Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

[dementedfeline]

Dear bluebottle/Sir Vere

bluebottle recently commented on louisejane's thread about the Form 7 left by Rossendales:

The form the bailiff has written on is not a valid Form 7 as it is non-compliant with the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.

Can I ask HOW is non-compliant? I've found an example at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/made - does it have to be exactly like this?

Asking because this is same form allegedly left with a friend.

Many thanks

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

The actual form is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...heading/7/made

There is also the correct form for a walking possession agreement, at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...heading/8/made

Whilst the typography may differ, the data presented on the forms should not.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

Hmmm. So the example form that louisejane showed us is a hybrid Form 7/8? What's the legal position on that then?
Ta

[bizzybob]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

It is firked and useless due to the goods being improperly described imho

[dementedfeline]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

bizzybob - I'm leaving the goods description out of it at the mo (correctly described in the case I'm dealing with) and concentrating on the actual form itself.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

Can you see any details of the directors of that company, as required by law?

I can't.

Nor does it indicate where his Certificate was granted.

[dementedfeline]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

CC, I can see that it makes reference to an "instruction sheet" - would it be legal if the info was on there? Believe me, I'm not trying to argue the bailiff side, just playing devil's advocate.
DF

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

I do not know, but I would be inclined to doubt it.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

It is firked

Do you mean it was a fück up? :rofl:

[bluebottle]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

Hi DF,

If you look at the Form 7 prescribed under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 for which Clever Clogs has kindly provided a link, the wording shown is mandatory, meaning the wording must, by law, appear on a civil enforcement company's version of a Form 7. If it doesn't, then the civil enforcement company and their bailiffs will have problems and may find it difficult to prove they have a valid and lawful levy, Walking Possession or seizure. Also, as Clever Clogs has pointed out, the information required under the Business Names Act 1985 - directors' names, company registration number, registered office address - is absent. After retiring from the police force, I ran a printing and publishing business for a while and had to know the requirements of the Business Names Act 1985 when designing and printing stationery for clients.

Your analysis that it is a "f**k up" is correct.

Bluebottle

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

If you look at the Form 7 prescribed under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 for which Clever Clogs has kindly provided a link, the wording shown is mandatory, meaning the wording must, by law, appear on a civil enforcement company's version of a Form 7. If it doesn't, then the civil enforcement company and their bailiffs will have problems and may find it difficult to prove they have a valid and lawful levy, Walking Possession or seizure. Also, as Clever Clogs has pointed out, the information required under the Business Names Act 1985 - directors' names, company registration number, registered office address - is absent. After retiring from the police force, I ran a printing and publishing business for a while and had to know the requirements of the Business Names Act 1985 when designing and printing stationery for clients.

The name of the business, its registration number, VAT number and address were printed at the foot of the form.

The names of the company directors are entirely missing.

[bizzybob]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

The name of the business, its registration number, VAT number and address were printed at the foot of the form.

The names of the company directors are entirely missing.

In which case Tossendales have been doing unlawful levies since they have used that form, so must owe many thousands, if not millions in dodgy fees that need refunding. Oops the council is jointly and severally liable for them also. Wonder if the Council Officers could be screwed under "Due Diligence" for not checking their appointed agents paperwork was compliant?

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

Just seen the thread.....

Form 7 must include all the items of information as per http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...heading/7/made the only thing that may be left out, mainly if the bailiff firm is a Ltd Company, are the names of the Directors, as they do tend to change more often than not.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

Form 7 must include all the items of information as per http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...heading/7/made the only thing that may be left out, mainly if the bailiff firm is a Ltd Company, are the names of the Directors, as they do tend to change more often than not.

Where is it stated that the names of the directors (or partners) may be omitted?

If the company or partnership holds a Consumer Credit Licence, shouldn't that also be given on the form?

[bluebottle]

Re: Question for bluebottle/Sir Vere re Form 7

In which case Tossendales have been doing unlawful levies since they have used that form, so must owe many thousands, if not millions in dodgy fees that need refunding. Oops the council is jointly and severally liable for them also. Wonder if the Council Officers could be screwed under "Due Diligence" for not checking their appointed agents paperwork was compliant?

Yes. Don't forget that local authorities and their contracted enforcement agents are also liable under the Human Rights Act 1998. Both the local authority and Rossendales may well be liable under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Act (Protection of Possessions). I do not feel the provisions incorporated in the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to afford legal protection to bailiffs against legal action for Irregular Distress would be effective if the test of compatibility under the HRA was applied under such circumstances as these. As Secretaries of State have found, introducing legislation which is incompatible with the HRA or allowing its enactment and enforcement to breach the Act also is not recommended as it will, almost certainly, come back and smack them in the face.

The local authority in the case the document in this thread refers to needs to get a grip on Rossendales and find out to what extent they have unlawfully levied/seized CT/PCN debtors' goods, using the document shown, and how much they have cost the CT payers in compensation, costs, damages, expenses, etc.. Once that figure is established, Rossendales should be made to either restore the goods or meet replacement costs in full, as well as indemnify the local authority against litigation costs. Then the local authority should terminate Rossendales' contract with immediate effect.