Dodygy bailiff

[Jojangles]

Had bailiff in yesterday clamped a privately owned van outside our business property. We live on busy main road on junction with traffic lights si my husband and sons park on forecourt over the rd. Anyway when I challenged the bailiff he said log big isnt proof of ownership when I told him I have the HP agreement going back to 2018 which shows it was a personal loan in husband's name with direct debits being made from personal account. We are a limited company. The bailiff refused to engage with me sat in his van with the window up and just kept telling me he is going to remove van. Even after I told him we would pay but I will dispute it he said he didnt care he still removing van. My husband was at work and the bailiff refused to wait an hour for him to arrive home. I called the police who then came and the bailiff told them that the reason why he is taking it is because I admitted it was a work van. Blatant lie. He also told them that i said we will not pay. I had my phone on record at several intervals and you can actually hear me say i will pay and he said he is removing the van and at that point added on another 500. I thought that being a limited company they cannot remove assets that are privately owned? The bailiff said he had reason to believe it is a company vehicle. The fact that ny husband chooses to use a van as a private vehicle shouldn't even come in to this. I have submitted a complaint. I have sent all documents in to them. What more can I do to prove it is a personal vehicle and did they have the right to bully me into paying by ceasing private property

[atticus]

Why is your company not paying its debt?

We have enough threads on here about the difficulty of enforcing judgements against companies that manage to take people's money but claim to have no assets.

[R0b]

You are correct that bailiffs cannot seize goods belonging to a third party. Contrary to what most bailiffs and bailiff companies think, goods on hire purchase solely belong to the creditor and there is no interest (beneficial or otherwise) that a hirer would have on the car - case law confirms this position that you are hiring the car up until the point you exercise the right to purchase, so the only interest you have is possession i.e. the right to use.

Submitting a complaint is the wrong way to go about this. I believe you will need to challenge this by submitting an application to the court for the return of the vehicle. The basis of your application would be that the bailiff had breached Schedule 12 (Taking Control of Goods) under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007 and you are seeking a remedy under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12. The bailiff breached Schedule 12 because he took goods belonging to a third party, namely the vehicle which is on hire purchase. The bailiff was negligent because he failed to run background checks on the vehicle to ensure it was not on hire purchase. Your alternative argument is that the bailiff knowingly took the vehicle despite being shown copies of the agreement confirming it was on hire purchase.

There will be a cost to the application and if you lose or don't successfully argue your position, then you may be liable for a costs order. Therefore you may want to reach out directly to the bailiff and tell them that you intend to make an application to court along with costs if the vehicle is not returned to you immediately. They might instead make it available to you at their compound to collect which is up to you if you want to travel but I don't think it's unreasonable that since the bailiff unlawfully took the vehicle, they should make arrangements to bring it back at their own cost.

If you don't want to do that, then sit it out and wait for the complaint which will likely amount to nothing whilst you run the risk the car is sold at auction.