The registered office of my company was visited by DCBL who told me that they were going to remove goods in accordance with a Writ of Control in respect of a debt due to an ex-employee's Tribunal Award. From what I read they have failed to carry out the correct procedure at many levels but they would not leave my office and said it is now going to stage 3 and a van would arrive at 4.30pm.
I explained that the entire office equipment was owned by my Wife and I and not the company and provided invoices and bank statements to prove that my Wife and I had paid for all the office equipment. They did not accept this and would not leave.
Eventually after over an hour they took a call from 'their boss' who said they would review the documents they have photographed and the guys left.
Is there any more I can do to a) make it clearer that the company has no fixed assets and b) make sure this company does not continue to harass me and my company.
The same company came to my home address (not registered office) earlier this year trying to collect a company debt that was disputed and had not even gone to Court! The guy blocked my drive and would not leave and I had to call the Police. It was extremely embarrassing for my family with our neighbours and whilst the Police got the guy to leave they were not as robust as I thought they should be.
DCBL Attended and wanted to remove goods not belonging to the Defendant
Re: DCBL Attended and wanted to remove goods not belonging to the Defendant
If a bailiff takes control of goods that do not belong to the debtor then the company or person who owns the goods can bring an interpleader claim. The first stage is an informal stage, but the 2nd stage is a formal stage and if the court decides in the interpleader claimant's favour, then the bailiff company lands the legal bill for the claimants costs, about £8000 in a B2B enforcement event.
It appears DCBL decided not take the gamble and interfere with the goods at the premises. Damages for disruption to the company is astronomical, plus DCBL has to pay their own solicitor to defend the claim, and their in-house solicitor presents a weak defence.
If you want to protect your company from further action, then you need to give a formal notice, which states that the company will apply for damages for any further disruption.
The police are not efficient at taking non-compliant bailiff from the premises. Kent Police is defending such a claim for failure to protect a victim of crime with two of their officers present, and the legal bill so far is well into 5 figures before they divvy out the claim. Litigating a police force for breach of statutory duty or abuse of public office takes months because they wriggle and the proceedings become protracted.
To answer your 2nd question, the debtor can bring a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16, a hearing to decide whether DCBL are truthful with their fees. Such a claim keeps DCBL away because the application calls for suspension of the enforcement power and when the court finds in the applicant’s favour, it always makes DCBL pay the applicant’s costs.
To bring a detailed assessment application, the debtor must get a copy of the original judgment from Trust Online (fee) or the original county court, determine whether the claimant is VAT registered, on http://www.vat-finder.co.uk/ then get a copy of DCBL’s demand or receipt for any money taken. With that information, the debtor can find out whether DCBL overcharged him. It doesn’t matter whether any money was taken.
It appears DCBL decided not take the gamble and interfere with the goods at the premises. Damages for disruption to the company is astronomical, plus DCBL has to pay their own solicitor to defend the claim, and their in-house solicitor presents a weak defence.
If you want to protect your company from further action, then you need to give a formal notice, which states that the company will apply for damages for any further disruption.
The police are not efficient at taking non-compliant bailiff from the premises. Kent Police is defending such a claim for failure to protect a victim of crime with two of their officers present, and the legal bill so far is well into 5 figures before they divvy out the claim. Litigating a police force for breach of statutory duty or abuse of public office takes months because they wriggle and the proceedings become protracted.
To answer your 2nd question, the debtor can bring a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16, a hearing to decide whether DCBL are truthful with their fees. Such a claim keeps DCBL away because the application calls for suspension of the enforcement power and when the court finds in the applicant’s favour, it always makes DCBL pay the applicant’s costs.
To bring a detailed assessment application, the debtor must get a copy of the original judgment from Trust Online (fee) or the original county court, determine whether the claimant is VAT registered, on http://www.vat-finder.co.uk/ then get a copy of DCBL’s demand or receipt for any money taken. With that information, the debtor can find out whether DCBL overcharged him. It doesn’t matter whether any money was taken.
Re: DCBL Attended and wanted to remove goods not belonging to the Defendant
Sincere thanks for the advice zeke. Would a Statutory Declaration help further confirm that the fixed assets (office equipment) do not belong to the company (debtor)?
I'm assuming a formal notice to DCBL could be a letter by a Director and not need to be from a Solicitor?
I'm assuming a formal notice to DCBL could be a letter by a Director and not need to be from a Solicitor?
Re: DCBL Attended and wanted to remove goods not belonging to the Defendant
Until 6 April 2014, a statutory declaration was the way to go, because the bailiff would be liable for everything that followed if he took an enforcement step.
Since enforcement became regulated, Judges disregard a statutory declaration, even it is means subverting the Statutory Declarations Act. I find it unreliable to use a statutory declaration when, rather surprisingly, a simple notice carries more weight.
A notice to the bailiff company does not need to be from a solicitor. It's a notice from a director.
Under current regulations, a bailiff can assume goods belong to the debtor unless evidence to the contrary is proved. A notice is evidence to the contrary. It can be given in evidence in a claim for damages for interference with goods should a bailiff rebuke it. The legislation is section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, but the interpleader claim itself is under CPR 85 has no provision for damages.
Since enforcement became regulated, Judges disregard a statutory declaration, even it is means subverting the Statutory Declarations Act. I find it unreliable to use a statutory declaration when, rather surprisingly, a simple notice carries more weight.
A notice to the bailiff company does not need to be from a solicitor. It's a notice from a director.
Under current regulations, a bailiff can assume goods belong to the debtor unless evidence to the contrary is proved. A notice is evidence to the contrary. It can be given in evidence in a claim for damages for interference with goods should a bailiff rebuke it. The legislation is section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, but the interpleader claim itself is under CPR 85 has no provision for damages.
Re: DCBL Attended and wanted to remove goods not belonging to the Defendant
I have it in writing
The accuser has to prove the goods belong to a debtor as per law!!
The accuser has to prove the goods belong to a debtor as per law!!