Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

[ABIDOXXX]

Can anyone help or advise me on what to do to recover my vehicle.


In the early hours of the 17th December about 4.15am bailifs removed my vehicle.

I contacted the bailif asking him to return my vehicle as he was in breach of section 54 of the Magistrates Courts Rules and SCHEDULE 7 OF THE COURTS ACT 2003.

Which states.....

Under section 15 of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 you
cannot levy on:
Tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are
necessary to the debtor for use personally in a job or business;




under Schedule 7, Courts Act 2003

Seizure of goods

9

(1)

This paragraph applies where an enforcement officer or other person who is under a duty to execute the writ is executing it.

(2)

The officer may, by virtue of the writ, seize—

(a)

any goods of the execution debtor that are not exempt goods, and

(b)

any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to the execution debtor.

(3)

“Exempt goods” means—

(a)

such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the execution debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;

(b)

such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the execution debtor and his family.




I evidenced this by sending a letter from my accountantant and a copy of my insurance both verifying my vehicle is used in conjuction with my work in property management..

I have wriiten to both Andrew Wilson the bailif and Manchester City Council the claimant in this matter.

They tell me they have 7 days to accept or deny my claim.There after seek direction from the court.

My question is if they were to deny my claim and it was taken to court.Would the judge find the vehicle is an equipment and tool of my trade and so be excempt from seisure or agree with the claimant that my is not necessary in conjuction with my work as i could catch a bus or taxi to carry out my work.


What are your thoughts?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Can anyone help or advise me on what to do to recover my vehicle.

Yes - pay the buggers, as you were told to do on your previous thread: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-believe-i-owe

Or, if you want to prolong it and waste more money, you could get a lawyer to help you to fight it.

My question is if they were to deny my claim and it was taken to court.Would the judge find the vehicle is an equipment and tool of my trade and so be excempt from seisure or agree with the claimant that my is not necessary in conjuction with my work as i could catch a bus or taxi to carry out my work.

I do believe you would have severe difficulty in convincing a judge that a van was an essential tool for your trade, profession or calling as a (slum?) landlord.

[ABIDOXXX]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Thanks!

Your comments were very useful.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

I know that your response was meant as sarcasm, but what did you really expect would happen if you neither paid nor tried to get the judgement set aside? Did you suppose that Manchester City Council would just shrug their shoulders and forgive the debt?

[MissFM]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

I know that your response was meant as sarcasm,you don't say! but what did you really expect would happen if you neither paid nor tried to get the judgement set aside? Did you suppose that Manchester City Council would just shrug their shoulders and forgive the debt?

I think the OP's problem (joking aside) is the timescale.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

I think the OP's problem (joking aside) is the timescale.

I believe that his problem is that he thinks that, by ignoring a problem, it will just go away.

The work was done in September 2009.

He disputed the bill and that the work was truly necessary, but he didn't press a complaint - he just let it slide. Eventually, Manchester City Council sued and, because he no longer lived at or used his address for service, the Council obtained judgement in their favour by default.

On December 4^th, a bailiff sought to enforce that judgement, yet still the OP seems to have done bugger all about it.

Now the bailiff has seized (and removed) the OP's van.

Is that really so astonishing?

[Inca]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Having just trawled through the previous thread I have to agree with Cloggy/BB et al........you are incurring cost after cost here and they've nabbed your van for which you are now paying daily storage fees on,,,they will auction your van and that will add to the bill......the van will sell for a silly amount...which they will keep....and you are trotting furthur into debt with every passing day.

Make life easier for yourself,especially at this time of year ,and pay the total bill to date off...and fight them afterwards.
It looks like (for a change) they have their ducks in a row
Like I said,,every day means extra pay for them (as in fees)

[wales01man]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

I agree with Inca and others,this will not go away the only loser at the moment is the OP.

For 4 years there has been a chance to fight/appeal this through the proper channels failure to do so does the argument no good any the bailiff will as said before sell the van there will be a shortfall in monies and the Bailiff will return for the rest together with more fees.

time to pay up ot find a way to appeal?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

The only complaint you really have is the time the bailiffs called - 4.15 am - which is naughty. Any seizure should be carried out between 6.00 am and 9.00 pm.

