Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

[bizzybob]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

Liability Orders do not confer any power or right to break into a debtor's property. Any bailiff who does so on the strength of an LO without having previously gained peaceable entry and obtained a valid and lawful levy or have an order signed in ink by a judge is going to feel a sharp and swift pain in their gluteus maximus.

As they would be breaking into third party premises, the bailiff would be a very silly person indeed, as the LO does not confer a right of entry of itself.

[Golden boxer]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

If all these electrical goods on the business premise are new why doesn't the brother sell them to pay the debt and get the bailiff off the OPs back

It's all old stock. The business is 300 miles away. When the business closed he asked his partner to arrange sale of what she could but she didn't. They keys went back to the landlord who was owed money too.

[Golden boxer]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

Thanks everyone. Your help is really appreciated. I now have the stat dec signed by a solicitor. What is the best method of post to send to Jacobs and the council and do I need to send a covering letter with it saying anything?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

His car is still sitting on the drive. He said he isn't moving it as it is my car. He told me months ago that the car was mine when i lent him money and I drive it all the time but his name is still on the registration doc. Should I class it as mine in the stat dec?

Re-register it in your name.

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

Just had a thought... does the landlord of the business have lien on the stock that is there? If so, I doubt Jacobs could lawfully take it.

[enquirer]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

If all these electrical goods on the business premise are new why doesn't the brother sell them to pay the debt and get the bailiff off the OPs back.

Good advice, Wales. It would probably realise more cash as a distress auction would realise little more than 10% of the value of the goods.

What is the debtors situation if the bailiffs take the whole lot to auction and it fails to realise the required price? Assuming that there are no other assets to be had, would that then be grounds for claiming 'insufficient funds' ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

What is the debtors situation if the bailiffs take the whole lot to auction and it fails to realise the required price? Assuming that there are no other assets to be had, would that then be grounds for claiming 'insufficient funds' ?

If it is a case of nulla bono, it could then be argued Jacobs were levying on goods of low value in order to garner fees. The local authority involved in this case would probably do better to ditch Jacobs and engage directly with debtors. Where local authorities have engaged directly with debtors in the past, they seem have done better and not been in constant danger of being hit with claims for compensation and damages because of the actions of private sector civil enforcement firms.

[Golden boxer]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

UPDATE:
I sent off the statutory declaration to Jacobs and the Council. My brother received a letter by post this morning from Jacobs confirming receipt of my stat dec and that they have noted this in their records. It then says that they have levied on my car that was sitting on the drive when they came while we were away! They have described the colour and make of the car but the registration they have given is slightly incorrect (55 instead of 05).

They have asked my brother to send proof of third party ownership of the car. That's no problem as I have registration docs in my name (although it won't show the registration they have stated as they have got it wrong), even though the registration doc actually says it isn't proof of ownership. I am a bit shocked that they levied on my car whilst I was on holiday, put two hand delivered letters through the door, and at no point did they give us notice that they had levied on my car.

Should I just reply with a copy of my registration document even though registration they have given is slightly incorrect? Should I be questioning the fact that they never gave notice that they had levied on my car until this letter today?

My brother has made the first of the weekly payments to the Council but it seems like Jacobs aren't going to let it go. It says at the bottom of the letter that he needs to get in touch with Jacobs to discuss his debt with them. Is there anything else we can do to help get this debt back to the Council?

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

County Courts Act 1984

s135 Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court.

Any person who - (a) delivers or causes to be delivered to any other person any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any summons or other process of a county court, knowing it to be false; (or) (b) acts or professes to act under any false colour or pretence of the process or authority of a county court;

- shall be guilty of an offence and shall for each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

Only applies to matters of the county court. CT and NNDR fall under the ambit of the magistrates courts, which is a pity as it would give certificated bailiffs and creditors something to think about if the County Courts Act 1984 applied.

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

UPDATE:
I sent off the statutory declaration to Jacobs and the Council. My brother received a letter by post this morning from Jacobs confirming receipt of my stat dec and that they have noted this in their records. It then says that they have levied on my car that was sitting on the drive when they came while we were away! They have described the colour and make of the car but the registration they have given is slightly incorrect (55 instead of 05).

They have asked my brother to send proof of third party ownership of the car. That's no problem as I have registration docs in my name (although it won't show the registration they have stated as they have got it wrong), even though the registration doc actually says it isn't proof of ownership. I am a bit shocked that they levied on my car whilst I was on holiday, put two hand delivered letters through the door, and at no point did they give us notice that they had levied on my car.

Should I just reply with a copy of my registration document even though registration they have given is slightly incorrect? Should I be questioning the fact that they never gave notice that they had levied on my car until this letter today?

My brother has made the first of the weekly payments to the Council but it seems like Jacobs aren't going to let it go. It says at the bottom of the letter that he needs to get in touch with Jacobs to discuss his debt with them. Is there anything else we can do to help get this debt back to the Council?

I would be inclined to remind Jacobs that they can only lawfully levy on goods belonging to the debtor, not those of a third party. I would also remind them that they will be committing one or more offences, punishable by imprisonment, if any of their bailiffs or anyone acting on their behalf or on their instructions attempt to remove the vehicle. Any attempt to immobilise the vehicle will constitute an offence, also, and which is also punishable by imprisonment. At this stage, which offences they have committed and would be committing will determined by their actions and words to date.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

I would be inclined to remind Jacobs that they can only lawfully levy on goods belonging to the debtor, not those of a third party. I would also remind them that they will be committing one or more offences, punishable by imprisonment, if any of their bailiffs or anyone acting on their behalf or on their instructions attempt to remove the vehicle. Any attempt to immobilise the vehicle will constitute an offence, also, and which is also punishable by imprisonment. At this stage, which offences they have committed and would be committing will determined by their actions and words to date.

