HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

[ODC]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Would it be lawful for the OP to remove the clamp if as it appears it was unlawfully placed on the vehicle

[wales01man]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Remove it and lose it when the bailiff calls and sees it missing plead ignorant he can relate to that

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I would happily remove the clamp and my partner has already agreed to do it but I am just concerned about the bailiff getting annoyed to say the least and causing hassle for my mum. In my letter I have given him til 9am tomorrow so if he hasn't removed it by that time then I suppose we have every right to do it ourselves. Has anyone else on this forum removed a clamp do you know?

[wales01man]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

There was a guy who removed a clamp someone with a memory should point you to their thread

[bluebottle]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Mr Bailiff,

Please find attached a copy of the finance agreement for the Vauxhall Astra (reg. *****) that you illegally immobilized this morning.

The car is on finance, so in any event it is exempt goods. I must inform you that goods under a financing agreement cannot be seized because they are not the property of the debtor: Carter v Vestry of St Mary [1900] 64 JP 548 or Prudential Mortgage Co v St Marylebone (Mayor) [1910] 8 LGR 901

May I remind you that paragraph 8 of the Local Government Ombudsman on 10 July 2012 in a report into complaint no 11 007 684 that says it "considers it reasonable for the BAILIFF to check ownership with the DVLA"

Bailiffs cannot levy on someone else's goods or vehicles for your debt, the Local Government Ombudsman's decision of 10 July 2012 complaint no 11 007 684 paragraphs 44 & 45.

Rented goods or goods on hire purchase cannot be distrained, Carter v Vestry of St Mary [1900] 64 JP 548 or Prudential Mortgage Co v St Marylebone (Mayor) [1910] 8 LGR 901

Sorry about that.

During our phone conversation earlier today you confirmed that;

You did not know what exact regulation provides for clamping a vehicle (under a finance agreement) for an unpaid council tax liability. There isn't one and there never has been one. Only a walking possession agreement over a debtor-owned finance free vehicle allows ownership of the vehicle to pass into the custody of the law (Abingdon RDC v O'Gorman [1968] 2 QB 811).

Your company claim that the authority they have acted under to clamp the car is under The Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992.613), Regulation 45. Mr Dudley Smithers of Medway Council confirms there is no specific mention of clamping a car in the above mentioned Regulation.

Please explain then, what part of the law you believe confirms your legal right to clamp a car for a Council Tax debt?

You claimed that your colleague Mr O'Neill levied on the vehicle in March 2012 and when told that neither myself nor **** were present at this time, you explained that it did not matter and that the levy was valid in our absence. I must inform you that your comments were untrue. The levy is not valid because it was made in our absence, the authoritative legal position confirming this is the well-known case of Ambrose v Nottingham City Council [2004] and the judgement also mentions other lesser-known cases that confirm that levies in absentia are not valid: Kerby v Harding [1851] 6 Exch 234 or Wakeman v Lindsey [1850] 14 QB 625.

Your colleague at your head office confirmed to me that you had re-levied on the vehicle this morning in our absence. Are you and your colleagues aware that you cannot levy on the same goods twice? Obviously not and as mentioned already, any levy you claim to have placed upon the vehicle is invalid and unenforceable. If a second levy is made without good reason the debtor can claim damages, Lear v Caldecott [1843] 4 QB 123

You also informed me on the phone that a Magistrate had granted you the authority to clamp the vehicle and you believed this was under the "Seizures of Vehicles for clamping vehicles under hire purchase agreements for alleged Council Tax debts Law". Upon taking legal advice today, not one solicitor or Court clerk had ever heard of this specific law.

Please explain then, what part of the law you believe confirms that a levy made in the absence of the debtor/s is legal and valid?

Please also explain what good valid legal reason you had to re-levy on the vehicle?

Please also provide me with the name and Court of the Magistrate who personally gave you this authority as I intend to seek further information on the "Seizures of Vehicles for clamping vehicles under hire purchase agreements for alleged Council Tax debts Law" that no legally trained professional seems to have heard of.

