Bailiff problem

[b4barney]

My wife has an unsatisfied CCJ for £900 (disputed Vet's Bill) . Bailiff insisted he could seize my Car even though he had checked ownership, and was aware that the debt was not in my name. I need the car for work, and am very concerned that it will be clamped or seized. How can I stop this happening?

[labman]

Re: Bailiff problem

Show him the V5. He can't take your property unless it is deemed you have joint and several liability for the debt.

If there is HP on the car, it cannot be seized. It is only essential work usage where the car is a tool of your trade which would make it exempt under that category.

By far the easiest thing is simply to show the V5.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff problem

And to add to Labman's advice, do not, under any circumstances, let the bailiff handle or try to take away the V5C, even if he/she claims it is for copying.

The bailiff is being very economical with the truth. If he/she has admitted they know the car belongs to you, they should not be telling you they can clamp/seize it. The sad fact is, certificated bailiffs will lie, cheat and bully to get their hands on money and property. This is because they are paid on commission only, unlike County Court bailiffs who are paid a salary and are directly-employed by the Ministry of Justice, through H.M. Courts and Tribunals Service.

[b4barney]

Re: Bailiff problem

Many thanks for the prompt response. Much appreciated. After informing the Bailiff that the Car was my sole property, and was required for my work (I even have a sign in my window advertising my Business which he read) he then rang somewhere for a 'Vehicle check' and yet he still insisted that he could call back to 'seize' my car, and shortly afterwards pushed a 'Notice of Seizure' through the letterbox with my vehicle details shown as being included in the 'seizure'

[labman]

Re: Bailiff problem

Which bailiff company is it? If the fine is for an unsatisfied CCJ over £600, there is every chance this has been passed to a High Court Enforcement Officer for enforcement. I have insufficient knowledge to advise on this without access to books to look it up for you. When I can get to my computer, I'll pm someone to ask them to look at this for you. They will be better able to help.

[b4barney]

Re: Bailiff problem

The CCJ was in respect of a disputed Vet's Bill for around £800. (After 4 days in the vets 'care'; they said there was nothimg more they could do for my wife's little dog; said he was unlikely to last the weekend and handed us a leaflet on a Pet Crematorium togeher with their Invoice for treatment & 'Tests')
That was exactly 2 years ago, and the little fellow is still happily running round, which is why we disputed the Vet's Bill
The debt appears to have been transferred to Harrisons in Ossett.
If we pay the original CCJ debt what fees are Harrisons allow to charge?
Any help will be most appreciated

[labman]

Re: Bailiff problem

CW Harrison and Son are High Court Enforcement Officers. This means the vets have asked the High Court to enforce the County Court judgment.

It is perfectly normal practice. I'll pm someone to see if they can advise for you.

[pepsie]

Re: Bailiff problem

Were you aware the matter of the unpaid vets bill had been subjected to a claim in the County Court and in subsequence a CCJ had been ordered?

If you did know about the claim and failed to respond to it by not filing an acknowledgment of service followed by defence/counterclaim, then the Claimant has been awarded Judgment in Default and you will need very good reason to overturn the order at this late stage.

If you were unaware of the claim then you have the right to apply for set aside of the Judgment on the grounds you have been denied an opportunity to defend the claim or make a counterclaim.

That the Claimant has chosen to transfer the debt to the High Court for writ of Fi'Fa and your wife is the sole debtor it is such that if the car you mention is owned solely by you then the HCEO cannot levy/seize it and in reality he is well aware that should he foolishly decide to do so he will find himself in serious trouble but, by telling you otherwise hopes to scare you into making payment without question.

Pepsie

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff problem

I would warn the bailiff he risks being arrested and charged with Theft if he or anyone acting under his instructions or that of his employers seizes or attempts to seize your car. The relevant legislation is Section 1, Theft Act 1968. If the bailiff still insists he can seize the car, you need to tell him firmly that he is committing an offence under Section 2(1), Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Misrepresentation) and risks immediate arrest without warrant if he continues with his assertion. It might be a good idea to send a Special Delivery Letter to his CEO and warn them of their employee's conduct and that they, too, and the company risk prosecution under Section 12, Fraud Act 2006. If the car is seized illegally, the CEO and the company are vicariously liable for the bailiff's actions and will be required to return the vehicle immediately. If they attempt to sell it, then the bailiff, their CEO and the company will be in very serious trouble indeed, as that is the offence of Handling Stolen Goods (Section 22, Theft Act 1968) and that offence carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Ultimately, you may have to involve the police in this case and don't take any BS from them that it is a civil matter.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff problem

CW Harrison and Son are High Court Enforcement Officers.

