Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Council Bailiffs clamped my car on my ex-wife's drive
530 views
Skip to first unread message
Humbug
Oct 25, 2012, 6:50:10 PM10/25/12
to
My daughter drives a car which I own; I am the registered keeper, and
I have insured it naming her as the principal driver.
She stayed at my house last night, and when I left for work this
morning she had a couple of hours to spare before she had to be at
work herself, and decided to vist her mother a few miles away.
My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's house
to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
She called the number on the notice, thinking that it was a mistake to
do with Road Tax, which is of course up to date.
She was amazed when two council bailiffs turned up.
Neither my daughter nor I knew that my ex-wife was in dispute with the
council over alleged unpaid Council Tax, but that is not the relevant
issue.
The bailiffs refused to remove the clamp when my daughter protested
that it was not her mother's car. They insisted that she would have to
produce the V5 and insurance certificate before they would remove the
clamp.
My daughter has a key to my house, and an Oyster card, so I told her
where to find the documents and advised her to get on a bus and fetch
them.
That would not have been the best course of action from what I've
since heard.
My daughter was able to produce identification and other documents
which showed that she did not live in my ex-wife's house, and
eventually one of the bailiffs relented and agreed to remove the
clamp.
The other bailiff was not pleased with this. Once the clamp was
removed, they left their van parked across the driveway, so my
daughter was still not able to drive away. She was already late for
work by this time.
Later, one of the bailiffs asked my daugther to move the car, as a tow
truck was on its way to remove her mother's car.
Her mother asked her not to move my car, as she was still on the phone
trying to resolve the issue.
Then the bailiff said that if my daughter did not move my car, they
would move it themselves.
My daughter sat in the car so that it could not be forcibly moved.
The bailiff threatened to call the Police and have her arrested for
causing an obstruction.
After about fifteen minutes when the Police had (unsurprisingly) not
arrived, he threatened to attach the clamp again and leave it there
for two or three days.
The tow truck arrived, and the bailiff directed it to park around the
corner.
By this time, my ex-wife had actually managed to contact somebody and
made a payment.
Whether she should have paid it or not is none of my concern, but I
suspect that it ought to be be repaid in due course.
However:
Who was able to mark *my* car as being authorised for clamping and
removal?
Are bailiffs within their rights to clamp any car, regardless of
ownership, which is found on the driveway of a supposed defaulter?
What action can be taken against the Council and/or the bailiffs for
(a) depriving me and my daughter of the use of my car by parking their
van in front of a dropped kerb
(b) my daughter's loss of earnings as she was prevented from driving
to her normal place of work.
(c) threats made by the bailiff
I can see that if my daughter had left my car outside her mother's
house for the day, it could have been impounded and possibly sold to
pay a supposed debt which is *not* mine.
Who can I complain to?
--
Humbug
I have insured it naming her as the principal driver.
She stayed at my house last night, and when I left for work this
morning she had a couple of hours to spare before she had to be at
work herself, and decided to vist her mother a few miles away.
My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's house
to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
She called the number on the notice, thinking that it was a mistake to
do with Road Tax, which is of course up to date.
She was amazed when two council bailiffs turned up.
Neither my daughter nor I knew that my ex-wife was in dispute with the
council over alleged unpaid Council Tax, but that is not the relevant
issue.
The bailiffs refused to remove the clamp when my daughter protested
that it was not her mother's car. They insisted that she would have to
produce the V5 and insurance certificate before they would remove the
clamp.
My daughter has a key to my house, and an Oyster card, so I told her
where to find the documents and advised her to get on a bus and fetch
them.
That would not have been the best course of action from what I've
since heard.
My daughter was able to produce identification and other documents
which showed that she did not live in my ex-wife's house, and
eventually one of the bailiffs relented and agreed to remove the
clamp.
The other bailiff was not pleased with this. Once the clamp was
removed, they left their van parked across the driveway, so my
daughter was still not able to drive away. She was already late for
work by this time.
Later, one of the bailiffs asked my daugther to move the car, as a tow
truck was on its way to remove her mother's car.
Her mother asked her not to move my car, as she was still on the phone
trying to resolve the issue.
Then the bailiff said that if my daughter did not move my car, they
would move it themselves.
My daughter sat in the car so that it could not be forcibly moved.
The bailiff threatened to call the Police and have her arrested for
causing an obstruction.
After about fifteen minutes when the Police had (unsurprisingly) not
arrived, he threatened to attach the clamp again and leave it there
for two or three days.
The tow truck arrived, and the bailiff directed it to park around the
corner.
By this time, my ex-wife had actually managed to contact somebody and
made a payment.
Whether she should have paid it or not is none of my concern, but I
suspect that it ought to be be repaid in due course.
However:
Who was able to mark *my* car as being authorised for clamping and
removal?
Are bailiffs within their rights to clamp any car, regardless of
ownership, which is found on the driveway of a supposed defaulter?
What action can be taken against the Council and/or the bailiffs for
(a) depriving me and my daughter of the use of my car by parking their
van in front of a dropped kerb
(b) my daughter's loss of earnings as she was prevented from driving
to her normal place of work.
(c) threats made by the bailiff
I can see that if my daughter had left my car outside her mother's
house for the day, it could have been impounded and possibly sold to
pay a supposed debt which is *not* mine.
Who can I complain to?
--
Humbug
Man at B&Q
Oct 26, 2012, 4:55:09 AM10/26/12
to
Sorry, don't know, but I hope you are able to throw the book at the
b******s.
I would phone the local paper and get them involved. Kick up as much
of a stink as you can.
MBQ
b******s.
I would phone the local paper and get them involved. Kick up as much
of a stink as you can.
MBQ
GB
Oct 26, 2012, 5:35:02 AM10/26/12
to
council, using their complaints procedure. Demand a ludicrously large
amount of money in compensation. Follow through the different stages of
the procedure patiently, refusing all lesser offers of compensation. You
don't have to do more than say that you are not satisfied with the offer
and you want it escalated.
At the final stage it should be seen by the chief executive's office,
and everyone involved will know that they are in for some criticism. At
that stage, you have a choice. You can either accept a reasonable
compensation offer, or take it to the ombudsman, depending on how
vindictive you are feeling.
Fredxx
Oct 26, 2012, 5:45:11 AM10/26/12
to
bailiff's license.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs.htm
John Benn
Oct 26, 2012, 5:50:02 AM10/26/12
to
"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
news:u2aj885f12vfv7a6t...@4ax.com...
At the very least, they owe you and your daughter and apology and financial
compensation for the inconvenience and distress they have caused.
I would be writing a letter of complaint to the council and possibly also to
the local and national newspapers.
John
Oct 26, 2012, 6:40:02 AM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's house
>to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
>windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
<snip horrific tale of bailiff abuse>
>My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's house
>to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
>windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
>Who can I complain to?
commercial firm involved, a complaint to their chief executive too.
Ombudsman as a last resort
http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaints-about-bailiffs/
--
John
philmc...@gmail.com
Oct 26, 2012, 6:50:02 AM10/26/12
to
From his account they may be the sort of people who are inclined to tell a pack of lies to get off the hook.
Make a list of what evidence you have. "She said this" and "they said that" doesn't count. If you have a recording of it on a smartphone, payday for you :-)
Robin Bignall
Oct 26, 2012, 12:10:02 PM10/26/12
to
>Who can I complain to?
In addition to the other suggestions I'd suggest also contacting your
MP.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Theo Markettos
Oct 26, 2012, 2:40:02 PM10/26/12
to
philmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I suppose the real question is not how vindictive he is feeling but how
> much ammunition he has against the council and the bailiffs?
IANAL, but was there a court judgement against the ex-wife? It would seem
> I suppose the real question is not how vindictive he is feeling but how
> much ammunition he has against the council and the bailiffs?
odd that bailiffs are involved if no court proceedings had occurred. Unless
this is 'encouragement' to pay up in advance of court proceedings, in which
case the council are out of order.
This:
http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/print/council_tax_nonpay.doc
is Leicestershire's procedure (which is similar to other authorities and I
think is encoded in law):
1. Reminder
2. Second reminder
3. Final notice
4. Summons
[court appearance]
5. Liability order
Only after stage 5 are bailiffs allowed to be involved. Even if they are,
they can't take 'Tools, books, vehicles and any other items of equipment
that is needed for the debtor's employment, business or vocation'.
Theo
Nick
Oct 26, 2012, 2:45:02 PM10/26/12
to
> Who can I complain to?
>
> --
> Humbug
I think it is damning and shameful that any council can employ such tactics.
>
> --
> Humbug
I understand that regulations regarding wheel clampers are being or have
been changed.
You can certainly make complaint to the council concerned and your MP.
You might also send a message to Honest John. He has V strong views on such
and might give it some public airing.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/
Nick.
Mark Goodge
Oct 26, 2012, 5:40:02 PM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>However:
>
>Who was able to mark *my* car as being authorised for clamping and
>removal?
Nobody, legally. The fact that it was done without checking ownership is a
very serious breach of procedures.
>Are bailiffs within their rights to clamp any car, regardless of
>ownership, which is found on the driveway of a supposed defaulter?
No, they most certainly are not.
