Bailiffs bullying

Exodi

OP is ready to claim enforcement is a breach of his human rights yet offers no alternative?

If we did switch the onus to the DCA, how on earth do you suggest a bailiff could unequivocally prove that someone is the legal owner of an asset? Follow them round years prior with a GoPro attached to their forehead so they can record them buying things in Curries?

Or perhaps they could ask? Anyone that has watched more than 5 minutes of "Can't Pay, We'll Take It Away" can see that nigh on every single person claims that every single possession was purchased by their partner and they own absolutely nothing - how many hundreds/thousands of times a year do you think this gets put to bailiffs?

So then we're at the issue that, for all intents and purposes, we can't seize any asset and people would be able to avoid paying debts indefinitely (especially as IIRC DCA's do not have access to income or financial records) OR you put the onus on the other party to prove the ownership of the goods.

It's obviously a scare tactic. Most of the time the cost of taking goods to auction outweighs the price they sell for but they are necessary sadly.

You should definitely be focusing your attention at your relative, I have no idea why you've got it in your head that the bailiffs, who, for all accounts, have acted within the law, are to blame for this mess.

akkers

So you are assuming that every business address is wholly occupied by that business?
I think an EU court might not sure these views.

HampshireH

Multiple businesses would be listed as

Business A, Some road, somewhere
Business B, Some road, somewhere

Or Floor 1, Floor 2 etc

Generally it would be marked out within the office space/building usually with compartmentalised.

Most business's could also evidence their assets.

Multiple business are likely to be listed on companies house

Not always of course. Its irrelevant to your problem though as you only have 1 business registered ( we presume) and you agreed to it

I would suggest rather than trusting a relative to be honest you check for yourself that this has been resolved.

newuser86

akkers wrote: »

So you are assuming that every business address is wholly occupied by that business?
I think an EU court might not sure these views.

Why would an EU court believe something else..... ? I think any court would rule against you regardless of whether you talk about human rights or not. The business is registered at the whole house therefore the whole house contents are available to the debtors. The solution to blame others all the time will not get you anywhere this is solely an issue with yourself and the relative

akkers

Well I have seen places where a number of businesses share a big room. So if one of them gets in trouble, they all do?
Also if a business is registered at a residential address, it becomes a sole business address and the residents lose their rights? What happens if more than one business is registered at the address?

Farmer_Johnson

akkers wrote: »

Well I have seen places where a number of businesses share a big room. So if one of them gets in trouble, they all do?
Also if a business is registered at a residential address, it becomes a sole business address and the residents lose their rights? What happens if more than one business is registered at the address?

Why are you coming up with all of these irrelevant hypotheticals? You allowed the business to be set up at your home address, which was very foolish. From what you have written you have to suspect that your relative did it as h had a pretty good idea it would go down the pan.