Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

All in all a complete pigs ear, and when the first Bailiff call is made on Good Friday and Easter Sunday the proverbial will hit the fan

[Milo]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

It is generally understood that within the first 6 months there will be a number of legal challenges as to the legality of sections of the new regulations. One 'legal challenge' that a lot of people will be watching with interest is the way in which from 6th April bailiffs may visit the debtors property on SUNDAYS and on BANK HOLIDAYS !!!

As I understand it, MOST (but not all) enforcement companies are saying that they will not be wanting to have their bailiffs calling at debtors homes on a Sunday. My personal opinion is that each company will be waiting for ANOTHER firm to be the first one to send bailiffs to enforce a warrant on a Sunday and depending on level of complaints to the local authorities/courts......they will follow suit.

From industry 'gossip' it would seem that bailiff companies may call debtors on the phone on Sundays as opposed to making personal visits.

PS: I will start a new thread about the new regs over the next few days.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If it is say Marstons for a HMCS, and the finance company miss the deadline for interpleader and a few cars are lost will HMCS admit liability and compensate the company? I reckon they will try to squirm out of it and say bailiff is liable and try to ignore their absolute liability for their agent, similarly a Crapita infested council and Equita.

A body corporate could not bring proceedings under human rights legislation. However, if a vehicle was seized and the bailiff did not have lawful authority to seize it, HMCTS, as creditor, would be ultimately liable, but the contracts Marstons/Excel/Collectica/Swift have with HMCTS state that contractors shall indemnify HMCTS against such liabilities where the contractor has cocked-up. So, it would be the civil enforcement company involved that would pick up the tab. However, there is nothing to prevent the civil enforcement company then claiming indemnity from the bailiff.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

That's one tripwire. Well spotted, BB. If a bailiff has no lawful authority to seize, say, a £45,000 BMW on finance, I can see the finance company turning round and suing the bailiff, civil enforcement company and creditor. If you've got a bailiff with a couldn't-care-less attitude, who goes round seizing any vehicle in sight, that could prove very expensive for a civil enforcement company and/or creditor and/or bailiff.

If it is say Marstons for a HMCS, and the finance company miss the deadline for interpleader and a few cars are lost will HMCS admit liability and compensate the company? I reckon they will try to squirm out of it and say bailiff is liable and try to ignore their absolute liability for their agent, similarly a Crapita infested council and Equita.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

"My feeling is that the interpleader provisions are more appropriate and applicable where bodies corporate are the third party as a body corporate does not enjoy protection under human rights law."

It will be the finance companies who will kick off with this when they find themselves paying for interpleaders for their cars that are seized.

That's one tripwire. Well spotted, BB. If a bailiff has no lawful authority to seize, say, a £45,000 BMW on finance, I can see the finance company turning round and suing the bailiff, civil enforcement company and creditor. If you've got a bailiff with a couldn't-care-less attitude, who goes round seizing any vehicle in sight, that could prove very expensive for a civil enforcement company and/or creditor and/or bailiff.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

"My feeling is that the interpleader provisions are more appropriate and applicable where bodies corporate are the third party as a body corporate does not enjoy protection under human rights law."

It will be the finance companies who will kick off with this when they find themselves paying for interpleaders for their cars that are seized.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Thank you BB.

The problem that we have at the moment is that the Ministry of Justice have failed everyone ( the public, local authorities, enforcement agents and the 'advice sector' by leaving the regulations until the VERY LAST MOMENT and the position today is that everyone is so damned confused and the delay in setting the regulations is dreadful. I am adamant that the regs should have been implemented in October and not 6th April.

What I do know is that the vast majority of debtors are going to be in a very serious financial position indeed and this is why I will constantly urge everyone to make sure that they try to avoid a debt going to a bailiff.

One aspect of indebtedness that cannot be emphasised enough is that debtors should contact creditors at the earliest possible opportunity and try and negotiate a manageable and affordable plan.

Notwithstanding, it is now known that the process by which Council Tax Liability Orders are obtained breaches human rights law and, consequently, brings into question the lawfulness of any attached enforcement action. Distress, as a method of debt collection, has a question mark hanging over it as far as human rights are concerned. Even the process by which unpaid local authority PCNs are enforced is open to question. The TEC at Northampton is little more than a star chamber and the appeals process is, quite frankly, a joke. If it were put to the test of compatibility with human rights articles and protocols I doubt it would even make the first hurdle. As for magistrates court fines where defendants know nothing of any court hearing until the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Swift or Excel appear on their doorsteps, that breaches not only Article 6 (Right to a Fair hearing) of the Rome Convention, but the process of distress, under such circumstances, breaches Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Possessions) of the same Convention.

Whether the civil enforcement industry wishes to acknowledge it or not, human rights law underpins every piece of legislation that has been enacted in the UK since the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in Rome in 1953 (hence its other name of the Rome Convention). Public authorities, commercial entities working for them and their employees are all subject to ensuring compliance with the Convention rights. It is unlawful for them to perform any act which is incompatible with Convention rights.

Milo has, quite rightly, voiced genuine and serious concerns about the new regulations and these are not without foundation, especially where the fees are concerned. Where I feel the new regulations are going to lead to the civil enforcement industry facing its nemesis is where third-party goods are concerned. A person has a right to use as much reasonable force as is necessary in the lawful defence of their possessions. Any bailiff who feels they can levy on and seize third-party goods without lawful authority, that is, a court has not adjudged the third-party to be liable for any debt and has given no power or instruction enforceable in law to anyone to take the third party's possessions, may well find themselves taking a beating or being forcibly restrained or removed by the third-party. If a bailiff were then foolish enough to spin a fairy story to the police they had been assaulted in the lawful execution of their duty and it came out in court that they were, in fact, acting without lawful authority, unless the case was being heard by idiots, the bailiff is going to be looking at answering some pretty awkward questions. So could the police and CPS. It is also pointless for a bailiff to try and fob off a third party to interpleader. Unless the bailiff can prove they have lawful authority to seize in the first place, the interpleader is little more than an unlawful charge and procedure. It is unlawful to take someone's possessions without lawful authority and then make them pay money to get them back.

