clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

ok show me a law that says you cannot take your car off the clamp. Clamp off car means undoing lock or damaging the clamp / car off clamp means jack up undo bottom ball joint clamp falls off ! no damage to clamp, ring up clampers tell them to come and get their clamp before someone else does
p.s ive done it! back to you Milo or anyone else

[des8]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

In response to my own question I have found section 68.2 of Schedule 12 (TCEA 2007).
This states:

(2

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

So it appears that even if control of the goods is unlawful, the owner needs a damned good excuse to remove the clamp. The fact that the goods are controlled (even if incorrectly) would not be sufficient excuse to remove clamp.

[R0b]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

There is also the tort of wrongful interference with goods

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

"controlled goods" is an agreement between bailiffs and a debter. I would'nt make such agreement. removing clamp is'nt the same as removing the car from the clamp. I know some people don't like loopholes exposed but i do. Understanding the law works both ways.

"There is also the tort of wrongful interference with goods" A claim would have to be made for damage, if there is no damage there is no claim.

There is no law that says you cannot remove a car from a clamp. stop saying removing the clamp. If i was asked did you remove the clamp from the car i would reply no definitely not, I removed the car from the clamp. in fact i would say i removed a part of my car which i am entitled to do and the clamp fell away, undamaged.

[des8]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

There are two different sets of rules here:
i)Criminal damage .................. no damage = no crime, so by all means remove clamp without damaging it
ii) interference with controlled goods............ if the court has ordered that control of the goods be enforced it is not a controlled goods agreement which one is at liberty to refuse.

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

Simplified Tommy Cooper style, Clamp car, car clamp, he he he, car off clamp, just like that!
A man walks into a cafe and orders a cake the cake arrives on a plate, the plate belongs to the cafe the cake belongs to the man. The man removes the plate and goes to walk out the door hey! that plate belongs to the cafe you are breaking the law the man drops the plate and it breaks the man has to pay for the plate as he has damaged it. On the other hand (or was it this one) the man takes the cake off the plate damages the cake by biting it, no law broken. Which proves you can have your cake and eat it!

[Milo]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

In response to my own question I have found section 68.2 of Schedule 12 (TCEA 2007).
This states:

(2

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

So it appears that even if control of the goods is unlawful, the owner needs a damned good excuse to remove the clamp. The fact that the goods are controlled (even if incorrectly) would not be sufficient excuse to remove clamp.

Excellent response and 100% correct.

The legislation is under section 68 of Schedule 12 and states as follows:


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ces?view=plain

• A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.
• A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to-

• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
• A fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
• Both

[R0b]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

Wrongful interference with goods does not require damage. It comes under several heads of claim, one of them being negligence if the goods are damaged, however the one I refer to is trespass to goods. The definition of this is unauthorised interference with goods - there does not need be a requirement to damage the goods. A person must deliberately interfere with another's goods and this can include removing, touching or in your case lock picking. So whilst you might have got away with criminal charges the bailiffs could if they wished to do so bring a civil claim for interference.

[Milo]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

Taking my above post into consideration, it makes no difference whether the car has been released from the clamp or the clamp released from the car. Either way, it is an offence to inferfere with controlled goods.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ces?view=plain

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

I disagree not 100% at all, 1. For your argument to work you would need the goods to be proven to be controlled. I.E on a list of controlled goods signed by the person who owns the goods
2. Neither a car or clamp is a person
3. The law is there to be interpreted, no one has ever been convicted of removing a car from a clamp, There i rest my case

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

Controlled goods are only controlled if either a court or a owner has agreed to such so just as you assume goods are controlled i am assuming they are not! just as i am assuming you are a clamper or bailiff
Further more there is a big difference from a car being removed from a clamp, p.s i am not a lock picker i would'nt have a clue how to pick a lock but i am city of guilds level 4 technician motor mechanic, so i know how one nut removes a car (yes there is a pun there)

[des8]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

I asked a question, which I managed to answer myself.
I actually read the act and the regulations, (which I should have done prior to asking dumb questions!)

If you had done your research you would know my background and not cast aspersions on my occupation!

My apologies to OP if the thread has gone off topic

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

Just for the record i'd been looking for this

The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997

You are here:

• 1997 No. 2439
• PART II
• Opening OptionsExpand opening options

Status:

This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

Removal of or interference with immobilisation notice or device

7.—(1) An immobilisation notice shall not be removed or interfered with except by or under the authority of an authorised person.(2) A person contravening paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(3) Any person who, without being authorised to do so in accordance with regulation 6, removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fixed to a vehicle in accordance with these Regulations is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

[suffering]

Re: clamp removed - arrested-released-innocent!

And This, which makes my original idea risky to say the least
Removal of vehicles

9.—(1) This regulation applies where an authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under section 29(1) of the 1994 Act—

(a)

is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a public road in England or in Wales; or

(b)

was being committed as regards a vehicle at a time when an immobilisation device which is fixed to the vehicle was fixed to it in accordance with these Regulations and the conditions prescribed in paragraph (2) are fulfilled.
(2) The conditions are—

(a)

24 hours have elapsed since the device was fixed to the vehicle, and

(b)

the vehicle has not been released in accordance with these Regulations.
(3) In a case where this regulation applies, the authorised person or a person acting under his direction, may remove the vehicle and deliver it to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to keep vehicles so removed in his custody (in these Regulations called a “custodian”).