish nonsense is going to be ignored.

 

I've no idea which one of you is correct.

However, you keep saying DB "is going to be ignored" ; if you are serious about this, maybe you should start practising what you preach?.

Or, if you aren't going to ignore DB, (as is your right), then stop saying it?

 

Saying so, and then not doing so, repeatedly : makes me less likely to view your posts as reliable.

[BazzaS]

 

I don't believe that I have repeatedly stated that I will ignore Dodgeball in any case.

 

From this thread alone:

 

I will try one final time to make this simple for you.

 

expect to be ignored.

 

However, moving forward, Dodgeball's childish nonsense is going to be ignored.

 

Seems pretty repeated to me.

[brassnecked]

Anyway, the whole issue of Third party Goods needs looking at, my scenario with the Courier's white van is entirely possible under the current regime.

[Peterbard]

If we can perhaps discuss this without any abuse it could be useful

 

For instance, if it is being said that bailiffs should be encouraged to search for goods within the home if there is a car Does that mean the advice to keep bailiffs out at all costs should be changed to, keep out at all costs unless you have a car

 

is this what is being said

I know the advice to keep the car out of the way is currently being given, but in that, you can never be sure when a bailiff is calling and the fact that the car still may be discovered etc

[Peterbard]

Also

 

It has been said that if higher value goods are taken, that money goes into the pockets of the bailiffs, this is not true

 

The act ensures that any amounts of money which remain after the creditor is paid to go back to the debtor Para 50 51 etc

[Bailiff Advice]

 

1. If a car has been taken into control that is disproportionate to the debt, without first making an attempt to control goods of a proportionate value, then the levy is void. It is simply not possible to pick and choose what is controlled when legislation prescribes that goods must be proportionate.

 

2. The debtor should then approach the bailiff and say "Hey Mr bailiff - You have taken control of my car which is worth 10 times that of which I owe - This is not compliant with paragraph 10 of Schedule 12. I have a TV, a DVD, a leather sofa and a Microwave in here that will more than cover the debt and are proportionate - As you have not attempted to take control of these items, you should now do so and at the same time, release the clamp to my expensive car"

 

If the bailiff refuses the request made at point 2, the levy is void and the bailiff will expose himself to redress.

 

It is common sense to offer alternative goods - If you don't, you can hardly argue that the levy has been disproportionate.

 

A bailiff MAY NOT take control of goods disproportionate to the debt, IF proportionate goods are available.

 

Your continual arguments and attempts at 'point scoring' are in no way assisting the OP. The last time that the OP visited this thread was 3 days ago. Your purpose on this forum is purely to antagonise and disrupt threads....and you are doing a good job of it.

 

I will make this last post:

 

There was no point in making any further posts on this subject after I had posted a copy of a decision from the Local Government Ombudsman on the subject (of goods of a disproportionate value being seized). It was your opinion that the decision was not relevant. Others would disagree.

 

Getting back now to your 'advice'. Frankly, it is complete nonsense:

 

When the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 came into effect, the usefulness of a Controlled Goods Agreement almost disappeared. The reasons are endless but in the main, it is because so many household items are now considered 'exempt'. Also given that an enforcement agent must list individual items and reference numbers leads to many challenges been made after a CGA has been signed.

 

With local authority and HMCTS enforcement, it is commonly known that goods inside of a property are removed in less than 0.1% of cases. I have been advising debtors professionally for 11 years and have dealt with thousands of enquiries in that time. Excluding business premises, I have only ever come across three incidences where goods have actually been removed. What are goods not removed? Because their second hand value is minimal. A 42" TV would struggle to raise £20....that's always assuming that it arrived at the auction house in one piece !!

 

To clarify and to make it simple for you to understand:

 

Most road traffic debts reach £513 by the time an enforcement visit is made. A TV would struggle to raise £20 and a microwave...nothing. With regulations providing that there must be seating for the debtor and .......all members of his family, a sofa is almost always out of the question. Therefore, it is always the case that to take control of a vehicle would be the preferred option.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Third party owners also need to be made aware of the CPR Part 85 procedure that is in place. This procedure is in place to enable third party owners an avenue to reclaim their vehicles. Information regarding the Part 85 procedure should be listed somewhere within the removal notice - Most people would not have a clue that they should claim their goods back through a part 85 claim.

 

It is vital that third party owners are aware that they only have a very short window of opportunity (7 days) in which to submit a claim. In fairness, most creditors (councils etc) do accept claims after 7 days but it should be noted that technically, goods may be sold 7 days after a notice of sale has been issued.

 

Yet again, another post that is irrelevant to this thread. If you want to start discussing Part 85 claims, I urge you to start a new 'discussion' thread.