>What action can be taken against the Council and/or the bailiffs for
>(a) depriving me and my daughter of the use of my car by parking their
>van in front of a dropped kerb
>(b) my daughter's loss of earnings as she was prevented from driving
>to her normal place of work.
>(c) threats made by the bailiff
The council owes you and your daughter compensation. The individual
bailiffs may well be in line for disciplinary action.
>I can see that if my daughter had left my car outside her mother's
>house for the day, it could have been impounded and possibly sold to
>pay a supposed debt which is *not* mine.
>
>Who can I complain to?
As others have said, to begin with you should write to the council making a
formal complaint, and make sure you follow it up all the way to the chief
executive. It is also worthwhile letting the local press know, as well as
your councillors and/or MP. You may also wish to consider getting
professional legal advice.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
>However:
>
>Who was able to mark *my* car as being authorised for clamping and
>removal?
very serious breach of procedures.
>Are bailiffs within their rights to clamp any car, regardless of
>ownership, which is found on the driveway of a supposed defaulter?
>What action can be taken against the Council and/or the bailiffs for
>(a) depriving me and my daughter of the use of my car by parking their
>van in front of a dropped kerb
>(b) my daughter's loss of earnings as she was prevented from driving
>to her normal place of work.
>(c) threats made by the bailiff
bailiffs may well be in line for disciplinary action.
>I can see that if my daughter had left my car outside her mother's
>house for the day, it could have been impounded and possibly sold to
>pay a supposed debt which is *not* mine.
>
>Who can I complain to?
formal complaint, and make sure you follow it up all the way to the chief
executive. It is also worthwhile letting the local press know, as well as
your councillors and/or MP. You may also wish to consider getting
professional legal advice.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Zapp Brannigan
Oct 26, 2012, 6:45:02 PM10/26/12
to
> My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's house
> to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
> windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
>
Appalling story, quite disgraceful.
> to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
> windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
>
There are some very skilled bailiff-fighters at
<http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers>
and they would know exactly how to best use the regulatory regime to achieve
maximum impact.
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 3:10:02 AM10/27/12
to
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 3:20:02 AM10/27/12
to
stand if they cut the clamp off
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 4:50:02 AM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
and typed:
That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as criminal
damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs do
not make a right. If the car was needed very urgently, then that need might
be accepted by a court as justification for causing the damage. I would be
wary of relying on that defence, though, unless there really was an
overriding need.
In any case, revenge is a dish best served cold. The OP will be in a far
stronger position by ensuring that he retains the moral high ground at all
times.
and typed:
damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs do
not make a right. If the car was needed very urgently, then that need might
be accepted by a court as justification for causing the damage. I would be
wary of relying on that defence, though, unless there really was an
overriding need.
In any case, revenge is a dish best served cold. The OP will be in a far
stronger position by ensuring that he retains the moral high ground at all
times.
Message has been deleted
brianh...@googlemail.com
Oct 27, 2012, 4:50:01 AM10/27/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Bellfield
Zapp Brannigan
Oct 27, 2012, 6:50:02 AM10/27/12
to
"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rl8n881ke8l38eurc...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:50:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
>>> Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where would the op
>>> stand if they cut the clamp off
>>
>> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as criminal
>> damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs
>> do
>> not make a right.
>
> Insofar as the installation of the clamp was itself an act of criminal
>>> stand if they cut the clamp off
>>
>> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as criminal
>> damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs
>> do
>> not make a right.
>
> damage, I doubt that its removal would be found to be that. It would be
> defended as an act that was both reasonable and proportionate to the
> unlawful detention of the OP's valuable vehicle property.
In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely detains me
or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force to end that unlawful
act. The obvious exception would be where they are acting under powers
granted by parliament.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 27, 2012, 7:10:01 AM10/27/12
to
brianh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> It might be worth keeping in mind the general calibre of wheel clamp
> operators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Bellfield
I am no lover of wheel clampers but extrapolating one vile serial killer to
> It might be worth keeping in mind the general calibre of wheel clamp
> operators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Bellfield
represent them in general is a bit of a stretch, one that I'm surprised got
past moderation.
Ste
Oct 27, 2012, 7:30:02 AM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 9:50 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
they have no right to do so) and be prepared to justify themselves in
court, but a court would not frown upon the simple act of removing an
illegal clamp by cutting the chain and leaving it at the kerbside. If
the need to use the car was urgent (as it was in the OP's case), you
could do so immediately without waiting around.
If there was no urgency, then the court might (as a general principle
of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
daughter on the drive).
> In any case, revenge is a dish best served cold. The OP will be in a far
> stronger position by ensuring that he retains the moral high ground at all
> times.
I don't see that you lose the moral high ground by cutting off a clamp
that was illegally fixed.
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >> "Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
> >>news:u2aj885f12vfv7a6t...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's
> >> > house to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
> >> > windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
>
> >> Appalling story, quite disgraceful.
>
> >> There are some very skilled bailiff-fighters at
> >> <http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Baili
> >> ffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers> and they would know exactly
> >> how to best use the regulatory regime to achieve maximum impact.
>
> >Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where would the op
> >stand if they cut the clamp off
>
> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as criminal
> damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs do
> not make a right. If the car was needed very urgently, then that need might
> be accepted by a court as justification for causing the damage. I would be
> wary of relying on that defence, though, unless there really was an
> overriding need.
I agree a person should be wary of taking self-help measures (lest
> and typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >> "Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
> >>news:u2aj885f12vfv7a6t...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > My daughter called me in tears when she came out of my ex-wife's
> >> > house to find that the car had been clamped, and had a notice on the
> >> > windscreen saying "Authorised for clamping and removal: C.Tax".
>
> >> Appalling story, quite disgraceful.
>
> >> There are some very skilled bailiff-fighters at
> >> <http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Baili
> >> ffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers> and they would know exactly
> >> how to best use the regulatory regime to achieve maximum impact.
>
> >Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where would the op
> >stand if they cut the clamp off
>
> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as criminal
> damage, and the law generally operates on the principle that two wrongs do
> not make a right. If the car was needed very urgently, then that need might
> be accepted by a court as justification for causing the damage. I would be
> wary of relying on that defence, though, unless there really was an
> overriding need.
they have no right to do so) and be prepared to justify themselves in
court, but a court would not frown upon the simple act of removing an
illegal clamp by cutting the chain and leaving it at the kerbside. If
the need to use the car was urgent (as it was in the OP's case), you
could do so immediately without waiting around.
If there was no urgency, then the court might (as a general principle
of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
daughter on the drive).
> In any case, revenge is a dish best served cold. The OP will be in a far
> stronger position by ensuring that he retains the moral high ground at all
> times.
that was illegally fixed.
Fredxx
Oct 27, 2012, 8:15:03 AM10/27/12
to
ULM posters' surprise at their behaviour.
Fredxx
Oct 27, 2012, 8:15:03 AM10/27/12
to
Message has been deleted
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 10:00:03 AM10/27/12
to
clamp a car that does not belong to the householder who is Po-ported
to owe money for council tax , i could understand if they took Tv's
jewelry stereo kit etc within the confines of the house if they
believed the householder to be lieing or being deciebtful (im not in
any way accusing the op or his ex of any wrongdoing) however clamping
a car that is not registered to the householder or listed at the
address would seem a little to far
Stuart A. Bronstein
Oct 27, 2012, 10:25:02 AM10/27/12
to
>> Mark Goodge> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> steve robinson
injury to a person.
If someone broke into your house to steal something, is it legal
for you to break into his house to steal it back? I think that's a
more analogous situation.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
>>> steve robinson
>
>>>> Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where
>>>> would the op stand if they cut the clamp off
>>>
>>> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as
>>> criminal damage, and the law generally operates on the
>>> principle that two wrongs do
>>> not make a right.
>>
>> Insofar as the installation of the clamp was itself an act of
>> criminal damage, I doubt that its removal would be found to be
>> that. It would be defended as an act that was both reasonable
>> and proportionate to the unlawful detention of the OP's
>> valuable vehicle property.
>
> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>>>> Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where
>>>> would the op stand if they cut the clamp off
>>>
>>> That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as
>>> criminal damage, and the law generally operates on the
>>> principle that two wrongs do
>>> not make a right.
>>
>> Insofar as the installation of the clamp was itself an act of
>> criminal damage, I doubt that its removal would be found to be
>> that. It would be defended as an act that was both reasonable
>> and proportionate to the unlawful detention of the OP's
>> valuable vehicle property.
>
> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
injury to a person.
If someone broke into your house to steal something, is it legal
for you to break into his house to steal it back? I think that's a
more analogous situation.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 12:20:02 PM10/27/12
to
or in a very short timescale using self help to prevent the action from
continuing (i.e cutting the chain off) and several days later forceing
entry into a property to retrieve your stolen items
Its more akin to chasing said thieving tow rag down the street and as
he enters his house trying to slam the door in your face pushing door
open and detaining said tow rag or retrieving your property
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 2:10:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:50:02 +0100, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
Yes, I agree. And in cases like the OP's I don't think that a simple error
- however bad - is enough to justify breaking the law in return. To use an
analogy, if you were wrongly arrested by the police that would not give you
carte blanche to resist arrest or abscond from custody. In the same way,
the bailiffs encountered by the OP's daughter were legitimately able to
clamp cars, and they were doing so under the authorisation of a court. The
fact that they clamped the wrong car does not automatically invalidate that
authorisation, and equally does not automatically make their error a
criminal offence.
