Clamped on home property, bailff left.

[APX-500]

A bailiff (EA) clamped my vehicle without knocking my door then drove away then came back 4 hours later.

During that time frame, the 4 hours the van was clamped I mean, was my vehicle what could be legally determined by a court as being 'controlled goods'? I mean goods under control under the warrant of control. Yes I know all the warrant stuff is done electronically and no signatures on these 'warrants' are required but I'm at where I'm at with this. Charged by police with interfering with controlled goods because I removed the clamp and used the van as my own, which of course it was, title or ownership of the van was never passed to anyone even with a warrant of control issued.

No controlled goods agreement was signed. So, was my vehicle deemed to be controlled goods because a clamp was applied to it by the EA?

I look forward to assistance as my court date is this month.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

What was the original debt for?

is there any evidence that you removed the clamp?

Could it be argued that vigilantes removed the clamp?

Did you make any comments during your police interview?

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

What was the original debt for?

is there any evidence that you removed the clamp?

Could it be argued that vigilantes removed the clamp?

Did you make any comments during your police interview?

Council PCN
Yes
No
Yes

Charged with interfering with controlled goods.

Was the vehicle deemed as controlled goods at the time of clamping?

[josephbloggs]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

you ask for the honest answers here they are.

There are 4 ways of taking control
one of those is immobilising a vehicle.
once the clamp is put on, you should be issued with a notice of immobilisation usually affixed to the windscreen. Also another statuatory form called a notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway. This will also detail your vehicle on it. If clamped at least a 2 hour period must elapse prior to removal.
That vehicle is then under control.

you have then removed the clamp - (you dont say how but angle grinder is a popular one at the minute)
under para 68 of the tce act 2007 sch 12,
You have interferred with controlled goods.
Also dependant on how you took the clamp off they could argue criminal damage too.

is the amount owed still outstanding or has it been settled?
if its still not paid - would paying it stop any action through the courts because i saw an article where the same happened as it has to yourself and once it was paid the company didnt persue it any further.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

I would actually encourage people to make no comment to the police. Call me old fashioned but I still believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that the onus is on the police to prove a persons guilt. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do the polices job for them-Its as stupid as allowing a bailiff entry into your home.

I also believe that there is no justification in clamping a vehicle before giving the debtor the option of entering into a controlled goods agreement. The OP should instigate a complaint to the council and enquire as to whether there are any guidelines in place for its agents to follow-Or whether the council encourage depravation of a persons vehicle for something as minor as a PCN, when other options have not been explored.

[josephbloggs]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Q. is there any evidence that you removed the clamp?
A. I removed the clamp

Call me old fashioned but when someone says they did it - tends to mean they did it.

as i said before there are 4 methods of taking control of goods, clamping is one of four methods.

from the original post of like 7 lines it is impossible tell how many previous letters the OP will have had, how many previous visits took place - any phone correspondence that may of took place.

what i take from the limited info on offer from the post is due to his/her actions in removing the clamp and breaking the law, this is the current position they find themselves in.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The debtor has been charged £235 for this visit. You know (or at least you should know) that part of the reason for this figure being higher than before is to allow time for the bailiff to work with the debtor in order to find a sensible and a reasonable way to settle the outstanding amount.

The bailiff has simply slapped a clamp on, driven off into the sunset and let the debtor stew for a few hours. We both know that he would have returned and demanded full payment or threaten instant removal. It is a tactic regularly used by bailiffs and one that is not only immoral but certainly not what the MOJ intended when they arrived at the £235 figure. I know that many councils instruct their bailiffs to remove goods, only as a last resort so the threat/bluff of doing so on the initial visit is no better or no more honest than the person who cuts off a clamp is it?

When this happens, debtors should always be encouraged to complain to the council. Goods should not be removed or threatened to be removed immediately. Councils should be accountable and made to answer why they are permitting this action to continue when it is clearly not what was intended by the MOJ for an initial visit. Debtors should have the right to enter into repayment plans-Especially if £235 has been added to the debt. To some people, that is a weeks wages after tax-How are they expected to find it in one go?

What possible reason can a bailiff have for clamping a vehicle and not even bothering to knock the debtors door to invite him to enter into a CGA? It is nasty and punitive, designed at getting the money in(including the bailiffs commission of course) as quickly as possible. Why would he not offer the CGA other than it is more time consuming and it creates a delay in commission being received. You might find this hard to believe but the days are gone when bailiff can abuse process in order to line their own pockets. This was a van-A vehicle clearly used by the debtor to earn a living-Even more reason to tread lightly initially. Clamping should never be used without first attempting a CGA.

Regarding the debtors guilt, he is not obliged to admit this. He is not obliged to comment either way and he is not obliged to give evidence in court. It is perfectly legitimate and of course reasonable to ask the police/CPS to prove the case and also perfectly legitimate and reasonable to ask them what evidence they have that proves a third party (vigilante for example) hasn't cut off the clamp?

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Council PCN
Yes
No
Yes

Charged with interfering with controlled goods.

Was the vehicle deemed as controlled goods at the time of clamping?

Yes-Unfortunately, the vehicle was controlled. In your case, the way forward is to go for damage limitation.

