Desperate for help please!

[bluebottle]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Sorry, this is a lengthy post and full of a lot of irrelevant content. If I'm right in picking out the relevant bits, are you advising the OP to take action through the County Court? If so, what would they be claiming under?

Also, what is the point of the process of working towards the interpleader which is specifically for this circumstance if one can (and should?) simply go through the County Court?

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm on new ground here so it is a learning experience for me, but I have contacted four other members whose posts I respect hugely and the notion of a CC claim has not been mentioned previously - I appreciate it doesn't mean your course is not correct, but it would be interesting to hear your experiences of these if you have any? I have experience of neither route I'm afraid.

My understanding of the Interpleader provision is that it should apply in cases where an EA has made a genuine mistake in seizing third-party goods and has removed them. In the OP's case, it is more a case of the EA doing what I call the "I'll release it when he pays," number. My instincts are that forcing a person to go to Interpleader unnecessarily is an abuse of the legal process and I do know that reservations were voiced about the Interpleader provision in the lead-up to it coming into force.

If the EA knew the car that has been clamped did not belong to the debtor at the time of doing so, then the EA has acted in contravention of the "warrant" and, in doing so, acted without lawful authority. Under such circumstances, it can be argued that the clamping amounts to Wrongful Interference with Goods, which is a civil tort and is actionable.

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

I think the concern leading up to the reforms was to do with the number of interpleaders likely to be seen before things were 'tweaked.'

It will be interesting to hear others' views on your comments to use the civil tort route of Interference with Goods http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

Do you have personal experience of using either interpleader of interference in this context?

[bluebottle]

Re: Desperate for help please!

I think the concern leading up to the reforms was to do with the number of interpleaders likely to be seen before things were 'tweaked.'

There were also concerns voiced about the equity of the Interpleader provision. It goes against what is fair or reasonable and is open to abuse.

It will be interesting to hear others' views on your comments to use the civil tort route of Interference with Goods http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

In the OP's case, the EA has acted unlawfully ab initio. If the OP is forced to go to Interpleader and loses their vehicle, then there is nothing to prevent them bringing an action against the creditor as the creditor is 100% vicariously-liable for the actions of Marstons and their EA. Notwithstanding, the creditor would then have to seek an indemnity from Marstons and their EA. If the clamp is removed, then the OP is entitled to claim for loss of use. What needs to be borne in mind the lawfulness of the EA's actions in the circumstances.

Do you have personal experience of using either interpleader of interference in this context? I am currently helping someone litigate a case involving Wrongful Interference and Wrongful Conversion of Goods as part of a case of Fraudulent Mortgage Repossession. The Circuit Judge hearing the case has ordered the other side to place a minimum of £1 million on account with the court for starters. It is my understanding the barrister for the other side was looking very worried when the judge made the order and the other side's solicitor looked as if he was about to throw up

The new regulations have only been in force for three months and the OP's case may be the first case where an EA is attempting to force a third party to Interpleader where the EA has acted unlawfully ab initio. However, if Marstons decide to stop playing silly beggars and remove the clamp, I see no lawful reason why the OP should not pursue a claim for Wrongful Interference (including loss of use).

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

The step they're taking forces things back into the creditor's hands though, so the vicarious liability kicks in before the formal interpleader as per the CPR's. This would avoid court action altogether and should, according to the legislation, resolve the issue. I've linked to the relevant parts earlier in the thread.

When you say:

There were also concerns voiced about the equity of the Interpleader provision. It goes against what is fair or reasonable and is open to abuse.

Who voiced them? Do you have a link I could read?

Do you have personal experience of using either interpleader of interference in this context? I am currently helping someone litigate a case involving Wrongful Interference and Wrongful Conversion of Goods as part of a case of Fraudulent Mortgage Repossession. The Circuit Judge hearing the case has ordered the other side to place a minimum of £1 million on account with the court for starters. It is my understanding the barrister for the other side was looking very worried when the judge made the order and the other side's solicitor looked as if he was about to throw up

I'll take that as a No then. I'm not too concerned about other cases. :beagle:

[Wombats]

Re: Desperate for help please!

PENPUSHERS

Sorry your thread has been highjacked a bit. One thought has just occurred to me reading the thread again - could you check the signage?

Some signs will say "Permit Holders Only" while others state "Permits Must Be Displayed" Clearly if it were the former, then you are a permit holder, irrespective of whether it is displayed or not. It’s worth checking the signs.

Just a thought and a question you should rightly have been asked some time ago.

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

The interpleader would, IMHO, only be justified where an EA has seized goods in the absence of the third party and the belief by the EA that the goods seized belonged to the debtor was genuinely held and reasonable in the circumstances, the onus being on the EA. If not, then it would, IMHO, amount to Wrongful Interference with Goods and Unlawful Detention of Goods. Notwithstanding that the creditor, in the OP's case, is a public authority and Marstons are acting as its agent, Article 1 of the First Protocol of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies in that a public authority may not take away or interfere with a person's possessions except in exceptional circumstances. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to perform any act that is incompatible with a person's Convention rights.

The EA in the OP's case has, IMHO, acted unlawfully in that the "warrant" only allows them to seize goods belonging to the debtor. It does not allow them to seize third party goods and then make release conditional to the debtor paying up. Not only is that unlawful, it is, IMHO, illegal also.

The Council, in the OP's case, has adopted the ostrich position by claiming it is nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with them. They hired Marstons and it is Marstons who have an EA who should be given a claim pack for JSA. The Council needs to have the clamp removed immediately, otherwise, if this is pursued through the County Court, any damages and costs awarded to the OP will exceed the PCN, court fee and enforcement fees.

Thank-you for all of your help I am still at standstill though. Despite loads of emails to and fro Gareth and Marstons staff nothing !

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Thanks for this post and info Bluebottle. Despite emails to Gareth (lost count) and to Marstons staff. Clamp is still on. Everyone even solicitor says it is illegal but who brings them to book?

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Thanks for this post and info Wombats . Despite emails to Gareth (lost count) and to Marstons staff. Clamp is still on. Everyone even solicitor says it is illegal but who brings them to book? Just honest hard working people never had to deal with anything like this before. Really thankful for this site and all of you.

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Getting son to take photo of the sign. Thanks for thought.

[Penpushers]

Re: Desperate for help please!

Thank-you so much for all of your help we are going to see citizens advise on thursday we went to see a solicitor two weeks ago who said marstons were in the wrong and on very dodgey ground.