I asked you on the phone if you were presently with the vehicle in question. You stated that you were not. I enquired as to whether you believed that this amounted to an abandoned levy and you informed me that it was not an abandoned levy. Again your comments were untrue. The leading case authority on levy abandonment is Judge presiding over the case of Bannister v Hyde [1860] 2 E&E 627 when he described what levy abandonment is by saying: "If the bailiff levies on goods then leaves the premises without a signed walking possession agreement is evidence the levy has been abandoned".

Please explain then, what part of the law you believe confirms that your abandonment of your levy this morning does not make it an abandoned levy?

You informed me that this morning at 6:20am you visited the property of **** (*****) and immobilized her vehicle. You then informed me that you pressed the buzzer for flat 33 and got no answer. You explained that you posted a sealed envelope through the main door of the apartment block. Again untrue. **** was awake at this time and not once did anyone press her buzzer. You will need to provide a valid explanation as to how a letter in sealed envelope came to be opened and pinned to the communal notice board?

It seems strange that on this particular occasion you decided to use a sealed envelope as on every other visit you have made to the property you have simply entered through the trades buzzer and pinned the letter on to the communal notice board and/or put a letter through the letter box of flat 33.

I understand you must give debtors reasonable opportunity to pay the debt before fixing a wheel clamp to a vehicle. You made no contact with myself or ***** on Monday 18th of February prior to fixing the wheel clamp to the vehicle.

Your colleague at head office informed me that your clamping the vehicle was legal and valid to the best of her knowledge and you and your company do not believe you have done anything untoward and that you have acted completely within the law.

It appears from your actions that you do not conduct your business in accordance with the law and your company are not even aware of which laws you are able to act under, and which you are not.

We will be filing a Form 4 Complaint against you and must inform you that a certifcated bailiff can lose his certificate for wrongful acts while doing uncertificated work, James v Proctor [1905] 13 PMR 442

I now require you to remove the clamp from the vehicle by 9am tomorrow, 19th February 2013 owing to the vehicle being third-party property and any attempted removal will result in the matter being reported to the police as Theft of A Motor Vehicle. The legal owners of the vehicle have been notified of your actions today and they have been advised that all parties involved are entitled to bring a civil claim against the Medway Council and yourselves.

I will be also be contacting Medway Council regarding this matter to insist that they return the case to council administration as you will be aware the Council hold liability for its bailiffs and this has been well tested in the courts. The bailiff company is vicariously liable for wrongful acts of its bailiffs and other persons working under it, Lister and others v. Hesley Hall Limited [2001] UKHL 22, 3rd May, 2001 and the company may also be criminally liable if a crime is proven, Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, and the council is liable for the bailiff company Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

I also request that you could provide me with a breakdown of all charges incurred.

This includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following:

a the time and date of any bailiff action that incurred a fee or charge.
b the reason for the fee or charge.
c the name(s) of the bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a fee was charged.
d the name(s) of the Court(s) at which the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated.
e the date of certification.
f the initial balance, and any amount currently outstanding on the account

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

I require this information within 14 days, however if you are unable or unwilling to satisfy this complaint in full, please mark your response letter with the words FINAL RESOLUTION and I will ask the Local Government Ombudsman to intervene or start a claim in the county court.

Regards,

*****

As a letter putting a bailiff company on notice of their wrongdoing.... :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

A Notice to Cease and Desist is shorter and a lot more direct. However, try the letter you have written first and if Rundles persist in behaving like idiots and continue to harass you and your family, then hit them with the Notice to Cease and Desist.

[MissFM]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

There was a guy who removed a clamp someone with a memory should point you to their thread

FORUM
FINANCE & DEBT
Debt Collection Agencies, Bailiffs and Enforcement
COURTS, BAILIFF'S and HARRASSMENT
Bailiff Issues
Help.. My Car has been clamped by jacobs bailiffs.... unpayed parking fine

[CleverClogs]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

If you do remove the clamp, take special care not to ram a little ball of paper or a bit of a tooth pick inside the key slot of the padlock. That sort of obstruction would prevent the lock being used again, which I am sure you would not want.