Perhaps you could give some indication of the scope and/or seriousness of those offences, if the nature of their reply were to be redolent of the retort given in the (unreported) case of James Arkell v Pressdram?

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

Perhaps you could give some indication of the scope and/or seriousness of those offences, if the nature of their reply were to be redolent of the retort given in the (unreported) case of James Arkell v Pressdram?

I had offenders come out with the retort uttered in James Arkell v Pressdram after pointing out an offence to an offender when I was a copper, Cloggy. What is amusing is the look on their face when they find out the hard way that what you have told them is, in fact, true. Having the marital status of your parents brought into question at the moment of your birth is something you get used to after a while.

The scope and/or seriousness of offences committed by bailiffs would depend on how reckless or stupid they have been. What can start off as a relatively run-of-the-mill transgression can develop into something a lot more serious if they do or do not do certain things. An offence is determined by the way in which the law defines it.

You may have noticed in threads I have posted on recently that I have used the words "right in law". These three words are very important in determining whether a person is acting within the law or not, the key question being, "Does this person have a right in law to do what they are doing or say they are going to do?"

Where certificated bailiffs are concerned, whilst they may well be acting under the authority of a warrant, the warrant will have conditions attached to it that a certificated bailiff must comply with, otherwise, they will be deemed to be acting without lawful authority and any right in law they may have or claim to have will be annulled or voided by their actions. In such instances, they are then exposed to the full might of the law, whether it be the Civil Law or the Criminal Law.

It is legitimate to point out to someone that an act or series of acts is an offence at law where such acts constitute an offence or offences at law. If the other person's response is akin to that in James Arkell v Pressdram, then my view of that would be that the other person had been given fair warning and that if action were to then follow against the other person, the fact they had previously been warned would be a factor taken into consideration in any legal proceedings that might result and may well influence the outcome of such proceedings.

[bizzybob]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

If Jacobs and the council have been informed by Stat Dec, and other proof of a debtor's non residence, and nil ownership of any property at the address they fetch up at even if it is on an LO, then they carry on and take and sell a third party carm then that bailiff should go to jail imho for Theft Motor Vehicle. Jacobs are very good at seizing and wrongfully selling third party motors. Bet they are salivating with anticipation of the legalisation of their thefts with the interpleaders coming in next April

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

If Jacobs and the council have been informed by Stat Dec, and other proof of a debtor's non residence, and nil ownership of any property at the address they fetch up at even if it is on an LO, then they carry on and take and sell a third party carm then that bailiff should go to jail imho for Theft Motor Vehicle. Jacobs are very good at seizing and wrongfully selling third party motors. Bet they are salivating with anticipation of the legalisation of their thefts with the interpleaders coming in next April

Yes, Jacobs are very good at seizing and selling vehicles they have no right in law to seize and sell, aren't they, BB? They also know how expensive it can be, too. If the politicians think they can provide certificated bailiffs with the same protection as HCEOs through interpleaders, I have a feeling those within the civil enforcement industry who think they will be able to cheat and steal with impunity may well be in for a very nasty shock if the provision ever comes into force. I can see people doing whatever they can to protect their property and, sadly, I can see certificated bailiffs getting a bloody good hiding, in the physical sense, if they try to seize goods belonging to third parties. However, April is still some 5-6 months away and a lot can happen in that time, including a change of government or court ruling that may well knock the provision on the head or, more likely, kill it off altogether. You never know, steps could be taken to kill off the civil enforcement industry in its entirety.

[bizzybob]

Re: Jacobs letters through door - council refuse to take back debt

Yes, Jacobs are very good at seizing and selling vehicles they have no right in law to seize and sell, aren't they, BB? They also know how expensive it can be, too. If the politicians think they can provide certificated bailiffs with the same protection as HCEOs through interpleaders, I have a feeling those within the civil enforcement industry who think they will be able to cheat and steal with impunity may well be in for a very nasty shock if the provision ever comes into force. I can see people doing whatever they can to protect their property and, sadly, I can see certificated bailiffs getting a bloody good hiding, in the physical sense, if they try to seize goods belonging to third parties. However, April is still some 5-6 months away and a lot can happen in that time, including a change of government or court ruling that may well knock the provision on the head or, more likely, kill it off altogether. You never know, steps could be taken to kill off the civil enforcement industry in its entirety.

Just come back from the local Remembrance Day service, the Vicar in the sermon was alluding to some poverty reduction conference he was at in London last week, and Imbecilic Duncan Smith was the keynote speaker, he said IDS was well out of touch with reality. However after the service at the War Memorial I mentioned the TCGA and it's provision and the other bit about the interpleaders, he was aghast when I explained to illustrate the scope of this abomination, that if he was ministering to a parishioner, and his car was parked adjacent to a debtor's house after April a bailiff could seize it and if he couldn't afford the debt, the bailiff fees and the application for interpleader to lodge with the court then the bailiff gets his car with no legal redress possible, he was unaware of the eye watering fee increases likely to come in also. He said he will be researching this and informing other clergy who may also be in the dark about this.