Test of reasonableness

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#36 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Sep 2016 13:21

jasonDWB wrote:
I just wanted to know whether rejecting a offer of installments is unreasonable and an action can be brought to recover the excess charges above the ones otherwise payable if the CGA option was exercised.
You've already answered this yourself - only after the car is sold will you see the charges and whether the sale covered them. You could pre-empt to some extent by ascertaining what the charges will be, getting a trade value on the car (without keys remember), and doing the sums.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#37 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 13:40

jasonDWB wrote:
stopbailiff wrote:
Jason, if the woman is vulnerable in some way it may be grounds to stop the bailiff action. Who employed the bailiff as agent, I suppose is the first question to ask.
Its Marston and a council, but being vulnerable doesn't revoke enforcement. Only postpones it.

I couldn't find anything in Schedule 12 to get her off the hook. The bailiff has followed the law.

I just wanted to know whether rejecting a offer of installments is unreasonable and an action can be brought to recover the excess charges above the ones otherwise payable if the CGA option was exercised.
This woman is on benefits, a single mother too (perhaps?), it could be a breach of provision of Sched 12, or Instrument (ie TCG 2013 Regs), CPR 1998 (as amended) at Rule 84: 13. It doesn't sound like this woman has much and even that may alone classify her as vulnerable. What is the point furthermore of clamping a car if it will not realise the amount of the debt owed. I think the CGO she entered into is problematic. The bailiff also has statutory guidance that they should be following. I think in terms of tort, these circumstances could be a breach of a duty of care by a bailiff. So, I do not see why there wouldn't be a breach of said law and Instrument.

"Law In Force
[ 84.13.— Application by the debtor for a remedy in relation to goods taken into control
(1) This rule applies where the debtor wishes to bring proceedings under paragraph 66 of Schedule
122 for—
(a) breach of a provision of Schedule 12; or
(b) enforcement action taken under a defective instrument.
(2) The debtor may bring proceedings by way of an application.
(3) The application must be accompanied by evidence of how—
(a) the provisions of Schedule 12 are alleged to have been breached; or
(b) the instrument is alleged to be defective.
] 1
Notes
1 Added by Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014/407 Sch.1 para.1 (April 6, 2014: insertion has effect subject
to transitional provisions specified in SI 2014/407 rule 41)
2 Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 is amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c.22), section 17(5) and Schedule
19, paragraph 52(1)(b) and (2).
Extent
Pt 84(III) rule 84.13(1)-(3)(b): England, Wales"

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#38 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 13:42

That's not the question. Its regardless or not the car is sold. Its whether the excess can be reclaimed.

I can do the maths, sum on the warrant + £75 + £235, but the CGA was offered at that point and rejected.

The question is can the £110 and the remainder of the value of the vehicle be recovered and under what provision in law, if any?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#39 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 13:44

stopbailiff wrote:
"Law In Force
[ 84.13.— Application by the debtor for a remedy in relation to goods taken into control
(1) This rule applies where the debtor wishes to bring proceedings under paragraph 66 of Schedule
122 for—
(a) breach of a provision of Schedule 12; or
(b) enforcement action taken under a defective instrument.
(2) The debtor may bring proceedings by way of an application.
(3) The application must be accompanied by evidence of how—
(a) the provisions of Schedule 12 are alleged to have been breached; or
(b) the instrument is alleged to be defective.
We all know this, but the question in my original post is identify what provision in schedule 12 is breached.

I cant find one so I am asking if anyone knows a test of reasonableness that can be used in its place.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#40 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Sep 2016 13:48

jasonDWB wrote: I can do the maths, sum on the warrant + £75 + £235, but the CGA was offered at that point and rejected.

The question is can the £110 and the remainder of the value of the vehicle be recovered and under what provision in law, if any?
I doubt if the £110 can be reclaimed as it's prescribed, but if you can show the car was taken purely to profit the EA via other charges, ie storage and anything else they claim then there may be grounds.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#41 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 13:51

Its prescribed only then the bailiff starts removing goods. Its certain the bailiff acted to make a profit because he took the car instead of making a CGA -which does not attract a £110 fee.

I don't know what cause of action can be brought. Ive been trying to figure a robust claim particulars and legal argument.

Its not just for the OP, but for solicitors that use Lawsuite to create legal arguments from a set of enforcement circumstances. It would be good if I can include an option where a bailiff takes an enforcement step that attracts a fee when another step could have been taken that does not attract a fee.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#42 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Sep 2016 13:59

jasonDWB wrote:Its prescribed only then the bailiff starts removing goods. Its certain the bailiff acted to make a profit because he took the car instead of making a CGA -which does not attract a £110 fee.
The £110 wouldn't cover the cost of the removal - the real money is in the storage fees, plus any other 'disbursements' they can think of.

