Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV26 mins ago
Can't Pay We'll Take It Away....clarification Please
62 Answers
Anyone understand the rules. Ok a son living with his dad is called on for a debt. The bailiff says he can take items from the house unless the Dad can prove it's his but how can you prove it? I mean I've got stuff I could probably produce receipts for but a lot of stuff I cannot. Surely the onus should be on them to demonstrate the debtor owns the item. Then they look at his van and the commentator says as long as it's not a company van they can take it but the company has not been asked to prove it's theirs so they can't have it both ways surely, why is that different from the chattels in the house? As it happens it was his van and they took it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I recall discussion with you before, PeelerPal. In particular I recall your confusion between “legislation” and “law”. I also recall your suggestion that legislation is only enforceable by consent (i.e. you have to agree before you can be prosecuted). I won’t argue too much because most of what you say is absolute drivel. Your “passion” for the law obviously does not extend to practical knowledge but is steeped in idealogical claptrap. However, since you are not so clued up as you’d like us to believe a few points of clarification may be helpful in relation to this question:
“…it is an unlawful warrant as a third party is not allowed to interlope during a civil dispute and the warrant will not be wet ink signed by a magistrate making it unlawful”
Magistrates do not issue warrants (“wet ink” signed or otherwise) for bailiffs to execute in civil proceedings. In fact Magistrates do not get involved in civil proceedings at all apart from family matters.
“…finally, PROPERTY is owned by claim and the owner of the property can simply make a lawful claim of right to that property and then it cannot be removed.”
Incorrect. Property is owned by title. A non-owner cannot simply “lay claim” to property to prevent its removal by bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers.
“…but they [sheriffs] cannot act against the human being as remove property (Halisbury Law)”
Incorrect (I’ll let you look it up)
Just a point of clarification about a remark made by jackdaw:
“Sorry, but speeding IS a crime and you can go to prison for it.”
Speeding is indeed a crime (and can be prosecuted with or without consent). But you cannot go to prison for it no matter how fast you go and how often you do it. Maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if on a motorway).
“High Court Enforcement Agents can force entry and don't have to be invited in.”
Only in commercial premises. They cannot force entry to residential property but may enter uninvited through an open or unlocked door.
Indeed many people don’t know the law. But PeelerPal needs to keep taking the tablets because some of his “advice” verges on the criminal.
“…it is an unlawful warrant as a third party is not allowed to interlope during a civil dispute and the warrant will not be wet ink signed by a magistrate making it unlawful”
Magistrates do not issue warrants (“wet ink” signed or otherwise) for bailiffs to execute in civil proceedings. In fact Magistrates do not get involved in civil proceedings at all apart from family matters.
“…finally, PROPERTY is owned by claim and the owner of the property can simply make a lawful claim of right to that property and then it cannot be removed.”
Incorrect. Property is owned by title. A non-owner cannot simply “lay claim” to property to prevent its removal by bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers.
“…but they [sheriffs] cannot act against the human being as remove property (Halisbury Law)”
Incorrect (I’ll let you look it up)
Just a point of clarification about a remark made by jackdaw:
“Sorry, but speeding IS a crime and you can go to prison for it.”
Speeding is indeed a crime (and can be prosecuted with or without consent). But you cannot go to prison for it no matter how fast you go and how often you do it. Maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if on a motorway).
“High Court Enforcement Agents can force entry and don't have to be invited in.”
Only in commercial premises. They cannot force entry to residential property but may enter uninvited through an open or unlocked door.
Indeed many people don’t know the law. But PeelerPal needs to keep taking the tablets because some of his “advice” verges on the criminal.
A HCEA can force entry to repossess residential property
Q: What happens if the occupants refuse to leave?
A: The writ commands the HCEO to return possession to the claimant and the HCEO is authorised to use reasonable force to gain entry and remove any person(s) who are refusing to leave. In practice the HCEO will normally call upon the Police to assist him in the physical removal of any person(s).
Q: What happens on the eviction day?
A: On the day of the eviction the enforcement agent will meet the claimant or his representative at or near to the property to discuss the process. The HCEO will then proceed to gain entry. The HCEO will arrange for a locksmith to attend in order to help gain possession (if necessary) and to change the locks. The HCEO will require any occupant(s) to leave, usually
allowing around an hour to collect essential items and will promptly display the relevant notices at the property before handing possession back to the claimant or his agent.
Q: What happens if the occupants refuse to leave?
A: The writ commands the HCEO to return possession to the claimant and the HCEO is authorised to use reasonable force to gain entry and remove any person(s) who are refusing to leave. In practice the HCEO will normally call upon the Police to assist him in the physical removal of any person(s).
Q: What happens on the eviction day?
A: On the day of the eviction the enforcement agent will meet the claimant or his representative at or near to the property to discuss the process. The HCEO will then proceed to gain entry. The HCEO will arrange for a locksmith to attend in order to help gain possession (if necessary) and to change the locks. The HCEO will require any occupant(s) to leave, usually
allowing around an hour to collect essential items and will promptly display the relevant notices at the property before handing possession back to the claimant or his agent.
