baliffs

AsknAnswer

Ruby, so long as they have evidence (easily obtained via the DVLA) that he legally owns the vehicle, they can clamp it. I would assume the CSA would check with the DVLA as a matter of course.

This is absolutely none of my business however it does appear that DUTR has no knowledge of Ruby's own personal situation, therefore his/her judgements are completely unwarranted and nothing less than a vile forum attack on Ruby, possibly inspired by his own bad experiences of a PWC.

DUTR - it is no secret that some PWC are more interested in their own needs rather than that of their childrens, however it's no more a secret that some NRP's simply refuse to support their child(ren) no matter how the subject or by whom the subject of child support is raised or by which manner child support should be in effect. On the other hand there are PWC and NRP's who will work together, or whom are able to work together to come to an agreeable arrangement. There are good and bad in both "camps". To pass judgment on someone unknown to you and make assumptions about the root cause of their actions only serves to discredit your own character, no-one elses. You can't punish someone for something that someone else has done to you.

Sometimes, it is not a case of PWC refusing to come to a suitable and amicable agreement. Sometimes they are unable to because the NRP has absolutely no interest in supporting the lives that he or she partook in creating, and will do anything he or she can to avoid any form of support.

cosmic-dust

DUTR wrote: »

Nothing as in...?

You tell us, you have boasted enough times that all you need to do is pay your csa obligation, you have to do nothing else.

DUTR

AsknAnswer wrote: »

Ruby, so long as they have evidence (easily obtained via the DVLA) that he legally owns the vehicle, they can clamp it. I would assume the CSA would check with the DVLA as a matter of course.

This is absolutely none of my business however it does appear that DUTR has no knowledge of Ruby's own personal situation, therefore his/her judgements are completely unwarranted and nothing less than a vile forum attack on Ruby, possibly inspired by his own bad experiences of a PWC.

DUTR - it is no secret that some PWC are more interested in their own needs rather than that of their childrens, however it's no more a secret that some NRP's simply refuse to support their child(ren) no matter how the subject or by whom the subject of child support is raised or by which manner child support should be in effect. On the other hand there are PWC and NRP's who will work together, or whom are able to work together to come to an agreeable arrangement. There are good and bad in both "camps". To pass judgment on someone unknown to you and make assumptions about the root cause of their actions only serves to discredit your own character, no-one elses. You can't punish someone for something that someone else has done to you.

Sometimes, it is not a case of PWC refusing to come to a suitable and amicable agreement. Sometimes they are unable to because the NRP has absolutely no interest in supporting the lives that he or she partook in creating, and will do anything he or she can to avoid any form of support.

Firstly baliffs do not always posess the powers that rumours often suggest.
The bit about punishing for what someone has done to me ?????
However likewise you know nothing of the OP's circumstance anymore than I do, so your comments are equally as invalid

DUTR

cosmic-dust wrote: »

You tell us, you have boasted enough times that all you need to do is pay your csa obligation, you have to do nothing else.

I don't have to do anything else, who is going to make me?
can't have your cake and eat it, I pay for the privilage of being an NRP so i may as well enjoy the benefits should I not?

cosmic-dust

DUTR wrote: »

Firstly baliffs do not always posess the powers that rumours often suggest.
The bit about punishing for what someone has done to me ?????
However likewise you know nothing of the OP's circumstance anymore than I do, so your comments are equally as invalid

DUTR wrote: »

I don't need to know, but can sort of feel why he ran off with the fit young model, if you are only going to keep twisting the knife and even do the baliff's work for them, it's not about feeding and clothing the children, it seems it's about being vindictive :rolleyes:

I would imagine comments like the above don't help your cause DUTR, suggesting that a NRP ran away with a younger model. Certainly to me this suggests that you have a few issues here.

kelloggs36

Bailiffs do have the power to clamp vehicles though, which is what the OP's question was about.

cosmic-dust

DUTR wrote: »

I don't have to do anything else, who is going to make me?
can't have your cake and eat it, I pay for the privilage of being an NRP so i may as well enjoy the benefits should I not?

No one can make you do anything regarding your child, i am sure your day will come. You think all pwc are bitter and twisted i beg to differ had your pwc not contacted the csa are you telling me that you would be part of your child's life. Somehow i really don't think so.

DUTR

cosmic-dust wrote: »

I would imagine comments like the above don't help your cause DUTR, suggesting that a NRP ran away with a younger model. Certainly to me this suggests that you have a few issues here.

Erm yes there were some un called for comments, and in my defence it did look early on as if it was a witch hunt on the nrp and still does to a good extent. It was only later when the OP came back on , I had cooled away from that line.

marksoton

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Bailiffs do have the power to clamp vehicles though, which is what the OP's question was about.

I am sorry im not getting involved in the arguments but they will not be able to do anything with the vehicle.

Hence my point about so many cases being returned to the agency.

kelloggs36

What do you mean that they can't do anything with the vehicle? They can take it and sell it.