Desperate for help please!

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

To be perfectly honest, in my opinion what you have already done should have done the trick, but clearly it hasn't.

I've not dealt with this position before, so I'm treading new ground with you. What I'm relying on is what the law says you should do. As you'll see from the link, if you follow that the EA's have to notify the creditor (the Council) and it is all very formal. I suspect a court would expect you to have completed this stage first.

It looks straightforward on paper so if I were you I would follow this procedure, but as I've stated, this is new ground for me under the new regulations, so I can only help you 'theoretically' by reading what should be done and suggesting you do it. There may be others with more experience on here who can suggest other routes.

There's a good discussion about this here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post4526358

Thank-you very much Wombats for your help. I have now emailed Gareth Hughes and told him how fed up I am and how unfair this is, I'm hoping that someone at Marstons has a bit of human decency. I will of course try the route that you have provided thank-you again.

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Sorry to sound thick but who is the OP ? Yes the car is expensive it's my pride and joy and the horrid bailiff knew this.

[MissFM]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Sorry to sound thick but who is the OP ? Yes the car is expensive it's my pride and joy and the horrid bailiff knew this.

OP = Original Poster, which in this case is you x

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Dur ..............Thank-you x

[wales01man]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Whatever the Legal position is here it seems the Bailiff knows the Car is Yours and the debt id your husbands makes sense to expect them to thjink (Classic Car pride and joy ) clamp it they will pay up!
The interpleader route although probably not tested may be the only way to end this or for the Debtor to pay up .We can all see this from the side of the OP but the Bailiff is after their money and believes their actions are correct the next stage may be an interpleader case and no doubt this will cost all sides the OP has not the financial resources that the Bailiff company has and if they lose will no doubt be hit with a Huge bill?
Maybe time to pay and then explore ways of getting some of the money back

Sorry if this sounds negative but sometimes paying might be the answer

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Wales, I feel safer following the CPR's as they are clearly geared towards this procedure. I am trying to get a real expert to look in on this to see if they can possibly do anything further.

[wales01man]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Lets hope there is something that can be done I wonder if this will be a test of the new rules and sorry to say the OP is the test case We all want the clamp removed and some compo paid to OP .
Will wait with interest for the outcome

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

You may be right sadly. I have emailed someone to ask if they can find time to look in, but obviously can't guarantee they will. Meanwhile I guess we plough on and see if 'the system' works.

[bizzybob]

Re: Desperate for help please!

You may be right sadly. I have emailed someone to ask if they can find time to look in, but obviously can't guarantee they will. Meanwhile I guess we plough on and see if 'the system' works.

We shouldn't hold our breath, as interpleader can bounce back on the EA if the evidence provided satisfies and is considered reasonable proof, such that the EA intransigence forcing the interpleader was unreasonable in all the circumstances.

Interpleader is for the non straightforward cases imho.

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Interpleaders are common in High Court Enforcement, but I agree, they should very rarely be necessary in cases like this, if ever. The inaction of the enforcement company beggars belief.

[bizzybob]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Interpleaders are common in High Court Enforcement, but I agree, they should very rarely be necessary in cases like this, if ever. The inaction of the enforcement company beggars belief.

Problem is TCGA has put them in on Council Tax and magistrates fines as well. as High Court

[ploddertom]

Re: Desperate for help please!

My experience of Interpleader has been through the High Court so procedure may be slightly different. Upon receiving a 3rd party claim the Enforcement Co must pass details to the Creditor for them to admit or deny the claim. They have 7 days in which to deal with this and failure to do so means the goods must be admitted and released from control.

As far as time scales are concerned they may allow a slightly longer term but that can only be a matter of a few days. I can't see after this length of time an Interpleader can be considered.

[bizzybob]

Re: Desperate for help please!

In light of ploddertom's remarks about timescales for interpleader, it looks like it is council inertia and EA intransigence at work.

[bluebottle]

Re: Desperate for help please!

The interpleader would, IMHO, only be justified where an EA has seized goods in the absence of the third party and the belief by the EA that the goods seized belonged to the debtor was genuinely held and reasonable in the circumstances, the onus being on the EA. If not, then it would, IMHO, amount to Wrongful Interference with Goods and Unlawful Detention of Goods. Notwithstanding that the creditor, in the OP's case, is a public authority and Marstons are acting as its agent, Article 1 of the First Protocol of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies in that a public authority may not take away or interfere with a person's possessions except in exceptional circumstances. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to perform any act that is incompatible with a person's Convention rights.

The EA in the OP's case has, IMHO, acted unlawfully in that the "warrant" only allows them to seize goods belonging to the debtor. It does not allow them to seize third party goods and then make release conditional to the debtor paying up. Not only is that unlawful, it is, IMHO, illegal also.

The Council, in the OP's case, has adopted the ostrich position by claiming it is nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with them. They hired Marstons and it is Marstons who have an EA who should be given a claim pack for JSA. The Council needs to have the clamp removed immediately, otherwise, if this is pursued through the County Court, any damages and costs awarded to the OP will exceed the PCN, court fee and enforcement fees.

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

The interpleader would, IMHO, only be justified where an EA has seized goods in the absence of the third party and the belief by the EA that the goods seized belonged to the debtor was genuinely held and reasonable in the circumstances, the onus being on the EA. If not, then it would, IMHO, amount to Wrongful Interference with Goods and Unlawful Detention of Goods. Notwithstanding that the creditor, in the OP's case, is a public authority and Marstons are acting as its agent, Article 1 of the First Protocol of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies in that a public authority may not take away or interfere with a person's possessions except in exceptional circumstances. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to perform any act that is incompatible with a person's Convention rights.

The EA in the OP's case has, IMHO, acted unlawfully in that the "warrant" only allows them to seize goods belonging to the debtor. It does not allow them to seize third party goods and then make release conditional to the debtor paying up. Not only is that unlawful, it is, IMHO, illegal also.

The Council, in the OP's case, has adopted the ostrich position by claiming it is nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with them. They hired Marstons and it is Marstons who have an EA who should be given a claim pack for JSA. The Council needs to have the clamp removed immediately, otherwise, if this is pursued through the County Court, any damages and costs awarded to the OP will exceed the PCN, court fee and enforcement fees.

Sorry, this is a lengthy post and full of a lot of irrelevant content. If I'm right in picking out the relevant bits, are you advising the OP to take action through the County Court? If so, what would they be claiming under?

Also, what is the point of the process of working towards the interpleader which is specifically for this circumstance if one can (and should?) simply go through the County Court?

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm on new ground here so it is a learning experience for me, but I have contacted four other members whose posts I respect hugely and the notion of a CC claim has not been mentioned previously - I appreciate it doesn't mean your course is not correct, but it would be interesting to hear your experiences of these if you have any? I have experience of neither route I'm afraid.