Bailiff Help

[The Watcher]

Sorry "The Watcher" you are wrong on this one.

The Bailiff can only seize goods that "belong to the debtor" and the Law is very clear on this, there is no "right to presume" at all.

If goods are seized that do not belong to the debtor the owner of the goods has the right of redress against the Bailiff by way of a third party ownership claim.

It is fair to say however that if a Bailiff is informed that goods do not belong to the debtor then it would be expected that some sort of proof or details of ownership should be given to tha Bailiff, which he is then required to verify.

Should he not wish to verify these details and continue with seizure of goods and ultimately the sale of them, then he will be personally liable for the value of the goods either on a double or triple indemnity basis and quite rightly so.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but I still fail to see how I can PROVE that I DO NOT own something !

[Saffronflowers]

Maybe you have to get the owner to prove that you dont

 

SFx

[The Watcher]

Maybe you have to get the owner to prove that you dont

 

SFx

 

All very well IF you know who the owner is (and they are currently available). For example, there is a car parked outside my home now - I haven't the faintest idea who it belongs to.

 

I think I'll stick to my original plan (as previously stated) - I'd be tempted to point the fact that the vehicle did not belong to me out to them, and if they chose to ignore this, then simply leave them to it !

 

If they get enough compensation and damages claims against them, I'm sure they will act more appropriately.

 

It just shows how little thought has gone into the existing and new legislation.

 

For example - if bailiffs get the power to break into someone's home (when they are not there) - has anyone thought through the consequences?

 

1. How is the owner supposed to get in when they return home? Is the bailiff planning to wait and hand them their new keys? (and if so, why couldn't they have waited before breaking in?).

 

2. Are the bailiffs planning to leave the new keys with a neightbour perhaps? (thus blowing the confidentiality issues currently in force).

 

3. How can bailiffs protect themselves from claims that they had removed something - but not listed it? If the owner were not present they could later claim that anything had been removed - whether it had or not. I don;t think bailiffs (if they think this through) will want to expose themselves to such risks.

 

4. If the bailiff breaks-in (when the owner is out) how is he supposed to know which goods are jointly owned, and / or on HP, and / or belong to someone else entirely?

 

This legislation is like the Dangerous Dogs Act - completely loony, in that no one can possibly understand it !

[daz_f]

how come then he as put my car down on the walking possession

which was parked on my drive and posted it.

 

is that illegal and can i claim the levy charge back

[basil010]

As previously stated the Walking Possession Agreement is a request from the debtor to the bailiff for him not to remove goods tht have been seized and it requires you to sign it. If you haven't requested it or signed it, it is not lawful. The correct procedure is for the Bailiff to remove goods if he cannot get a WPA signed. Posting it through the door is not acceptable. The Bailiff is obviously more interested in getting further attendance fee's charged to you rather than executing the Warrant and removing the car as this would take up a lot of his time and he would not be able to visit other people and put WPA's through their letterboxes and make even more charges.

If he has seized the car, then it is the subject of the Distraint and he is entitled to remove for sale. As far as claiming the WPA fees back this is a bit silly as they are of minimal costing. However you are entitled to complain about the WPA and the fact that the Bailiff has carried out "An Irregular Distraint " by merely posting the WPA through the letterbox. If this complaint was upheld he would be liable for double damages. The other thing yo must consider is how much the car is worth and whether it can be reasonably expected to satisfy the debt. if the car is worth sunstantailly more than the debt the Bailiff is again in the wrong by issuing an "Excessive Levy" an example would be a car that is worth say £3000.00 and the debt was only £400.00. If the Bailiff removed and sold the car (although you should get the remaining surplus back (if you are lucky)) this could be considered excessive and again you could have a cause of action against him.

[daz_f]

the car is worth nearly 5000 and bill is only 110.

how can he seized the car if i never signed a wpa.

also i thought it you never sign a wpa then they could not add any futher charges that the first two visits.

 

i.e van charges

[The Watcher]

They can "seize" any goods that they can get their hands on (subject to the exempt list). That's why people are advised to keep doors / windows locked so they cannot get into the house. Obviously, anything outside the house - car, garden furniture etc - is available to them.

 

When goods have been "seized" they should take them away immediately, but often "offer" a WPA (which says that the goods are theirs but they are leaving them in your possession - for now anyway !) so that you can still use the goods, and "pressure" you into paying up - otherwise they can return and take the goods.

 

A walking possession agreement is ONLY valid if you have signed it. In this case I think the bailiffs has just stuck one through the door to let you know that he has seized the car. It isn't lawful and it isn't valid. I think he can return and remove the car. If I were you I'd move the car to another location - then it's up to the bailiff to PROVE that it was "seized" in the first place !

 

The WPA agreement - which says you cannot move or dispose of the goods as they belong to the bailiff - is not lawful so cannot be enforced. Can anyone - with better legal knowledge - confirm this please?

 

Re - Van Charges. IF they have seized your car and IF you don't pay up then they can return (with van) to remove the car ... in that case van charges would apply.

[basil010]

Daz,

If the car is worth £5000.00 and the debt only £110.00 I would suggest that the Distraint upon the car is an excessive. However the only time that you can take any action regarding this is after the car has been removed and sold. Move it out of harms way and let the Bailiff try and find it then prove he seized it. However I would warn all those involved. If a Bailiff genuinely seizes a vehicle or any other goods and issues a Notice of Seizure (as opposed to a Walking Possession Agreement) and you then remove the car or goods you can be charged with Pound Breach (Theft from the Crown). Despite what you have been told, the goods do not belong to the Bailiff, they belong to either Prince Charles or the Queen once they are seized and pound breach although a very old remedy would carry a nasty prison sentence if it were taken up and proved in Court.

 

There does seem to be some confusion as what documents should be issued when goods are seized. The correct form for "Seizure" is a form 7 and not a Walking Possession Agreement as explained before. If the Bailiff has not issued a "Notice of Seizure" listing the items seized then he cannot claim to have seized them and remove them. If he has and has placed that through the letterbox, he has seized the goods but should remove them at the time. However thet fact that he has seized the goods means that he can remove them at any future time without giving you notice.