When the oaf returns to utter more threats, try to capture his performance on video.

[bizzybob]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

If they do not remove the clamp in a timely manner, as an out of the box action email Stumbles & Co that you will be arranging for a locksmith to remove the clamp, and bill Stumbles & co for the removal citing Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, as the authority that permits this, as per 1 (b) Trespass to goods, preventing your mother from lawfully using them by virtue of the unlawfully applied clamp

1 Definition of “wrongful interference with goods”.In this Act “ wrongful interference” , or “ wrongful interference with goods” , means—
(a)conversion of goods (also called trover),
(b)trespass to goods,

Or you can get the clamp off yourself, and cite the Act as your authority to do so.

Of all actions a bailiff may try to coerce money from a debtor, vehicle clamping whether legal or not, is one of the most stupid . Why am I stupid? asks Mr Bumbles? By clamping you may stop someone going to work and earning money to pay off debts in a manner affordable to their circumstance, your use of the clamp may in extremis lead to loss of the job, debtor on benefits, and Mr Bailiff doesn't get any beer money when the council take the case back under Vulnerability and attach to benefit. There may be other repercussions for the bailiff if the debtor lodges complaints, and the enforcement was deemed excessive in the circumstances, especially if the clamping led to loss of job due to unavailiabilty of public transport to suit the debtors shift pattern.

Other Beagles no doubt will have suggestions.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Good morning,

I gave the bailiff til 9am this morning to remove the clamp...he must be running late as it is still there.
I have had an email from Rundles asking me to call the Bailiff direct so will be doing that in a moment. I will simply ask him if he has removed the clamp, when he will be removing the clamp and if he says he will not be doing so, I will have nothing further to say.

I have been reading up on clamping and wondered if anyone was aware of the SIA approved 'clampers' list? (http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk)
Rundles and the actual bailiff are not on this list, would this mean Mr Bailiff is not allowed to go on to a private estate and clamp cars anyway?

[ploddertom]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Bailiffs are not required to register.

[bluebottle]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

The list of those who can legitimately clamp vehicles is very limited. Private clamping companies have, mainly, gone over to dishing out faux parking tickets like confetti.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Just a quick update: I called the bailiff and got through to the head office, upon stating that there is no law giving them the right to clamp the car, they told me there is no law saying they can't. Very childish! They requested hp company send them proof of contracts start and end datws, hp company called them and put them firmly in their place explained that they will not send anything in writing but that the car is on hp end of. Bailiff said they are doing a hpi check but that even if it shows the car is still under the hp agreement it will not be enough proof!?

Original bailiff has called me a few times now but I have been on the phone so not spoken to him.

Not sure what to do now?

[bizzybob]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Might be worth threatening them with torts interference with Goods Act 1977, remind the council they are liable for any wrongful action by their bailiffs, so they will be the target in any action for recovery of costs incurred as a result of the clamping.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Just spoke to Rundles again, clamp has been removed 'due to the car being subject to a finance agreement' they have confirmed they will not touch the car again.

Clearly they are aware that what they have done is not legal as they would not have removed the clamp otherwise.

My next port of call will be filing the form 4 against the bailiff, and hitting the council with everything I possibly can!

Thank you everyone for your advice, it really has been so helpful!

[ploddertom]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Just spoke to Rundles again, clamp has been removed 'due to the car being subject to a finance agreement' they have confirmed they will not touch the car again.

Clearly they are aware that what they have done is not legal as they would not have removed the clamp otherwise.

My next port of call will be filing the form 4 against the bailiff, and hitting the council with everything I possibly can!

Thank you everyone for your advice, it really has been so helpful!

May I issue a word of caution about filing a Form 4. This is only for a matter so serious that his Certificate may be removed and in turn he loses his job. I don't think this instance warrants this as he may claim he carrying out instructions from his employer. He is probably more likely to stand accused of being the proverbial dipstick but not a Form 4. However that is not to say you should not write a letter to the Court where his Certificate was granted pointing out his failings, they in turn may invite a Form 4 but more than likely will let the letter lie on his file ready for when his Certificate is to be renewed.