bailiffs took my car

Tilt

give_them_FA wrote: »

Tilt, sorry but you are completely wrong. Of course the local authority can stop the bailiffs! It is the local authority who instruct them! Although bailiffs are certificated by a Court, the Court does not instruct them.

Ultimately the local authority are responsible for the actions of their agents- the buck stops with them.

If the PCNs were issued to the previous owner then the OP does not need to make any declarations, etc, as they are not anything to do with him.

One understands that the bailiffs will have been given the number of the vehicle that incurred the PCNs; and the check with DVLA will reveal that the previous keeper hasn't changed; but of course it is writ large on the V5 in any case that the keeper is not necessarily the owner.

Whether or not the vehicle is insured is none of the bailiffs' business.

Unless the vehicle was the subject of levy prior to its sale, then they should accept they have no right to distrain on it.

The ones that should be getting it in the neck should be the local authority as soon as ther offices re-open. All this is being done in their name, the bailiffs are merely agents and MUST obey their instructions.

No I'm NOT 'completely wrong'!!!

Once a PCN is issued without challenge and then the NTO is issued etc, the LA have no legal obligation what so ever to intervene once a recovery order is issued. Only the TEC can stop it at that stage.

Although I agree an LA CAN (but very rarely do) revoke a recovery order thus cancelling the bailiffs if that's what you mean. She could contact them but no doubt she will have to show the same evidence to them as she did the bailiffs which sounds to me as it isn't legit enough. If it was then I cannot imagine the bailiffs risking their legal position. They may a a levy on the car (as been mentioned) in which case the whole situ then turns itself on it's head and the OP will find herself persuing the seller and by the sounds of it, that avenue seems to be a very long one.

In any event, if the OPs account is completely accurate then the bailiffs will clamp the car initially before seizing it so at that point, all this should of been sorted out as the OP says that she has all the required proof that she wasn't the owner/RK at the time the PCNs were issued. So it follows that bailiffs should be persuing the previous owner/RK/seller and not the OP.

But now were are in the middle of a long bank holiday, I doubt that the OP is going to achieve anything at all. I doubt if she would be even able to hire a car until Wednesday at least.

give_them_FA

You are right so far as it goes on the paperwork. But where you are wrong is in your idea that the Council has no control over the bailiffs. The bailiffs are at all times the agents of the Council, it is the Council which engages them, not TEC.

This is the nub of this complaint. The OP here cannot apply to the TEC for relief, as they are not the person against whom the liability order was made. In other words they have NO liability in this matter! They can only say to the Council- Your agents have wrongfully seized my property to satisfy someone else's debt. They may likewise try and persuade the bailiffs, though they are obviously sceptical as to whether it is a genuine sale. But it would be for them to prove it is not; though it looks quite possible that the OP has been sold a car they had already levied on....

Tilt

give_them_FA wrote: »

The actual procedure is that the Council applies to TEC for a liability order for which it pays £5. The TEC then rubber-stamps it if the paperwork is in order and grants the liabilty order TO THE COUNCIL. The Council is then able to instruct bailiifs to enforce the liability order.

Civil courts NEVER instruct bailiffs of their own volition. It is always the creditor party who has to take steps to do this.

I think we are splitting hairs here. Bailiffs act upon a warrant/recovery order/liability order (or what ever you want to call it). That is issued by the TEC on the application of the LA. Yes agreed so far. Normally once the order is issued, the LA takes a step back and can (and normally will) ignore any further correspondence from the 'offender' and refer them to the bailiffs who by now will be adding their costs and charges to the matter.

If after that stage an 'offender' wishes to 'appeal' for what ever reason, there is a procedure to follow by making a stat deceleration to have an order suspended: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/statutory-declarations

Now I would of thought that if the OP had sufficient evidence that she became the owner of the car AFTER the PCNs were issued, the bailiffs would of excepted that unless they have a levy on the car in which case they are perfectly entitled to seize it as it wasn't the sellers to sell in the first place.

BUT, before they seize, they will almost certainly clamp (and at that point levy) to exhaust every opportunity for the 'offender' to pay all the outstanding charges.

