• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

High court enforment officer placed a formal seizure of good on vehicals

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • High court enforment officer placed a formal seizure of good on vehicals

    Hi This is my first post
    The other day while i was out' a High court Enforcment Officer attended my home and spoke to my wife about an outstanding dept which i was paying at £100 per month.. ive missed a few payments due to my wife's health and having to give up her full time job.
    She wouldn't let the Officer in the house, he asked for my phone number and she wouldn't give it him untill he told her she was breaking the law and could be in trouble fro withholding it,
    he then asked her whom all the Vehicals belong to on my drive ? as i work from home as a vehical restorer she told him that they are mostly customers vehicals other than her personal car, my fathers car, and my work van, he then went and sat in his van and my wife closed the door, a few minutes later he came back with 2 yellow inventory sheets and a white form 55 notice of seizure on all the vehicles on my drive including the customer vehicals and 2 vehicals on the public road adjacent to my home' he signed them and gave them to my wife, she did not sign then nor did i..he then went away..this was his first attendance,
    The question i have is - where do i stand with this? ive read that its an Abandoned levy, sometimes called "Levy Abandonment" and the seized vehicle or goods are still yours and you are free to take them away for safe keeping.
    Is This True and correct ?

    i found this website page

    Abandoned levy, sometimes called "Levy Abandonment"
    Regulations do not define levy abandonment but an authorative definition of levy abandonment is available in the judgment of Bannister v Hyde [1860] 2 E&E 627. The judge said- "If the bailiff levies on goods then leaves the premises without a signed walking-possession agreement is evidence the levy has been abandoned".

    Paragraph 54 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulation 47 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 sets the rules bailiffs must follow in the event of abandoning the levy.

    How seizure SHOULD work:
    When a bailiff seizes your goods or vehicle he will complete a document called a Notice of Seizure, sometimes called a Form 7
    A High Court Enforcement Officer will use a Form 55 Notice of Seizure.
    By completing these forms, bailiffs call this distrain or "distress" over your goods or vehicle listed on the form, and the form does not need to be signed by the debtor to be valid.
    Once this form is complete, the bailiff has "levied" over your goods.
    The bailiff may then ask you to sign a document called a form 8 walking-possession agreement.
    A High Court Enforcement Officer will use a regulation 15 walking-possession agreement.
    If you do not sign the walking-possession Agreement and the bailiff leaves the premises without taking the seized goods or vehicle (or leaves a wheel clamp on the vehicle), the levy becomes what is called, an abandoned levy and breaking entry cannot be lawfully made at a later date.
    If no walking-possession agreement is signed by the debtor, the bailiff is unable to charge a fee.
    When a bailiff hands you a Form 7 (High Court enforcement - a Form 55) with a list of goods on it, this is called a Notice of seizure. On its own this notice it is a worthless because one of the following must happen.

    The bailiff must:
    Collect the money to pay the debt, or
    Remove the goods or vehicle seized and leave a receipt called a Form 9 "
    Leave a person on the premises with the goods or vehicle until either the above is done. This arrangement is called a "Closed Possession"
    If none of the above is done, then it becomes an abandoned levy and the seized vehicle or goods are still yours and you are free to take them away for safe keeping.

    Closed possession is when a person remains on the premises to hold the seized goods, today this is rarely done.

    Bailiffs think wheel clamping a vehicle is a substitute for closed possession and there is no case authority supporting this.
    If a bailiff or HCEO leaves the premises with a wheel clamp on your vehicle, you can legally remove the clamp using bolt cutters and take the vehicle - even if you signed a walking-possession agreement.

    A debtor-signed walking-possession agreement does not entitle the bailiff to deprive you the continued normal use of the levied goods or vehicle while it remains in your possession, so there is no criminal liability if you remove a wheel clamp using bolt cutters from the levied vehicle.

    NOTE: If the levy on goods is invalid, and the bailiff has left the premises, this creates an abandoned levy. Check the list of grounds that constitutes an invalid levy

    There is also lots of further case authority that defines levy abandonment.
    Last edited by Tools; 22nd November 2013, 01:37:AM. Reason: removed links
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: High court enforment officer placed a formal seizure of good on vehicals

    As this is a HCEO, different rules apply. Yes, it is an offence to obstruct an HCEO without lawful reason. As for the HCEO levying on third-party vehicles, I would get the owners of the vehicles to submit third-party claims which should pee-off the HCEO no end. However, I will bump this thread for one of out High Court Enforcement specialists to look in and advise.

    BUMP
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: High court enforment officer placed a formal seizure of good on vehicals

      Originally posted by bluebottle View Post
      As this is a HCEO, different rules apply. Yes, it is an offence to obstruct an HCEO without lawful reason. As for the HCEO levying on third-party vehicles, I would get the owners of the vehicles to submit third-party claims which should pee-off the HCEO no end. However, I will bump this thread for one of out High Court Enforcement specialists to look in and advise.

      BUMP
      It IS essential the vehicle owners get in their claims, which unfortunately may end up at interpleader, or they will remove and sell the lot. Which HCEO company is it?

      Comment

      View our Terms and Conditions

      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
      Working...
      X