Tweet
Re: PCN wrong address and bailiffs warrant of execution
"They are only permitted to seize goods belonging to the debtor and they know - or should know - that they cannot lawfully levy distress on goods belonging to any third party. What bailiffs tend to rely upon is the (foolish) idea that any motor car seen near the debtor's residence could be assumed to belong to the debtor - and then they challenge the debtor to prove the motor car does not belong to them!
This is - of course - utter nonsense"
Absolutely agree CC
They will rely on the old Chestnut "it was near the debtors premises so Observer v Gordon [1983] 2 ALL ER 945,949 applies, COBBLERS
however the Sheriffs famous from the TV have this on their website, so perhaps they need a mild tolchock or a challenge, as they claim the status quo is just that which we have said is not so. Debtor MUST prove non ownership, as in provide a V5 for a random motor.
http://thesheriffsoffice.com/article...rove_ownership Quoted below:
"The case of Gonsky v Durrell [1918] stated that the onus of proof is always on the debtor to show goods are exempt and - under common law distraint, "by exercise of reason and judgment on the facts capable of being found on enquiry, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the goods in possession of the debtor were fully owned by that person".
This is further reinforced by the case of Observer Ltd v Gordon (1983), which determined that it is “not reasonable” to expect the enforcement officer to make enquiries as to ownership.
The case rules that, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the goods listed on the WPA are owned by the debtor, then they can be seized. The ruling applies to items within the premises, as well as motor vehicles.
The onus is, therefore, most definitely on the debtor to prove that he does not own the goods. Keeping receipts or copies is most definitely advisable, particularly if there is a subsequent third party claim".
"They are only permitted to seize goods belonging to the debtor and they know - or should know - that they cannot lawfully levy distress on goods belonging to any third party. What bailiffs tend to rely upon is the (foolish) idea that any motor car seen near the debtor's residence could be assumed to belong to the debtor - and then they challenge the debtor to prove the motor car does not belong to them!
This is - of course - utter nonsense"
Absolutely agree CC
They will rely on the old Chestnut "it was near the debtors premises so Observer v Gordon [1983] 2 ALL ER 945,949 applies, COBBLERS
however the Sheriffs famous from the TV have this on their website, so perhaps they need a mild tolchock or a challenge, as they claim the status quo is just that which we have said is not so. Debtor MUST prove non ownership, as in provide a V5 for a random motor.
http://thesheriffsoffice.com/article...rove_ownership Quoted below:
"The case of Gonsky v Durrell [1918] stated that the onus of proof is always on the debtor to show goods are exempt and - under common law distraint, "by exercise of reason and judgment on the facts capable of being found on enquiry, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the goods in possession of the debtor were fully owned by that person".
This is further reinforced by the case of Observer Ltd v Gordon (1983), which determined that it is “not reasonable” to expect the enforcement officer to make enquiries as to ownership.
The case rules that, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the goods listed on the WPA are owned by the debtor, then they can be seized. The ruling applies to items within the premises, as well as motor vehicles.
The onus is, therefore, most definitely on the debtor to prove that he does not own the goods. Keeping receipts or copies is most definitely advisable, particularly if there is a subsequent third party claim".
Comment