"Peelerpal is a WUM. "
Yes very possibly Eddie (though I have sneaky suspicion he believes much of his nonsense). However, that's not the term I'd use. I'd call him a numpty but I try to refrain from abuse.
The problem is, as he correctly points out (one of the few things he is correct on), many people are ignorant of the law. It is not constructive to provide downright drivel when people may be taking what is said seriously, particularly when it comes to criminal offences (sorry for the "oxymoron") and dealing with bailiffs and HCEAs..
Yes very possibly Eddie (though I have sneaky suspicion he believes much of his nonsense). However, that's not the term I'd use. I'd call him a numpty but I try to refrain from abuse.
The problem is, as he correctly points out (one of the few things he is correct on), many people are ignorant of the law. It is not constructive to provide downright drivel when people may be taking what is said seriously, particularly when it comes to criminal offences (sorry for the "oxymoron") and dealing with bailiffs and HCEAs..
Sorry, ladybirder (and Eddie). It was past my bedtime :-)
" It is not mentioned at all on the programme that an application to 'upgrade' from county court to high court is not just a matter of handing over the fee."
No it's certainly not, hc. They give the impression you just hand over your seventy quid (or whatever it is) and the "Sheriffs" get straight round there in their van. It is by no means that straightforward. As you say, the high Court must be satisfied that all practical County Court enforcement action has failed before they issue their "writ" and this is particularly onerous when it comes to writs of possession.
" It is not mentioned at all on the programme that an application to 'upgrade' from county court to high court is not just a matter of handing over the fee."
No it's certainly not, hc. They give the impression you just hand over your seventy quid (or whatever it is) and the "Sheriffs" get straight round there in their van. It is by no means that straightforward. As you say, the high Court must be satisfied that all practical County Court enforcement action has failed before they issue their "writ" and this is particularly onerous when it comes to writs of possession.
The van was actually registered to his father who admitted he bought it for his son.
Unless there is an official record of ownership such as the DVLA with vehicles and the Land Registry with real estate, it would be impossible for the HCEAs to prove who owned what - the onus is on the person claiming to own the goods.
Unless there is an official record of ownership such as the DVLA with vehicles and the Land Registry with real estate, it would be impossible for the HCEAs to prove who owned what - the onus is on the person claiming to own the goods.
Yes sorry, 3Ts. I got a bit sidetracked by the blatent idiocy of PeelerPal.
As has been said, it is a tricky situation. It is particularly tricky for the bailiffs/HCEAs in the circumstances you describe (where threre is effectively "multi-occupancy"). I do believe they operate on the assumption that ownership of belongings must be proved by the owner to avoid seizure. You must bear in mind that they don't seize goods that are of low or insignificant value - it's not worth their trouble. They usually go for higher value stuff and most people would be able to prove ownership.
As far as vehicles go the "Registered Keeper" recorded by the DVLA is not necessarily the owner and I believe DVLA documents such as the V5C go to pains to point this out. Once again a "big ticket" item like a car or van should have some proof of ownership available.
I don't think the system is entirely satisfactory. It does have the safeguard that property seized is held for a period (14 days, I think) to give the owner (if not the person who owes the debt) the chance to prove ownership. But there are bound to be miscarriages.
I don't really know the answer because it is clear that some people go to great lengths to avoid paying debts and CC judgements. It is unfair that they should retain valuable belongings whilst owing dosh to people.
As has been said, it is a tricky situation. It is particularly tricky for the bailiffs/HCEAs in the circumstances you describe (where threre is effectively "multi-occupancy"). I do believe they operate on the assumption that ownership of belongings must be proved by the owner to avoid seizure. You must bear in mind that they don't seize goods that are of low or insignificant value - it's not worth their trouble. They usually go for higher value stuff and most people would be able to prove ownership.
As far as vehicles go the "Registered Keeper" recorded by the DVLA is not necessarily the owner and I believe DVLA documents such as the V5C go to pains to point this out. Once again a "big ticket" item like a car or van should have some proof of ownership available.
I don't think the system is entirely satisfactory. It does have the safeguard that property seized is held for a period (14 days, I think) to give the owner (if not the person who owes the debt) the chance to prove ownership. But there are bound to be miscarriages.
I don't really know the answer because it is clear that some people go to great lengths to avoid paying debts and CC judgements. It is unfair that they should retain valuable belongings whilst owing dosh to people.
yes judge what I was getting at though was the apparent inconsistency of the van, ok it turns out that the dad owned up that he bought it for the son fair enough but if he had not they said "we can take it as long as long as it is not a company van" now the company where not present to show it was theirs so they could take it by their own loigic when referring to the fathers goods and chattels so it seemed to me that the dad must prove his things where his but the company in absentia did not have to. So either they can take everything unless someone proves it is theirs or nothing, which is it? they can't have it both ways.
Part 2 What if the old man had some jewelry, inherited from his dead parents, can they take that? No reciepts etc nothing.
Part 2 What if the old man had some jewelry, inherited from his dead parents, can they take that? No reciepts etc nothing.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles64 mins ago
Music65 mins ago
Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank70 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.