Car towed away because of "for sale" notice on car. Please help!!!

[Matt1011]

Hi there,

 

I was left completely dumbfounded yesterday when after returning from work I did not find my car where I parked it. After several calls nobody could tell me exactly where it was until this morning somebody from Haringey council called me this morning to tell me that the car was towed away because there was a "for sale" notice on the window. They are telling me that I need to pay 420pds to get it back but would give 50% discount if I pay on Monday.

 

Is that legal as the car was correctly parked? Please help!!!

[postggj]

if the car was road legal, tax, insurance, mot

they have some explaning to do

 

the only exception would be if you buy and sell cars, then sell them on the highway

[Matt1011]

The car was completely legal. I am not in the trade. I am just trying to sell my car. Do I stand a chance?

[postggj]

go into the council office and demand an explanation

ask them what regs they used to remove your vehicle

tell them that they are now liable for all out of pocket expenses, taxi, tube, etc

inform them that you want your car removed back to where it was taken

 

this is theft, end of

[green_and_mean]

It is an offence to sell or advertise goods for sale on the highway in london without a street trading licence.

[Matt1011]

Is the offence punishable by council or the police and is it your car removed strightawy from the road without a fine first?

[postggj]

learn somthing new every day

talk about petty

so you cant even put a sign in your car window for sale

 

when will these cash cow london councils stop

 

how would the council know the owner did not have a trading licence before taking the car

seems draconian to me

[green_and_mean]

Is the offence punishable by council or the police and is it your car removed strightawy from the road without a fine first?

 

Usually the Council, it is possible you got a PCN for contravention code 18 'Using a vehicle in a parking place in connection with the sale or offering or exposing for sale of goods when prohibited'.

[green_and_mean]

learn somthing new every day

talk about petty

so you cant even put a sign in your car window for sale

 

when will these cash cow london councils stop

 

how would the council know the owner did not have a trading licence before taking the car

seems draconian to me

 

In some parts of London it is a real problem with multiple vehicles parked on street for sale in the same location. Unfortunatly in order to clamp down on this problem it is not possible to tell who is a genuine resident flogging his car or a trader with 20 or so cars for sale.

[lamma]

"when prohibited'. so when and where is it prohibited.

[green_and_mean]

"when prohibited'. so when and where is it prohibited.

 

If you read my original post its prohibited in London of which Haringey is a part.

[lamma]

Sorry, I meant what legislation. It would be interesting to see that and see what penalties are enabled by statute.

[green_and_mean]

Sorry, I meant what legislation. It would be interesting to see that and see what penalties are enabled by statute.

 

London local authorities act 1990 and subsequent amendments

[green_and_mean]

Just in case you think I making it all up....

 

Ealing Council has secured a further nine successful prosecutions against illegal car traders selling cars on the borough's streets.

The offence committed by each of the defendants was engaging in street trading without a street trading licence (ie. trying to sell cars on the street) contrary to S38 London Local Authorities Act 1990. ·Upon conviction, under section (5) of the Act, the court can order any item confiscated to be forfeited.

The car sellers’ details are as follows:

Acton Magistrates Court - 18 May 2006:

1. Mr Mohammad Tahiry, 67 St Andrew Tower, Baird Ave, Southall UB1 3LX. Fined £100. Costs £285.32. Attempting to sell on Greenford Road, Greenford.

2. Mr Mantas Gelzinis, 99 Russell Rise, Luton Bedfordshire, LU1 5ET. Fined £100. Costs £285.32. Attempting to sell on Greenford Road, Greenford.

3. Mr Michal Wichrowski, 4 York Road, Brentford, TW8 0QP. Fined £100. Costs £285.32 Attempting to sell on Greenford Road, Greenford.

Acton Magistrates Court - 25 May 2006:

4. Mr Ahmed Nasara, Flat B 133-135 Queens Crescent, Kentish Town, London NW5 4EG. Fined £200.00. Costs: £285.32. Atempting to sell on Ruislip Road, Greenford.