You should write a formal complaint to the council stating that your van was clamped on your drive, without the bailiff even bothering to knock your door. Explain that the vehicle in question was a van so therefore was obviously used for your employment. In depriving you of your vehicle, the bailiff could have not only cost you loss of earnings but also good will with clients and/or employers. You are aware that the fee for this visit has recently gone up quite considerably to £235 and that it is your understanding that part of the reason for this is to allow the bailiff time to negotiate and reason with the debtor in order to find a mutually acceptable solution to the matter. It is certainly not the case that the bailiff should simply affix a clamp and then disappear, without even bothering to speak to the debtor. You would have quite happily entered into a controlled goods agreement if you were afforded the opportunity to do so.

Ask if the council have any guidelines or contractual terms regarding their enforcement agents and the removing of debtors goods, or do they simply allow goods to be removed at any time, including the initial visit?

If your complaint is not upheld, is there a stage 2 in the councils procedure or are you now free to contact the Ombudsman?

If you can, I would offer to settle the debt and ask that under the circumstances, the charge of interfering with controlled goods is dropped.

If you do end up in court, use the above argument as mitigation and play on the following:

1. The bailiff has not attempted to discuss the debt and repayment plans with you, despite that being the intention of the MOJ when raising the visit fee quite drastically to £235
2. The vehicle was a van and was clearly a work vehicle-You needed it for work and would have happily entered into a CGA if you were given the chance.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Sorry not to have replied sooner, been away.

Thanks for the responses. I'll speak with my solicitor once we have the disclosure evidence and compare notes with what you've said here.

Thanks.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

you ask for the honest answers here they are.

There are 4 ways of taking control
one of those is immobilising a vehicle.
once the clamp is put on, you should be issued with a notice of immobilisation usually affixed to the windscreen. Also another statuatory form called a notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway. This will also detail your vehicle on it. If clamped at least a 2 hour period must elapse prior to removal.
That vehicle is then under control.

you have then removed the clamp - (you dont say how but angle grinder is a popular one at the minute)
under para 68 of the tce act 2007 sch 12,
You have interferred with controlled goods.
Also dependant on how you took the clamp off they could argue criminal damage too.

is the amount owed still outstanding or has it been settled?
if its still not paid - would paying it stop any action through the courts because i saw an article where the same happened as it has to yourself and once it was paid the company didnt persue it any further.

No damage to the clamp, no charge of theft of either.
I was not informed the van was goods under control by way of letter attached to the van but there was a sticker put on it saying the van is clamped because I owed £xxx.
I paid the council what they were owed AFTER the clamp was removed believing that would get rid of the enforcement action but according to their copy of the warrant of control the enforcement action includes their fees.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Sorry not to have replied sooner, been away.

Thanks for the responses. I'll speak with my solicitor once we have the disclosure evidence and compare notes with what you've said here.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, you are aware that there is evidence that you removed the clamp. You admit that it could not be argued that someone else removed it and it seems likely that you have admitted under caution to having removed it. Both JB and myself have told you that it is an offence to interfere with controlled goods and that your van was under control. You have no option but to plead guilty to the offence, under the circumstances.

Whilst I appreciate are waiting to speak with a solicitor, I can tell you that the only realistic chance you have of getting off this charge is to try to ask the complainant to drop the charges. You have 2 bargaining tools. You have the fact that the bailiff should have handled the situation differently, as per my post #8. You also have the outstanding bailiff fee remaining unpaid. As a resolution to your complaint, you could offer to pay the bailiff fees in full and not pursue the matter further, if the council would be prepared to drop the charges. There have been mistakes made by both parties here, nobody will come out smelling of roses-It is unfair though that only you should face punishment. There was no damage done to the van and you did not attempt to hide it, you simply wished to use it in the same way that youwould have been permitted to do so if a CGA was in place.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

ALL fees have been paid, bailiffs fees included.

So if I submit a guilty plea does anyone have any idea of the punishment that might be dished out? I am aware of the maximum prison sentence and MOJ scale of fines for interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse. I do believe I had a lawful excuse as the van should never have been clamped in the first place.

EDIT: Oh, and the council are not the complainant, police have charged me.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

My unqualified opinion is that whilst you certainly had mitigating circumstances, the fact remains that the van was controlled. Your solicitor is certainly better qualified to advise on this though.

I maintain that the best course of action is to complain (the quicker you do this, the better as time is of the essence). There is more hope of the council dropping charges than there is of you winning a court case.

A smallish fine is all you can expect from this. If you plead not guilty, the case will be adjourned for trial. You will have to pay (if you wish) for legal representation. The bailiff would have to attend court to give evidence. This would result in loss of earnings (assuming he won't receive costs) It might help persuade the council to drop the charges and save the hassle, especially if you can force a council employee to have to attend as well.

On a downside, the fine may be slightly higher if you are subsequently found guilty. I'm not sure if you could be made to pay the witness's costs, your solicitor would have to advise on that.

It will certainly do your case no harm by launching a formal complaint.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Thanks L.Bizzy.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

AS the police have charged you, do as L.Bizzy says get that Formal Complaint in, expressly use the non compliance of the EA in not knocking your door and discussing the issue,thus denying you an opportunity to pay, and avoid the secret clamping. This of itself is a mitigating factor if you plead guilty.