Injunction A New Beginning

[Fair-Parking]

On Thursday 17th March, Judge Mitchell presiding in the Central London County Court granted an injunction against TfL and Philips bailiffs and ordered the release of a car that they had clamped and towed last October and for which no warrant of execution had ever been produced.

 

Following Fair-Parking's statement to the Court outlining which laws has been broken, Judge Mitchell had no hesitation in granting the injunction so that the car could be released immediately - citing that 'the case had strong merits'.

 

Now TfL & Philips had done no more or less than all other local authorities and bailiffs who assume they can just go out and clamp and tow a car because the Traffic Enforcement Centre has authorised a warrant.

 

This widely believed assumption was tested to destruction last Thursday and opens up a whole new vista for those wanting to get their cars back from bailiff compounds.

 

One amusing aspect was the Judge's comment that judges do understand the real world and that they too, find their cars clamped.

 

edit.

Edited March 21, 2011 by IdaInFife
please keep advice on the open forum

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Am i right in thinking that this action was based upon the fact that the TEC has authorized a warrant, but no-one ever got round to physically producing the warrant?

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Could this also be extended to Council Tax enforcement?

 

How many of those jokers have ever possessed the written authority / warrant from the council?

[ploddertom]

Could this also be extended to Council Tax enforcement?

 

How many of those jokers have ever possessed the written authority / warrant from the council?

 

Maybe that's why a lot are reluctant to show anything!

 

PT

[brassnecked]

Problem is until this is confirmed in the High Court, it will have little legal weight, but it is a good start

[Fair-Parking]

Warrants are never issued because Councils don't undersatnd the procedure as laid down in law, thus bailiffs never have warrants. Sad really because all warrants specifically state on that a copy of the warrant must be left with the respondent, but then if you don't have one you wouldn't know what was written on it.

 

Brassnecked - oh it carries weight all right. Do not underestimate it's importance. Prior to last Thursday nobody knew if was possible to gain injunctions for the release of vehicles subjected to civil parking enforcement - now we know that it is. The judgment only needs to be quoted to courts in future and somebody is going to have to think of a very good reason as why an injunction should not be granted if no warrant was issued in the first place.

[brassnecked]

Warrants are never issued because Councils don't undersatnd the procedure as laid down in law, thus bailiffs never have warrants. Sad really because all warrants specifically state on that a copy of the warrant must be left with the respondent, but then if you don't have one you wouldn't know what was written on it.

 

Brassnecked - oh it carries weight all right. Do not underestimate it's importance. Prior to last Thursday nobody knew if was possible to gain injunctions for the release of vehicles subjected to civil parking enforcement - now we know that it is. The judgment only needs to be quoted to courts in future and somebody is going to have to think of a very good reason as why an injunction should not be granted if no warrant was issued in the first place.

 

Thanks FP, it's about time this legalised theft was tackled.

[Fair-Parking]

Sorry. Bailiffs were JBW not Philips. Glad my brain failure was after the event and not before it

[hallowitch]

well done Fair- Parking and all involved in this case a result that i hope all bailiff firms and local authority's take notice of

once again well done

[Fair-Parking]

They won't of course - wrestling with the Anaconda will continue.

[Fair-Parking]

I received a copy of the in junction today. Omitting the reference to a potential hearing later his week, it stated

 

1) The Defendant (TfL) shall not dispose of the Claimant's Toyota (reg no) and shall retun the vehicle to the Claimant forthwith.

 

and in bold letters also stated

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT UNLESS YOU OBEY PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER YOU WILL BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND LIABLE TO BE SENT TO PRISON.

 

That didn't stop the minions at TfL from acting like headless chickens when the client arrived at TfL that afternoon.

 

'Have you got an appointment?'

'There's nobody here who can deal with that'

'You can't film in here in, its a public building'

 

It's little wonder that ordinary people can never get any satisfaction or common sense at TfL and other similar bodies, if the quality of staff they employ cannot understand that they have to deal with a court order or go to prison!

 

Eventually a senior manager took charge and ordered the car to be released immediately. The bailiffs (JBW) were apparantly very pleasant and delivered the car later that day.

 

Since then I have sent a letter to JBW warning of second potential injunction if they do not release another car. For the first time ever JBW phoned Fair Parking.

 

Interesting. We shall see

[ploddertom]

............. and when can we see the footage

[Fair-Parking]

It will remain in my office. As I said this is an ongoing case and I also have a duty of confidentially to clients

[ploddertom]

I respect that but a great shame it can't be shown. I know I'm probably asking a stupid question but one assumes you have quite a few of these to sort out.