What would happen if third parties pursued unlawful seizures under human rights law?

Creditors, the courts, civil enforcement companies and bailiffs would have to prove their actions were compatible with rights under the Rome Convention. Without proof of lawful authority, they would find it difficult to justify their actions.

What would be the consequences if a third party won their case under human rights law?

It needs to be understood that human rights law is International Law and supersedes domestic law. This means it has supremacy over a country's domestic laws to the extent that a country's domestic laws must be compatible with it. Given the behaviour of civil enforcement companies and individual bailiffs operating in England and Wales, a win for an aggrieved third party under human rights law would be earth-shattering. All civil enforcement action prior to the date of the judgement would be brought into question and where it was found to be incompatible with debtors and third parties' Convention rights, the financial consequences for the civil enforcement industry would be serious with smaller companies facing financial ruin and larger companies facing crippling compensation claims and legal bills. The consequences for individual bailiffs unfortunate enough to be hauled into court under human rights law would be catastrophic. If the insurers who back their bailiff bonds were not willing or able to meet any compensation claims or legal bills, responsibility for settling such claims would fall on the individual bailiffs.

When I first saw the Protection of Freedoms Act 2010, my heart sank when I saw the provisions relating to PPCs. My initial reaction was that Parliament had handed it to the private parking industry on a plate carte blanche to rip off the motorist. However, on looking at the relevant provisions in more detail, I realised that Parliament had, in fact, laid legal booby traps within the provisions, designed to catch out cocksure PPCs. Study threads where Mystery 1 has advised OPs and the legal booby traps relating to PPCs become clear

I agree with Milo 100% that the MoJ has caved in to the civil enforcement industry where fees are concerned, but I have a very strong gut-feeling the new legislation will provide some tripwires which, if individual bailiffs and civil enforcement companies are foolish enough to blunder into them, will give the industry a huge shock which has been coming to it for a long time.

My feeling is that the interpleader provisions are more appropriate and applicable where bodies corporate are the third party as a body corporate does not enjoy protection under human rights law.

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

WEll all the thugs and general hardmen I have known will stand by and do nothing don't think so

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I can honestly say if a Bailiff clamps my car for someones debt the clamp will be in a deep lake within the hour and suspect others when faced with any action against them for anothers debt will do the same.Time the Public Schoolboys trying to run the country realised there is a real world with real people and real problems

Problem is Wales the bailiffs will take the car rather than clamp it and even if the regulations say you can show proof the likes of JBW will say the council insists you apply for interpleader, so it is the court fee plus bailiff fee plus the value of the car you have to pay into the court, so you may have to find £5,000 or more to fight to keep YOUR car, many will not be able to so will lose the car for the third party debt, bailiff will say Observer v Gordon allows us to assume your car is the debtors as it is parked near their house, even if the new regulations stipulate the bailiff should check first.

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I can honestly say if a Bailiff clamps my car for someones debt the clamp will be in a deep lake within the hour and suspect others when faced with any action against them for anothers debt will do the same.Time the Public Schoolboys trying to run the country realised there is a real world with real people and real problems

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Thank you BB.

The problem that we have at the moment is that the Ministry of Justice have failed everyone ( the public, local authorities, enforcement agents and the 'advice sector' by leaving the regulations until the VERY LAST MOMENT and the position today is that everyone is so damned confused and the delay in setting the regulations is dreadful. I am adamant that the regs should have been implemented in October and not 6th April.

What I do know is that the vast majority of debtors are going to be in a very serious financial position indeed and this is why I will constantly urge everyone to make sure that they try to avoid a debt going to a bailiff.

As many will still be unable to pay and councils will be councils especially those with a complete Crapita infestation, it will likely be chaotic come May Day, and the courts may well be bogged down with interpleaders courtesy of JBW, those incorrigible clampers Jacobs, Crapqita and Ross 'n Robbers to name but a few.

[Milo]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Thank you BB.

The problem that we have at the moment is that the Ministry of Justice have failed everyone ( the public, local authorities, enforcement agents and the 'advice sector' by leaving the regulations until the VERY LAST MOMENT and the position today is that everyone is so damned confused and the delay in setting the regulations is dreadful. I am adamant that the regs should have been implemented in October and not 6th April.

What I do know is that the vast majority of debtors are going to be in a very serious financial position indeed and this is why I will constantly urge everyone to make sure that they try to avoid a debt going to a bailiff.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I would be quite happy to work with Milo on producing such a booklet, Amethyst. I have professional software installed on my laptop for producing the necessary files and over 20 years' experience in graphic design. The offer is on the table. If you want to take it up, send me a PM.

[Amethyst]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Milo isn't in the bailiff industry. She assists people on the receiving end of bailiff action gain help, redress and understand their rights.

The leaflet thing isn't a bad idea though, the new rules, although not being wonderful by any means, are at least set in stone and a 'your rights booklet' shouldn't be hard to produce.

[daisychain]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If Milo is in the Bailiff industry are they going to actively campaign for the removal of these rogue Bailiffs it bring the industry into disrepute bailiffs are supposed to know and abide by the rules the Daisychains of the world know little about these rules that's why they come online with their phones posting one line questions.

Is Milo going to produce a set of information leaflets for the Bailiffs to hand out at the first meeting or with the first letter sent to the debtors telling them of their rights and the Laws/rules the Bailiffs are governed by .

probably not as they earn there money screwing people like us over