Does anybody know if this is correct ?

[Mickhen]

Bailiffs can only enforce payment of a debt at the address shown on the warrant or writ: Huntress Search Limited (Claimant) v Canapeum Limited (Defendant) and DSI Foods Limited (Interpleader Claimant) [2010] EWHC 1270

[Guest]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

Irrelevant.

Bailiffs ceased to exist in April of this year. Most, if not all case law prior to that is worthless now as well as it refers to "bailiffs"

Enforcement agents do have limitations to where they may enforce. Park your car on a neighbours drive for example and the car becomes untouchable as it is on private land (except if the EA applies for a court order to enter the private land) Park your car on the road and it is fair game for the EA.

[bizzybob]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

Irrelevant.

Bailiffs ceased to exist in April of this year. Most, if not all case law prior to that is worthless now as well as it refers to "bailiffs"

Enforcement agents do have limitations to where they may enforce. Park your car on a neighbours drive for example and the car becomes untouchable as it is on private land (except if the EA applies for a court order to enter the private land) Park your car on the road and it is fair game for the EA.

Depends what legal school you subscribe to. A court can still consider and apply the precedent from a case, even one not directly associated, whatever the term used, so it could be referred to in Judgment or Obiter by the judge in a case that turns on similar circumstances to Huntress Foods, whether it is a EA, acting like an old HCEO, or bailiff. This may be the case when an interpleader goes in for what was bailiff enforcement of say a PCN and JBW, Whyte & Co or say Collecticrap use ANPR to sieze a third party car from a new owner in the street, for a previous owners PCN from 18 months back.

[Mickhen]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

[QUOTE=The Starving Taxpayer;465116]Irrelevant.

Bailiffs ceased to exist in April of this year. Most, if not all case law prior to that is worthless now as well as it refers to "bailiffs"

Enforcement agents do have limitations to where they may enforce. Park your car on a neighbours drive for example and the car becomes untouchable as it is on private land (except if the EA applies for a court order to enter the private land) Park your car on the road and it is fair game for the EA.
The summons and writ served on me by the claimant were at an address I have never lived at but he assumed I lived there because I own the property.
I now have the EA at my Home demanding full payment, and as I don't have it in full he is suggesting he will be back to take my car, that I now park a couple of streets away in case he returns.
As I understand it my driveway is private land, can I then park my car on it and it Will be untouchable ? If this is correct would I be notified if the EA acquired a court order to enter the land. I am currently waiting for the writ to be set aside ( 3 weeks now) but the EA doesn't want to know about it and is being very tenacious.

[des8]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

oops

[des8]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

oops

[des8]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

Schedule 12, part 2 of the act would seem to suggest he can only enforce on the address on the writ:
9An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are—

(a)

on premises that he has power to enter under this Schedule, or

(b)

on a highway.
However Para 14 of this schedule appears to give authority to enter wherever

[doubleslap2]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

The 'private land' clause only applies to land that is not yours. They can't clamp you at a private car park, an employers private land, a neighbours private etc. They can clamp you on your own drive.

[bizzybob]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

The 'private land' clause only applies to land that is not yours. They can't clamp you at a private car park, an employers private land, a neighbours private etc. They can clamp you on your own drive.

JBW or marstons would clamp anywhere even a shopping mall, it would seem.

[Milo]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

JBW or marstons would clamp anywhere even a shopping mall, it would seem.

I had not noticed this thread until today so please excuse the late reply.

A very 'profitable' business used to come from bailiffs "knowing" security staff at large shopping outlets (such as 'Bluewater' and others) and being allowed by security to 'trawl' the massive car parks with their ANPR equipped vehicles in the hope of detecting a vehicle that had been the subject of a parking contravention. There were even some bailiffs who relied solely upon the income from these 'shopping centre trawl' for their entire income. For the avoidance of doubt this awful practice is no longer permitted.
'
There continues to be debate over the 'definition' of 'highway' and I have made it known that I do disagree with the 'enforcement industries' own interpretation (CIVEA).

CIVEA's view is that there is actually NO definition of 'highway' and instead, one definition is that a 'highway is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass'.

I disagree.......

Views anyone ......

[bizzybob]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

I agree with Milo regarding private shopping centres and malls, especially where parking is supervised by a Parasitic Parking Contractor like Parking Eye, they are patently NOT a highway, further a Highway should be somewhere constructed for the passage of motor vehicles, and must be "Adopted" by the Local Authority.

[des8]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

Unfortunately the Highway Act doesn't define highway.
I always understood it to mean ANY route or path over which the public had right of access, this includes footpaths and bridleways.
A little while ago I recall an incident where a motorist was successfully prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt whilst driving in a Tesco car park. The argument that it was not a public road was not held to be good enough, as a supermarket is a public place the RTA applies.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Does anybody know if this is correct ?

'Normal' roads are legally defined as 'classified roads', ie A1, M6, B1165 whatever - roads with markings.

A Highway is as des8 describes - a right of way for any person, animal driven or wheeled vehicle. A supermarket car-park is indeed a highway. An extended drive up to a private property or doing donuts in your grandads cornfield is not on a highway.