JBW !!!!!!

[Nikkibee]

My car got clamped by jbw but it was for the owner before had to pay £849 so they didn't take it due to not having Insurance they said they was using a data base which is old but still clamped car can so one help me thank you

[bluebottle]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

My car got clamped by jbw but it was for the owner before had to pay £849 so they didn't take it due to not having Insurance they said they was using a data base which is old but still clamped car can so one help me thank you

Hello Nikkibee and welcome to Legal Beagles.

It is illegal for a bailiff to clamp a car that is not owned by a debtor and since they have admitted to using a database that is out of date, they have also admitted to a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

If you have the V5C (Log Book), show it to JBW and insist they remove the clamp immediately. DO NOT LET THEM TAKE THE V5C AWAY OR HANDLE IT AND MAKE SURE SOMEONE IS WITH YOU WHEN YOU SHOW IT TO JBW. If, despite this, JBW refuse to remove the clamp, you may have to involve the police, as this could amount to Attempted Blackmail under Section 21, Theft Act 1968. I would also request the name of the bailiff who attached the clamp to your car and the name of the court that issued his/her certificate. DO NOT TELL JBW WHY YOU REQUIRE THIS INFORMATION. Go to the Ministry of Justice website at Justice.gov.uk and download a Form 4. Also, go to the Information Commissioner's website at Data Protection and Freedom of Information advice - ICO
and download a complaint form.

Please let us know how you get on.

[shamen]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I would have called the police on the spot. As I understand it a clamping company cannot clamp a legally parked car becuase they believe an outstanding (private) fine applies to the vehicle, however that may be different if the car is parked on private property as opposed to council (anyone?). The insurance issue is not really relevant unless it is the police themselves dealing with the vehicle at the time (a clamping company cannot find out if you have no insurance).

Irrespective of this, the amount owed was not your responsibility to pay - its the previous owners debt and no one has the right to force you to pay debts of others.

If this clamping company is a private company, then I would advise in this case you write whats called a 'letter before action' giving the company concerned time to resolve the matter. Something like this

Dear Sir/Madam,
On XX/YY/2012 your company immobilised my vehicle registration X123 XYZ with a wheel clamp and demanded payment of £849 to release my vehicle. This amount was an amount
apparently owed to you by the previous owner of the vehicle.

As I stated to your enforcement employees at the time, the previous owner owes you the money and not myself. I therefore am seeking recovery of the amount of £849 from yourselves forthwith.

Please let me know within 14 days how you wish to settle this matter. Failure to settle this matter will result in county court action to recover the money you have taken from me, along with an application to the court for further costs for the inconvininece and time taken to resovle this matter

yours Faithfully

XYZ

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
oops sorry bluebottle posts crossed eachtoher there

[bluebottle]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I would have called the police on the spot. As I understand it a clamping company cannot clamp a legally parked car becuase they believe an outstanding (private) fine applies to the vehicle, however that may be different if the car is parked on private property as opposed to council (anyone?). The insurance issue is not really relevant unless it is the police themselves dealing with the vehicle at the time (a clamping company cannot find out if you have no insurance).

Irrespective of this, the amount owed was not your responsibility to pay - its the previous owners debt and no one has the right to force you to pay debts of others.

If this clamping company is a private company, then I would advise in this case you write whats called a 'letter before action' giving the company concerned time to resolve the matter. Something like this

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
oops sorry bluebottle posts crossed eachtoher there

Clamping on private land is illegal. Most of the private clamping companies have now turned to the other scam called Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). There is, however, a legal procedure called Common Law Lien. This would enable the OP to wheelclamp or seize all and any vehicles used by JBW until such time as they remove the clamp from OP's vehicle. As long as the local police are given at least 24 hours clear notice, Common Law Lien is a perfectly legitimate way of forcing morons like JBW to toe the line.

[labman]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

Just call the police. The bailiffs have acted unlawfully. Get the police to get the bailiffs to remove the clamp - do not accept it is a civil matter as the debt is not yours.

Take photos of it, and of the people removing it whether or not they like it, then go after JBW like a raging tiger.

