Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

[gravytrain]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

Unfortunately, Marstons are subject to a contract and legislation which specifically requires them to obtain a Clamping Order.

It would appear that this is not the case when enforcing a magistrates distress warrant. It seems that the" impounding of goods " permitted by the warrant includes the facility to use a clamp. Although it would be good if someone could come up with legislation or contracts that state otherwise.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

HI

I just received an e-mail from Phil Evans, regarding the ability to clamp, it reads:

As to clamping vehicles, if it’s a magistrates’ distress warrant, then bailiffs can seize any of the debtor’s good wherever they are in England & Wales, which includes cars. And having seized a car, they can impound it by clamping. (No separate order needed.)

Best wishes,

Philip

Unfortunately, Marstons are subject to a contract and legislation which specifically requires them to obtain a Clamping Order. As PT says, they have no close or walking possession, so it could be that the act of clamping the OP's vehicle is wrongful. They have also prevented the OP from paying the fine and this may well bring into question the legitimacy of the bailiff's actions and, consequently, those of Suffolk Police.

[gravytrain]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

HI

I just received an e-mail from Phil Evans, regarding the ability to clamp, it reads:

As to clamping vehicles, if it’s a magistrates’ distress warrant, then bailiffs can seize any of the debtor’s good wherever they are in England & Wales, which includes cars. And having seized a car, they can impound it by clamping. (No separate order needed.)

Best wishes,

Philip

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

In theory they are correct as the warrant gives him the power to seize your goods and therefore to do this does not need a sepaprate Clamping Order. However whether he is actually allowed to do so is another matter as Clamping is probably a form of Impounding but to impound a vehicle in this manner he should have either walking or close possession over it. By doing so he has possibly committed a wrongful detention of the goods. If this is the case then why have they said previously they had a Clamping Order or are they just trying to back pedal and cover their nether regions.

I think they're back pedalling and trying to cover their backsides, PT. Trouble is, they've dropped themselves in it by changing their story. In my experience, when that happens, they know they're in the proverbial.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

I'd like to cover their nether regions...

... with embrocation! :flame: :rofl:

Use Horse Linament, should be suitable, or a vapour rub to warm things up :flame:

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

why have they said previously they had a Clamping Order or are they just trying to back pedal and cover their nether regions.

I'd like to cover their nether regions...

... with embrocation! :flame: :rofl:

[ploddertom]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

I have just been on the phone to the magistrates court and they are adamant that the bailiff had the authority to clamp my car with the distress warrant he has and does not need a separate clamping order! I suspected they would say this.

In theory they are correct as the warrant gives him the power to seize your goods and therefore to do this does not need a sepaprate Clamping Order. However whether he is actually allowed to do so is another matter as Clamping is probably a form of Impounding but to impound a vehicle in this manner he should have either walking or close possession over it. By doing so he has possibly committed a wrongful detention of the goods. If this is the case then why have they said previously they had a Clamping Order or are they just trying to back pedal and cover their nether regions.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

As, indeed, they have done in this case.

What crime(s) might they have committed thereby?

That is an interesting question, CC. It is quite likely they are doing it to boost their fees and charges. That could be Fraud by False Misrepresentation or, possibly, Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information or, even, Fraud by Abuse of Position. Misleading a court is serious. There is a toss-up as to whether by falsely claiming someone is failing or refusing to pay a fine, the bailiff/Marstons are committing Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice, or both.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

Okay, guys. I'm going to email HMCTS Enforcement Operations about this case.

Kim, I'm going to send you a PM.

Yes time for some informed intervention on Kim's behalf, the marstons muppets need pulling up short, and the car returned, hope the police realise they might be in for paying some compensation for their part in the debacle.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

Okay, guys. I'm going to email HMCTS Enforcement Operations about this case.

Kim, I'm going to send you a PM.

[kim481]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

Just as I thought, a distress warrant does not automatically mean my car can be clamped but when I contact the courts, I get told that they do not know where I get this information from and he had every right to do it. Not getting anywhere with this one and the courts unfortunately.

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

Marstons have a habit of preventing people from paying fines.

As, indeed, they have done in this case.

What crime(s) might they have committed thereby?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

A Distress Warrant and a Clamping Order are entirely separate documents BB

Yes i know they are, however the opinion i have seen(post 196) and over the road seem to indicate that both are issued concurrently.

I have not seen documented proof of the practice other than anecdotal evidence I believer he OP had a similar reply from the court.[/QUOTE]

What has been coming up, as of late, are court staff claiming that the Distress Warrant entitles the bailiff to clamp a vehicle. It doesn't. That's what a Clamping Order does. How would a bailiff know if the fine defaulter had a motor vehicle until the bailiff had attended the fine defaulter's home? On the other hand, if it was a motoring fine, then issuing a Clamping Order at the same time as a Distress Warrant would make sense. However, Marstons have a habit of preventing people from paying fines.

[gravytrain]

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

A Distress Warrant and a Clamping Order are entirely separate documents BB[/QUOTE]

Yes i know they are, however the opinion i have seen(post 196) and over the road seem to indicate that both are issued concurrently.

I have not seen documented proof of the practice other than anecdotal evidence I believer he OP had a similar reply from the court.

Re: Marston bailiff clamped my car!!

I have also asked them to confirm to me that A Chapman has an up to date Bailiffs Certificate - to which I am still awaiting a reply.

Mrs Jane Williams
Enforcement Team Leader - CENS

Why is she asking Marstons to confirm something that should be known to the Ministry of Injustice?