Clamped on home property, bailff left.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

There is fault on all sides here. The EA and/or Council not bothering to enquire as to vehicle status. The OP for cutting off the clamp if he clearly had the ability to prove use otherwise unless of course the vehicle is used by more than 1 person. Of course it is easy to say all this after the event and seemingly the OP has to face the music as prosecution appears to have been brought by the Police and not the aggrieved party. Possibly one of the few things he can do is to try to mitigate his actions by apology and did not realise the seriousness of the situation. Shame really he confessed to his actions.

Yes-An apology would probably help but more importantly, the OP needs to try to get across to the magistrates how wrong the clamping was in the first place-How it needlessly deprived him of conducting his business, when there was no need because a CGA would have achieved the same. If it were Parliments intention for goods to be controlled like that, there would be no need for bailiff visit at all and a simple letter notifying the debtor would suffice.

If the OP has no previous convictions, the sensible course of action would be to attend court, apologise, explain the wrongdoing of the bailiff and the reason that the clamp was removed (undamaged) to use for work and ask to bench to consider a bind over. This would not appear on the OP's record and would not mean a fine being implemented

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Good plan L.Bizzy, I fear EA's are going to try to cry "Obstruction" as much as possible in future also, on Magistrates fines, and civil debt if they think they will get away with it

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

There probably may not be much sympathy from the Magistrates as this refers to an unpaid PCN that despite lots of notifications/reminders being sent it was still unpaid. The other thing we must not forget is that from Monday of this week the nature in how fines etc are handled has all changed with the introduction of the Criminal Courts Charge.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

1000's of people are late paying these penalties, for a variety of reasons-This does not make them criminals, nor should it be held against them in a court of law. The bailiff has abused legal process, for no other reason than personal financial gain. If legal process is not conducted correctly, it should act as mitigation for a debtors actions. If you think that magistrates will be keen to give somebody a criminal record over something so trivial as this then I believe that you are mistaken. I could understand it if it had been reasonable to deprive the debtor of his work vehicle but on this occasion, it was unreasonable. It is very hard to punish one party, when the other have not behaved correctly either.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

It was the police who brought the charge and they won't give a flying firk, to them it is a Crime cleared up for their stats, just as doing those 10 year old girls for Criminal Damage for chalking hopscotch squares on the pavement was.

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The unpaid PCN is the catalyst behind this, it went unpaid for whatever reason and the actions of the person removing the clamp has elevated it to something more serious. Doesn' t matter how you dress up a criminal offence has been committed whether intentionally or not and for that reason the consequnces have to be borne.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The unpaid PCN is the catalyst behind this, it went unpaid for whatever reason and the actions of the person removing the clamp has elevated it to something more serious. Doesn' t matter how you dress up a criminal offence has been committed whether intentionally or not and for that reason the consequnces have to be borne.

Not quite so. An allegation has been made. It will down to the court to determine if an offence was committed or not. Innocent until proven guilty remember.

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

If the PCN had been paid then none of this would be happening. Did you challenge the ticket at all or just hope it would go away.

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Did you challenge the ticket at all or just hope it would go away.

Maybe that is a little harsh, were you trying to establish who may have been driving that day and therefore responsible.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Maybe that is a little harsh, were you trying to establish who may have been driving that day and therefore responsible.

It is extremely harsh and has a familiar ring to it.

it does not matter why the charge was not paid and no offence was committed by not paying it. It makes no difference whatsoever.

The bailiff has taken shortcuts, in order to maximise financial gain for himself, at the expense of the debtor. We are not here to judge or criticise why the charge remained unpaid, we are here to help the OP and hopefully make a stand against this kind of action. If the best you have to offer is to advise the debtor to say sorry, then I really don't think that you have any more to contribute.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Not quite so. An allegation has been made. It will down to the court to determine if an offence was committed or not. Innocent until proven guilty remember.

it would definitely pay to contact the council and to ask why your vehicle was clamped without the bailiff even bothering to knock your door, let alone make initial enquiries as to the status of the van. Ask if there are any guidelines in place, or contractual stipulations regarding this, or if there are any restrictions regarding when goods can be removed. If there are restrictions, can the council explain why your van was clamped before you were given the opportunity to enter into a CGA.