I personally think that the seller off loaded the car to escape his liabilities so in which case, it isn't the LA's responsibility or the bailiffs that the OP has been put in this situation. I think IF that is the case, the OP may well find having to pay the charges and persue the seller unless the LA or the bailiffs show some sympathy.

zarrah

[FONT=&quot]I called the council and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Northampton County Court and they both said they couldnt talk to me as the Warrant wasnt issued to me and the bailiffs shouldnt take the car if i can proof i [/FONT][FONT=&quot]purchasedthe the car.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have no paperwork they said they sent all the paperwork to the sellers address.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is an email from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Confero Collections Ltd (bailiffs)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]''As you are aware we are acting on a Warrant of Execution issued to us by the London Borough of Lewisham with the approval of the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court with regard to an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the Warrant of Execution remained unpaid, this subsequently led to the removal of the vehicle. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You allege that you purchased the vehicle however, the information you have provided is insufficient proof of the alleged purchase taking place. In addition, our investigations have established that the last change of keepership took place on 19th January 2007
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is my view that this alleged change of keepership has been orchestrated to avoid distress and therefore, the vehicle will not be released without full payment being made. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I appreciate that this is not the response for which you had hoped, however, I am unable to assist you any further in this matter.''[/FONT]

give_them_FA

Well, Tilt, maybe we are at cross purposes. I took your posts to suggest that once the matter had been to TEC the LA had no further responsibility including for the actions of the bailiffs.

It is true that the LA does not have to consider any further representations from the subject of the liability order and that only TEC can revoke the order- though of course the LA may decide not to enforce it.

However the situation here is that the person the bailiffs are (apparently) enforcing against, IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE LIABILITY ORDER. He/she is an innocent third party, if we read the posts as being true! That is why the Council needs to be approached regarding the actions of its agents.

The essential point is that whilst the TEC issues a warrant which authorises enforcement action it is the COUNCIL, not the TEC, which takes steps to enforce. And if they enforce against a third party they are responsible!

And to edit, as the OP has received a fairly predictable refusal from the bailiffs, it is to Lewisham Council that his/her complaints must now be directed.

zarrah

hallowitch wrote: »

zarrah I take it you told the council the bailiffs had removed the car
what was there reply to this ?

what council and bailiff firm are you dealing with ? (if you don't want put it on main forum send me a PM or confirm its not Equita or Ross & Roberts)

did you receive any paperwork for the car when they removed it ?

Is there a bailiffs name on it ? did you check to confirm he is certificated ?

whats the approx value of the car ?

[FONT=&quot]I called the council and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Northampton County Court and they both said they couldnt talk to me as the Warrant wasnt issued to me and the bailiffs shouldnt take the car if i can proof i [/FONT][FONT=&quot]purchasedthe the car.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I have no paperwork they said they sent all the paperwork to the sellers address.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is an email from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Confero Collections Ltd (bailiffs)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]''As you are aware we are acting on a Warrant of Execution issued to us by the London Borough of Lewisham with the approval of the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court with regard to an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As the Warrant of Execution remained unpaid, this subsequently led to the removal of the vehicle. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You allege that you purchased the vehicle however, the information you have provided is insufficient proof of the alleged purchase taking place. In addition, our investigations have established that the last change of keepership took place on 19th January 2007
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is my view that this alleged change of keepership has been orchestrated to avoid distress and therefore, the vehicle will not be released without full payment being made. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I appreciate that this is not the response for which you had hoped, however, I am unable to assist you any further in this matter.''

i paid £2000 for the car..
[/FONT]

hallowitch

how did you find out the car was for sale was it advertised

peter_the_piper

Reiterate bailiffeadviceonline.co.uk. we are going round in circles, it needs someone with an extensive knowledge of bailiff regulations let us know how it pans out.

give_them_FA

At least they are not suggesting that they levied on the vehicle. If they didn't they won't have a leg to stand on and neither will Lewisham Council. There is absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from disposing of property to avoid distress.

hallowitch

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Reiterate bailiffeadviceonline.co.uk. we are going round in circles, it needs someone with an extensive knowledge of bailiff regulations let us know how it pans out.

got to agree if you want your car back thats where to go