Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

I know there have been cases where a bailiff company put notices in a local newspaper threatening anyone who submitted adverse comments about a person applying for a bailiff certificate with legal action.

Which varmints did that - and why were they not prosecuted?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

bluebottle, yes I understand that a letter to the judge and NOT a form 4 complaint is the way to go. Do you have any advice on general wording, please?

Hi DF,

I have noted that you are waiting for a Final Response from the local authority before referring the matter to the LGO. Can I suggest that you put the letter to the judge on hold until the LGO issues an adjudication? The reason for this is if the LGO issues an adverse adjudication against the local authority and bailiff company, this adds more weight to the letter to the judge. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Which varmints did that - and why were they not prosecuted?

It was some time ago. I doubt the courts know it goes on. However, if the courts don't know, how can they do anything about it?

As with a lot of things in life, we learn in hindsight and the best policy would be, in the case of such advertisements being spotted, is that the matter be brought to the attention of the court at which the prospective bailiff is to be certificated and let them tackle the prospective bailiff and bailiff company about it.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

bluebottle, sneaky - I like it!

Judge in N244 hearing already administered sort of rebuke to council which I shall be quoting.

Thank you!

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

bluebottle, sneaky - I like it!

Judge in N244 hearing already administered sort of rebuke to council which I shall be quoting.

Thank you!

The LGO deals with issues of maladministration by local authorities. The report that results from an investigation by the LGO, if an adverse adjudication against the local authority and their enforcement agent, can be cited or referred to in a complaint against a bailiff.

In a case in Hampshire, during 2012, a copy of a police report was sent to the DJ at Bournemouth & Poole County Court along with other evidence and a letter from the complainant and which resulted in a certificated bailiff losing their certificate without a Form 4 or a hearing. The court used the Civil Procedures Rules to do this.

Hope this clarifies matters.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Sir Vere, I apologise if this comes across as 'nagging', but please could you (or anyone) give me either the full name of the act/a link?

"a vehicle wich is taxed as an invalid carriage i.e. £0, can not be clamped by statute, it as in the 1980 act"

Would be good to add in to the LGO complaint I am currently compiling.

Many thanks
df

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Sir Vere, I apologise if this comes across as 'nagging', but please could you (or anyone) give me either the full name of the act/a link?

"a vehicle wich is taxed as an invalid carriage i.e. £0, can not be clamped by statute, it as in the 1980 act"

Would be good to add in to the LGO complaint I am currently compiling.

Many thanks
df

Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

For which no Commencement Order has yet been made and which consequently still remains a prospective rather than an active statute.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

For which no Commencement Order has yet been made and which consequently still remains a prospective rather than an active statute.

However, until this happens, the 1980 Act, as alluded to by Sir Vere, in his post, remains in force and is applicable in the OP's case.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Thanks, all - does anyone have the name of the 1980 Act? - I've been googling to try and find the appropriate bit quoted by Sir Vere regarding the nil VED making it equivalent to an invalid carriage and an invalid carriage being off-limits to a bailiff, but getting nowhere on it. Thank you again.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Thanks, all - does anyone have the name of the 1980 Act? - I've been googling to try and find the appropriate bit quoted by Sir Vere regarding the nil VED making it equivalent to an invalid carriage and an invalid carriage being off-limits to a bailiff, but getting nowhere on it. Thank you again.

Prior to the Motability scheme being set up, the government provided disabled persons with what can only be described as a three-wheeled sit-on lawnmower. Under Motability, disabled persons in receipt of Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disabled Living Allowance (DLA) are entitled to be issued with a free-of-charge VEL showing "Disabled" as the Tax Class and £00.00 for the Duty Paid. All "Disabled" VELs are issued by DVLA under the authority of a certificate issued by the DWP's DLA Office at Blackpool. Each certificate has a serial number. The "Disabled" VEL renders the vehicle an Invalid Carriage and that is exempt from seizure, as without the invalid carriage, a disabled person would be housebound and the bailiff would come up against the DDA and the HRA. I suspect the 1980 Act Sir Vere alludes to is something relating to the courts. I am sure he will be along later to clarify this.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

bluebottle, thank you. I'm probably going to come across as extremely thick (again) but what I'm after is the source law/whatever that states

"The "Disabled" VEL renders the vehicle an Invalid Carriage"

and "an invalid carriage is exempt from seizure"

I understand the point made earlier that if the bailiff had actually been stupid enough to seize the car that he would have been in trouble trying to sell it, but am trying to find the source that specifically says they're not allowed to so that I can quote it.

With Motability vehicles it's cut and dried because the person doesn't own the car, Motability does. In this case, the car is privately owned but with the Disabled VED which is why I'm after something that specifically mentions this.

I know it's not "best practice" for the 'nice gentleman bailiff, who after all, has a living to earn' :mmph: to do so under the general "vulnerability" heading in the National Standards, but that's not LAW - and I would love to find something binding as opposed to guidelines.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

bluebottle, thank you. I'm probably going to come across as extremely thick (again) but what I'm after is the source law/whatever that states

"The "Disabled" VEL renders the vehicle an Invalid Carriage"

and "an invalid carriage is exempt from seizure"

I understand the point made earlier that if the bailiff had actually been stupid enough to seize the car that he would have been in trouble trying to sell it, but am trying to find the source that specifically says they're not allowed to so that I can quote it.

With Motability vehicles it's cut and dried because the person doesn't own the car, Motability does. In this case, the car is privately owned but with the Disabled VED which is why I'm after something that specifically mentions this.

I know it's not "best practice" for the 'nice gentleman bailiff, who after all, has a living to earn' :mmph: to do so under the general "vulnerability" heading in the National Standards, but that's not LAW - and I would love to find something binding as opposed to guidelines.

Look here>>>>>>> http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../0138/0138.pdf

If you are so inclined you can read all 80+ pages of it, but page 63 would be a good reference point, you will notice that the legislators themselves will say that "the law is an ass".


Statutory Regulations state that the following items are exempt and must not be taken.

• "Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally in employment, business or vocation"

• "Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family".

Because the above list is so vague, and not very specific, we have reviewed over 75 contracts between local authorities and their relevant bailiff companies to see what items are listed by the majority of councils as being exempt. These items are as follows:

• Goods of minimal or no resale value
• Food items, cooking utensils
• Items that would leave family unable to prepare a hot meal.
• Heating appliances
• Children’s items, toys, prams (but computers and bikes can be taken)
• Disability items to be used to care for the sick.
• Medical aids or medical equipment.
• Items purchased using money from Social Fund.
• Refrigerators.
• The main form of cooking: if you have a cooker and microwave, the bailiff could take the microwave. If you only have a microwave then this must not be seized.
• Washing machine, vacuum cleaner.
• Personal items: such as family photographs/pictures.
• Items of minimal value, and or broken items.
• Goods either rented, or hired.


Borrowed from a friend!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Look here>>>>>>> http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../0138/0138.pdf

If you are so inclined you can read all 80+ pages of it, but page 63 would be a good reference point, you will notice that the legislators themselves will say that "the law is an ass".

Are you sure that's not on page 94?

That document is only a report from the Law Commission on the Distress for Rent Regulations and is not actually a statute.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Bailiff without a valid warrant of execution

Are you sure that's not on page 94?

That document is only a report from the Law Commission on the Distress for Rent Regulations and is not actually a statute.

Correct, but it's what the new guidelines are based upon.

Just to repea myself, unless a new instrument it's introduced (never too soon) the whole issue of distress is hicklety picklety