Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If the bailiff interferes with any aspect of a controlled item is committing fraud, in the case of a "Company" laptop I would think that ACME Inc would have a purchase order for 1,000 laptops from serial number 0001 to 1,000.

A bailiff would not take a retained till receipt as proof of ownership because the defaulter could have given it to a third party and told them to claim ownership (call me cynical, but I've seen all sorts)

A transaction ID from a third party bank statement could be taken into account, yet, have you ever bought something of value and given it to someone else as a present? You would have the proof of purchase, but you relinquished ownership once you gifted the item .

Thank you Sir Vere, you have confirmed and highlighted the great big elephant in the room, the bailiff can and will ignore these proofs, and even if the payment was by card and has an electronic transaction ID they are going to take control of goods and sell them when the innocent third party who by the bailiffs refusal to acknowledge the proofs provided has been branded a liar for claiming their own goods. Not every third party transaction ID ad receipt will be involved in a gift, the presumption will almost always be the third party is a liar, and the items taken away. This will be problematic with cars bought from a private vendor with a scribbled receipt for cash. If bough via e Bay, there is better proof but next door still faces an odds on chance of losing their car for the third party debt.

As to the interpleader, if the third party can afford to pay the value of the goods and all bailiff fees into the court they could still lose the goods and the money they pay in to the court if it is found in favour of the bailiff. All in all very nasty and as BB indicates breaches the Convention.

One thing enforcers need to be mindful of, is if they do take away a third party car, and sell it as the unfortunate owner cannot afford interpleader, they cannot get to work and lose their job, or they have to buy another car on finance or whatever; if the innocent resorts to litigation against them and wins, they are liable for the cost of the goods and all consequential losses incurred as a result of the unlawful seizure, and these will be substantial as they could include loss of salary for the period of unemployment also. multiply that by X to the power of 5 and we will see a lot of wailing enforcers ending up in court as a result.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The main issue with the relationship between debtor and bailiff is that the bailiff will start with the assumption that the debtor was/is/will be economical with the truth.

Lest not forget, bailiffs do not go places that they have picked at random by throwing darts at a map, they are sent there by higher authorities who have being deceived by promises of payment, ignored demands and wilful evaders.

Although this forum deals with the heavy handed approach of too many Enforcement Agents/Officers, which is totally out of order, because everybody has the right to be dealt with courtesy and respect (that is why Prison Officers have been told to address all inmates by their last name preceded by Mr/Mrs/Miss) one must bear in mind that the Posters, in the majority of cases, have defaulted in payments to Courts/Local Authorities.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The main issue with the relationship between debtor and bailiff is that the bailiff will start with the assumption that the debtor was/is/will be economical with the truth.

Lest not forget, bailiffs do not go places that they have picked at random by throwing darts at a map, they are sent there by higher authorities who have being deceived by promises of payment, ignored demands and wilful evaders.

Although this forum deals with the heavy handed approach of too many Enforcement Agents/Officers, which is totally out of order, because everybody has the right to be dealt with courtesy and respect (that is why Prison Officers have been told to address all inmates by their last name preceded by Mr/Mrs/Miss) one must bear in mind that the Posters, in the majority of cases, have defaulted in payments to Courts/Local Authorities.

That is very true and all well and good UNTIL the bailiff involves an innocent third party by levying, and taking their car for another person's debt, in spite of provided evidence, as they regard everyone as a liar and the bailiff thinks he is Judge Dredd.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Then Judge Dredd needs to be put back in his place by spelling the law to them, take away their certificate and make them re-apply for the same.

The new regulations are designed to get rid of the thugs infesting the profession now.

[CPR88]

Never let them in