You need to establish whether the creditor would've accepted a CGA.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#43 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 14:30

I know of reasonability tests based on contract; commercial law; I also seem to remember the EU Regs reasonability test too. I don't know whether this remedy is suitable for your client. The problem is, Jason, as you pointed out, is that she voluntarily entered in to an CGA. If this is not the case, the onus is on her to prove it, which is not going to be easy. Witness statements could be used under the hearsay rules, ie where they do not attend in person, usually with the court's permission. It just depends on the entire situation. Undue influence, coercion could be proven - ie she did not have the money against the debt so she felt no alternative than to enter into a CGA. This could be tantamount to undue influence and or coercion, in my view. The facts you provide though are very limited. She could potentially claim the money back if she can prove a breach sufficiently, overall.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#44 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Sep 2016 14:35

Drocca, no CGA was entered into - that's the whole point.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#45 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 14:41

Pote Snitkin wrote: You need to establish whether the creditor would've accepted a CGA.
Creditor. good point!

If it was council tax then we could be laughing. There's guidelines. But they are focused on making people pay more than they can afford. It doesn't really say which choice of enforcement step should be taken. The law gives:
  • (a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

    (b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

    (c)remove them and secure them elsewhere;

    (d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.
Naturally, the bailiff will go with (c) because its commercial bailiff company interest. Not the creditors interest.

Reasonableness means, to have a reason. Could the reason of acting in the bailiffs commercial interest before the creditor be that 'reason' we are looking for?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#46 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Michelle » 15 Sep 2016 14:55

If that was the case wouldn't it be the creditor who would have to argue against the reasonableness of the decision?
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#47 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Justanotherperson » 15 Sep 2016 14:57

If you are going to argue reasonableness alone, under what cause of action will be? There is a reasonableness test set out in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 but that won't apply because the debtor is not privy to the contract between the creditor and the bailiff company.

As there is no contract in place except between the debtor and creditor your only other cause of action aside from a potential CPUT argument will be a tort. The only tort that may come close is an abuse of civil process and I am not entirely sure that is applicable because it usually relates to a misuse of a process in connection with proceedings in order to achieve some kind of advantage.

Because there is no general cause of action for 'unreasonableness' you won't be able to argue it on its own.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#48 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:02

"Client has offered a controlled goods agreement, and pay the demand according to a schedule is £70 a month until everything is paid off including 5 x £75 and £235 enforcement stage fee, at £70 a month."

This is unlikely to be undue influence or coercion unless the facts were as I stated earlier. If the person offered, this is not undue influence/ coercion. There was a case where the bank owed its client a duty of care, where the bank knows there is in affect a forced agreement. So this is involuntary acceptance a mortgage etc, so it makes it undue influence. As the client offered it's very difficult to argue undue influence/ coercion.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#49 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:02

in effect*

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#50 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 15:03

Justanotherperson wrote:
Because there is no general cause of action for 'unreasonableness' you won't be able to argue it on its own.
This is it, I need a cause of action.

Its just a feeling debtors need a protection from commercial interests of bailiffs when their duty is recovering a creditors money.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#51 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Michelle » 15 Sep 2016 15:05

stopbailiff wrote:I know of reasonability tests based on contract; commercial law; I also seem to remember the EU Regs reasonability test too.
What EU regulation deals with enforcement?
stopbailiff wrote:I don't know whether this remedy is suitable for your client. The problem is, Jason, as you pointed out, is that she voluntarily entered in to an CGA.
No, she did not.
stopbailiff wrote:If this is not the case, the onus is on her to prove it, which is not going to be easy. Witness statements could be used under the hearsay rules, ie where they do not attend in person, usually with the court's permission. It just depends on the entire situation. Undue influence, coercion could be proven - ie she did not have the money against the debt so she felt no alternative than to enter into a CGA. This could be tantamount to undue influence and or coercion, in my view. The facts you provide though are very limited. She could potentially claim the money back if she can prove a breach sufficiently, overall.
Undue influence was discussed yesterday. It applies to contractual situations where you are pressed into entering into a contract for goods or services but enforcement is intended to force people to pay a debt one way or other. There will always be undue influence when dealing with an enforcement agent. Furthermore, she did not enter into a CGA, which seems to be the whole point.
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#52 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Michelle » 15 Sep 2016 15:09

stopbailiff wrote:"Client has offered a controlled goods agreement, and pay the demand according to a schedule is £70 a month until everything is paid off including 5 x £75 and £235 enforcement stage fee, at £70 a month."