There's a wider legal principle here, which is that something which would
not be a criminal offence when done correctly does not become a criminal
offence simply because of some mistake in its execution. It would only be
an offence if the incorrect action went beyond simple error and into
deliberate or reckless disregard for correctness.
It's possible, of course, that the bailiffs in this case were being
reckless or deliberately disregarding the true ownership of the car. But I
think it's more likely that they believed themselves to be acting
correctly, due to having been given incorrect information by those
instructing them. If so, clamping the wrong car would not be criminal
damage.
and typed:
>
- however bad - is enough to justify breaking the law in return. To use an
analogy, if you were wrongly arrested by the police that would not give you
carte blanche to resist arrest or abscond from custody. In the same way,
the bailiffs encountered by the OP's daughter were legitimately able to
clamp cars, and they were doing so under the authorisation of a court. The
fact that they clamped the wrong car does not automatically invalidate that
authorisation, and equally does not automatically make their error a
criminal offence.
There's a wider legal principle here, which is that something which would
not be a criminal offence when done correctly does not become a criminal
offence simply because of some mistake in its execution. It would only be
an offence if the incorrect action went beyond simple error and into
deliberate or reckless disregard for correctness.
It's possible, of course, that the bailiffs in this case were being
reckless or deliberately disregarding the true ownership of the car. But I
think it's more likely that they believed themselves to be acting
correctly, due to having been given incorrect information by those
instructing them. If so, clamping the wrong car would not be criminal
damage.
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 2:15:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:00:03 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:rl8n881ke8l38eurc...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:50:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to
>> > > keyboard
>>
>> > > > Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where
>> > > > would the op stand if they cut the clamp off
>> > >
>> > > That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as
>> > > criminal damage, and the law generally operates on the principle
>> > > that two wrongs do not make a right.
>> >
>> > Insofar as the installation of the clamp was itself an act of
>> > criminal damage, I doubt that its removal would be found to be
>> > that. It would be defended as an act that was both reasonable and
>> > proportionate to the unlawful detention of the OP's valuable
>> > vehicle property.
>>
>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force to
>> end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where they
>> are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>
>Surely though such powers would not extend allow them to in this case
>clamp a car that does not belong to the householder who is Po-ported
>to owe money for council tax
It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
not necessarily directly culpable for the error. If so, then the error did
not amount to a criminal act on their part.
(Their attitude when the error was pointed out to them is certainly
reprehensible, but being obnoxious is not a criminal offence either).
and typed:
>Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:rl8n881ke8l38eurc...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:50:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:20:02 +0100, steve robinson put finger to
>> > > keyboard
>>
>> > > > Agreed, absolutely disgraceful, from a self help POV where
>> > > > would the op stand if they cut the clamp off
>> > >
>> > > That would not be advisable. It could still be construed as
>> > > criminal damage, and the law generally operates on the principle
>> > > that two wrongs do not make a right.
>> >
>> > Insofar as the installation of the clamp was itself an act of
>> > criminal damage, I doubt that its removal would be found to be
>> > that. It would be defended as an act that was both reasonable and
>> > proportionate to the unlawful detention of the OP's valuable
>> > vehicle property.
>>
>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force to
>> end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where they
>> are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>
>Surely though such powers would not extend allow them to in this case
>clamp a car that does not belong to the householder who is Po-ported
>to owe money for council tax
almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
not necessarily directly culpable for the error. If so, then the error did
not amount to a criminal act on their part.
(Their attitude when the error was pointed out to them is certainly
reprehensible, but being obnoxious is not a criminal offence either).
Message has been deleted
David D S
Oct 27, 2012, 10:05:02 AM10/27/12
to
procedure
for protesting and getting action taken towards them via
the legal system to, perhaps, remove them from being
acceptable as any future court appointees?
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2012/10/27 22:00:59
Graham Murray
Oct 27, 2012, 3:25:02 PM10/27/12
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
> It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
> almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
> not necessarily directly culpable for the error. If so, then the error did
> not amount to a criminal act on their part.
Though if their instructions were to clamp any vehicles belonging to the
> It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
> almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
> not necessarily directly culpable for the error. If so, then the error did
> not amount to a criminal act on their part.
debtor which they encountered, then they would not be obeying the
instructions by clamping a vehicle belonging to anyone else. But it
depends on the instructions, they may have been instructed to clamp any
vehicles found on the premises - in which case they would have been
obeying them.
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 3:30:03 PM10/27/12
to
if you chose to defend yourself against the unlawful action .
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 3:40:02 PM10/27/12
to
easy for the bailiffs to contact dvla, infact its highly likely they
were given the details of the vehicle to be seized) then they become
responsible for any action they take .
This was a bullying exercise plain and simple, a nice easy target,
someone who physicaly couldnt fight back because of her gender.
Ste
Oct 27, 2012, 11:55:01 AM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 3:25 pm, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com>
wrote:
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote
It's not analogous, because it involves two distinct wrongs: the
taking, and the breaking(-in). Residential premises have always
enjoyed special legal protection, and breaking into them has always
required particular justification or authority - which is exactly why
the bailiffs have clamped a car on the drive instead of forcing entry
into the residence.
The mere fact that the clamp is damaged does not make its damage
criminal. It is sufficient that the person cutting the clamp off
honestly believes that it is reasonable to do so to protect his own
property (including protecting his use of that property).
And remember the clamper is the wrongdoer in that he fixed his clamp
to the car without authority, and then fled the scene. In doing so he
takes the risk that his clamp will be damaged when others reassert
their own property rights and remove his clamp by force.
wrote:
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote
taking, and the breaking(-in). Residential premises have always
enjoyed special legal protection, and breaking into them has always
required particular justification or authority - which is exactly why
the bailiffs have clamped a car on the drive instead of forcing entry
into the residence.
The mere fact that the clamp is damaged does not make its damage
criminal. It is sufficient that the person cutting the clamp off
honestly believes that it is reasonable to do so to protect his own
property (including protecting his use of that property).
And remember the clamper is the wrongdoer in that he fixed his clamp
to the car without authority, and then fled the scene. In doing so he
takes the risk that his clamp will be damaged when others reassert
their own property rights and remove his clamp by force.
Norman Wells
Oct 27, 2012, 12:55:02 PM10/27/12
to
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>
> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
> injury to a person.
It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation of a
>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>
> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
> injury to a person.
car be a case of criminal damage?
If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is not
that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act could
be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't remove the
clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten minutes it
remains clamped'?
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 3:00:04 PM10/27/12
to
this affair.
The point is that it was *MY* car, not hers which the bailiff had
clamped and intended to remove.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 3:05:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:05:02 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>That may be both their intention and their belief but the reported facts
>suggest otherwise.
They may have had the authority to clamp and remove my ex-wife's car
if she had defaulted on council tax payments etc., but surely they
can never have had the authority to clamp and remove mine?
--
Humbug
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>suggest otherwise.
They may have had the authority to clamp and remove my ex-wife's car
if she had defaulted on council tax payments etc., but surely they
can never have had the authority to clamp and remove mine?
--
Humbug
Ian W
Oct 27, 2012, 3:05:02 PM10/27/12
to
situation (bailiff made a 'mistake') but a relevant adjudication in
July by Local Govt Ombudsman (complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby
District Council) criticised the bailiffs/council for, inter alia, not
checking vehicles agst DVLA and referred to an article the Ombudsman
had put out insisting that such checks be made. Good case for OP's
daughter to raise a Form 4 - formal complaint against a Certificated
Bailiff, available on the 'net', heard before a magistrate and could
take away the bailiff's licence.
Lazy bailiffs seem to have got used to clamping first and leaving the
onus on the owner to come forward with proof of ownership. (You have 6
days to do so).
Judith
Oct 27, 2012, 3:10:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:15:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
So are you suggesting that the instruction would have been "Go to the premises
and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
If they were, then the company should definitely lose any licence it possesses.
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
If they were, then the company should definitely lose any licence it possesses.
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 3:15:03 PM10/27/12
to
>If there was no urgency, then the court might (as a general principle
>of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
>bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
>the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
>there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
>have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
>attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
>exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
>with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
>daughter on the drive).
They didn't just attempt to block the drive. They succeded in doing so
>of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
>bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
>the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
>there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
>have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
>attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
>exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
>with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
>daughter on the drive).
very efficiently.
Isn't it an offence to park across a dropped kerb, preventing vehicles
from leaving the property?
--
Humbug
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 4:10:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:35:03 +0100, Anthony R. Gold put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:10:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a wider legal principle here, which is that something which would
>> not be a criminal offence when done correctly does not become a criminal
>> offence simply because of some mistake in its execution. It would only be
>> an offence if the incorrect action went beyond simple error and into
>> deliberate or reckless disregard for correctness.
>
>Criminal damage requires the element of knowledge that the act may cause
>damage but does not require knowledge that the act is unlawful.
