Questionable bailiff behaviour

[m4rk1974]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Brilliant...thanks so much for all your advice.
You've been extremely helpful.
I shall be spending the weekend picking apart the councils 14 page response and be back hopefully with some good news.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Thank you for all your responses so far.
The council have questioned the validity of my purchase receipt as the auto body shop who sold it to me was not VAT registered - which is ridiculous. What their VAT status is has nothing to do with them. The bank statement provided showing funds transferred from my savings account into my main account and a bank transfer to the same person who owns the body shop. All other transactions were redacted and the bailiff company rejected these documents. Obviously the V5 does not prove ownership but does show who is responsible for the vehicle. They are clearly clutching at straws and trying to discredit me - possibly trying to put me off.
I have cast serious doubt as to the timing of the clamp - it was before 6am and the council have given two separate timings that differ to the paperwork left on the car.
I will be escalating this to the Ombudsman firstly but my main issue is with this 3rd party bailiff check of my car to the DVLA and what relevance does this have to my case.

Mark, can you post the council's letter here? The council may be arguing that VAT is law for ownership purposes, so this is disproportionate (unfair), putting it another way misunderstanding its powers under the law. In short, it is an abuse of power by the Council.

[m4rk1974]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Mark, can you post the council's letter here? The council may be arguing that VAT is law for ownership purposes, so this is disproportionate (unfair), putting it another way misunderstanding its powers under the law. In short, it is an abuse of power by the Council.

The Councils response is 14 pages but I'll paste in the bit about the receipt for the car...

"K***u is not recorded as the previous registered keeper of the Vehicle and it was therefore being sold on a commercial basis as a car from stock. AJE consider the purchase invoice from K***u to be an unusual and irregular document as it did not contain the details typically expected and found within the purchase invoice for a vehicle provided by a motor dealer. The invoice is vague, it does not have a VAT registration number (virtually unheard of for a motor dealer because the current HMRC VAT threshold of £83K). The invoice does not have an invoice number and there are no details of the method of payment or the terms under which the Vehicle was sold (e.g. ‘with six months warranty’ ‘without warranty’ ‘sold as seen’, etc) which are normally included on a pre-owned vehicle invoice to protect both the seller and purchaser."

As I have said, I bought the car from a guy who owned a body shop and the receipt clearly says it was a body shop. It was a word of mouth sale and I paid the guy via bank transfer.

[ploddertom]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Who was the Registered Keeper at the time of the offence?

[R0b]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Who was the Registered Keeper at the time of the offence?

My daughter has never been a registered keeper of that car and I provided bank statement, V5, receipt from bodyshop/garage I bought the car from but the bailiff and Council refused to accept me as the owner.

Presumably the OP from what I can gather on the posts, but not the daughter who is the debtor.

[ploddertom]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

In that case the OP is responsible for the debt regardless of who is driving and it is to him the Council should address everything and if Bailiffs are instructed it is to him they will look for payment and seek to Take Control of Goods from.

[R0b]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

why is the OP responible for the debt if the debt is not in their name? The daughter is the debtor and that is not the OP.

You can't chase someone for a debt that isn't owed by them, its unlawful.

[ploddertom]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour



http://www.rutland.gov.uk/transport_and_streets/parking/street_parking_-_penalty_charg.aspx

Para 2 refers.

You suggest the OP is the RK, the daughter was the driver. With PCN's it is the RK who is responsible regardless of who was driving. It is then up to the RK to get any monies refunded by whoever was driving.

[R0b]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

I accept that point however if the OP is not the name on the judgment or the writ then how can the OP still be liable? goes beyond the bailiff powers as the bailiff can only seize goods owned by the person on the writ?

Of course if the judgment / writ is in the name of the OP then your advice will seem correct, but if the name is not the OP then they have no right to seize the goods in my opinion.

The OP seems to suggest that the PCN doesn't have anything to do with the car so could mean to say that the offence caused by the daughter has been done in another car than the OP's

I suppose this will need clarification .

[des8]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

But surely only if the PCN relates to that particular vehicle.
They can't remove any old car and in post 1 ", PCN nothing to do with this car"

A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer to a vehicle

[m4rk1974]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Who was the Registered Keeper at the time of the offence?

The PCN dates back to 2014 on a car she owned at the time. I bought the car that was clamped August 2015 - it has nothing to do with the PCN or the debtor.

[ploddertom]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

In that case we need much more detail.

[m4rk1974]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

Absolutely the case - the PCN was to do with a Fiesta my daughter owned at the time of the offence in 2014 (since been sold).
The car clamped was a car I bought last August.
Hope this helps.

[ploddertom]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

The PCN dates back to 2014 on a car she owned at the time. I bought the car that was clamped August 2015 - it has nothing to do with the PCN or the debtor.

In that case then the paperwork should have been sent to her at the address the vehicle was registered at. Was she registered as RK of the vehicle? Did she receive paperwork from the Council - probably at least 3 letters would have been sent? She needs to check with the Council the exact address including postcode where everything was sent and if the address was since changed - when & who by.

[m4rk1974]

Re: Questionable bailiff behaviour

She didn't get the letters and the TE7 and 9 were rejected. There's been a complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman and she's failed to convince them that she didn't know of the PCN. Not sure if that can be revisited.

My daughter was trying to pay the bailiff off in small instalments (what she could afford) but the bailiffs were running out of time as the warrant was weeks away from expiring. My vehicle was DVLA checked in March by a different bailiff firm not allocated the warrant - DVLA are investigating this. The bailiff with her warrant clamped my car in May - getting desperate, I'm guessing.