Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[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

"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

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

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.

[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.

[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

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I think that worst possible scenario is the following:

Bailiff who abides by the rules finds out that the £45,000 BMW in the drive belongs to the debtor but is on finance. So he won't even bother mention it, but on the drive there is a trailer, with the BMW plate on it and on the trailer there is say a speedboat.

Duly the bailiff levys on said trailer and speedboat unknown to him that such craft actually belongs to BMW owner best mate.

Now best mate needs to find the odd few thousands of pounds for the interpleader.

That sucks!

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

There must me some Criminal laws stopping Anyone even Bailiff taking third party property suprised a Barrister has not challenged this these new laws for Bailiffs surely cannot override existing laws .
This whole set of rules cannot be allowed to come into force it can only end in Court either a challenge to the law or at worse seeing someone charged with serious assault against a Bailiff I could agree with someone smacking a Bailiff for taking their stuff but could never condone someone seriously injuring any person or at worst and by no means impossible killing one people have killed for pennies in the past the 45 k BMW scenario is not so different.
As much as I despise Bailiffs I would not want anyone to suffer severe injury in their job but they like all others have to behave in a decent way

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I think that worst possible scenario is the following:

Bailiff who abides by the rules finds out that the £45,000 BMW in the drive belongs to the debtor but is on finance. So he won't even bother mention it, but on the drive there is a trailer, with the BMW plate on it and on the trailer there is say a speedboat.

Duly the bailiff levys on said trailer and speedboat unknown to him that such craft actually belongs to BMW owner best mate.

Now best mate needs to find the odd few thousands of pounds for the interpleader.

That sucks!

That scenario Sir Vere is all too likely to happen.

with regard to your comment Wales;

"There must me some Criminal laws stopping Anyone even Bailiff taking third party property suprised a Barrister has not challenged this these new laws for Bailiffs surely cannot override existing laws ."


The new regulations "Repeal and Replace" the old rulesso the interpleader is codified into law as the de facto method of deciding disputed ownership, so a bullish bailiff even with evidence of ownership may chance their arm and demand interpleader. It is stated in the regs somewhere that if evidence is provided etc etc, but we nall know that at least at first there will be a hell of a lot of interpleaders until things settle down or it is realised that the whole thing is unworkable and the law is changed

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Well f me where is this country going to Workhouse next Stocks in town squares public flogging have to wonder if the lunatics having no asylums left are running the country

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Well f me where is this country going to Workhouse next Stocks in town squares public flogging have to wonder if the lunatics having no asylums left are running the country

Think Monty Python, and taking the bra off the debutante, the upper class twit of the year competition Wales. As to Workhouse, expect IDS to get "Hostels with workshops" built to house all those 18 - 35s unemployed who can only get housing benefit for single room. They will have a room possibly a shared dormitory segregated by gender, and "Work Experience" in assembly of electronic goods. That way IDS can compete with Foxconn to get the contract for the manufacture of the I-Phone 8, Arbrecht Frei. Am I bitter and twisted? You Bet!

[bluebottle]

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.

I feel your understanding that there will be legal challenges to the new regulations, Milo, is fairly accurate. I, too, have no doubt there will be legal challenges. The question is the form these legal challenges are likely to take. If it is under human rights legislation, that is when the civil enforcement industry really does need to be worried. As you will know, I wrote a number of posts as part of a thread you started on CAG recently, dealing with the new regulations and expressed that the civil enforcement industry is hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and in danger of plunging into an abyss of no return. I will now, on this thread, reiterate that statement. The civil enforcement has had more than ample time to get its house in order and to rid itself of the rogue element that gives it its Rent-A-Thug image and reputation. If the industry thinks it will be able to ramp up pressure on debtors by ringing them on a Sunday, using the questionable tactics that are all too familiar on threads on both Legal Beagles and CAG, it is deluding itself. There are provisions under the Criminal Law to deal with this sort of behaviour.