No, but it does require knowledge that the act is unauthorised (or, at
least, recklessness as to whether it is authorised). An honest belief that
the act was authorised by a person with authority to authorise it is a
defence. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 says that
2. A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall
[...] be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse -
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence
believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled
to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in
question had so consented
In this context, the person "entitled to consent" is the court which
authorised the impounding of the vehicle being clamped. So, unless the
bailiffs knew, at the time they clamped it, that the car they clamped was
not the property of the person against whom the enforcement order had been
issued, they were not committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act
by clamping it even though they were, in fact, mistaken as to the ownership
of the car.
and typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:10:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a wider legal principle here, which is that something which would
>> not be a criminal offence when done correctly does not become a criminal
>> offence simply because of some mistake in its execution. It would only be
>> an offence if the incorrect action went beyond simple error and into
>> deliberate or reckless disregard for correctness.
>
>damage but does not require knowledge that the act is unlawful.
No, but it does require knowledge that the act is unauthorised (or, at
least, recklessness as to whether it is authorised). An honest belief that
the act was authorised by a person with authority to authorise it is a
defence. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 says that
2. A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall
[...] be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse -
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence
believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled
to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in
question had so consented
In this context, the person "entitled to consent" is the court which
authorised the impounding of the vehicle being clamped. So, unless the
bailiffs knew, at the time they clamped it, that the car they clamped was
not the property of the person against whom the enforcement order had been
issued, they were not committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act
by clamping it even though they were, in fact, mistaken as to the ownership
of the car.
Message has been deleted
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:05:03 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:10:02 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
It could have been anybody's car. Even the GP on a home visit (which
has not been unknown at that house).
--
Humbug
wrote:
has not been unknown at that house).
--
Humbug
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 5:15:03 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:10:02 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:15:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
>
>So are you suggesting that the instruction would have been "Go to the premises
>and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
Possibly. It's more likely that they didn't take account of the possibility
that the debtor would have a visitor when the bailiffs turned up.
typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:15:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
>
>So are you suggesting that the instruction would have been "Go to the premises
>and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
that the debtor would have a visitor when the bailiffs turned up.
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 5:15:11 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:25:02 +0100, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
and typed:
It's unlikely that the bailiffs who did the clamping had any information
with them as to the ownership of the car. It's more likely that they were
given a basic description and a location, and the car they clamped matched
it.
and typed:
with them as to the ownership of the car. It's more likely that they were
given a basic description and a location, and the car they clamped matched
it.
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 5:20:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:55:02 +0100, Anthony R. Gold put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:10:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>A dichotomy between the bailiff and its employees is a red herring.
No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the person
who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with lawful excuse
then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting on incorrect or
incomplete information is certainly a serious failing in the process, but
it doesn't make the person who gave them the faulty information guilty of a
crime.
> The
>bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have acted
>by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no element of mens rea
>in the offence.
No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
Honest misbelief is a defence.
and typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:10:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the person
who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with lawful excuse
then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting on incorrect or
incomplete information is certainly a serious failing in the process, but
it doesn't make the person who gave them the faulty information guilty of a
crime.
> The
>bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have acted
>by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no element of mens rea
>in the offence.
No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
Honest misbelief is a defence.
Mark Goodge
Oct 27, 2012, 5:20:09 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:15:03 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Yes, but it can't be prosecuted in retrospect. The police would have had to
be called at the time.
typed:
be called at the time.
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 6:15:02 PM10/27/12
to
things out pda if they refuse to remove the clamp call the police if
they refuse to act cut it off
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 6:20:01 PM10/27/12
to
vehicle is registered at the address , this should be sop once you know
a vehicle is registered at the property then you can investigate who
owns it.
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 6:25:01 PM10/27/12
to
steve robinson
Oct 27, 2012, 6:25:09 PM10/27/12
to
employees
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:15:03 PM10/27/12
to
check DVLA records.
Secondhand hearsay, I know, but she says that they said that they had
only checked with the council community charge records.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:20:09 PM10/27/12
to
It is true that the perpetrator fled the scene.
They only returned after my daughter called the number on the removal
notice.
If the tow truck had arrived before she had called them, my car would
have been taken.
(Stolen?)
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:25:09 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>
>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>> injury to a person.
>
>It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation of a
>car be a case of criminal damage?
I suspect that it may do. I hope that someone can corroborate this, as
it will add weight to my complaint.
>If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
I'm not sure about that.
In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
dropped kerb.
was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
>At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is not
>that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act could
>be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't remove the
>clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten minutes it
>remains clamped'?
Can I apply that retrospectively?
--
Humbug
wrote:
>Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>
>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>> injury to a person.
>
>It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation of a
>car be a case of criminal damage?
it will add weight to my complaint.
>If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
dropped kerb.
was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
>At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is not
>that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act could
>be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't remove the
>clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten minutes it
>remains clamped'?
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:35:01 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:10:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
So how can I ascertain who it actually was who attached the notice to
my car saying that it was authorised for clamping and removal?
If it was not the bailiff himself, he may have an excuse.
I rather suspect that he doesn't.
--
Humbug
my car saying that it was authorised for clamping and removal?
If it was not the bailiff himself, he may have an excuse.
I rather suspect that he doesn't.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:40:02 PM10/27/12
to
In an earlier post I mentioned that the bailiff allegedly said that he
had not checked with the DVLA, only with the council.
What is this "Form 4", and where can I find it?
This bailiff didn't seem to be particularly lazy - he was very keen to
remove my car, and I have a nasty suspicion that if my daugther had
left the scene to get the V5 and insurance certificate from my house
three miles away using public transport, my car would have been gone
by the time she returned.
--
Humbug
Norman Wells
Oct 27, 2012, 5:45:02 PM10/27/12
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting
> on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a serious failing
> in the process, but it doesn't make the person who gave them the
> faulty information guilty of a crime.
>
>> The
>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have
>> acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>
> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
> Honest misbelief is a defence.
But they have to have a good and supportable reason for their
> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting
> on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a serious failing
> in the process, but it doesn't make the person who gave them the
> faulty information guilty of a crime.
>
>> The
>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have
>> acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>
> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
> Honest misbelief is a defence.
'misbelief'. If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
It's not possible for them to maintain an honest belief in such
circumstances if the facts are otherwise, and I reckon they are then
committing the offence of criminal damage by wrongly immobilising the
car.
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 5:55:03 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:15:03 +0100, Mark Goodge
although neither of them stated that they or any other vehicles would
be clamped and/or removed.
Certainly somebody was aware of which vehicles were present at that
time, and that mine was not.
At some point in the morning, *somebody* deliberately placed a notice
on my car which marked it as authorised for clamping and removal.
Not the others behind it.
I very much doubt that a legally authorised person placed that notice
on my car before the bailiffs arrived. I suspect that they did it
themselves.
--
Humbug
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:10:02 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:15:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>>>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>>>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
>>
>>So are you suggesting that the instruction would have been "Go to the premises
>>and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
>
>Possibly. It's more likely that they didn't take account of the possibility
>that the debtor would have a visitor when the bailiffs turned up.
Notices had been left the previous day on two cars in the driveway,
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:10:02 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:15:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't. But the individual bailiffs who carried out the clamping were
>>>almost certainly acting on instructions they had been given, and thus are
>>>not necessarily directly culpable for the error.
>>
>>So are you suggesting that the instruction would have been "Go to the premises
>>and clamp any vehicle which happens to be on the drive?"
>
>Possibly. It's more likely that they didn't take account of the possibility
>that the debtor would have a visitor when the bailiffs turned up.
although neither of them stated that they or any other vehicles would
be clamped and/or removed.
Certainly somebody was aware of which vehicles were present at that
time, and that mine was not.
At some point in the morning, *somebody* deliberately placed a notice
on my car which marked it as authorised for clamping and removal.
Not the others behind it.
I very much doubt that a legally authorised person placed that notice
on my car before the bailiffs arrived. I suspect that they did it
themselves.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:00:05 PM10/27/12
to
cars my ex-wife has.
NOTBA the registration number plate is a big clue ...
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:05:02 PM10/27/12
to
"arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
If I'd have heard about it at the time I would have told her to call
the police herself.
Unfortunately, she didn't know, and was in any case rather distressed
at the time.
OK, it can't be prosecuted in retrospect, but the fact that it is an
offence should have a bearing upon my complaint.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:15:02 PM10/27/12
to
What is the regulation which states that is an offence to stop in
front of a dropped kerb preventing vehicles from exiting the premises?
Just as an aside, am I right in thinking that it is *not* an offence
to stop across a dropped kerb if there are no vehicles prevented from
exiting, only from entering?
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:30:04 PM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:10:02 +0100, Robin Bignall
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
>>Who can I complain to?
>
>In addition to the other suggestions I'd suggest also contacting your
>MP.
She has a record of standing up for the small people, but
unfortunately the council is now run by the same party as hers.
Still, it might be worth a try.
--
Humbug
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
>>Who can I complain to?
>
>In addition to the other suggestions I'd suggest also contacting your
>MP.
She has a record of standing up for the small people, but
unfortunately the council is now run by the same party as hers.
Still, it might be worth a try.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:35:02 PM10/27/12
to
Not only did they not check with the DVLA, they stated that they
didn't.
It's not thier SOP.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:35:02 PM10/27/12
to
based in Northampton.
