Help marstons charged £403

Re: Help marstons charged £403

(11) Subject to any direction to the contrary in the warrant, where the distress is levied on household goods, the goods shall not, without the consent in writing of the person against whom the distress is levied, be removed from the house until the day of sale;and so much of the goods shall be impounded as is in the opinion of the person executing the warrant sufficient to satisfy the distress, by affixing to the articles impounded a conspicuous mark.

This, of course, effectively hinders any sale.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I think there's another more pressing question needs asking here as well. Below I hope I've attached a copy of a Further Steps Notice. WHY is the option of levying on goods always chosen, when some of the other options, particularly the AOE, are cheaper and more likely to get the money back?

[Salmon Man]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Thank goodness for Scots Law and Extract Warrants.

And when the Extract Warrants are served, many choose just to do a few days lie in at the Big Hoose instead. None of these scumbag collectors at the door.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

More up to date version thanks GT:

52.8. 2(d) d)
clearly mark any goods that are taken under the warrant, unless that person removes those goods at once

52.8.4
Unless the court otherwise directs, or the defendant otherwise agrees, if the person who executes the warrant takes household goods they must not be removed until the day of sale.

So we are left with the bizarre position of goods going for sale. As CC correctly says, they need to prepare a catalogue for viewing of goods, so does the debtor have to let people into their house to view the goods. I know the answer and what happens - the question is, does the MOJ or the bailiffs? I guess it also begs the question about turning up with a van and charging £215.00 Attendance Fee - what is the fee for? If literally just for turning up at the home, why then need for a van? If attending to remove - they can't!

I picked this up on another thread yesterday where the distress warrant from I think Bristow and Sutor stated goods could be removed that day - I believe that makes any levy potentially invalid as goods cannot be removed that day without permission.

Who is going to give permission for goods to be taken there and then?

I also read elsewhere of a situation where bailiffs had attended and removed goods there and then, but the advice did not pick up on this surprisingly.

The whole distress and levying of goods, is so obfuscated and obscure, it is now wholly unworkable, so falls foul imho of Articles of the European convention On Human rights, as it has NO CLEAR, definitive process, remove goods, permissions, van fees for turning up with a van, even though the goods themselves cannot be removed until the day of sale, so in a WP, scanario, they couldn't in theory turn up on spec due to a default in a payment plan, with a van and remove that day as debtor will not permit it, anyway, court permission would need to be sought for forced entry, then looking at the regulations, even then the goods may not be removed at that point without the debtor's permission unless the sale was that da. What a complete load of carp

Seems to indicate that random attendances with a van, are a no no unless the sale is for that day. But then no one can be sure can they?

Re: Help marstons charged £403

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...12-part-52.pdf

52.8.4

More up to date version thanks GT:

52.8. 2(d) d)
clearly mark any goods that are taken under the warrant, unless that person removes those goods at once

52.8.4
Unless the court otherwise directs, or the defendant otherwise agrees, if the person who executes the warrant takes household goods they must not be removed until the day of sale.

So we are left with the bizarre position of goods going for sale. As CC correctly says, they need to prepare a catalogue for viewing of goods, so does the debtor have to let people into their house to view the goods. I know the answer and what happens - the question is, does the MOJ or the bailiffs? I guess it also begs the question about turning up with a van and charging £215.00 Attendance Fee - what is the fee for? If literally just for turning up at the home, why then need for a van? If attending to remove - they can't!

I picked this up on another thread yesterday where the distress warrant from I think Bristow and Sutor stated goods could be removed that day - I believe that makes any levy potentially invalid as goods cannot be removed that day without permission.

Who is going to give permission for goods to be taken there and then?

I also read elsewhere of a situation where bailiffs had attended and removed goods there and then, but the advice did not pick up on this surprisingly.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If that was what he meant, he'd have been mistaken.

Public sale rooms need to prepare catalogues of goods to be auctioned, so they need the goods a week or two before the date of the sale.

(11) Subject to any direction to the contrary in the warrant, where the distress is levied on household goods, the goods shall not, without the consent in writing of the person against whom the distress is levied, be removed from the house until the day of sale;and so much of the goods shall be impounded as is in the opinion of the person executing the warrant sufficient to satisfy the distress, by affixing to the articles impounded a conspicuous mark.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If that was what he meant, he'd have been mistaken.

Public sale rooms need to prepare catalogues of goods to be auctioned, so they need the goods a week or two before the date of the sale.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...12-part-52.pdf

52.8.4

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I believe what Milo was saying is the bailiff cannot remove goods there and then. They can only be removed on the day of sale, no sooner.

Aah I see, Unless there and then, is the day of the sale of course, or the bailiff has permission from the court. But I see your point.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I believe what Milo was saying is the bailiff cannot remove goods there and then. They can only be removed on the day of sale, no sooner.

If that was what he meant, he'd have been mistaken.

Public sale rooms need to prepare catalogues of goods to be auctioned, so they need the goods a week or two before the date of the sale.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I was under the impression that "levying distress" was as defined in distress for rent rules where a walking possession order is issued and goods can be removed if the arrangement to pay is not followed or cannot be negotiated, and enforced via the magistrates court act 1980, in the same way as re-entry after a legal peaceful levy has been made on a civil debt, is this not correct ?

I believe what Milo was saying is the bailiff cannot remove goods there and then. They can only be removed on the day of sale, no sooner.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

See attached file.

Gravyboat got the name wrong, of course...

Yes you would think I would get it right since it was me that initially reported it and attended the conference as guest of Phil Evans the co-author. But thanks for the correction CleverDicky

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Only if it has a sun roof.

In which case we should consider one to be a Container, in the absence of a sunroof :rofl::rofl:

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Isn't a LADA a Russian skip?

Only if it has a sun roof.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

See attached file.

Gravyboat got the name wrong, of course...

Isn't a LADA a Russian skip?
But yes it would appear that this highly dubious practice is widespread and condoned, but quoted from the Forward to the report was criticised as inappropriate

"John Kruse (the author of this Report) was sitting beside me and reminded me that the
National Standards for Enforcement Agents dissuades any sort of payment for awarding
contracts. I mentioned this to the conference and added that an Authority’s demand for a
percentage would compel bailiffs to artificially increase their fees in order to comply. I might
have also said (although I can’t now recall whether I did) that as the fees for the early stages
of the enforcement are fixed by statute, there is a risk of bailiffs having to remove or attend
to remove goods unnecessarily in order to raise the revenue needed to pay the Authority its
piece of the action.
Since then, the issue has been aired in trade journals and raised in Parliament. Local
Authority Debt Enforcement & Recovery then commissioned this Report from the Bailiff
Studies Centre.
I have warned for many years of the consequences of a commercial environment which
incentivises bailiffs to cut corners and push back the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. I
first said it publically at an Institute of Revenues Rating & Valuation (IRRV) Enforcement
Conference in April 1998. Now, as this report reveals, we have gone a step or two further
into the quagmire, with some Authorities requiring their bailiffs to act this way in order to get
contracts."

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The big "C" word Corruption in other words

See attached file.

Gravyboat got the name wrong, of course...