as the headline states this is a reality TV programme in which high court agents call to people to collect payment. My question relates to a situation where they called to an elderly mans house chasing his son for a debt. They stated that if payment was not paid they could take goods from the house unless the son paid. This seems rather dodgy to Me as they stated that the old man needed receipts to prove the assets of the home was his. Nobody has receipts for their household goods. Does anyone know what the true legal position is viz a viz this scenario. N.B. thank goodness I never find myself in such a sad position.
Can't pay?we'll take it away.
- Thread starter john luc
- Start date
I know its a UK show but we do have similar here in Ireland with the Sheriff office being tasked with enforcing the judgement of a court. Just curious as to what the actual law is regarding ownership of goods where the bailiff can state he can take it unless you prove its not owned by the debtor.
This seems to have the most info... but doesn't say anything about receipts.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-profe...cement/sheriff-enforcement-20160615141334.pdf
Goods considered ‘available for seizure’ under Sheriff law must be the sole unencumbered property of
the taxpayer and generally must be saleable.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-profe...cement/sheriff-enforcement-20160615141334.pdf
Goods considered ‘available for seizure’ under Sheriff law must be the sole unencumbered property of
the taxpayer and generally must be saleable.
Law Reform Commission guide on Debt Collection. In Ireland, the Sheriff's have a duty to satisfy themselves that the goods belong to the debtor. There is a complication where the creditor claims that goods belong to the debtor, where the Sheriffs no longer need to prove ownership themselves. This is most likely applicable where someone is looking for the recovery of specific goods that have not been paid for.
Making a false statement to a sheriff on the ownership of goods is an offence.
Making a false statement to a sheriff on the ownership of goods is an offence.
The officer was just doing his job but the fact that he was saying he had the right to take from the old man's house goods to satisfy a debt owed by his son and that the only defence the old man had was to produce receipts for his goods when quite frankly nobody has receipts for goods they have.
Looking at that law reform commission guide I read this,
Quote,
In levying execution, the duty of the sheriff is to seize goods of the judgment debtor sufficient to satisfy the judgment of which he has or could have had, with due diligence, notice that they are in his bailiwick.6 However, there is little authority on what this test means in practical terms. The view generally taken is that possession is evidence of ownership and that the sheriff should seize goods in the possession of the judgment debtor unless the debtor's ownership is denied. Where goods are not in the possession of the judgment debtor, the sheriff will not seize them unless he has positive evidence that they belong to the judgment debtor. If the judgment creditor indicates that certain goods belong to the judgment debtor, he is liable to the sheriff if the latter is sued for wrongful seizure.7
Quote.
Quote,
In levying execution, the duty of the sheriff is to seize goods of the judgment debtor sufficient to satisfy the judgment of which he has or could have had, with due diligence, notice that they are in his bailiwick.6 However, there is little authority on what this test means in practical terms. The view generally taken is that possession is evidence of ownership and that the sheriff should seize goods in the possession of the judgment debtor unless the debtor's ownership is denied. Where goods are not in the possession of the judgment debtor, the sheriff will not seize them unless he has positive evidence that they belong to the judgment debtor. If the judgment creditor indicates that certain goods belong to the judgment debtor, he is liable to the sheriff if the latter is sued for wrongful seizure.7
Quote.
The officer was just doing his job but the fact that he was saying he had the right to take from the old man's house goods to satisfy a debt owed by his son and that the only defence the old man had was to produce receipts for his goods when quite frankly nobody has receipts for goods they have.
Are you still talking about a UK case there? If so, you'll likely need to go to a UK based forum if you want to discuss the legalities under their law.
The Sheriffs or County Registrars here perform largely the same role here.
they do and I had recourse to avail of them once. My question was not about these matters but a point of civil justice in can an official threaten to take some e else goods to satisfy a debt of another unless they had receipts to prove ownership. As I read the law reform commission document it appears they cannot.