They can blame each other as long as they like.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:40:02 PM10/27/12
to
They insisted on seeing the V5 and insurance certificate, which of
course my daughter didn't have with her.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:40:02 PM10/27/12
to
Faced with a notice on the car and two burly bailiffs demanding
documents which she could not produce, she ws understandably
distressed.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 6:55:02 PM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:45:11 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>This might help. The final sanction is asking the court to remove the
>bailiff's license.
>
>http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs.htm
Thank you for that link.
However, it relates to complaints about the behaviour of bailiffs when
you actually owe money.
I don't.
--
Humbug
>
>This might help. The final sanction is asking the court to remove the
>bailiff's license.
>
>http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs.htm
Thank you for that link.
However, it relates to complaints about the behaviour of bailiffs when
you actually owe money.
I don't.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 27, 2012, 7:30:04 PM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:45:11 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>This might help. The final sanction is asking the court to remove the
>bailiff's license.
>
>http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs.htm
Thank you for this link.
>
>This might help. The final sanction is asking the court to remove the
>bailiff's license.
>
>http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs.htm
Unfortunately this and all of the other links which posters have
kindly sent only deal with how to complain about the behaviour of
bailiffs who are pursuing a legitimate debt.
I do not have the luxury of being able to make a claim about an
existing debt of my own.
This bailiff interfered with my property and prevented my daughter
from going about her lawful business for no fault of hers or mine.
I still don't know how to complain and to whom.
--
Humbug
steve robinson
Oct 28, 2012, 3:20:03 AM10/28/12
to
doesn't log records of cars the keepers and owners
Roland Perry
Oct 28, 2012, 3:35:02 AM10/28/12
to
In message <9qmo88ptbb80k7k9h...@4ax.com>, at 23:15:02 on
Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
On the other hand, the offence doesn't apply to someone sitting in their
car on private property (which I gather was suggested by the bailiffs).
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>What is the regulation which states that is an offence to stop in
>front of a dropped kerb preventing vehicles from exiting the premises?
It's just ordinary obstruction (of the highway).
>front of a dropped kerb preventing vehicles from exiting the premises?
On the other hand, the offence doesn't apply to someone sitting in their
car on private property (which I gather was suggested by the bailiffs).
--
Roland Perry
Periander
Oct 27, 2012, 8:45:02 PM10/27/12
to
On 27-Oct-2012, Ian W <ia...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> Not sure you would have the 'right ' to damage the clamp in this
> situation (bailiff made a 'mistake')
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property
belonging to another ... yadda yadda yadda ...
5“Without lawful excuse.”
(1)This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any
offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the
person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is
likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person
charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or
under his control so to destroy or damage property.
(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall,
whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a
lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as
having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he
believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to
consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so
consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the
consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so
destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the
property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section
3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy
or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another
or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to
constitute the offence he believed—
(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection;
and
(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or
would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is
justified or not if it is honestly held.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property
includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant,
licence or otherwise.
(5)This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence
recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.
Speaking for myself my Mr Angle Grinder would have removed the clamp within
a matter of minutes and woe betide any of the buggers who'd try to stop me.
... and most emphatically the law would have been on my side (sub section
3).
Of course what I would do knowing the law and being reasonably confident in
myself and what a young lass could have done when faced with a bunch of
pseudo official thugs are two entirely different things, but all the same
the bailiffs were on offer and as they tend to know the law reasonably well
(as they rely so much on bluff) pound to a pinch of snuff they'd have backed
down.
--
All the best,
Periander
Periander
Oct 27, 2012, 8:45:03 PM10/27/12
to
On 27-Oct-2012, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely detains
> >me
> >or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force to end that
> >unlawful
> >act. The obvious exception would be where they are acting under powers
> >granted by parliament.
>
> - however bad - is enough to justify breaking the law in return.
However as the Criminal Damage Act permits folks to damage other folks
property with lawful excuse (see previous post) damaging the clamp does not
constitute a criminal act.
Periander
Oct 27, 2012, 8:45:03 PM10/27/12
to
> No, but it does require knowledge that the act is unauthorised (or, at
> least, recklessness as to whether it is authorised). An honest belief that
> the act was authorised by a person with authority to authorise it is a
> defence. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 says that
>
> 2. A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall
> least, recklessness as to whether it is authorised). An honest belief that
> the act was authorised by a person with authority to authorise it is a
> defence. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 says that
>
> [...] be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse -
> (a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence
> believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled
> to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in
> question had so consented
Now read on to sub section 3 of Section 5 and compare with the opening line
> to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in
> question had so consented
of Section 1 and you'll see that what you post above is not the defeence
relied on in a case of this nature.
John Briggs
Oct 27, 2012, 8:55:01 PM10/27/12
to
On 27/10/2012 23:15, Humbug wrote:
>
> Just as an aside, am I right in thinking that it is *not* an offence
> to stop across a dropped kerb if there are no vehicles prevented from
> exiting, only from entering?
That is a statement of the general opinion here, rather than being a
>
> Just as an aside, am I right in thinking that it is *not* an offence
> to stop across a dropped kerb if there are no vehicles prevented from
> exiting, only from entering?
statement of the law itself. A minority of police forces have indicated
a willigness to prosecute in those circumstances (it is not known if any
do so.)
--
John Briggs
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 3:45:09 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:30:04 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
As has already been said, start with the council responsible for hiring the
bailiffs. As for how, a letter setting out the facts as in your original
post, and inviting them to compensate you and your daughter for the time
and effort it cost you both, would be appropriate.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
bailiffs. As for how, a letter setting out the facts as in your original
post, and inviting them to compensate you and your daughter for the time
and effort it cost you both, would be appropriate.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 3:50:02 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:30:04 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:10:02 +0100, Robin Bignall
><docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Who can I complain to?
>>
>>In addition to the other suggestions I'd suggest also contacting your
>>MP.
>
>She has a record of standing up for the small people, but
>unfortunately the council is now run by the same party as hers.
That may actually help, not hinder. It won't have been the elected
councillors who hired the bailiffs, it will be the employees. If you are
asking the councillors to take action against their staff, then it can help
that your MP will agree with the councillors when they do rather than side
with the "oppressed" employees.
typed:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:10:02 +0100, Robin Bignall
><docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:50:10 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Who can I complain to?
>>
>>In addition to the other suggestions I'd suggest also contacting your
>>MP.
>
>She has a record of standing up for the small people, but
>unfortunately the council is now run by the same party as hers.
councillors who hired the bailiffs, it will be the employees. If you are
asking the councillors to take action against their staff, then it can help
that your MP will agree with the councillors when they do rather than side
with the "oppressed" employees.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 3:55:02 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:20:09 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>If the tow truck had arrived before she had called them, my car would
>have been taken.
>(Stolen?)
No, definitely not stolen.
Don't get distracted by thoughts of pursuing the bailiffs for non-existant
criminal offences. It will only weaken your case if you make allegations
that can be refuted. Stick to the facts as originally presented to the
group.
typed:
>If the tow truck had arrived before she had called them, my car would
>have been taken.
>(Stolen?)
Don't get distracted by thoughts of pursuing the bailiffs for non-existant
criminal offences. It will only weaken your case if you make allegations
that can be refuted. Stick to the facts as originally presented to the
group.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:00:04 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:25:09 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>>
>>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>>> injury to a person.
>>
>>It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation of a
>>car be a case of criminal damage?
>
>I suspect that it may do. I hope that someone can corroborate this, as
>it will add weight to my complaint.
It would, but this isn't illegal or unauthorised. Pursing this line won't
add weight to your complaint.
>>If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
>
>I'm not sure about that.
>In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
>was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
>dropped kerb.
>was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
Neither. Preventing a car from moving is not the same as arresting a
person. You can't arrest or imprison a car.
>>At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is not
>>that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act could
>>be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't remove the
>>clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten minutes it
>>remains clamped'?
>
>Can I apply that retrospectively?
No.
typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>>
>>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>>> injury to a person.
>>
>>It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation of a
>>car be a case of criminal damage?
>
>I suspect that it may do. I hope that someone can corroborate this, as
>it will add weight to my complaint.
add weight to your complaint.
>>If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
>
>I'm not sure about that.
>In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
>was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
>dropped kerb.
>was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
person. You can't arrest or imprison a car.
>>At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is not
>>that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act could
>>be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't remove the
>>clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten minutes it
>>remains clamped'?
>
>Can I apply that retrospectively?
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:00:12 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:45:02 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
>> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
>> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting
>> on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a serious failing
>> in the process, but it doesn't make the person who gave them the
>> faulty information guilty of a crime.
>>
>>> The
>>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have
>>> acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>>
>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
>> Honest misbelief is a defence.
>
>But they have to have a good and supportable reason for their
>'misbelief'.
No, they don't. The Act says that "For the purposes of this section it is
immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held." So
they don't need to provide any reason why they held the belief, merely to
demonstrate that they did.
Obviously, if a belief is prima facie implausible then it would be hard to
argue that it was held honestly. But it isn't necessary for the clampers to
justify why they clamped that particular car, provided they were acting in
accordance with their instructions when they did.
>If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
>property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
Yes, they do. But it would only become an offence if, having checked, they
then refuse to remove the clamp.