This is unlikely to be undue influence or coercion unless the facts were as I stated earlier. If the person offered, this is not undue influence/ coercion. There was a case where the bank owed its client a duty of care, where the bank knows there is in affect a forced agreement. So this is involuntary acceptance a mortgage etc, so it makes it undue influence. As the client offered it's very difficult to argue undue influence/ coercion.
In this case, the bailiff''s duty of care would be to the creditor who instructs them, not to the debtor. In that case it would be the creditor who could argue that their best interests were not served by the bailiff company if the steps they took resulted in a financial loss for them. But it doesn't affect the debtor in any way.
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#53 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Amy » 15 Sep 2016 15:10

jasonDWB wrote:
Pote Snitkin wrote: You need to establish whether the creditor would've accepted a CGA.
Creditor. good point!

If it was council tax then we could be laughing. There's guidelines. But they are focused on making people pay more than they can afford. It doesn't really say which choice of enforcement step should be taken. The law gives:
  • (a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

    (b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

    (c)remove them and secure them elsewhere;

    (d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.
Naturally, the bailiff will go with (c) because its commercial bailiff company interest. Not the creditors interest.

Reasonableness means, to have a reason. Could the reason of acting in the bailiffs commercial interest before the creditor be that 'reason' we are looking for?
I don't think you can build a case on what might have happened. It did not happen because the CGA was refused.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#54 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:17

Justanotherperson wrote:If you are going to argue reasonableness alone, under what cause of action will be? There is a reasonableness test set out in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 but that won't apply because the debtor is not privy to the contract between the creditor and the bailiff company.

As there is no contract in place except between the debtor and creditor your only other cause of action aside from a potential CPUT argument will be a tort. The only tort that may come close is an abuse of civil process and I am not entirely sure that is applicable because it usually relates to a misuse of a process in connection with proceedings in order to achieve some kind of advantage.

Because there is no general cause of action for 'unreasonableness' you won't be able to argue it on its own.
The effect of UTCCR 1999 is that any terms in a contract must be sufficiently clear, so a contract is in place but the terms are too onerous to be part of the contract. I can't remember that much about UTCCR 1999, but I probably have materials still on my computer including statutory guidance for reasonability tests under Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Common law developed concepts called 'incorporation' for separate parts of contracts. For incorporation the terms would have to pass a test of fairness (not unduly onerous) to be a part of the contract. If the terms were not unduly onerous they would pass the incorporation stage. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 went a step a further so that where the contract terms pass the incorporation test if they were unfair by UCTA 1977, especially the 'reasonability tests,' the unfair terms would not be enforceable against the consumer, which in effect removed their power from the contract (but not literally). They contracts were to be read as though the offending terms were not present, to quote a judge whose name escapes me. Then commerce developed the reasonability tests, ie for consumers and small companies versus large ones (large undertaking etc).

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#55 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:29

Reasonable in tort = the hypothetical standard. Reasonable in contract is the judge's view of how the contract should be operated, for instance the actual contractual purpose. Agreement = contract via offer, acceptance, consideration (usually money for goods), and legal intention. So, a CGA is in effect a contract where it is has been completed. The client did not have contractual agreement or CGA. The EA is at liberty to accept or refuse a CGA. However, the car is a different matter and was clamped only to make money by trying to force a sale stage fee storage fees by, in my view, unreasonably removing the vehicle. I think this is unreasonable all day long in terms of the Tort standard at least.

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#56 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Justanotherperson » 15 Sep 2016 15:35

UTCCR doesn't require great detail as its established it is not applicable, I just used as a reference to point out cause of action.

A successful case on abuse of process is Grainger v Hill 1838 - http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1838/365.pdf

Abuse of process was confirmed as a cause of action in Land Securities Plc v Fladgate Fisher [paras. 60 -75 are most relevant] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/577.html

Again, not entirely sure you could have an argument because the proceedings were issued legitimately, but it is the bailiffs who are potentially acting in an improper motive or to achieve a collateral advantage.

The question is why was the CGA refused and/or why did the bailiff refuse to take instructions on the offer. If it could be shown that the no instructions were taken and refused to pursue the bailiffs commercial interests, it might amount to an abuse of civil process. If the court were to reject this, then the answer will effectively mean the bailiff can do as he pleases.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#57 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Michelle » 15 Sep 2016 15:39

UTCCR 1999 refers, as you pointed out, to contractual terms. In this case there are none, the contract is between the creditor and the EA so not applicable to the debtor's case.