Just reading around HCEO's and discovered CW Harrisons have received significant investment from the company which owns Marstons!

[b4barney]

Re: Bailiff problem

We were aware of the Claim and we even had a preliminary meeting with the Judge to try and negotiate a reduced Invoice but the Vets refused to lower their costs. The Judge said we must each present the other party with any documentation at least 14 days prior to the actual Hearing. We did not receive anything from the Vets but on the day they turned up with a Solicitor and a lengthy Statement which we had never seen. The Judge offered us 5 minutes to read it; declined to let us question the Vet (who never spoke once) and then gave Judgement for the Claimant saying it was impossible to prove that the Vets had been negligent!! So much for fair play and a level playing field.

We did not have the Funds to pay the Judgement at the time, although with the help of family we have now managed to raise the £980 to cover the Judgement and have offered this to the Vets. They have declined to accept payment saying we must contact Harrisons (Bailiffs) who are allegedly coming to take my car and anything else this Thursday at a cost of £300 per hour. How on earth do we stop these costs continually escalating and how can we ever get out of this situation if we don't have the Funds?.
My wife was already being treated for depression before the Court case, and is now becoming 'suicidal' - we need help but where do we get it????

Any advice at all will be very much appreciated
__________________________________________________ _________

Were you aware the matter of the unpaid vets bill had been subjected to a claim in the County Court and in subsequence a CCJ had been ordered?

If you did know about the claim and failed to respond to it by not filing an acknowledgment of service followed by defence/counterclaim, then the Claimant has been awarded Judgment in Default and you will need very good reason to overturn the order at this late stage.

If you were unaware of the claim then you have the right to apply for set aside of the Judgment on the grounds you have been denied an opportunity to defend the claim or make a counterclaim.

That the Claimant has chosen to transfer the debt to the High Court for writ of Fi'Fa and your wife is the sole debtor it is such that if the car you mention is owned solely by you then the HCEO cannot levy/seize it and in reality he is well aware that should he foolishly decide to do so he will find himself in serious trouble but, by telling you otherwise hopes to scare you into making payment without question.

Pepsie

[pepsie]

Re: Bailiff problem

I would be inclined to make application to a stay of execution and at the same time a variation to set payments. If you are on low income or benefits you can claim remission to any fees this action requires.

The forms you require can be downloaded from HMC&T website and are N244 for the stay N245 for variation to set the repayments and ex 160 for fee remission. If you need help to complete them just yell and I am sure that help will be forthcoming.

You should also report your case to the RCVS with the suggestion the vet concerned can be seen to have seriously misdiagnosed your wifes dog and the expectation to payment of £800 can be seene unrealistic to the outcome. Oh and by the way they cannot seize your car if you can show them evidence to it not being that of the debtor named on the writ.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff problem

'Vehicle check' and yet he still insisted that he could call back to 'seize' my car, and shortly afterwards pushed a 'Notice of Seizure' through the letterbox with my vehicle details shown as being included in the 'seizure'

Have they gained access to your home? What other items have been listed on your Notice of Seizure?

If you apply for the Stay against the HCEO this will halt all further enforcement action & charges if granted. By also applying for a Variation Order will let the Court set the level of payment regardless of what the Claimant demands.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff problem

Here's the forms:

http://www.bankruptcy-insolvency.co..../n245_form.pdf

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.u...rms/n244_e.pdf

[Malookoo]

Re: Bailiff problem

I agree that you should proceed with the stay as already advised but also think you should follow the advice from Bluebottle and visit the Police these people have already committed offences under the Fraud Act 2006 these are not civil offences.

I would also approach the Vet again as in my opinion utimately they can be accountable for the actions of the HCEO, its their CCJ and their Writ.