HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

[h2013]

Hi there,

Any help would be much appreciated.

My mother and I have a liability order for Council Tax and the Council have instructed Rundle & co to recover the amount.

The debt had been disputed many times with the Council as originally their liability dates did not match up with ours and we had vacated the property before they closed the account. We were held liable for a month or so that we did not live in the property.

My mother had been making payments for the debt directly to the Council who never notified us of any issues yet the bailiff action was never stopped.

We are aware of our rights and despite him leaving quite a few letters threatening to enter the property to seize goods, we know he could not enter and would never be given any rights to do so.

This has been going on since March '12 and payments have been made to the Council every month til now.

This morning the bailiff clamped my mothers car (which is on HP) and left a notice saying the car had been immobilised and we were not to make any attempt to remove the clamp or move the car, subject to prosecution for criminal damage.

I have spoken to the Council who cannot provide me with any law that gives the Bailiff the right to clamp the car, the Bailiff cannot give me any law and neither can anyone at his head office. The Council have promised to email me the answer, the Bailiff couldn't get me off the phone any quicker and his head office told me they are acting in accordance with the Liability Order, when I asked where it states the car can be clamped the woman told me she was not legally trained and would not answer. I asked to speak to her senior and he couldn't answer either.

They say that one Bailiff levied on the car in March '12 (neither my mother or I were present) and that the current bailiff re-levied on the car this morning (neither of us were present) he claims he pressed her buzzer to her flat at 6:20am and she did not answer so he put a sealed letter under the main entrance to her apartment block. He did not press her buzzer and somehow has pinned a red letter to the main notice board. The letter was not in a sealed envelope as he claims.

Does anyone have any advice on what steps we should take next to have the clamp removed? He cannot confirm what law gave him the right to put it on there in the first place and he cannot take the car as it is not owned by my mother.

Once again any help would be appreciated and if you need further info I am happy to provide it.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I have just had this back from the Council :


"I refer to our telephone conversation today.

I have spoken to Rundle & Co Ltd who have advised 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. There is no specific mention of clamping a car.

Senior Recovery Assistant"

[bluebottle]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

First and foremost, there is no provision, under the applicable legislation, that allows Rundles to clamp the car. Secondly, a bailiff cannot levy on the same goods twice. Thirdly, if you have not been given the opportunity to pay or make arrangements to pay, the clamping is potentially unlawful. Fourth, the fact it is on HP and, therefore, third-party goods, the clamping is illegal. Get onto the HP company immediately and get them to contact Rundles directly. Also, you need to contact the Council and warn them of this as the HP company could bring a civil claim against the Council. As for Rundles, I would contact them immediately and request they remove the clamp forthwith 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. They will spout bovine excrement, but offer to provide them with a copy of the HP agreement.

The council officer who emailed you the crap Rundles have spouted is unbelievably gullible to have swallowed what they said.

[bizzybob]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

There is no authority in the Council tax regulations to permit the clamping of a car afaik

[h2013]

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,

*****

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I haven't sent this as yet but what do you all think?

[ploddertom]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Far too long.

Needs to be short & to the point.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I appreciate your advice but I want to cover everything. They have spouted so much rubbish today and thanks to everyone's advice everything the Bailiff and his company have told me is untrue. I will be taking this further and my letter will be used as evidence so I basically just want to know if everything I have said is valid?

[ploddertom]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

That's as maybe but there are some inaccuracies within your proposed letter that need sorting first. Unfortunately I'm in the wrong place at present and don't have the time to devote pointing them all out. I assume a lot of what you have written comes from another website and would ask if you understand all the case histories you have listed.

[CleverClogs]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

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

Whilst those comments may be justifiable, I do not believe they are quite wise.

Why tell the bugger what you propose to do?

You might also find the attached file of some help.

[CleverClogs]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

double posted in error

[CleverClogs]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I appreciate your advice but I want to cover everything.

Why?

It is surely well enough known that most people who work for a bailiff company have an attention span only slightly longer than that of a goldfish and may have difficulty reading and understanding words such as "illegal" or "unlawful".

Just stick to the request for the breakdown and explanation of their charges for now. If you want the vehicle released, send them a copy or scan of the HP agreement in another letter or email - and copy that to the Head of Revenues at the local council.

Take it one step at a time, rather than charging at them like the proverbial bull at a gate.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

Thanks again everyone.

I have emailed them a copy of the credit agreement for the car, have emailed the letter (with some changes), and I have an acknowledgement from Rundles.

Cleverclogs - I had already told the Bailiff that I would be filing the form 4 against him when I spoke to him on the phone when he couldn't confirm which law he believed gave him the right to do what he has done today.

I called him again to advise him that I had sent the credit agreement and he told me he would not remove the clamp either way because the debt had not been paid. I explained that he should read the email, and I expected the clamp removed by 9am tomorrow and that I would no longer deal with glorified debt collectors who rely on fear and threats to successfully conduct their business. He started shouting that he was not a debt collector, I simply informed him that his job title should be the least of his concerns after his actions today and bid him good day!

[enquirer]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

One could also inform the HP company that their property is in the process of being stolen by Rundles & Co.

[h2013]

Re: HP Car clamped, council tax debt.

I did call the finance company and they told me that they have calls like mine all the time. They said that as far as they are aware the bailiff can clamp the car but can't take it. I don't believe this as I would think that would apply to parking fines etc but not 100% sure?