Hi All,

Firstly, this isn't strictly a PCN issue but it is related to one, so I'm not sure if this the appropriate forum and please let me know if not.

My vehicle was clamped on 30th June and I discovered this and spoke to the bailiff on 1st July.

I've submitted TE7 & TE9 forms to TEC so this should all be resolved this afternoon.

However, I am going to make several complaints about the bailiff's actions as he was not only extremely rude and unprofessional when dealing with me, but also probably broke the law.

Some background info:

I called the bailiff (MO) on Sunday afternoon (01/07) but he didn't answer;

he then called me at 10pm Sunday evening to discuss.

During this conversation he told me the vehicle in question had been clamped previously and I had cut it off, telling me that because of this the vehicle would be towed immediately if I didn't pay the outstanding balance.

When I contested this and asked for info his response was along the lines of "I dunno, that's just what the system says" and refused to give any further evidence.

I was pretty incensed by the accusation so told him it was utterly false (exact words) and he hung up on me, refusing to answer again.

Today I called him to get the PCN number then did my relevant homework and called him back to let him know I'd submitted forms with TEC and he should hear from the issuing authority by the end of the day.

I asked him to give me his full name and registration details so I could submit a complaint about his behaviour last night and he outright refused, saying he didn't have to.

When I told him he was legally obligated to give me his information he got increasingly angry and doubled down.

He said he would show his certificate when releasing the vehicle but would not give details to me

- to which I responded by saying we both know that will never happen as he will most likely quietly remove the clamp and then be gone.

I eventually gave up with no information.

I checked his name on the immobilisation certificate

then checked the Certified Bailiff Register and found his full name and the court / company he's registered with, so am going to submit my complaints there first.

My most serious complaint is that his attempt to extort me into payment by claiming I had removed a previous clamp (let me just state - I hadn't) is a violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 and his refusal to provide any evidence for this, despite it being "on his system" is also a violation of Section 3.

So my question is this: who do I report this to and how?

I'm currently drafting a complaint to Hertford County Court (where MO is registered) with all of this included,

but would like to take this much, much further so he never attempts this stuff again.

Having never submitted any kind of criminal charges before I have no idea where to start.

Moved to Bailiff forum.

 

My vehicle was clamped on 30th June and I discovered this and spoke to the bailiff on 1st July.

 

I've submitted TE7 & TE9 forms to TEC so this should all be resolved this afternoon.

 

Today I called him to get the PCN number then did my relevant homework and called him back to let him know I'd submitted forms with TEC and he should hear from the issuing authority by the end of the day.

 

I asked him to give me his full name and registration details so I could submit a complaint about his behaviour last night and he outright refused, saying he didn't have to.

 

My most serious complaint is that his attempt to extort me into payment by claiming I had removed a previous clamp (let me just state - I hadn't) is a violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 and his refusal to provide any evidence for this, despite it being "on his system" is also a violation of Section 3.

 

I'm currently drafting a complaint to Hertford County Court (where MO is registered) with all of this included, but would like to take this much, much further so he never attempts this stuff again.

 

Having never submitted any kind of criminal charges before I have no idea where to start.

It would be because the enforcement agent had a warrant of control that he was able to request payment and not because a clamp may or may not have been removed!!!

This is not a FRAUD case at all and any suggestion otherwise is just plain barmy.

Before even considering making a complaint to the County Court that certificated the agent you really should be making a complaint to the company that instructed the agent. A complaint to the court is a very serious step and if the court consider that your complaint is unfounded, you can be ordered to pay the enforcement agents legal costs. This has happened quite a few times and in one particular case, the debtor was ordered to pay costs of over £4,000. In another recent case a couple of week ago, the court imposed a cost order of £2,200.

You have submitted an Out of time witness statement sometime today. That application will be PROCESSED today and it is usual for the enforcement company to receive notification the following morning. The vehicle has been clamped. In other words, the bailiff has taken control of the vehicle. It is a myth that he has to remove the clamp. Many enforcement agents will remove the clamp whilst the OOT is being considered (which usually takes between a month and 6 weeks), but others will leave the vehicle immobilised.