5. Mr Michael Mongan, 113 Ruislip Road, Greenford Middx, UB 9QQ. Fined £400.00 and ordered to pay costs of £535.32. Attempting to sell on Ruislip Road, Greenford.

6. Mr Anton Tabas, 89 Becklow Gardens, Shepherd's Bush, London W12 9ET. Fined £400.00 and ordered to pay costs of £285.32. Attempting to sell on Horn Lane, Acton.

7. Mrs Angela Walker, 41 Summerlands Avenue, London W3 6EW. She was fined £200.00. Ordered to pay costs £285.32. Attempting to sell on Horn Lane, Acton.

8. Mr Mikhail Vasilef, 6 Twisady House, 28 Colville Square, London W11 2BW. Fined £200.00 Defendant ordered to pay costs of £285.32. Attempting to sell on Horn Lane, Acton.

9. Mr Sheikh Ikram, 3 Maple Grove Southall, Middx UB1 2PA. He was fined £300.00. Also ordered to pay costs of £285.32. Attempting to sell on Greenford Road, Greenford.

[lamma]

I don''t disbelieve you. Is a person selling their personal car a "trader" ? I would think not.

[green_and_mean]

I don''t disbelieve you. Is a person selling their personal car a "trader" ? I would think not.

 

It is irrelevant who is selling the vehicle (unless of course they have a licence) it is the selling that is illegal for whatever purpose it may be as long as it is for gain or reward.

[Guest Ting]

Very interesting subject.

 

1/. Most people seem completely ignorant of this. That said, it's application sems inappropriate. Publicised fairly frequently in my local Council magazine.

 

2/. Discussed at some length previously on another forum. A Barnet case. One thing that cropped up is the wording of the contravention that 'mean' quotes. Oh, that is the contravention to use but I believe the issue was that it suggests something is being sold from the vehicle - which is contentious since that is not the case. Such enforcement would be under TMA 2004 - which brings me to a more important point >>

 

3/. £420?? Does not appear to be in line with the legislation used. Neither does the offer of a 50% discount, presumably meaning £210-. This might be OP's understanding. If £200 tow + 3 days @ £40 day storage + £100 PCN = £420. That means the discount is only being offered on the PCN so actual cost will be £370-. Better to start by saving some storage fees and recover it today.

-

 

No doubt all will be revealed when OP recovers the car. Will need to see all the documents.

[Conniff]

But he is not a trader, and he says he is not, then only removal reason must be abandonment of which they have to prove:

 

 

1. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 allows for the vehicle that is advertised for sale to removed from the highway, if it is surrendered to the Council by the owner or if it can be proved that the vehicle has been abandoned.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Conniff

[lamma]

As the owner was not there how could he have been trading at that location ?

[Chesterexpress]

At the most you ought to have received a PCN with contravention code 18 (as gtm quoted above). I honestly can't see that they would remove it without placing a 24 hour notice of intention to remove an abandoned vehicle, which in this case it most certainly doesn't sound as though it was abandoned. As for trading check out Onasanya v London Borough of Newham.

[Chesterexpress]

Also in the cases quoted by GTM above, these were I beleive proved to be dealers selling multiple vehicles and not individuals selling there own personal car.

[Matt1011]

guys, I have seen in another forum that if the contact details are on the notice it means that the sale is not happening on the spot and is not covered by the street trading laws. But I take on board your advices.

 

How should I proceed now? The earliest I can get the car back is Monday although I have tried to call them for two hours yesterday to try locate my car but to no vail.

[green_and_mean]

But he is not a trader and the only removal reason must be abandonment of which they have to prove:

 

Unlicensed street trading

 

38 (1) A person who—

(a) is not the holder of a street trading licence or a temporary licence and who engages in street trading in a borough; or

(b) is the holder of a temporary licence and who engages in street trading in a borough on a day or in a place not specified in that temporary licence;

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section or for an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under this section where it is shown that—

(a) any article or thing was displayed (whether or not in or on any receptacle) in any street; or

(b) any receptacle or equipment used in the provision of any service was available in any street in such circumstances that a service was being offered;

the article or thing shall be presumed to have been exposed or offered for sale and the receptacle or equipment shall be presumed to have been available for the provision of a service at such time and in such position as it was displayed or available by the person having care or control or appearing to have care and control thereof unless in either case, it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the article or thing or receptacle or equipment was brought into that street for some purpose other than for the purpose of selling it or exposing or offering it for sale or using it in the course of the provision of the service in a street.

