Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

[Kati]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2014 - might have something useful in it??

[Milo]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

Milo a question, If the OP is not the debtor can the bailiff get away with threats to them.

What recourse in law does the OP have

In fact Miss Moo's husband should have spoken with the bailiff but that is another issue.

I am sorry to say but as soon as I started reading the opening post I could sense the outcome. It is sadly the case that so many' debt avoidance' websites advise debtors to ask to see a warrant and many times will advise the debtor to challenge whether the warrant has a 'seal' or has a 'wet ink signature'. Other websites advise debtors to ask to see a copy of a warrant to ascertain whether it is a 'fake' document. This is despite the fact that the new regulations make it very clear that a warrant will NOT be deemed invalid if there is ANY error on it !!

Missy Moo also questioned the bailiff regarding the Notice of Enforcement which apparently had not been signed. In fact, the statutory regulations do not require the Notice of Enforcement to be signed !!!

The bailiff very likely thought that Missy Moo was seeking to challenge whether the procedure had been correctly dealt with instead of wanting to discuss payment.

[wales01man]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

So the Bailiff can threaten the OP who is NOT the debtor

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

So the Bailiff can threaten the OP who is NOT the debtor

They shouldn't nor even discuss with a third party, but they may well will do, hoping that missymoo will volunteer to pay, but if they discuss the details with OP there may be DPA breach, not that it would bother Marstons unduly, even if the Data Commissioner was involved.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

So the Bailiff can threaten the OP who is NOT the debtor

From what I can gather Wales, OP has a mobility vehicle, which may very well classify her as a vulnerable person.
Maybe Milo can clarify this point........

[Milo]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

From my reading of the posts Missy Moo has a vehicle provided by Motability. The new regulations are clear in that a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge will be 'exempt' from being 'taken into control'.

The problem here is that 'missy moo' is not the debtor. It would be useful to know whether or not her husband is working or in receipt of benefits.

[Kati]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

From my reading of the posts Missy Moo has a vehicle provided by Motability. The new regulations are clear in that a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge will be 'exempt' from being 'taken into control'.

The problem here is that 'missy moo' is not the debtor.

but ... surely the debtor is the one who has to be 'chased' for the debt?? Isn't the warrant only enforceable on the named debtor's goods?? As Missy Moo is not the name on the warrant, her car should be exempt anyway (IMO) - not just because it is a mobility vehicle ...

[Milo]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

but ... surely the debtor is the one who has to be 'chased' for the debt?? Isn't the warrant only enforceable on the named debtor's goods?? As Missy Moo is not the name on the warrant, her car should be exempt anyway (IMO) - not just because it is a mobility vehicle ...

Sadly, the new regulations allow for 'jointly owned goods' to be removed (although if sold the spouse (or other party) must be paid their share. The regulations are only 6 months old so it is too early to ascertain if any problems are being encountered about 'jointly owned' goods. I personally do no like this clause in the regulations.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

They will argue that goods in a home with cohabitees in a relationship as if they are or are married are fair game whoever owns them. that would not hold water in a single room with shared kitchen bathroom and lounge like a student let or a Bail hostel or a BASS house where people who are on a tag, or bail and would otherwise be homeless so would have to remain in custody, are accommodated, the EA calls and the resident who opens the door isn't the debtor, but is jangling as they need their methadone. That's not to say that the EA won't try it on with the other occupiers, even though what is in the debtor's room is all they can go after

The Motability car would be exempt in any case, so missymoo must make sure Sharkstons and the Council who issued the PCN are aware, in case the EA does a McGovern and clamps the car, or even worse removes it.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

Sadly, the new regulations allow for 'jointly owned goods' to be removed (although if sold the spouse (or other party) must be paid their share. The regulations are only 6 months old so it is too early to ascertain if any problems are being encountered about 'jointly owned' goods. I personally do no like this clause in the regulations. neither do I

This one could well come back and bite MOJ, especially where there has been a separation and a new partner to the debtor has just moved in, or the debtor has moved into a new partners home and owns nothing apart from the clothes on their back.

[enquirer]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

Reading the regulations, I can find no specific mention of 'jointly owned' items. Is this simply a default position?

A question also occurs - if the EA seizes and removes firearms, what then is the legal position? The EA is unlikely to hold a Firearms Licence, and the requirements for the safekeeping of firearms are very strict. The fact that criminally inclined bailiffs are not unknown also gives pause for thought.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

Sadly, the new regulations allow for 'jointly owned goods' to be removed (although if sold the spouse (or other party) must be paid their share. The regulations are only 6 months old so it is too early to ascertain if any problems are being encountered about 'jointly owned' goods. I personally do no like this clause in the regulations.

I have to agree with Milo on this..
The regulations have not been very well thought out, and it is going to cause a lot of problems.
I hate this clause as well, and hopefully it will be repealed.

[Kati]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

A question also occurs - if the EA seizes and removes firearms, what then is the legal position? The EA is unlikely to hold a Firearms Licence, and the requirements for the safekeeping of firearms are very strict. The fact that criminally inclined bailiffs are not unknown also gives pause for thought.

"Insofar as your guns are a personal asset – they can be seized by a debt collector but seizure of assets can only be enforced by court order.Bailiffs have no exemption under the Firearms Act and must be in possession of a section 7 permit or a shotgun certificate or be an RFD if they want to seize guns.
In practice this makes seizure of firearms difficult to enforce.
You would be in breach of the law if you handed the guns over to anyone who did not show you a valid permit or certificate or who could not show he was exempt from having one."

( http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting...rearms-2-28354 ) I believe this answers you perfectly :tinysmile_grin_t:

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

Reading the regulations, I can find no specific mention of 'jointly owned' items. Is this simply a default position?

A question also occurs - if the EA seizes and removes firearms, what then is the legal position? The EA is unlikely to hold a Firearms Licence, and the requirements for the safekeeping of firearms are very strict. The fact that criminally inclined bailiffs are not unknown also gives pause for thought.

If the debtor owns firearms and has the required certification, then they should be locked securely in a gun safe. If i were the debtor, I would refuse the EA access to the gun safe for the very reason you mention, and the danger of the guns disappearing whilst in the possession of the EA, and risk arrest rather than hand them over.

I think the Jointly Owned is down to assumption but a further perusal of the new Regs may well highlight the position see here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0140001_en.pdf

Paragraph 14 which discusses payments to co owners of part of sale proceeds.

This is also well explained by the Sheriffs Office: http://thesheriffsoffice.com/article...-my-other-half


Whether the EA can Take Control of a Joint is open to doubt especially if the debtor is smoking therefore using it at the time of the visit.

That also begs the question under smoking in the workplace, a council will insist a tenant who smokes does not do so for an hour before any visit by workers or officials, due to H & S etc. wonder how that affects an EA under contract to the council when he visits the chain smoking debtor ad hoc, and is choked by the smoke? The council could be in breach of the rules for sending him. Silly? well the law of unintended consequences applies to more than people think.

As for missymoo, she can rest assured that whatever property is regarded as joint, the car isn't part of it being a Motability lease vehicle, so Marstons can't have it away end of.

[Milo]

Re: Marston bailiff threatening removal but wont show me a warrant?!

This is also well explained by the Sheriffs Office: http://thesheriffsoffice.com/article...-my-other-half

bizzybob

I think that you will find that the Sheriffs Office document is no longer applicable as it refers to the old regulations (walking possession and RSC order 17. This surprises me because the Sheriffs Officer were the first company to outline the new regulations in detail for the 6th April start.