Can't see what tort the EA could be responsible for. The courts do refer to "reasonable" or "unreasonable" conduct and this criteria is often used to make costs orders when they normally wouldn't be made, i.e. in small claims cases, however, there is no definition of "reasonable", it's left up to the courts to decide.
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#58 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:46

A bailiff is operating as public official where he uses statute to do his job. Abuse of process is rather different for public officials than private companies. There is a very high standard before it would be viewed as abuse of process by a Bailiff. Abuse of process, is for instance the police not adhering to the person rights whilst detained at the police station, or lack of due process to use a different turn of phrase. Abuse of process by a company is very different.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#59 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:52

Michelle wrote:
stopbailiff wrote:"Client has offered a controlled goods agreement, and pay the demand according to a schedule is £70 a month until everything is paid off including 5 x £75 and £235 enforcement stage fee, at £70 a month."

This is unlikely to be undue influence or coercion unless the facts were as I stated earlier. If the person offered, this is not undue influence/ coercion. There was a case where the bank owed its client a duty of care, where the bank knows there is in affect a forced agreement. So this is involuntary acceptance a mortgage etc, so it makes it undue influence. As the client offered it's very difficult to argue undue influence/ coercion.
In this case, the bailiff''s duty of care would be to the creditor who instructs them, not to the debtor. In that case it would be the creditor who could argue that their best interests were not served by the bailiff company if the steps they took resulted in a financial loss for them. But it doesn't affect the debtor in any way.
Every person owes a duty of care to another at common law, so the bailiff will also owe a common law duty of care to Jason's client in addition to the principal (council) who pays the agent (EA).

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#60 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Justanotherperson » 15 Sep 2016 15:52

Whether you believe there is a high standard or not, the judge in Land Securities does not suggest this. Paragraphs 65-66 suggest that abuse of process can relate to the ancilliary process and not actual institution of proceedings. If you were to interpret ancilliary in its ordinary meaning, then you could say that the bailiffs enforcement of collecting the debt is an ancilliary process.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#61 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 15:54

Michelle wrote:UTCCR 1999 refers, as you pointed out, to contractual terms. In this case there are none, the contract is between the creditor and the EA so not applicable to the debtor's case.

Can't see what tort the EA could be responsible for. The courts do refer to "reasonable" or "unreasonable" conduct and this criteria is often used to make costs orders when they normally wouldn't be made, i.e. in small claims cases, however, there is no definition of "reasonable", it's left up to the courts to decide.
Tort is a remedy for loss usually, so damages for loss. That's true of costs' orders yes, even though at CPR they're supposed to be discretionary.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#62 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 16:02

Justanotherperson wrote:Whether you believe there is a high standard or not, the judge in Land Securities does not suggest this. Paragraphs 65-66 suggest that abuse of process can relate to the ancilliary process and not actual institution of proceedings. If you were to interpret ancilliary in its ordinary meaning, then you could say that the bailiffs enforcement of collecting the debt is an ancilliary process.
Ok, let's assume the tortfeasor (the one in the wrong) is a police officer. How likely it is that the police will be sued? Let's assume the tort-feasor is a paramedic, how likely is it that these people in public positions will be sued? Very unlikely. I remember a case in tort where there was an ambulance, and private company's driver, have guess which potential tort-feasor was held liable? It's not whether the person in principle can be sued for the wrong, it's simply how likely is it that it will be successful. What about Hillsborough, at the time nearly 30 years ago, were they sued? What about the witness who experience trauma - were they successful. No, is the answer - as it would cost too much. If the company is private, ie not a statutory authority, it's more likely they'll be sued than a public official. In short, if it were easy to sue public officials they wouldn't do their jobs unless they paid extortionate liability insurance.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#63 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Sep 2016 16:09

stopbailiff wrote:A bailiff is operating as public official where he uses statute to do his job.
No he's not - save for CC bailiffs, they are private contractors. A bailiff enforcing a CCJ cannot be deemed a public official.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#64 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 16:16