PS: If you are alleging that the enforcement agent has committed a criminal offence (Fraud Act etc), then this would be a matter for the Police. A complaint to the County Court that certificated the enforcement agent is entirely the wrong procedure.

Fraud is a serious allegation so one would have to be pretty sure that one could make the accusation stick. For that you would need confirmation at the very least from the Bailiff company that they had details from a previous owner for I guess, that a clamp had been cut off.

Also you would need pretty incontrovertible evidence that the bailiff had said that . Without those you will have a hard job getting a result. I would also point out that he had getting on for 48 hours since clamping and had not towed your car which would give him a perfect reason for denying your accusation.

Bailiffs cannot call at your house after 9pm-I am not sure that a telephone call would be treated similarly.

You didn't say where your car was clamped -was it on the road outside your home?

Usually bailiffs have to comply with the Code of Conduct of the creditor which includes their behaviour. They may take a dim view of phoning at 10 pm as there is extra pressure involved at that time of night. It might be worth complaining to them first [including the clamp removal as they are more likely to get an honest answer]. Bailiffs are supposed to prove their identity when calling at a property but he could argue that he had provided you with proof as his name was on the clamping order-ok assuming it was the same guy.

Why do people expect an EA to be polite when faced with an obstructive person?

Fraud wont stand.. A warrant of control has been issued.

Would you be polite if a bailiff called you at 10pm on a Sunday night Sgt Bush?

If I had a warrant issued against me , yes I would

If I had a warrant issued against me , yes I would

Who new that was the way to get a polite response from you. In fairness Sgt Bush you do appear to have mellowed recently.

 https://static.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon11.png/[code]

Some interesting replies to this..

Firstly, sgtbush, making an OOT declaration is not being an "obstructive person" it is following due process - processes that are set up to protect people (such as myself) who have been blind-sided with charges they were previously unaware of.

Would you pay an EA for a debt which you had no prior knowledge of, or would you want to investigate it and follow the available channels to avoid an EA's enormous fees?

I don't think the latter is at all unreasonable or "obstructive".

When I called the EA originally, I was polite, because I am always polite to them. I am polite to them because these people are just doing a job, no matter how much I disapprove of it; deserve to be treated with respect, just as I do; and generally being civil leads to a much more positive outcome for everyone involved.

All that being said, I stop being quite so polite when someone raises their voice at me and starts making threats. I become resistant, but not "obstructive".

While an EA with a warrant is allowed to seize certain belongings, they are NOT allowed to make unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour, assert that laws have been broken, or that there is a legal requirement to pay and/or legal repercussions for not complying. To do so with the explicit intention of parting someone with their money is FRAUD and I have no hesitations about calling this abhorrent practice out when it occurs.

===============

Now, whether or not the EA was knowingly making a false accusation that I had previously removed a clamp - i.e. lying to coerce me into payment - is unknown from my side, because I do not know what information he holds. I do know, however, that I did no such thing and that my vehicle has not been clamped prior to this. I drive my vehicle every week day at the very least, so it's unlikely I would have missed such a thing.

A violation of TFA Section 2 could be difficult to prove, I agree, because I don't have access to the same information as him, as he refused to provide it. However, his refusal to be forthcoming makes me doubt this evidence exists. His refusal to be forthcoming with information when requested is, however, a violation of TFA Section 3. I asked the EA to provide evidence for his accusations that I had removed a previous clamp and he refused to do so, despite claiming he had this evidence in front of him; I also asked the EA to give me his details so I could check he was legitimate and he refused to even give me his surname. It's only by being resourceful that I found his details myself and could run the checks to verify his identity - checks which were necessary due to his aggressive attitude.

To sum up: requesting payment with a warrant is not fraud, but making false statements and refusing to provide necessary information - with the explicit intention of expediting payment and removing my ability to follow the legal channels open to me - IS.