However, due to the fact you owe money to Manchester City Council for work they had had to carry out in an emergency and, it would appear, in order to prevent further damage to your own and, potentially, others' property, when looked at in the cold light of day, if the the emergency work had not been carried out, you may well have found yourself facing a bill for remedial work that could have cost you considerably more than the £900 they are seeking.

If you want my honest opinion, you would do best to settle what you owe and recover your van from the bailiffs before you incur further costs. You are fighting a battle you are unlikely to win.

[ABIDOXXX]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

In 2005 the Council carried out some work on Charlton rd after serving notices to Charlton rd and the service address School lane.

I disputed the bill.

In 2009 the council sent claim forms to Rushden road.An address i dont live at nor is it the service address for Charlton Road.

I was not given the opportunity to defend the claim as i was totally unaware of it as notices went to Rushden rd
lt wasnt until December 2013 when bailiffs appeared at School lane i became aware.

Two questions firstly if i set this judgement aside and request all enforcement action to be stayed untill the hearing.
Does that undo any previous enforcement action.ie do the bailifs have to return my vehicle?

Secondly does the debt become statute barred as its from 2005 or does the debt start from 2009 when the Council got the judgement?

Any sensible help and advice would be appreciated.

[ABIDOXXX]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Sorry one more question

Can bailifs collect on debts they dont have a writ on or judgement.?

The judgement in 2009 is for £750.The bailifs have added other bills to that amount that they do not have judgements.

Can they levey these other bills on my vehicle?

[Inca]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Do you own the property at Rushden Road? If so,,why did the tenants not pass important mail to you?
Remember IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENCE

AFAIK(and Im probably wrong so feel free to slap me folks) Court Judgements are NOT covered by Statute of Limitations?

To me ( and others I think) you are clutching at straws and the straws getting soggy....PAY IT...you are STILL incurring the daily costs and you keep being told you have no case.

I know CleverClogs and BlueBottle (and the others on here) well enough to know if they say PAY then that's exactly what you should do,,seriously. (cos they almost never say it,,in fact,I think this is the FIRST time I've seen it in 16 months)

[wales01man]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

The "OTHER" bills may be lawful are they bailiff charges?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

Sorry one more question

Can bailifs collect on debts they dont have a writ on or judgement.?

The judgement in 2009 is for £750.The bailifs have added other bills to that amount that they do not have judgements.

Can they levey these other bills on my vehicle?

The answer will depend on your answer to these questions -

1. Are the bailiffs Court Bailiffs, that is, employed by H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service?; or
2. Are they High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) executing a High Court writ?

You need to be aware that any debt of £600 or more can be transferred to the High Court for enforcement. Any debt of £5,000 or more must be transferred to the High Court for enforcement.

The fees HCEOs charge can be steep and you will need to act quickly to apply for a Stay of Execution. My gut-feeling is that you may have allowed this matter to slide too far and are, as others have said, likely to increase this debt rather than reduce it.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

In 2009 the council sent claim forms to Rushden road.An address i dont live at nor is it the service address for Charlton Road.

I was not given the opportunity to defend the claim as i was totally unaware of it as notices went to Rushden rd
lt wasnt until December 2013 when bailiffs appeared at School lane i became aware.

Two questions firstly if i set this judgement aside and request all enforcement action to be stayed untill the hearing.
Does that undo any previous enforcement action.ie do the bailifs have to return my vehicle?

If the original Judgment was made in 2009 then you may have trouble convincing a Judge you are applying for set aside in a timely manner. Secondly if you owe the money then all would happen is that 1 CCJ would be swapped for another - in other words your set aside would fail.

Have you already applied for Set Aside? If not then again it could be seen that you have delayed the matter since becoming aware. The most important application is for a Stay of Execution against the HCEO which if granted could halt all further enforcement action & charges, however you do need grounds to do this and unless you have already applied for Set Aside or a Variation Order then you cannot use these - just because you disagree with the amount being claimed is also not grounds for applying.

On what principles are you planning to go for Set Aside or a Stay? I would strongly suggest that instead of talking on here about you take some action as there is a distinct possibilty your vehicle may already have been sold.