Update, the car has been taken, and I cant find any grounds to appeal any of the 5 PCN's
- There no NOE or NTO on any of the 5 PCNs
DVLA address is correct.
Value of the car is being compared to Ebay sales of a like for like.
When the notice of sale comes, scan Ebay to get the sales price. The bailiff doesn't know it is a non-runner. They did not get any keys.
Detailed assessment to see whether storage fees have been paid and to whom.
The car is not likely to fetch the amount outstanding (which now includes expenses), so it will be apportioned between council and bailiff company under paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.
The council may be approached with an offer to pay installments, and the refusal might be useful to bring a later claim.
I can only make something of it when there is a breach of Schedule 12. The reasonableness test is not prescribed, unless a court can be persuaded the 'CPUT' <? regulations do apply to commercial companies in the enforcement of statutory debts.
We need to determine it is unreasonable to burden a debtor with costs to make a profit for the bailiff company, than enter a CGA, and if yes, under what legislation the action can be brought.
For now, disregard the debtors vulnerable status, and paragraph 26, it was not outwardly obvious to the bailiff at the time.
I did speak to the bailiff before he took the car and recorded it. He was obstreperous and evasive. He then refused to show ID and authority when requested by the debtor and further refused to give the PCN numbers to allow the debtor to identify the source of the debt. He then told me to contact Marston call centre, and when I added them into the conference call and introduced each other, they both hung up the telephone.
Any meat on this anyone?