If the council do have guidelines and or contractual wording, the door is open for you to challenge the validity of the £235 fee, and also the action of the bailiff in clamping the van. With this in mind, it may be wise to seek an adjournment of the case or alternatively enter a not guilty plea. Your solicitor will obviously be able to advise you more fully of the pro's & cons of the court proceedings.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The problem is that the interference with controlled goods is strict liability, with the option to court as the EA prima facie did not knock the door or post any CGO the Op had no way of challenging the clamp beyond phoning the EA's gaffers to ask was it right. OP should point their solicitor to this thread to appraise them of what the issue is. Police charging OP with removing a clamp, and therefore committing the offence of Interfering with Controlled Goods, a new offence brought in under TCGA, mitigating circumstances being no contact from EA on the day, clamp undamaged etc.

I feel this issue of interference with controlled goods offence will not be resolved and seen as potentially bad law until a few innocent third parties remove a clamp, as they were nothing to do with the debt, as the EA was intransigent, and refused to remove it, even though the PCN was to a previous keeper, proof was provided and the car was still towed and sold as the TP could not afford interpleader, and one is jailed, Watchdog take it on and drag MOJ, Dossendales, or Sharkstons onto the programme.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Guys I do appreciate your comments.

At the end of the day all of this is about me going over 8 minutes over on a parking ticket, total sum that the council was owed originally was about 90p.

Call this justice? I certainly don't. Everyone has been paid, the council and the EA.

This to me is now nothing more than revenue collection and police/CPS hoping for a result to justify the time they've put into their investigation to date.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The problem is that the interference with controlled goods is strict liability, with the option to court as the EA prima facie did not knock the door or post any CGO the Op had no way of challenging the clamp beyond phoning the EA's gaffers to ask was it right. OP should point their solicitor to this thread to appraise them of what the issue is. Police charging OP with removing a clamp, and therefore committing the offence of Interfering with Controlled Goods, a new offence brought in under TCGA, mitigating circumstances being no contact from EA on the day, clamp undamaged etc.

I feel this issue of interference with controlled goods offence will not be resolved and seen as potentially bad law until a few innocent third parties remove a clamp, as they were nothing to do with the debt, as the EA was intransigent, and refused to remove it, even though the PCN was to a previous keeper, proof was provided and the car was still towed and sold as the TP could not afford interpleader, and one is jailed, Watchdog take it on and drag MOJ, Dossendales, or Sharkstons onto the programme.

You are correct BB. The problem that we have currently is that the police don't really know how to implement the new regulations. What the OP has done here, is no worse than the bailiff who dishonestly obtains money from a debtor. Just as the bailiff isn't charged with fraud (although the offence of fraud has been committed), nor should the op have been charged on this occasion. A charge of interfering with controlled goods should really be reserved for occasions when goods are hidden or removed. In this case, the OP made no attempt to hide the vehicle, he just wanted to exercise his basic right of using his vehicle in order to earn a living.

Likewise, "obstructing a bailiff" is also being mis-interpreted and police need to be aware that bailiffs do not have the same powers that they do. Refusing a bailiff entry to a property for example is perfectly legitimate and within a debtors rights.

Common sense and a basic understanding of the Schedule 12 procedure is definitely required.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

You are correct BB. The problem that we have currently is that the police don't really know how to implement the new regulations. What the OP has done here, is no worse than the bailiff who dishonestly obtains money from a debtor. Just as the bailiff isn't charged with fraud (although the offence of fraud has been committed), nor should the op have been charged on this occasion. A charge of interfering with controlled goods should really be reserved for occasions when goods are hidden or removed. In this case, the OP made no attempt to hide the vehicle, he just wanted to exercise his basic right of using his vehicle in order to earn a living.

Likewise, "obstructing a bailiff" is also being mis-interpreted and police need to be aware that bailiffs do not have the same powers that they do. Refusing a bailiff entry to a property for example is perfectly legitimate and within a debtors rights.

Common sense and a basic understanding of the Schedule 12 procedure is definitely required.

Absolutely LB, under this Schedule 12, an innocent third party woould be as guilty of the offence as the debtor, and the EA could get them done if they remove the clamp, anfter EA declines adequate proof. Ignorance of te interpleader which they may not be able to afford is no defence,

There ios mitigation here with the way the EA acted, and the fact that the goods were not hidden, merely used for the debtor's work.