Siezing wrong car

[luxardo]

I just moved in to a new house and got a visit from a bailiff with a warrant for previous tenant. I told him I was not the person on the writ and he asked for proof. I just refused to show him ID, why should I ?
He said he would seize the car on the drive despite me telling him it was my car and I am not the debtor. I told him to go ahead and seize it and I would see him in court where I would sue his arse off as he had been told the car did not belong to the debtor.
He eventually left taking no action after I closed the door and ignored him. I have heard nothing since.
My question is, what exactly could I have sued for if he had towed my car away ?

[zeke]

You make an Interpleader claim to recover the car.

You claim damages for the loss of use of the vehicle by making a claim against the creditor the bailiff was acting for.

[Syd Snitkin]

How would he get it back from Oman?

[luxardo]

OK I get the interpleader part but would I really have to lodge the full amount of the car's value with the court ?
As for costs, if my car was expensive, say 50k, would I be able to hire a similar car for the entire time the bailiff had possession and claim it all back ?
Also, what are conversion costs ? Seems a little ambiguous to define not having the car in terms of money. Is it based on the length of time you are without it or something else ?
I'm assuming this would cost me nothing if I won the case as I would be awarded full costs but very expensive for the bailiff ?

[zeke]

There is a bug in the law because the rules do not provide for the lodged money to be returned to the interpleader claimant. I doubt that is what Parliament intended. I expect the rule was introduced following some lobbying from the HCEOA akin to an ever-reducing threshold to transfer a claim to the High Court from £5000 to £2000 and down again to its present £600 and fiercely objecting to pegging the threshold back to the small claims track limit preventing any small claim transferred up because of disproportionately large enforcement fees for small debts. It is also why some interpleader claims fail, for example, a £10,000 car taken for an unpaid £2.50 Dartford Crossing Charge requires the value of the goods £10,000 to be lodged with the court but the claimant does not have the money. It leaves the claimant to recover the replacement cost of the car instead - conversion. I get around it by applying to the court to lodge the value of the debt with the court, which is mostly accepted.

Conversion is damages paid for wrongful interference with your goods. The courts put a high burden of proof on the quantity of damages, so I tell clients to get all receipts for taxis, car rental and vehicle transportation of the controlled car back from the pound, and get invoices for the repairs to the car for damage caused to it while at the pound. Bailiff companies used to defend conversion claims on the grounds of "betterment" but that was defeated because there is no insurance contract between a bailiff and the owner of the goods. This is where I rely on bailiffs producing body-cam footage because that is their only proof the damage was not there when he took the car, and if the footage is unavailable, his defence is defeated. When a bailiffs website brags about its agents using bodycams, there is no need to change its policy when it can be used to exonerate itself.

In a successful interpleader claim, the losing party pays, that is usually the creditor - the council, but their contract with the bailiff indemnifies the council (taxpayers funds) to a maximum of £10m liability as a condition for doing enforcement work on its behalf, so ultimately the bailiff company pays, so they exercise caution because pocketing a £110 sale stage fee can land them a £10,000 claim.

Its worth noting that costs are 100% discretionary on the court. It is possible the court can award an interpleader claimant his goods, but could potentially order the claimant to pay all the costs of the bailiff company. Its never happened, but under the rules of court, that discretion is total. You could only appeal such a decision of the court has a reason to make a successful interpleader claimant pay costs, for example, the judge makes a factual error, or make an error in his interpretation of the law. I have had several solicitors needing to lodge appeals because their client's costs were not fully compensated leaving an innocent victim out of pocket, these types of appeals are expensive and eventually compensates the client, but it is not clear who is ordered to pay that compensation.

[luxardo]

Very informative Nigel, thank you. Probably explains why bailiff didn't call my bluff and take my car !!

[Syd Snitkin]

Perhaps the towtruck couldn't manage to drive on the sand.

[Amy]

It would have been far easier and simpler to have shown him your ID. Imagine how many times a day they must get told “it’s not me guv, honest.”

[luxardo]

I agree but his next step would have probably been to say the debtor could have been a friend or relative who lived with me. It never ends with bailiffs so I preferred to just blank him. Syd, bore off with your inane comments.

[Syd Snitkin]

Syd, bore off with your inane comments.

Obviously the Omani heat is getting to you. I guess it's fortunate that he didn't try to seize your camel.

[Amy]

I agree but his next step would have probably been to say the debtor could have been a friend or relative who lived with me. It never ends with bailiffs so I preferred to just blank him. Syd, bore off with your inane comments.

You should do the lottery if you can so easily predict the future.

[luxardo]

You don't need to be Mystic Meg to predict that a bailiff will not give up easily

[zeke]

Mystic Meg can predict anything except lottery numbers.

[Amy]

You don't need to be Mystic Meg to predict that a bailiff will not give up easily

And yet, he left without seizing your car.