Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[daisychain]

i was visited by a hceo on behalf of marstons on the 14/2/14. as i was rushing around trying to take my son to school, she said to me " you better talk fast then". at the time i didnt know the implecations of letting her into my home etc. she asked what goods i had on the doorstep and after she said i have to come in to verify these goods. i am kicking myself now as ive read through info. the problems i have are:
knowing i was classed as a vunrable household she still proceeded her duty making a levy etc
the levy is very vauge- tv, 2 sofas, tv stand, artwork, small tv- my childs. clock, wd unit, printer and at the top of the levy above this list shes just put all goods of saleable value. she didnt walk around my home, no obvious description of items etc.
the officers fees are crazy- 453.00 and shes only visited once! thats not inc all the other costs. my debt was 989 and now its 1,700. please advise im really losing sleep over this

[CPR88]

Never let them in

[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.

[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

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

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

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?

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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

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.