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
>> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
>> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were acting
>> on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a serious failing
>> in the process, but it doesn't make the person who gave them the
>> faulty information guilty of a crime.
>>
>>> The
>>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may have
>>> acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>>
>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
>> Honest misbelief is a defence.
>
>But they have to have a good and supportable reason for their
>'misbelief'.
immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held." So
they don't need to provide any reason why they held the belief, merely to
demonstrate that they did.
Obviously, if a belief is prima facie implausible then it would be hard to
argue that it was held honestly. But it isn't necessary for the clampers to
justify why they clamped that particular car, provided they were acting in
accordance with their instructions when they did.
>If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
>property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
then refuse to remove the clamp.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:00:20 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:25:09 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
criminal prosecution.
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
>> Honest misbelief is a defence.
>
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I quoted.
>> Honest misbelief is a defence.
>
>Wouldn't the employer also be responsible for any actions of its
>employees
Possibly, yes. But that's more likely to be via a civil claim than a
>employees
criminal prosecution.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:05:02 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:25:01 +0100, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
They don't have to just take anyone's word for it. They are entitled to be
shown suitable evidence. Otherwise, they would be unable to carry out their
legitimate functions as anyone could just stop them by lying to them.
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> In this context, the person "entitled to consent" is the court which
>> authorised the impounding of the vehicle being clamped. So, unless the
>> bailiffs knew, at the time they clamped it, that the car they clamped
>> was not the property of the person against whom the enforcement order
>> had been issued, they were not committing an offence under the
>> Criminal Damage Act by clamping it even though they were, in fact,
>> mistaken as to the ownership of the car.
>
>> authorised the impounding of the vehicle being clamped. So, unless the
>> bailiffs knew, at the time they clamped it, that the car they clamped
>> was not the property of the person against whom the enforcement order
>> had been issued, they were not committing an offence under the
>> Criminal Damage Act by clamping it even though they were, in fact,
>> mistaken as to the ownership of the car.
>
>But once informed of the ownership they should stop at once
Once reasonably satisfied as to the ownership they should stop at once.
They don't have to just take anyone's word for it. They are entitled to be
shown suitable evidence. Otherwise, they would be unable to carry out their
legitimate functions as anyone could just stop them by lying to them.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:05:09 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:35:01 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>So how can I ascertain who it actually was who attached the notice to
>my car saying that it was authorised for clamping and removal?
That's one of the things that you will, probably, discover in the course of
pursuing your complaint.
As is common with anything posted to ulm, this thread has now wandered off
into theoretical discussions of the relevant laws. But don't let that
distract you from your key goal, which is to obtain compensation for the
distress caused to you and your daughter. For that, you need to take action
by complaining to the council, and do it as soon as possible.
Questions of criminality by the bailiffs are not, at the moment, your
concern. You are in no position to bring a private prosecution, and the
police/CPS will only consider taking action once your complaint has been
considered and resolved in your favour. So you need to make a priority of
writing your letter of complaint and sending it to the council.
typed:
>
>So how can I ascertain who it actually was who attached the notice to
>my car saying that it was authorised for clamping and removal?
That's one of the things that you will, probably, discover in the course of
pursuing your complaint.
As is common with anything posted to ulm, this thread has now wandered off
into theoretical discussions of the relevant laws. But don't let that
distract you from your key goal, which is to obtain compensation for the
distress caused to you and your daughter. For that, you need to take action
by complaining to the council, and do it as soon as possible.
Questions of criminality by the bailiffs are not, at the moment, your
concern. You are in no position to bring a private prosecution, and the
police/CPS will only consider taking action once your complaint has been
considered and resolved in your favour. So you need to make a priority of
writing your letter of complaint and sending it to the council.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 4:10:02 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:05:02 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
>If I'd have heard about it at the time I would have told her to call
>the police herself.
>
>Unfortunately, she didn't know, and was in any case rather distressed
>at the time.
>
>OK, it can't be prosecuted in retrospect, but the fact that it is an
>offence should have a bearing upon my complaint.
It probably isn't an offence. And, without any attendance by the police at
the time, it will be almost impossible to prove even if it was.
Alleging criminal activity by the bailiffs is more likely to get your
complaint filed in the green ink folder. People complain about bailiffs
acting illegally all the time. It is one of the hazards of the job.
Concentrate on the things you actually can prove.
typed:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:20:09 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:15:03 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:30:02 +0100, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If there was no urgency, then the court might (as a general principle
>>>>of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
>>>>bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
>>>>the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
>>>>there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
>>>>have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
>>>>attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
>>>>exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
>>>>with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
>>>>daughter on the drive).
>>>
>>>They didn't just attempt to block the drive. They succeded in doing so
>>>very efficiently.
>>>Isn't it an offence to park across a dropped kerb, preventing vehicles
>>>from leaving the property?
>>
>>Yes, but it can't be prosecuted in retrospect. The police would have had to
>>be called at the time.
>
>The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
>"arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
She should have said "please do".
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:20:09 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:15:03 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:30:02 +0100, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If there was no urgency, then the court might (as a general principle
>>>>of proportionality and minimal escalation) expect you to approach the
>>>>bailiffs first to ask for it to be removed, but on the other hand if
>>>>the bailiffs have gone so far as to attach an illegal clamp, then
>>>>there is not necessarily any reason to believe that calling them will
>>>>have any effect other than to potentially prevent your subsequent
>>>>attempt at enforcing its removal by way of self-help (which, again, is
>>>>exactly what happened in the OP's case - that the bailiffs turned up
>>>>with additional manpower, tow trucks, and attempted to block the OP's
>>>>daughter on the drive).
>>>
>>>They didn't just attempt to block the drive. They succeded in doing so
>>>very efficiently.
>>>Isn't it an offence to park across a dropped kerb, preventing vehicles
>>>from leaving the property?
>>
>>Yes, but it can't be prosecuted in retrospect. The police would have had to
>>be called at the time.
>
>The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
>"arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
>If I'd have heard about it at the time I would have told her to call
>the police herself.
>
>Unfortunately, she didn't know, and was in any case rather distressed
>at the time.
>
>OK, it can't be prosecuted in retrospect, but the fact that it is an
>offence should have a bearing upon my complaint.
the time, it will be almost impossible to prove even if it was.
Alleging criminal activity by the bailiffs is more likely to get your
complaint filed in the green ink folder. People complain about bailiffs
acting illegally all the time. It is one of the hazards of the job.
Concentrate on the things you actually can prove.
Roland Perry
Oct 28, 2012, 4:25:02 AM10/28/12
to
In message <pnpp88hlokvtddvsr...@news.markshouse.net>, at
08:10:02 on Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
>>"arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
>
>She should have said "please do".
Or better: "Let me save you the bother, I'll call them myself".
--
Roland Perry
08:10:02 on Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
>>"arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
>
>She should have said "please do".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 28, 2012, 4:35:02 AM10/28/12
to
In message <ql%is.79406$Xv.5...@fx07.am4>, at 01:55:01 on Sun, 28 Oct
2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double yellows.
http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
However, is stopping an attended tow-truck somewhere "parking"?
But generically it's also obstruction.
--
Roland Perry
2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> Just as an aside, am I right in thinking that it is *not* an offence
>> to stop across a dropped kerb if there are no vehicles prevented from
>> exiting, only from entering?
>
>That is a statement of the general opinion here, rather than being a
>statement of the law itself. A minority of police forces have indicated
>a willigness to prosecute in those circumstances (it is not known if
>any do so.)
In some parts of the country (and London is one of them) parking across
>> to stop across a dropped kerb if there are no vehicles prevented from
>> exiting, only from entering?
>
>That is a statement of the general opinion here, rather than being a
>statement of the law itself. A minority of police forces have indicated
>a willigness to prosecute in those circumstances (it is not known if
>any do so.)
a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double yellows.
http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
However, is stopping an attended tow-truck somewhere "parking"?
But generically it's also obstruction.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Oct 28, 2012, 5:15:09 AM10/28/12
to
debtor's, a fact that is easily verifiable by the bailiffs having regard
to its make and model and the number plate on it, the bailiffs are on
notice to make adequate checks. The onus is not on the actual owner to
prove his own ownership of his own property, but for the bailiffs to
prove they are entitled to impound, immobilise or take it. If they fail
to do so, and are not in fact so entitled, there is no way can justify
having an honest belief that they are. They are accordingly committing
criminal damage with no lawful excuse for as long as they prevent its
removal and normal use, and are in my view subject to a citizen's
arrest.
It's now too late of course for that, but there is always the option
available for civil action against the bailiffs and their masters,
sueing for unlawful distraint, loss of use of the car, anxiety and
distress.
Robin
Oct 28, 2012, 5:50:02 AM10/28/12
to
> In some parts of the country (and London is one of them) parking
> across a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double
> yellows.
> http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
>
May be worth noting also that AIUI (and that link tends to confirm) it
> across a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double
> yellows.
> http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
>
is only a "civil offence" where the local authority has adopted civil
enforement (as I think most now have) so I doubt the police would have
been interested in that aspect. Phoning the council might have
produced a CEO but I wouldn't have counted on it.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Roland Perry
Oct 28, 2012, 6:05:02 AM10/28/12
to
In message <k6iutp$cl3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:02 on Sun, 28 Oct
2012, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
all of London have LAPE?
