Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

summing up in 3 words LEGAL MORAL MINEFIELD

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

summing up in 3 words LEGAL MORAL MINEFIELD

Absolutely so Wales, and it has the potential to completely undermine respect and belief in the fairness of the Rule of Law, as the lawmakers have effectively in the mind of many legalised theft and extortion.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Absolutely so Wales, and it has the potential to completely undermine respect and belief in the fairness of the Rule of Law, as the lawmakers have completely lost the plot.

I fixed your post for you.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

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.

HMRC has in place a code of conduct that requires their staff to respect various religious festivals, and yes, it is a minefield.

I also believe that some of the more "reputable" Enforcement Agencies have the same in place, but do note, it is a "code of conduct" not a legally binding rule.

Big difference between HMRC enforcers and HMCTS enforcers is that the dreaded "taxman", if a member of staff of HMRC, does not have to be certificated and can knock a door 24/7, although most officers, me included, won't work on a Sunday and never bother anybody (unless it's a "special" case) before 7am

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

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.

The big issue, as far as I am concerned, is that it takes the "seize to ascertain" issue to a higher level.

A car history can easily be found by doing a simple HPI/DVLA check, anything else is very difficult.

Just think, how many people, when they buy a high ticket item, demand an invoice or a receipt with their name and address on it?

Last time that I was in Currys and bought a surprisingly expensive TV (wife's choice) just got a till receipt.

Assuming that I lent that TV to a friend and a bailiff lawfully enforced a warrant and seized my telly I would be up the creek without a paddle, and my friend would not be my friend no more unless he replaced it, so he (the friend) would be twice the loser!

The new rules must be changed bythe idiots who invented them because they are going to cause so many problems to everybody involved, and even if the Enforcement Industry cleaned up their act overnight they would still be branded as gangsters.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Good points in both posts Sir Vere, so I take it the bailiff would refuse to take the retained till receipt, and maybe a transaction ID from a bank statement? I forsee an issue for people who work in a field environment locally away from the office with a "work" provided laptop and/or I-Pad then Bailiff seizes them, and peels the company asset label off, proof out the window, unhappy employer, debtor signing on for JSA when the company loses the interpleader. even if they win, bailiff company, or auction house has vaped the hard drive losing company data as they want to comply with data protection. Companies buy devicers in bulk with a range of serial numbers but in the previous scenario if the bailiff did peel off or remove the asset label it will need a search of the asset register to find the serial number for the machine to claim ownership.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The big issue, as far as I am concerned, is that it takes the "seize to ascertain" issue to a higher level.

A car history can easily be found by doing a simple HPI/DVLA check, anything else is very difficult.

Just think, how many people, when they buy a high ticket item, demand an invoice or a receipt with their name and address on it?

Last time that I was in Currys and bought a surprisingly expensive TV (wife's choice) just got a till receipt.

Assuming that I lent that TV to a friend and a bailiff lawfully enforced a warrant and seized my telly I would be up the creek without a paddle, and my friend would not be my friend no more unless he replaced it, so he (the friend) would be twice the loser!

The new rules must be changed by the idiots who invented them because they are going to cause so many problems to everybody involved, and even if the Enforcement Industry cleaned up their act overnight they would still be branded as gangsters.

The idiots who drafted the new regulations must have been inhaling or sniffing something when they drew them up. They have completely ignored the following Articles under the European Convention on Human Rights -

a. Article 6 (Right to a Fair Hearing);
b. Article 17 (Prohibition of Destruction of Convention Rights);
c. Article 18 (Prohibition of Restriction of Convention Rights);
d. Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Possessions).

The new regulations are almost certainly incompatible with b. and c.. Seizure of someone's possessions without lawful authority is a clear breach of d.. The Interpleader almost certainly breaches a. and, possibly, d. also. Where a public authority (including a civil enforcement company acting on behalf of a public authority and a bailiff acting for a public authority) performs any act which is incompatible with a person's Convention rights, the act is unlawful by virtue of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

I have said this previously and I make no apologies for repeating myself; it will, I suspect, only take a small number of challenges to the new regulations under human rights law to bring into question the lawfulness of every seizure made under civil enforcement since 1953, the European Convention on Human Rights being signed in Rome (hence its other name of the Rome Convention) in 1953. The knock-on effect of this would most likely spell the end of smaller civil enforcement companies, e.g. Jacobs, and larger companies, e.g. Marston Group, could face financially-crippling claims for compensation or restoration costs. For individual bailiffs, most of whom I understand are self-employed, it would spell almost certain financial ruin and personal bankruptcy.

The civil enforcement industry is, I suspect, congratulating itself on the new regulations. However, I suspect this is likely to be short-lived, especially if the industry fails to acknowledge and ensure its actions are compliant with human rights law. It is no good the industry claiming that Parliament has allowed them to do what it appears to let them do when human rights law, which is a cornerstone of International Law and supersedes a country's domestic law to the extent that a country's domestic laws must be compatible with it, says otherwise.