[labman]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

Clamping on private land is illegal. Most of the private clamping companies have now turned to the other scam called Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). There is, however, a legal procedure called Common Law Lien. This would enable the OP to wheelclamp or seize all and any vehicles used by JBW until such time as they remove the clamp from OP's vehicle. As long as the local police are given at least 24 hours clear notice, Common Law Lien is a perfectly legitimate way of forcing morons like JBW to toe the line.

BB - are you sure about this? My understanding of a Common Law Lien was that a bailee already in possession of property, has the right to retain possession of the property until any debt due has been paid.

I am not aware of this right. Is there any link or anything you can point me to?

It is quite possible I'm totally wrong, but that was my understanding.

[wales01man]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I have one question does anyone have the answer as the charge is against the former owner not this person would cutting the clamp off and telling the bullies to collect in or incur a storage charge be illegal as this is what i would do?

[labman]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I have one question does anyone have the answer as the charge is against the former owner not this person would cutting the clamp off and telling the bullies to collect in or incur a storage charge be illegal as this is what i would do?

Working on the principle two wrongs don't make a right, I suspect the OP could have been accused of vandalism or some other suitably worded offence had they done that.

[teaboy2]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I believe trepass to chattels is a key issue here, as they have by illegally clamping the car, committed trespass against car owners goods/property e.g. the car, by interfering with the car without the owners consent or legal authorisation to do so.

[bluebottle]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

BB - are you sure about this? My understanding of a Common Law Lien was that a bailee already in possession of property, has the right to retain possession of the property until any debt due has been paid.

I am not aware of this right. Is there any link or anything you can point me to?

It is quite possible I'm totally wrong, but that was my understanding.

I've just checked out the Law of Lien. It can be quite a complicated area of the law as there are a number of different types of lien. The one you refer to in your post, Labman, is the one where you take a car to a garage and the garage retains it until you pay for work done on the car. However, having said that, there are liens where you can and liens where you cannot sell another person's property.

Going back to the OP's original post, on the civil side, you have -

Trespass to Property
Interference with Property

On the criminal side you have, potentially -

Attempted Blackmail (Section 21, Theft Act 1968)*
Interfering with A Motor Vehicle (Section 9, Criminal Attempts Act 1981)**
Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2(1), Fraud Act 2006)**
Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud (Section 6, Fraud Act 2006)**
Failure to Maintain Accurate Records (Data Protection Act 1998)*

* These are offences that are most evident.
** These are speculative offences, that is, offences that could be levelled at the bailiffs as alternative or additional offences.

Personally, my original advice and that of a number of LB members on this thread to involve the police is, probably, going to be the more practical course of action for the OP to take.

[labman]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

I've just checked out the Law of Lien. It can be quite a complicated area of the law as there are a number of different types of lien. The one you refer to in your post, Labman, is the one where you take a car to a garage and the garage retains it until you pay for work done on the car.

That is a Common Law Lien. I don't think that would work in this case, and agree that the OP should go to the police.

[charitynjw]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

An interesting read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...acy-to-defraud

[charitynjw]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

The Protection of Freedoms Bill, now at 3rd reading stage House of Lords (12/3/2012), is set to oulaw clamping on private land.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...ffreedoms.html

http://www.publications.parliament.u...28/2012128.pdf

[labman]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

Really interesting, thanks Charity. I haven't read the legislation yet, as on my phone. I wonder how it will fit alongside the rights of bailiff to enter private property and levy lawfully on items, including vehicles. I doubt, unfortunately, they will be seen as wheel clampers.

It's not before time that business was legislated against though. The current self regulation clearly does not work.

As for the OP here, I fear it is still a matter for the police.

[bluebottle]

Re: JBW !!!!!!

An interesting read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...acy-to-defraud

Just had a look at the article. That looks like Conspiracy to Defraud under Section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977 (aka Statutory Conspiracy). I must say that the sentences the trial judge handed down could have been a bit longer.

Yes, I agree, Labman, the police are going to have to deal with JBW, even if it does mean them inserting the toe of a Size 11 hobnail boot into a certain bodily orifice on the offending bailiffs anatomy in order to get some action from them.