--
Roland Perry
2012, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> In some parts of the country (and London is one of them) parking
>> across a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double
>> yellows.
>> http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
>
>May be worth noting also that AIUI (and that link tends to confirm) it
>is only a "civil offence" where the local authority has adopted civil
>enforement (as I think most now have) so I doubt the police would have
>been interested in that aspect.
Isn't it "all of London, plus places outside London with LAPE". Or does
>> across a dropped kerb is a specific offence akin to parking on double
>> yellows.
>> http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/Parking-Next-to-a-Drop-Kerb.aspx
>
>May be worth noting also that AIUI (and that link tends to confirm) it
>is only a "civil offence" where the local authority has adopted civil
>enforement (as I think most now have) so I doubt the police would have
>been interested in that aspect.
all of London have LAPE?
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Oct 28, 2012, 5:25:02 AM10/28/12
to
Humbug wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>>
>>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>>> injury to a person.
>>
>> It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation
>> of a car be a case of criminal damage?
>
> I suspect that it may do. I hope that someone can corroborate this, as
> it will add weight to my complaint.
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In general legal principles, I would agree. If someone falsely
>>>> detains me or my property, I am entitled to use reasonable force
>>>> to end that unlawful act. The obvious exception would be where
>>>> they are acting under powers granted by parliament.
>>>
>>> In this case we are only talking about a trespass to property, not
>>> injury to a person.
>>
>> It's interesting. Wouldn't unauthorised and illegal immobilisation
>> of a car be a case of criminal damage?
>
> I suspect that it may do. I hope that someone can corroborate this, as
> it will add weight to my complaint.
>
>> If it is, it opens the possibility of a citizen's arrest surely.
>
> I'm not sure about that.
> In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
> was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
> dropped kerb.
> was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
It's neither. It's straightforward obstruction. But I wasn't talking
>
> I'm not sure about that.
> In our case, the bailiff threatened an arrest by the police if the car
> was not moved, although he still had his van stopped across the
> dropped kerb.
> was that a citizen's arrest, or false imprisonment?
about the bailiffs or the police arresting someone, I was talking about
the theoretical possibility of your daughter arresting the bailiffs for
criminal damage, however unlikely that scenario sounds.
>> At the very least I wonder if a clear statement that the property is
>> not that of the person against whom the bailiffs are entitled to act
>> could be made to be a part of a contract, such as 'If you don't
>> remove the clamp in the next minute, the charge will be £50 per ten
>> minutes it remains clamped'?
>
> Can I apply that retrospectively?
contract, which you can't impose retrospectively. However, at the time,
if the offer I suggested had been made, it could be taken that the
maintenance of the clamp on the vehicle was an acceptance of that offer
and that a contract then existed.
Norman Wells
Oct 28, 2012, 5:40:02 AM10/28/12
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:45:02 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
>>> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
>>> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were
>>> acting on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a
>>> serious failing in the process, but it doesn't make the person who
>>> gave them the faulty information guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may
>>>> have acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>>>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>>>
>>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I
>>> quoted. Honest misbelief is a defence.
>>
>> But they have to have a good and supportable reason for their
>> 'misbelief'.
>
> No, they don't. The Act says that "For the purposes of this section
> it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is
> honestly held." So they don't need to provide any reason why they
> held the belief, merely to demonstrate that they did.
It's rather difficult to maintain that you have an honest belief about
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:45:02 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> No, it isn't. The crime, if it was committed, was committed by the
>>> person who actually clamped the car. If that person was acting with
>>> lawful excuse then there was no crime. The fact that they were
>>> acting on incorrect or incomplete information is certainly a
>>> serious failing in the process, but it doesn't make the person who
>>> gave them the faulty information guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>> bailiff may have the lawful right to damage the property or may
>>>> have acted by mistake, and which is not a defence since there is no
>>>> element of mens rea in the offence.
>>>
>>> No, mens rea is required. See the extract from the Act that I
>>> quoted. Honest misbelief is a defence.
>>
>> But they have to have a good and supportable reason for their
>> 'misbelief'.
>
> No, they don't. The Act says that "For the purposes of this section
> it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is
> honestly held." So they don't need to provide any reason why they
> held the belief, merely to demonstrate that they did.
something for which there is no evidence, and where a simple check would
actually show it to be false.
> Obviously, if a belief is prima facie implausible then it would be
> hard to argue that it was held honestly. But it isn't necessary for
> the clampers to justify why they clamped that particular car,
> provided they were acting in accordance with their instructions when
> they did.
>
>> If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
>> property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
>
> Yes, they do. But it would only become an offence if, having checked,
> they then refuse to remove the clamp.
they were clamping was one they were entitled to clamp. And for that
there needs to be some evidence. In the circumstances described, I
cannot see that they could possibly have any such evidence. Do you?
Norman Wells
Oct 28, 2012, 5:50:09 AM10/28/12
to
Humbug wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:25:01 +0100, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>> But once informed of the ownership they should stop at once
>
> They didn't.
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:25:01 +0100, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>> But once informed of the ownership they should stop at once
>
>
> They insisted on seeing the V5 and insurance certificate, which of
> course my daughter didn't have with her.
She was under no obligation to do any such thing. Simply stating that
the car did not belong to the debtor shifted the onus onto them
completely, putting them on notice that any action they subsequently
took could be illegal and actionable.
Ian W
Oct 28, 2012, 6:10:02 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
OP asked for a source forthe complaint 'Form 4'. One here:-
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForms.do?court_forms_num=&court_forms_title=Complaint+against+a+certificated+bailiff&court_forms_category=
Handled properly, like any legal case, can result in the individual
bailiff losing his licence. Suggest you get in touch with bailiff
first with the details of complaint and request compensation and warn
that Form 4 will be used if not satisfied.
wrote:
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForms.do?court_forms_num=&court_forms_title=Complaint+against+a+certificated+bailiff&court_forms_category=
Handled properly, like any legal case, can result in the individual
bailiff losing his licence. Suggest you get in touch with bailiff
first with the details of complaint and request compensation and warn
that Form 4 will be used if not satisfied.
Graham Murray
Oct 28, 2012, 6:30:02 AM10/28/12
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> writes:
> She was under no obligation to do any such thing. Simply stating that
> the car did not belong to the debtor shifted the onus onto them
> completely, putting them on notice that any action they subsequently
> took could be illegal and actionable.
That it was someone other than the debtor making the claim should carry
> She was under no obligation to do any such thing. Simply stating that
> the car did not belong to the debtor shifted the onus onto them
> completely, putting them on notice that any action they subsequently
> took could be illegal and actionable.
more weight that the debtor claiming 'it is not mine, it belongs to
..'.
steve robinson
Oct 28, 2012, 7:20:02 AM10/28/12
to
property was a car, not registered at the address, with the driver of
the car present(not the debtor)who could confirm the vehicle status at
this point they have been informed and should use due diligence in
checking that they are indeed seizing property of the debtor, with a
vehicle its relatively easy to check who owns it, a call to the dvla
will list the keeper a call to the insurance company can usally confirm
ownership (most ask if you are both owner and keeper these days) its
not rocket science .
They plain and simple used bully boy tactics to apply pressure on the
debtor and her daughter
Steve Firth
Oct 28, 2012, 7:20:09 AM10/28/12
to
Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
> They insisted on seeing the V5 and insurance certificate, which of
> course my daughter didn't have with her.
Neither the V5 nor the insurance certificate is proof of ownership. For
>
> They insisted on seeing the V5 and insurance certificate, which of
> course my daughter didn't have with her.
example I own my wife's car. I paid for it and it has never been gifted
to her. Yet she is the registered keeper and the main driver named on
the insurance details. Similarly I own two other cars used by my
children. Again I am the owner they are the RKs.
Steve Firth
Oct 28, 2012, 7:20:09 AM10/28/12
to
Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
> Notices had been left the previous day on two cars in the driveway,
> although neither of them stated that they or any other vehicles would
> be clamped and/or removed.
Hmmm, that of itself seems to be an act that goes too far, it is
careless. The person placing the notices has no knowledge of the
ownership of the cars and by placing these notices they are running the
risk of disclosing the details of legal proceedings being taken against
the resident to third parties. That, to me, is disclosure of sensitive
personal data as defined within Section 2 of the Data Protection Act
1998.
>
> Notices had been left the previous day on two cars in the driveway,
> although neither of them stated that they or any other vehicles would
> be clamped and/or removed.
Hmmm, that of itself seems to be an act that goes too far, it is
careless. The person placing the notices has no knowledge of the
ownership of the cars and by placing these notices they are running the
risk of disclosing the details of legal proceedings being taken against
the resident to third parties. That, to me, is disclosure of sensitive
personal data as defined within Section 2 of the Data Protection Act
1998.
steve robinson
Oct 28, 2012, 8:45:02 AM10/28/12
to
most insurance companies ask if you are the owner and keeper of the
vehicle
Clive George
Oct 28, 2012, 8:50:02 AM10/28/12
to
On 27/10/2012 20:40, steve robinson wrote:
> This was a bullying exercise plain and simple, a nice easy target,
> someone who physicaly couldnt fight back because of her gender.
