proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

[mgfboy]

Afternoon all

A mate of mine is having a few problems with the Inland revenue ( they make the worst debt collection agencies look like pussy cats!!!), he may be having a distraint order against them even though he is trying to pay them off.

The question is on the IR sites to gives a list of what they can and cannot take, but it's woolly around thing that may be in joint ownership. His views is if he got divorced everthing would be split 50/50 so he views everthing in the house is owned 50/50, if this is the case how would you prove that and does anyone have experiance of what happens.?????

[Fribourg]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

There are certain kinds of goods which are exempt from distraint. They will not seize property which you can prove belongs to someone else or which is jointly owned.

The possibility of distraint should not be ignored, however the following point should be considered

The collector should act within the law, and you need not fear the illegal behaviour that is sometimes reported of bailiffs who carry out distant for other debts.
The collector cannot force his way into your premises without a court order, and such orders are very unusual.
In reality, only a fraction of 1 percent of distraint visits lead to sales at auction.

Lets see if someone else in here knows a bit more and can help
Meantime, have a look into this

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/factsheets/ef1.pdf

[garlok]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

Cannot understand why HMRC have got so heavy seemingly so quickly. It is normal practice to talk to them or reply to their letters and they will usually go out of their way to assist on the basis that anything is better then nothing LOL.

We have always found that to be the case. If you ignore them or mess them around then yes they will come in with great big hob nail boots and as it a govt debt it will never be statute barred, so running for the hills won't pay either.

Try for a face to face with someone more senior in his tax office would be my first port of call with a big slice of humble pie. There are only two lots of people in this country first one is HM Customs and Excise (particularly VAT) very close second is the Revenue who you do NOT mess with. There are many many people in the UK on payment arrangements with the Revenue. A lot depends just how much your friend has cheesed them off I would say.

Garlok

[mgfboy]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

Cannot understand why HMRC have got so heavy seemingly so quickly. It is normal practice to talk to them or reply to their letters and they will usually go out of their way to assist on the basis that anything is better then nothing LOL.

We have always found that to be the case. If you ignore them or mess them around then yes they will come in with great big hob nail boots and as it a govt debt it will never be statute barred, so running for the hills won't pay either.

Try for a face to face with someone more senior in his tax office would be my first port of call with a big slice of humble pie. There are only two lots of people in this country first one is HM Customs and Excise (particularly VAT) very close second is the Revenue who you do NOT mess with. There are many many people in the UK on payment arrangements with the Revenue. A lot depends just how much your friend has cheesed them off I would say.

Garlok

I agree , I've dealt with the IR many times in the past and they are normally OK, but you only need one traffic warden of an inspector and you can be well and truly screwed!!! I spoke to one a few years ago and the guy was so abusive I had to put the phone down and ring back and speak to his boss, it appears that the telephone call before me had said they would to nasty things to the guys wife and children and I was just getting the aftermath. So most are good but if you get a bad one. Also I see day in and out how often the IR screw up loss things, or just get things plain wrong, the problem is they will never admit it and there is no Ombudsman to go to either

So getting back to the question , does anybody know how they prove or you disprove common items in the house are in joint ownership or not if they do get a distraint order?

[garlok]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

Sorry as regards the actual question I don't know. Simply being that I have never come across a case that has gone that far. As I said talking to them normally, stress normally, pacifies them and an agreement can be reached.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

Does the home contents not align with normal "divorce" proceedings where they split things 50/50? I mean a normal family; not a special case.

For instance courts use a 50/50 ratio normally assuming both partners had an equal share, ie assume a normal couple, no kids, earn same etc - in this case it'd be a straight 50/50 split.

Surely then HMRC adopt the same rules and if not a court must decide. Maybe see what Paul knows about it....

[mgfboy]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

Does the home contents not align with normal "divorce" proceedings where they split things 50/50? I mean a normal family; not a special case.

For instance courts use a 50/50 ratio normally assuming both partners had an equal share, ie assume a normal couple, no kids, earn same etc - in this case it'd be a straight 50/50 split.

Surely then HMRC adopt the same rules and if not a court must decide. Maybe see what Paul knows about it....

Thats what I can't find out I even looked at the IR guidence for enforcement and it's just really woolly, it basically says the officers just has to think a person should own it and it's up to you to prove otherwise. It's the prove otherwise and how to I can't get my head around!!!

[mgfboy]

Re: proof of ownership in a inland revenue distraint case

This is from the actually revenue guidence, it show they have to much power!!!

Ownership

You must also obtain specific verbal confirmation from the defaulter, or a responsible person, that goods are owned by the debtor solely and that no-one else has a financial interest in them.
To do this, it is often useful to ask the debtor directly

• is this yours?
• is it paid for?

If the answer to both questions is ‘yes’ then you may seize the goods.
The debtor may try to deflect your distraint by claiming during the levy that the goods belong to someone else. It is for the debtor, not for you, to prove ownership. You are entitled to seize goods you honestly believe to belong to the debtor.