Bailiffs bullying

akkers

I have spoken to my relative and he has assured me that its been sorted; the bailiffs have not returned (fingers crossed).



He assures me that it was the court that made teh mistake by involing an old case which had been dropped 2 yrs ago. He assures me that the matter is closed.


btw how is it reasonable to produce receipts to prove ownership for your tv, dvd player, computer, sofas, gold watch etc? By the time you can find the receipt or obtain duplicates they will have taken your stuff away and violated your civil/human rights. Its like you are guilty you can prove your innocence. Thats modern Britain where capitalism is protected and supported by the state.

ciderboy2009

How do you suggest the bailiffs work out what they can take?

They must hear people saying "you can't take that because it belongs to xxx" loads of times each day. If they just accepted everything they were told then they might as well not bother going out!

Unless we are talking about a fine from the Magistrates' court then your relative's statement makes no sense - bailiff's only go out on the instruction of the claimant.

MEM62

akkers wrote: »

I have spoken to my relative and he has assured me that its been sorted; the bailiffs have not returned (fingers crossed).

He assures me that it was the court that made teh mistake by involing an old case which had been dropped 2 yrs ago. He assures me that the matter is closed.
No doubt he has made such assurances. They might even be true.

btw how is it reasonable to produce receipts to prove ownership for your tv, dvd player, computer, sofas, gold watch etc?
It is very reasonable. Your address is the one that your relative gave for the business. Therefore, when bailiffs come claiming unpaid debts it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that any property at the address belongs to the business until and unless you can prove otherwise.
By the time you can find the receipt or obtain duplicates they will have taken your stuff away and violated your civil/human rights.
They are acting on a court order. Which of your civil or human rights do you believe has been violated?
Its like you are guilty you can prove your innocence.
The burden of proof was already tested in court and the debt was substantiated.
That's modern Britain where capitalism is protected and supported by the state.
I would hope so too. Capitalism is not a crime and generates a lot of wealth for this country - both individual and in tax revenues.

You have consistently avoided the question as to whether you knew that the business was registered at your address and weather this was done with your consent. Your reluctance to answer suggests to me that the answer to both those points is yes. In that case, the bailiffs were not acting unreasonably and no have no complaint with them.

tallyhoh

I doubt whether bailiffs would act on something that was sorted out 2 years ago.

I would be insisting that he stopped using my address like yesterday!

akkers

I did know that teh company was registered at this address, purely for communication purposes; there was no business conducted from here. I had nothing to do with the business nor did I have any knowledge of the debt etc. He assures me that warrant came from a court and the matter is now resolved.


My point is that why should 3rd parties have to suffer in debt collection. In my case, all the stuff in my house is mine and I paid for it. If they were to remove this stuff and then I have to go through the pain of proving ownership, where do my human rights go?


Its obvious that they remove goods on the assumption that they belong to the debtor. Since when did assumptions become valid in law? I am pretty sure if this went to EU courts on human rights grounds they would side with my argument. But alas that option is now dead.

tetley

akkers wrote: »

I have spoken to my relative and he has assured me that its been sorted; the bailiffs have not returned (fingers crossed).



He assures me that it was the court that made teh mistake by involing an old case which had been dropped 2 yrs ago. He assures me that the matter is closed.


.

Your relative is lying to you, courts do not make mistakes like that.

dealer_wins

Akkers whatever the rights and wrongs you perceive, the blame lies squarely with your relative. He is 100% causing you these problems, and if I were you I would sort it out TODAY, and never let anyone use your address for anything in future.

Its always dodgy from the get go these arrangements, if it wasnt he would have used his own address, not stitch you up like a kipper!

kazwookie

You need to be telling your relvative to move her/ his business address away from your house, and to her / his place of abode.

and then make sure she / he does it.

akkers

Yes I believe the original issue has been resolved and bailiffs have not been back. I have made it clear with my relative about moving his business address.
What concerns me is how if a business is registered at an address then the whole property becomes subject to that company's problems. Say, you have a building with 3 rooms and 3 small businesses operate from there. If one has debt problems, then should the other 2 suffer at the hands of the bailiffs.
I just dont understand how bailiffs can just remove goods on assumptions alone. This is gross violation of human and civil rights.

-taff

You keep going on about human and civil rights.
What you haven't grasped yet, still, is that your address was used as the busines address.
It's not a violation of human rights to have your goods removed because it's assumed that the business address is correct, the business address is valid and the business owner didn't lie about his address.


Unfortunately for you, and your human rights, you failed to realise that legally, your address was the address of the business, and that you agreed to that. That means they were entriely correct to assume that the address was correct and that the goods in house belonged to the business.
If you can't grasp that, then I suggest that you never allow anyone to use your address again, because no sane person would think it was OK to do so without first running through a list of 'why this is a bad idea'