Bailifs have taken my vehicle breaching RSC ORDER 7 2003

[CleverClogs]

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

As to the OP's van, was it registered in his own personal name or the name of a company? If the latter, the OP is stuffed. Even a bailiff can seize a company's goods without too much problem as it is not exempt from seizure.

If the debt was incurred in the name of Agadoo Properties Limited and the van was registered to (and owned by) Mr Agadoo himself, then the bailiff would have seized something that did not belong to the debtor. This would also be true if the debt had been incurred by Mr Agadoo and the vehicle had been the property of his company.

There is something else about this case that looks a bit odd. The council knows that the person or company who incurred the bill owns property in the UK, so why did they get bailiffs in, some four years after they obtained judgement in their favour?

Why didn't the council just secure the debt by means of a charging order?

[bizzybob]

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

If the debt was incurred in the name of Agadoo Properties Limited and the van was registered to (and owned by) Mr Agadoo himself, then the bailiff would have seized something that did not belong to the debtor. This would also be true if the debt had been incurred by Mr Agadoo and the vehicle had been the property of his company.

There is something else about this case that looks a bit odd. The council knows that the person or company who incurred the bill owns property in the UK, so why did they get bailiffs in, some four years after they obtained judgement in their favour?

Why didn't the council just secure the debt by means of a charging order?

Because as they are the council they think they are above the law, God, Allah, Jehova, Vishnu Zeus et al and have a vendetta against OP perhaps.

[bluebottle]

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

Bluebottle I saw a HCEO letter somewhere on a forum where although they had not spoken or even seen the debtor, or gained entry to an electronically gated domestic premises left a letter stating that all goods and chattels on the premises were now in the custody of the court, might have been the Sheriffs Office, or possibly Sherfarts.

Then I, for one, would doubt the veracity of an HCEO's statement and legality of their actions, in such circumstances.

I would have also thought it would not stand, but a HCEO is always eager to seek protection when they foul up. About time a HCEO is taken to the cleaners when they do the next Bridlington Chippy type mess.

Why do you think the Masters at the High Court refuse protection more than they grant it? Unless a High Court Master is either totally senile or stupid, they are going to weigh the circumstances of why an HCEO is seeking protection and if it is clear the HCEO has been a numpty, they are going to refuse. A High Court Master would have to satisfy themselves an HCEO had exercised all due and reasonable care and skill and not exposed the High Court to litigation or brought the High Court into disrepute as a result of their actions.

As to the scenario you describe, BB, the HCEO would have to be able to positively-identify all goods they have claimed to have levied upon and seized. If they cannot, they are stuffed.

In Op's case it looks like time is not on their side.

No. And I am of the opinion that, as said previously, the OP has to pay for work that had to be carried out in an emergency and which they did not carry out when asked to do so under a statutory notice. The OP has to realise that local authorities do not undertake emergency work lightly and it is done for a reason. I did see a comment, previously, about it looking as if the OP was attempting to avoid payment. Whether the OP likes it or not, they have to pay for the work. It is no good them hoping it goes away. It will not.

@@@@

[ploddertom]

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

Bluebottle I saw a HCEO letter somewhere on a forum where although they had not spoken or even seen the debtor, or gained entry to an electronically gated domestic premises left a letter stating that all goods and chattels on the premises were now in the custody of the court, might have been the Sheriffs Office, or possibly Sherfarts.

That is how the Form 55 is phrased, technically nothing wrong with that but it does scare a lot into agreeing a payment plan or paying up in full. However to seize anything they still need to gain access and carry out a diligent search for goods which may be seized/removed/sold.

[ploddertom]

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

So when a HCEO does a global levy sight unseen as in I have taken possession of all goods on the premises etc etc, is OK for HCEO, but a global levy done similarly by a bailiff is not?

Global leveies are not valid and should be challenged.

[bizzybob]

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

Global leveies are not valid and should be challenged.

So the wording on the Form 55 is a load of hot air and bluff UNLESS he gains entry and lists stuff, like a common bailiff must..

[ploddertom]

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

So the wording on the Form 55 is a load of hot air and bluff UNLESS he gains entry and lists stuff, like a common bailiff must..

Most certainly.

The scenario is that the debtor faced with a HCEO and the "frightening" paperwork of the Form 55 alongside the fact it is now High Court does a double sphincter muscle movement and bows down to what is said and in most cases gives in. For residential properties he must gain peaceful entry.

For business debts the procedure is slightly different in that most business premises are open to the public so the HCEO can just swan in and has the right to force entry if the door is locked - even on his first visit.