Up to now, the police have regarded bailiff incidents as civil matters. Recently, 11 officers from Northumbria Police were reprimanded for unlawfully restraining a debtor, thus allowing a bailiff to enter their home and rifle through their belongings. A reprimand may not seem much in the way of disciplinary action against the 11 officers, but those Beagles who have been police officers, like myself, will know it is far from being a mere "slap on the wrist". It can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect an officer's career. Northumbria Police has, to its credit, commenced training its officers in what bailiffs can and cannot do. However, having spoken to serving officers, I have detected increasing frustration amongst them that they are being told to treat bailiff incidents as civil matters or are inadequately-trained to the extent they are unwittingly aiding and abetting certificated bailiffs to commit unlawful and/or illegal or potentially illegal acts. The police is like an extended family - I found that when my father was killed in a road accident in 1987 - and they look after their own. I have a gut-feeling it will only be a matter of time before police officers realise they are being taken for fools by the civil enforcement industry and will exact retribution. And when that happens, the industry will then have no right or cause to complain. What goes around comes around.

[Milo]

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

Also, bailiffs will be permitted to call on Christmas Day and New Years Day.

New Years Day will likely be the more popular day in which to visit given that the vast majority of people in employment will have just received their December salary into their accounts. Crucially, visiting on the first few days of January has always been important time for bailiffs as they would want to get their debt paid before the debtor's credit card bill (for his xmas shopping) is due.

The legal 'challenges' will likely be on 'religious' grounds.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Also, bailiffs will be permitted to call on Christmas Day and New Years Day.

New Years Day will likely be the more popular day in which to visit given that the vast majority of people in employment will have just received their December salary into their accounts. Crucially, visiting on the first few days of January has always been important time for bailiffs as they would want to get their debt paid before the debtor's credit card bill (for his xmas shopping) is due.

The legal 'challenges' will likely be on 'religious' grounds.

Agree regarding the holidays they will choose to call on, I highlighted Easter as Good Friday, and Easter Sunday are the first "special Christian" holidays after the new rules come in, so as Good Friday is a normal working day for many already whilst Easter Sunday is more like Christmas Day, the bailiffs will probably call on debtors on both these days to test the water imho. Bluebottle could well be correct that these new Regulations could fall fould of Human Rights as there are several incompatibilities with both the Articles of the ECHR, and the HRA within them. If we take the religious ground as legitimate, it would restrict bailiff activity to effectively Monday to Thursday, as unless they know the debtors religion, they could come unstuck with a Muslim on Friday, a Jewish debtor on Saturday, and Christian on Sunday, then factor in Ramadan, Eid, Hindu Festivals etc, and that is an absolute minefield.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I think that worst possible scenario is the following:

Bailiff who abides by the rules finds out that the £45,000 BMW in the drive belongs to the debtor but is on finance. So he won't even bother mention it, but on the drive there is a trailer, with the BMW plate on it and on the trailer there is say a speedboat.

Duly the bailiff levys on said trailer and speedboat unknown to him that such craft actually belongs to BMW owner best mate.

Now best mate needs to find the odd few thousands of pounds for the interpleader.

That sucks!

I feel there will be one or two instances of what you illustrate in your post, Sir Vere. However, I also feel it will be down to whether the bailiff has lawful authority to seize the BMW owner's best mate's boat in the first place. That, I feel, is going to be the deciding factor. If a bailiff, civil enforcement company or creditor think they can hide behind the interpleader in such circumstances, they really do need to wake up and smell the coffee.

What I can see happening is the rogue element within the civil enforcement industry causing mayhem.

If we take your scenario and replace the bailiff who abides by the rules with a rogue bailiff who gets caught trying to purloin the BMW owner's best mate's boat, is shown proof of ownership and refuses to remove his grubby mitts from the boat and lies through his teeth he can take it, whatever, resulting in the BMW owner protecting his best mate's prized possession, which he is entitled to do, by drop-kicking the bailiff into next-door's front garden. The rogue bailiff then goes bleating to the police he has been assaulted in the lawful execution of his duty. An inadequately-trained plod nicks the BMW owner and CPS decide to run with a prosecution. The BMW owner goes to court and his legal representative puts pressure on the rogue bailiff under cross-examination and it comes out that the bailiff had no lawful authority to even attempt to seize the boat. Not only are the police and CPS going to end up looking and feeling pretty stupid, the bailiff is going to get it in the neck for wasting public money and resources and stands to be sued by the BMW owner for wrongful arrest, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution and defamation of character and reputation. A person has a right to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to lawfully protect their possessions or any possessions entrusted to them. Bailiffs and the civil enforcement industry need to bear that in mind.