 

PT

[Fair-Parking]

A milestone event occured today. Not only did we assist another client to have his car returned via injunctive relief in the county court, but the Judge also disposed of the matter and awarded £550 costs against the Respondents - the London Borough of Southwark. Make no mistake - for like the injunction of 17th March granted by Central London County Court which established that vehicles could be returned by injunctions, this too was a landmark decision - only a little further down the road with costs and the disposal of the matter.

 

In a stroke it combined a number of long standing issues and dealt with them comprehensively.

 

1) It became the first case of it's kind to deem a local authority guilty of not issuing a warrant of execution (as opposed to the usual councilspeak that they had 'issued the warrant to the bailiffs' ) and expecting the bailiffs to do it for them.

 

2) The Order For Costs against LB Southwark forced a local authority to take full responsibility for the actions of its agents when allowing their agents (JBW again) to enforce without a warrant of execution. Having to pay costs has a way of focusing council minds.

 

3) The issue of excessive costs demanded by bailiffs was again exposed and dealt with.

 

4) The issue of no time being allowed for a motorist to pay was again exposed.

 

5) The matter of trouble and inconveniece caused to the client resulted in costs being awarded.

 

6) And this may go over the heads of Councils and bailiffs - the judgment effectively outlawed the use of ANPR vans which by the nature of ANPR and the logistics involved means that it actually relies on the bailiff NOT having a warrant of execution with him at the time of enforcement. The bailiff wouldn't need ANPR had he had a warrant with an address on - for on reading the warrant he could have driven straight to the address cited - something denied to him if he doesn't have a warrant - hence the reliance on ANPR

 

Yes I know this was a county court judgment but as I said in an earlier post, such judgments are influencial. The March 17th judgment was quoted to strengthen this case.

[letsmakeamark]

Bet you waller has gone tits down

[Fair-Parking]

I have now received a copy of the injunction order/judgment and it is extremely damning. First it was made by Judge Platt of Romford County Court whose scathing judgment about the lying and the contempt of court concerning Newlyn and its director Smith was dealt with under the thread - Newlyn PLC damning judgment in Romford County Court.

 

This time Judge Platt ordered

 

1) Forthwith after service of the Order upon them, the Defendants (LB Southwark) and their servants or agents JBW Bailiffs must return to the Claimant te motor vehicle reg............

 

2) Thereafter, the Defendants are forbidden to levy any unlawful execution upon the said vehicle or any other property of the Claimant

 

This Order may be duly served by delivering the same to the offices of the London Borough of Southwark and also by faxing a sealed copy of the Order to JBW Group Bailiffs

 

3) A Penal Notice be endorsed on this Order addressed to the London Borough of Southwark and JBW Group Bailiffs

 

(This was specifically addressed and read in bold type TO LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK & JBW GROUP BAILIFFS

 

YOU MUST OBEY THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDER. IF YOU DO NOT, YOU WILL BE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND YOU MAY BE SENT TO PRISON

 

4) The Defendants do pay the Claimants costs summarily assessed in the sum of £550.00 within 14 days of the date of this Order

 

5) Money claim for damages, including aggravated and/or exemplary damages adjourned generally

 

 

I doubt that the Claimant could have been awarded much more. The Judge's anger can almost be seen to be dripping from every paragraph. culminating in what could be taken as an open invitation to apply for more costs and damages, including the very rare possibilkity of exemplary damages - almost the ultimate sanction of the county court.

 

With this and the previous granting of an injunction local authorities no longer have the option of doing nothing and pushing away their responsibities and bailiffs no longer have a defence to clamping and towing without warrants.

[brassnecked]

Excellent, but the numpties will still carry on regardless until one of them , or both the bailiff and a council official are chucked in the clink, for breaching an injunction.

[dbcc33]

fair parking - I think this is a brilliant, monumentous result and well done to all those involved!

I am currently in the process of claiming costs from harrow council for when my car was clamped using ANPR vehicles with an invalid warrant...not to mention the various other illegal things the bailiffs did- I think referencing this case can only help. Great stuff; the more people that stand up to the system the better, as the system relies on apathy.

well done!

[hallowitch]

couldn't agree more its a brilliant result Fair-parking i take my hat of to you sir

[cirian75]

I tip my pint at you Fair-parking 8-)

[brassnecked]

This is the start of better things, great result Fair-Parking