I have previously used the analogy of the civil enforcement industry hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and plunging over the edge and into an abyss of no return. If the new regulations are not changed so they are compliant with human rights law and the civil enforcement industry does not ensure its actions are compliant also, the analogy I have cited may come sooner rather than later.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I feel that Human Rights challenge will be a weapon of choice come April 6th, even some are poo pooing its effect at the moment.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I feel that Human Rights challenge will be a weapon of choice come April 6th, even some are poo pooing its effect at the moment.

Good Morning, BB. You may well have hit the nail on the head in what you say. As for those who are currently poo-pooing the effect of human rights law at the moment, I feel they may be poo-pooing themselves in a different way when a human rights judgement goes in favour of an individual and the civil enforcement industry finds itself plunging into the abyss of financial ruin. And it won't just affect the civil enforcement industry. Local councils, HMCTS and commercial entities acting for public authorities involved could find themselves having to make up any shortfall in compensation the civil enforcement industry is unable to meet. That isn't a car crash; it's a major train crash.

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If the laypeople on here can see all the legal loopholes and pitfalls in this legislation what on earth are the top legal brains in the country going to find ,will we see all these Bailiff companies in the high court?
From what I understand they are trying to change Victorian rules and laws into a big mess of laws that are put together by a Lawmaking Government intent on stirring up trouble .

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If the laypeople on here can see all the legal loopholes and pitfalls in this legislation what on earth are the top legal brains in the country going to find ,will we see all these Bailiff companies in the high court?
From what I understand they are trying to change Victorian rules and laws into a big mess of laws that are put together by a Lawmaking Government intent on stirring up trouble .

They are dabbling without considering what makes good law, they are failing to consider sod's law, and the law of unintended consequences, therefore making things worse.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If the laypeople on here can see all the legal loopholes and pitfalls in this legislation what on earth are the top legal brains in the country going to find ,will we see all these Bailiff companies in the high court?
From what I understand they are trying to change Victorian rules and laws into a big mess of laws that are put together by a Lawmaking Government intent on stirring up trouble .

You've certainly hit the nail on the head as regards a government intent on stirring up trouble, Wales. As regards seeing bailiff companies end up in front of the High Court, I have a feeling it is more likely to be a local authority or government agency or department which uses private-sector bailiff companies that gets hauled in front of the High Court and the judgement goes against them. However, most, if not all, local authorities and government agencies and departments have clauses in contracts which require contractors to indemnify the taxpayer against liabilities for the contractors' wrongdoings.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Good points in both posts Sir Vere, so I take it the bailiff would refuse to take the retained till receipt, and maybe a transaction ID from a bank statement? I forsee an issue for people who work in a field environment locally away from the office with a "work" provided laptop and/or I-Pad then Bailiff seizes them, and peels the company asset label off, proof out the window, unhappy employer, debtor signing on for JSA when the company loses the interpleader. even if they win, bailiff company, or auction house has vaped the hard drive losing company data as they want to comply with data protection. Companies buy devicers in bulk with a range of serial numbers but in the previous scenario if the bailiff did peel off or remove the asset label it will need a search of the asset register to find the serial number for the machine to claim ownership.

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.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The idiots who drafted the new regulations must have been inhaling or sniffing something when they drew them up. They have completely ignored the following Articles under the European Convention on Human Rights -Absolutely, but how many un-civil servants can think outsid the box?


The civil enforcement industry is, I suspect, congratulating itself on the new regulations. However, I suspect this is likely to be short-lived, especially if the industry fails to acknowledge and ensure its actions are compliant with human rights law. It is no good the industry claiming that Parliament has allowed them to do what it appears to let them do when human rights law, which is a cornerstone of International Law and supersedes a country's domestic law to the extent that a country's domestic laws must be compatible with it, says otherwise.-Actually it is not correct, the first to question the new regulations were some of the more reputable HCEO firms

@@@@@@@@@

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

You've certainly hit the nail on the head as regards a government intent on stirring up trouble, Wales. As regards seeing bailiff companies end up in front of the High Court, I have a feeling it is more likely to be a local authority or government agency or department which uses private-sector bailiff companies that gets hauled in front of the High Court and the judgement goes against them. However, most, if not all, local authorities and government agencies and departments have clauses in contracts which require contractors to indemnify the taxpayer against liabilities for the contractors' wrongdoings.

That is correct, if the contractors do wrong they should be liable for any losses.

But if the contractors are duly following the Client instructions then it's the Client who should be liable.

Let me give you a simple comparison:

ACME Builders Ltd have been employed to build a stadium, they buy the concrete from EMCA Aggregates.

The Architect has specified on the drawings that the concrete mixture should be 50% clean sand, 25% clean gravel and 25% cement, but ACME (to save money) places orders for 80% As-raised and 20% cement.

At the opening cerimony the stadium collapses injuring 100s, would you take the cement company responsible?