Point of order : Her gender is irrelevant. I suspect I couldn't
physically fight back against baliffs, because they'll be rather better
at fighting than me.
(yes, I know on usenet it's traditional to present oneself as some sort
of Jean-Claude Van Damme equivalent, but I'll duck on that one)
> This was a bullying exercise plain and simple, a nice easy target,
> someone who physicaly couldnt fight back because of her gender.
Point of order : Her gender is irrelevant. I suspect I couldn't
physically fight back against baliffs, because they'll be rather better
at fighting than me.
(yes, I know on usenet it's traditional to present oneself as some sort
of Jean-Claude Van Damme equivalent, but I'll duck on that one)
Clive George
Oct 28, 2012, 8:55:03 AM10/28/12
to
On 27/10/2012 23:05, Humbug wrote:
> The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
> "arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
>
> The bailiffs actually threatened to call the police themselves to
> "arrest" *her* for causing an obstruction.
>
> If I'd have heard about it at the time I would have told her to call
> the police herself.
Definitely.
> the police herself.
> Unfortunately, she didn't know, and was in any case rather distressed
> at the time.
sort of thing with time.
Mark Goodge
Oct 28, 2012, 10:00:04 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:40:02 +0000, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
The evidence is that they were told to go and clamp a car at a certain
address, and that when they got there they did so. As has been stated
elsewhere in this thread, the procedures followed by the bailiffs on the
ground do not include making any check as to the ownership of the vehicle.
Obviously, there's a very strong argument that their procedures should
include such a check, and certainly the company employing the clampers
seems to have be severely lacking in professionalism. But that's a
different issue; the only people who might have broken the law here are
those who actually applied the clamp, and the law gives them a perfectly
good defence.
>> Obviously, if a belief is prima facie implausible then it would be
>> hard to argue that it was held honestly. But it isn't necessary for
>> the clampers to justify why they clamped that particular car,
>> provided they were acting in accordance with their instructions when
>> they did.
>>
>>> If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
>>> property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
>>
>> Yes, they do. But it would only become an offence if, having checked,
>> they then refuse to remove the clamp.
>
>That depends on whether their belief was an honest belief that the car
>they were clamping was one they were entitled to clamp. And for that
>there needs to be some evidence. In the circumstances described, I
>cannot see that they could possibly have any such evidence. Do you?
They were told to go to an address and clamp a car on those premises. They
got the right address, but they got the wrong car. The OP mentions that,
previously, cars at the address had had warnings left on them to the effect
that they might be clamped. I don't know how the clampers were asked by
their employer to identify the car which they would clamp, so anything in
this area is pure speculation. But there are a number of possibilities,
including:
1. They were told to clamp a car they found on the premises, without any
specific instruction as to which car.
2. They were told to clamp a car which had previously had a warning notice
attached (and was still attached when they got there).
3. They were told to clamp a car of a specific registration number.
Obviously, if the third is the case, then they must have been aware that
they were clamping the wrong car. And, if so, then a strong argument can be
made for it being a criminal offence. But I suspect that the first is more
likely, based on the information given by the OP.
There's also a separate issue here. Bailiffs are allowed to seize property
to pay off a debt, but there are certain items which they are not allowed
to seize. Among those, obviously, are things belonging to someone other
than the debtor. However, if there is a dispute as to ownership, it is
usually necessary for the debtor to provide evidence of non-ownership
rather than the other way round. The bailiffs certainly don't have to take
anyone's word for it that they don't own something (as if they did, it
would make seizure trivially easy to avoid simply by making a statement -
falsely, if necessary - that you don't own anything). In particular, if the
debtor is a householder living alone, then anything present on the premises
may be assumed to belong to the householder unless shown otherwise.
The CAB makes this point in their own advice:
Bailiffs will usually go ahead and take goods and leave it to you to show
that the goods don't belong to you or should not have been seized for
example, because they're protected goods.
If you have a dispute with the bailiffs about ownership or you think
they've seized goods they shouldn't, get advice from a specialist
adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/what_happens_if_the_bailiffs_get_in.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/9qeoapy
I think, therefore, that the bailiffs would argue that they don't need to
check the ownership of a car, because the mere fact of it being on the
debtor's premises is enough to justify seizure and it's up to the debtor
and/or the true owner to show that they should not. As far as procedures
go, I don't think that's acceptable, because a car is something that is
more likely than many other items to be owned by a visitor to the premises.
So I still think that the OP has very strong grounds for complaint against
the council and their bailiffs here. But, as far as the law is concerned,
it would be very difficult to prove that the bailiffs had done anything
actually illegal.
Bailiffs often have a bad public perception, but in many cases (unlike debt
collectors, who are widely and usually rightly reviled) that's undeserved.
They do a difficult and necessary job of ensuring that people who are
legitimately owed money (and have had that debt confirmed by a court) can
obtain it. In the course of enforcing those judgments they are routinely
lied to, abused and threatened. The people they deal with are, often,
serial defaulters and deliberate debt-evaders. And the law recognises that,
and gives them a great deal of protection in their role provided they
adhere to the regulations governing their conduct.
None of that excuses them when they do act badly, and in the case described
by the OP it would appear that they have certainly done so. But nothing
described by the OP appears to have been illegal. Simply doing their job
badly and inconsiderately is not a criminal offence.
address, and that when they got there they did so. As has been stated
elsewhere in this thread, the procedures followed by the bailiffs on the
ground do not include making any check as to the ownership of the vehicle.
Obviously, there's a very strong argument that their procedures should
include such a check, and certainly the company employing the clampers
seems to have be severely lacking in professionalism. But that's a
different issue; the only people who might have broken the law here are
those who actually applied the clamp, and the law gives them a perfectly
good defence.
>> Obviously, if a belief is prima facie implausible then it would be
>> hard to argue that it was held honestly. But it isn't necessary for
>> the clampers to justify why they clamped that particular car,
>> provided they were acting in accordance with their instructions when
>> they did.
>>
>>> If it's pointed out to them that they've clamped the
>>> property of someone else, they really do have to check and make sure.
>>
>> Yes, they do. But it would only become an offence if, having checked,
>> they then refuse to remove the clamp.
>
>That depends on whether their belief was an honest belief that the car
>they were clamping was one they were entitled to clamp. And for that
>there needs to be some evidence. In the circumstances described, I
>cannot see that they could possibly have any such evidence. Do you?
got the right address, but they got the wrong car. The OP mentions that,
previously, cars at the address had had warnings left on them to the effect
that they might be clamped. I don't know how the clampers were asked by
their employer to identify the car which they would clamp, so anything in
this area is pure speculation. But there are a number of possibilities,
including:
1. They were told to clamp a car they found on the premises, without any
specific instruction as to which car.
2. They were told to clamp a car which had previously had a warning notice
attached (and was still attached when they got there).
3. They were told to clamp a car of a specific registration number.
Obviously, if the third is the case, then they must have been aware that
they were clamping the wrong car. And, if so, then a strong argument can be
made for it being a criminal offence. But I suspect that the first is more
likely, based on the information given by the OP.
There's also a separate issue here. Bailiffs are allowed to seize property
to pay off a debt, but there are certain items which they are not allowed
to seize. Among those, obviously, are things belonging to someone other
than the debtor. However, if there is a dispute as to ownership, it is
usually necessary for the debtor to provide evidence of non-ownership
rather than the other way round. The bailiffs certainly don't have to take
anyone's word for it that they don't own something (as if they did, it
would make seizure trivially easy to avoid simply by making a statement -
falsely, if necessary - that you don't own anything). In particular, if the
debtor is a householder living alone, then anything present on the premises
may be assumed to belong to the householder unless shown otherwise.
The CAB makes this point in their own advice:
Bailiffs will usually go ahead and take goods and leave it to you to show
that the goods don't belong to you or should not have been seized for
example, because they're protected goods.
If you have a dispute with the bailiffs about ownership or you think
they've seized goods they shouldn't, get advice from a specialist
adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/debt_bailiffs_e/what_happens_if_the_bailiffs_get_in.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/9qeoapy
I think, therefore, that the bailiffs would argue that they don't need to
check the ownership of a car, because the mere fact of it being on the
debtor's premises is enough to justify seizure and it's up to the debtor
and/or the true owner to show that they should not. As far as procedures
go, I don't think that's acceptable, because a car is something that is
more likely than many other items to be owned by a visitor to the premises.
So I still think that the OP has very strong grounds for complaint against
the council and their bailiffs here. But, as far as the law is concerned,
it would be very difficult to prove that the bailiffs had done anything
actually illegal.
Bailiffs often have a bad public perception, but in many cases (unlike debt
collectors, who are widely and usually rightly reviled) that's undeserved.
They do a difficult and necessary job of ensuring that people who are
legitimately owed money (and have had that debt confirmed by a court) can
obtain it. In the course of enforcing those judgments they are routinely
lied to, abused and threatened. The people they deal with are, often,
serial defaulters and deliberate debt-evaders. And the law recognises that,
and gives them a great deal of protection in their role provided they
adhere to the regulations governing their conduct.
None of that excuses them when they do act badly, and in the case described
by the OP it would appear that they have certainly done so. But nothing
described by the OP appears to have been illegal. Simply doing their job
badly and inconsiderately is not a criminal offence.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages