Urgent question! Baliffs and property

Kiechi

My friend who lives with his wife isn't registered or a tenant of the house he's in. But Baliffs are on his back from a debt dating 8/9 years ago. In his defence, he said that none of the property can be taken as they do not belong to him and he isn't registered in that address. They then replied with that they can. Can someone please clarify this for me? He's extremely worried and wants to know the facts before shizzle goes down as one would say. Can property of your wife or kids still be seized or CAN they take it?

Kind regards in advance!:j

RAS

Hi

We need to know if the bailifs have been in the house and if he owns a car?

RAS

If she's already let them in I strongly recommend you contact Herbie21 either by PM on here or better through her site:
http://www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/

She knows more about bailiffs and the laws than most bailiffs themselves...

(Nicked from Tine)

RobertoMoir

Kiechi wrote: »

My friend who lives with his wife isn't registered or a tenant of the house he's in. But Baliffs are on his back from a debt dating 8/9 years ago. In his defence, he said that none of the property can be taken as they do not belong to him and he isn't registered in that address. They then replied with that they can.

They're wrong. How do you know if a bailiff is lying? Their lips are moving. The whole objective of that job is to bully or intimidate a debtor into paying.

The most that your friend's wife might have to do is produce a statutory declaration that all the goods in the house are hers.

I'd agree with RAS's advice to speak to herbie.

Marisco

This happened to me a few years ago. The flat was in my name as was all the utility bills and car, and everything in it I'd brought on from my previous flat. When my oh separated from his wife and moved in with me, he had quite a bit of debt that he took on (it was his ex wifes - store cards etc) and he was still paying the mortgage on the house he'd left (his kids were quite young at the time) Long story short, the CSA got involved:mad: and everything went pear shaped!!! It took me months to sort out a DMP (I did it myself, oh was working away so I did the lot!!) Anyway bear with me, I'm getting there;) Oh's credit was shot to hell, so didn't mind getting CCJ's, but we got things to a manageable level of payment - apart from one creditor!!!! Outcome was we got a letter saying the bailiffs would call etc, etc, I was spitting fire!! Luckily the office was only about a mile down the road, so down I marched full of hell, and told them that there was no way they could take anything as it was all mine!! So they said they would inform the creditor - which they did. I explained we couldn't afford to pay more than we offered, so they went to court. I wrote to the court with an enclosed soa and the judge upheld our offer - which was a £1 a month!! So no, I don't think they can take anything that is in someone elses' name. But check as it was about 12 years ago and things might have changed since then.

Hannah_10

Just a thought but wouldn't an 8/9 year old debt be statute barred? Niddy would know, but his thread on Unenforcibility might be worth checking, it's HERE. Grab a coffee and some biccies before you start reading- you may be there a while, it contains plenty of detail.

omen666

Hannah_10 wrote: »

Just a thought but wouldn't an 8/9 year old debt be statute barred? Niddy would know, but his thread on Unenforcibility might be worth checking, it's HERE. Grab a coffee and some biccies before you start reading- you may be there a while, it contains plenty of detail.

this:money:

RobertoMoir

Hannah_10 wrote: »

Just a thought but wouldn't an 8/9 year old debt be statute barred? Niddy would know, but his thread on Unenforcibility might be worth checking, it's HERE. Grab a coffee and some biccies before you start reading- you may be there a while, it contains plenty of detail.

If bailiffs are involved - and they are actual bailiffs, not debt collectors with delusions of adequacy, then there is a court order existing for the debt which would greatly complicate the statute barred idea.