[bluebottle]

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

Most certainly.

The scenario is that the debtor faced with a HCEO and the "frightening" paperwork of the Form 55 alongside the fact it is now High Court does a double sphincter muscle movement and bows down to what is said and in most cases gives in. For residential properties he must gain peaceful entry.

For business debts the procedure is slightly different in that most business premises are open to the public so the HCEO can just swan in and has the right to force entry if the door is locked - even on his first visit.

Have you noticed on "Here Come the Sheriffs" that the BBC doesn't seem to show instances where the HCEOs feck up and get their butts kicked off premises or mention the abuse of the High Court enforcement process, especially by certain water companies?

[bizzybob]

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

Have you noticed on "Here Come the Sheriffs" that the BBC don't seem to show instances where the HCEOs feck up and get their butts kicked off premises or mention the abuse of the High Court enforcement process, especially by certain water companies?

That bit is kept well hidden away, including any where CCA debt "accidentally" gets passed to the Sheriffs. HCEOs are hoping that they will be able to get their hands on lower value debts in the future, so the £17 LO could be inflated to £1700 or so.

[bluebottle]

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

That bit is kept well hidden away, including any where CCA debt "accidentally" gets passed to the Sheriffs. HCEOs are hoping that they will be able to get their hands on lower value debts in the future, so the £17 LO could be inflated to £1700 or so.

The illegal practice of Passing Off where CT is concerned is becoming common knowledge and the resulting violations of the HRA will become common knowledge too, as more people learn what is really going on. I am currently helping someone pursue a complaint with HMCTS against two JPs and an HMCTS employee who thought it was for them to ride roughshod over the person's rights by not examining evidence that showed a local authority had no grounds, in law, to be granted an LO.

If you look at a lot of County Court summonses issued by water companies, where a debt is below the minimum amount of £600, the solicitor's fees will vary, even though £70 is, I believe the "going rate". In one case, I saw a debt of £350 inflated to over £650 by adding £300 in solicitor's fees. When challenged with the water company in question and following a heated argument with one of their managers, the summons was withdrawn and customer allowed to set up a payment plan.

The water industry is, I regret, one of the worst offenders for inflating claims in order that HCEOs can chase a debtor and "punish" them financially. Some water companies are repeat offenders and have had claims struck-out by the courts, only for the water company concerned to resurrect the claim and have it struck-out yet again. And yet, not one water company has had their access to the justice system restricted. This is something that needs to be done and it is for water customers to put pressure on their MPs to bring about the necessary changes in the law to enable this to happen.

[bizzybob]

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

Southern water are notorious for the inflate the fees to send the HCEO scram BB

[bluebottle]

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

Southern water are notorious for the inflate the fees to send the HCEO scram BB

They are one of, if not, the worst offender for abusing the legal process, BB. If the politicians want to be taken seriously over reform of the civil enforcement industry, the minimum sum for High Court enforcement should be the mandatory £5,000 and not the optional £600. That would go some way to stopping a great deal of abuse of residential customers by water companies.

[bizzybob]

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

They are one of, if not, the worst offender for abusing the legal process, BB. If the politicians want to be taken seriously over reform of the civil enforcement industry, the minimum sum for High Court enforcement should be the mandatory £5,000 and not the optional £600. That would go some way to stopping a great deal of abuse of residential customers by water companies.

That wouldn't fit in with HCEO's who would like to be able pursue all levels of debt even NELCs famous £1 LOs

[bluebottle]

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

That wouldn't fit in with HCEO's who would like to be able pursue all levels of debt even NELCs famous £1 LOs

It is my understanding that there is insufficient work to keep at least 85% of HCEOs in gainful employment. There needs to be a figurative "cull" of HCEOs and their numbers thinned-out.

[bluebottle]

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

If the debt was incurred in the name of Agadoo Properties Limited and the van was registered to (and owned by) Mr Agadoo himself, then the bailiff would have seized something that did not belong to the debtor. This would also be true if the debt had been incurred by Mr Agadoo and the vehicle had been the property of his company.

Mr Agadoo needs to allude to us whose name is on the writ and CCJ.

There is something else about this case that looks a bit odd. The council knows that the person or company who incurred the bill owns property in the UK, so why did they get bailiffs in, some four years after they obtained judgement in their favour?

I agree, Cloggy. The local authority needs to explain that. It does beg the question as to whether the course of action they have taken is disproportionate.

Why didn't the council just secure the debt by means of a charging order?

Or use the court bailiffs. Someone at MCC has a lot of explaining to do.

Sorry I didn't respond to this post, Cloggy. Responses in red.