Michelle wrote:
stopbailiff wrote:I know of reasonability tests based on contract; commercial law; I also seem to remember the EU Regs reasonability test too.
What EU regulation deals with enforcement?
stopbailiff wrote:I don't know whether this remedy is suitable for your client. The problem is, Jason, as you pointed out, is that she voluntarily entered in to an CGA.
No, she did not.
stopbailiff wrote:If this is not the case, the onus is on her to prove it, which is not going to be easy. Witness statements could be used under the hearsay rules, ie where they do not attend in person, usually with the court's permission. It just depends on the entire situation. Undue influence, coercion could be proven - ie she did not have the money against the debt so she felt no alternative than to enter into a CGA. This could be tantamount to undue influence and or coercion, in my view. The facts you provide though are very limited. She could potentially claim the money back if she can prove a breach sufficiently, overall.
Undue influence was discussed yesterday. It applies to contractual situations where you are pressed into entering into a contract for goods or services but enforcement is intended to force people to pay a debt one way or other. There will always be undue influence when dealing with an enforcement agent. Furthermore, she did not enter into a CGA, which seems to be the whole point.
It's Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, I believe that deals with enforcement.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#65 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 16:20

Pote Snitkin wrote:
stopbailiff wrote:A bailiff is operating as public official where he uses statute to do his job.
No he's not - save for CC bailiffs, they are private contractors. A bailiff enforcing a CCJ cannot be deemed a public official.
If a bailiff uses a law, ie section 62, TEA 2007, I believe that makes him a statutory authority. So a company or individual under public law could be public, private or even hybrid: ie both public and private function.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#66 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Tuco » 15 Sep 2016 16:29

The bottom line is that the creditor is responsible for the actions of it's agents. It is the creditor who determines whether a CGA can be accepted. The National standards state:

"Where a creditor has indicated they will accept a reasonable repayment offer, enforcement agents must refer such offers onto the creditor."

We see it all the time in HCEO cases where the agent state that a creditor won't accept a CGA. This because they want to escalate to the 2nd enforcement stage.

There is no obligation to accept a CGA. It should be remembered that the reason that creditors use Schedule 12 is to take control of goods to sell them, in order to recover a sum of money. If anything, I think the stronger argument is when bailiffs take control of goods that they have no intention of selling because the value is so low,

There may be a sting in the tail on this one. The removed car must be able to fetch something towards the outstanding debt. 5 x £75 must be paid to the bailiff first as well as all auction fees. If it's not roadworthy and has no key, I doubt it will fetch much at auction.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#67 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Michelle » 15 Sep 2016 16:31

stopbailiff wrote: It's Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, I believe that deals with enforcement.
Actually, most of that legislation has now been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Only business to business and consumer to consumer contracts are covered by it but not business to consumer contracts.

As for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), that's been replaced in its entirety by the CRA 2015.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... vision/2/5 :ugeek:
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#68 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 16:56

yep, you're right about the consumer statute. 1999 Regs are only secondary legislation, so it makes sense to make the law more robust by framing in statute, if this is what has happened.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#69 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Sep 2016 17:00

What are peoples feelings about using consumer law in a bailiff/debtor redress?

Is there a claim by inferring a debtor is a 'consumer' in the meaning of his obligation to pay the debt, or a 'comsumer' exposed to a loss greater than he would otherwise if the bailiff was reasonable by excising condition (d) instead of (b).

I can see a defendant solicitor vigourously arguing there is no contract, when I have to try an infer that it was created when the bailiff refused to accept money when he chose to take an enforcement step.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#70 Re: Test of reasonableness

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Sep 2016 17:03

Tuco wrote:The bottom line is that the creditor is responsible for the actions of it's agents. It is the creditor who determines whether a CGA can be accepted. The National standards state:

"Where a creditor has indicated they will accept a reasonable repayment offer, enforcement agents must refer such offers onto the creditor."

We see it all the time in HCEO cases where the agent state that a creditor won't accept a CGA. This because they want to escalate to the 2nd enforcement stage.

There is no obligation to accept a CGA. It should be remembered that the reason that creditors use Schedule 12 is to take control of goods to sell them, in order to recover a sum of money. If anything, I think the stronger argument is when bailiffs take control of goods that they have no intention of selling because the value is so low,

There may be a sting in the tail on this one. The removed car must be able to fetch something towards the outstanding debt. 5 x £75 must be paid to the bailiff first as well as all auction fees. If it's not roadworthy and has no key, I doubt it will fetch much at auction.
well, in tort law it's vicarious liability ie a remedy available against the company itself, if the person who did the tort was not (financially) worth suing. The problem is Marston's is likely an Ltd company so to an extent will be shielded from tort claims. It's deplorable the way this bailiff has behaved. So, in principal it could be a vicarious (indirect) claim for 'injury to feelings' or other related stuff. It could be vicariously liability against the council or Marston's for the actions of the 'agent' bailiff.

Post Reply