(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of the offence and liable to the same maximum penalty as the body corporate.

(4) If an authorised officer or a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence under this section he may seize any article or thing being offered or exposed for sale or receptacle being used by that person which may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings in respect of that offence, or may be the subject of forfeiture under subsection (5) below, provided that no article or thing which is of a perishable nature shall be seized under the provisions of this subsection.

(a) The following provisions of this subsection shall have effect where any article or thing (including any receptacle) is seized under subsection (4) above and references in those provisions to proceedings are to proceedings in respect of the alleged offence in relation to which the article or thing is seized.

(b) Subject to paragraph (e) below, at the conclusion of the proceedings the article or thing shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless the court orders it to be forfeited under subsection (5) below.

© Subject to paragraph (d) below, where a receptacle seized under subsection (4) above is a motor vehicle used for ice cream trading, the borough council or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (as the case may be) shall, within three days of the receipt of an application in writing by the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle, permit him to remove it.

(d) Paragraph © above shall not apply where—

(i) the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Act; or

(ii) the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle is being prosecuted for a previous alleged offence under this Part of this Act; or

(iii) the vehicle has been used in the commission of such an offence or previous alleged offence;

if the offence or previous alleged offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed no more than three years before the seizure and (in the case of an alleged offence) the proceedings are continuing.

(e) If no proceedings are instituted before the expiration of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of seizure, or any proceedings instituted within that period are discontinued, at the expiration of that period or, as the case may be, on the discontinuance of the proceedings, the article or thing shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless it has not proved possible, after diligent enquiry, to identify that person and ascertain his address.

(f) Where the article or thing is not returned because it has not proved possible to identify the person from whom it was seized and ascertain his address the borough council (whether the article or thing was seized by a constable or by an authorised officer) may apply to a magistrates' court for an order as to the manner in which it should be dealt with.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below the court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section or for an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under this section may order anything produced to the court, and shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence, to be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.

(6) The court shall not order anything to be forfeited under subsection (5) above where a person claiming to be the owner of or otherwise interested in it applies to be heard by the court, unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not be made and in considering whether to make such an order a court shall have regard—

(i) to the value of the property; and

(ii) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).P20883$$21.CT

(7) An authorised officer shall produce his authority if required to do so by the person having care or control of anything seized in pursuance of the powers in subsection (4) above.

This subsection shall have effect where—

(i) an article, thing or receptacle is seized under subsection (4) above; and

(ii)(a) not less than six months have passed since the date of the seizure and no information has been laid against any person for an offence under this section in respect of the acts or circumstances which occasioned the seizure; or

(b) proceedings for such an offence have been brought and either the person charged has been acquitted (whether or not on appeal) and the time for appealing against or challenging the acquittal (where applicable) has expired without an appeal or challenge being brought, or the proceedings (including any appeal) have been withdrawn by, or have failed for want of prosecution by, the person by whom the original proceedings were brought.

(b) When this subsection has effect a person who has or at the time of seizure had a legal interest in the article, thing or receptacle seized may recover compensation from the borough council or (where it is seized by a constable) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by civil action in the County Court in respect of any loss suffered by him as a result of the seizure.

© The court may not make an order for compensation under paragraph (b) above unless it is satisfied that seizure was not lawful under subsection .

[Matt1011]

is there no chance of getting my car back free of charge then?

[green_and_mean]

If it goes to magistrates court, you can plead not guilty if you can prove it was not bought into and left in the street for the purpose of selling it.

 

unless in either case, it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the article or thing or receptacle or equipment was brought into that street for some purpose other than for the purpose of selling it or exposing or offering it for sale or using it in the course of the provision of the service in a street.