Performing a Citizen's Arrest on a Bailiff

[caledfwlch]

We have a thread where a Bailiff has seized and removed a vehicle which does not belong to the "debtor", it belonged to the "debtors" representatives friend.

 

So, would the "Rep" and indeed any neighbours have been well within their legal rights to perform an Any Persons Arrest on the Bailiff, as he was committing the criminal offence of theft of a vehicle?

 

Also, since the seizure is illegal, what would be the actual vehicles rights should he turn up at the Bailiff's storage yard and attempt to drive away?

 

Because, the seizure is obviously unlawful - would the situation be like this?

 

Attempts to drive out, staff refuse to remove barrier/gate.

Staff call Police, as the owner is attempting to "steal" what the staff view as currently, their company's property.

Police turn up.

Owner shows all his vehicle documents and Identification

Officers ask to see the paperwork relating to the seizure and warrant of execution

It is blindingly obvious to even a halfwit (or bailiff as they are sometimes known) that the name of the car's Owner is not the name on the paperwork.....

 

For more fun, could the attempt by staff to stop the owner leaving with his car, by blocking/locking him in thus also be considered unlawful detention?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes probably to all questions.

[sillygirl1]

Even better to turn up with the press in tow and a local councillor or two, or even the local MP.....

[padja]

ohhhhh how I would love to do a citizen arrest on a bailiff.

[brassnecked]

Even better to turn up with the press in tow and a local councillor or two, or even the local MP.....

Agree with the Brigadier and silligirl, but knowing how the police are clueless around HCEOs and bailiffs they will probably arrest the lawful owner, and allow the bailiffs to sieze the vehicle they arrive in

[BankFodder]

You had better be very careful.

Citizen's power of arrest is not like a police officer's power where the police can arrest on reasonable suspicion

 

A citizen must have reasonable suspicion AND an arrestable offence must have actually been committed.

Don't expect the police to help you. They will say that there is a breach of th epeace and will arrest you.

Has the bailiff committed an offence? Which offence? Is it an arrestable offence? If you are referring to taking and driving away, you will have to show dishonesty. Can do that? It is dishonesty based upon a subjective test - not an objective test.

[brassnecked]

You had better be very careful.

Citizen's power of arrest is not like a police officer's power where the police can arrest on reasonable suspicion

 

A citizen must have reasonable suspicion AND an arrestable offence must have actually been committed.

Don't expect the police to help you. They will say that there is a breach of th epeace and will arrest you.

Has the bailiff committed an offence? Which offence? Is it an arrestable offence? If you are referring to taking and driving away, you will have to show dishonesty. Can do that? It is dishonesty based upon a subjective test - not an objective test.

 

I think that it would only become an arrestable offence if in the spite of all the evidence, such as production of V5, insurance and even a finance agreement if the vehicle is leased/HP or disabled tax disc, and blue badge, that the HCEO/bailiff continued removal and placed the vehicle on a tow truck. then I would argue that itwas prima facie a TWOC, and any attending police should then arrest the bailiff. if they aid and abet by letting the bailiff take the vehicle it is IPC matter, and complaint to chief constable. Whether then they could go to the yard and arrest the bailiff is moot, as the bailiff is unlikely to be at a pound. they would have to hope they wern't levying someone elses goods and were at the office.

[rebel11]

If the vehicle is being 'stolen', then call the police, less complicated, then getting staff involved.

[brassnecked]

If the vehicle is being 'stolen', then call the police, less complicated, then getting staff involved.

 

Well yes assuming bailiff and HCEO hasn't already called them, police are there and actively assisting the bailiff in the wrongful removal. that never happens does it surely not? I think we already know the police will likely assist the bailiff in the face of all the evidence, due to a mistaken assumption they are on the same side.

[caledfwlch]

Well yes assuming bailiff and HCEO hasn't already called them, police are there and actively assisting the bailiff in the wrongful removal. that never happens does it surely not? I think we already know the police will likely assist the bailiff in the face of all the evidence, due to a mistaken assumption they are on the same side.

 

In the case I mention, the Bailiff had been provided with 2 pieces of information which at the very least should have triggered a basic DVLA check. They did not, and removed a vehicle not belonging to the debtor (the debtor incidently being deceased)

 

I would say he therefore had no right to "assume" he could take the car, and thus the offence of TWOC was created. He cannot cover himself because he did not make that 1 simple DVLA call. AFAIK preventing a TWOC would be covered under citizens arrest - preventing theft/damage to property.

 

It would be really funny if someone could hack into Bailiff ANPR, and fill it with a load of police officers licence plates, both unmarked car and personal vehicle. I bet the Police would soon get clued up on Bailiff law then!

[rebel11]

My response was to the following:-

 

'Attempts to drive out, staff refuse to remove barrier/gate.

Staff call Police, as the owner is attempting to "steal" what the staff view as currently, their company's property.'

 

Well yes assuming bailiff and HCEO hasn't already called them, police are there and actively assisting the bailiff in the wrongful removal. that never happens does it surely not? I think we already know the police will likely assist the bailiff in the face of all the evidence, due to a mistaken assumption they are on the same side.

[lamma]

As I understand it When a distress is illegal because it is taken in the highway, the proper remedy is rescue and if the injured party seeks relief by action he should rely on 52 Hen 3 (Statute of Marlborough) (1267) c 15 This is the common law rule, enforced by 52 Hen 3 (Statute of Marlborough) (1267) c 15, by which it is made unlawful for any person (except the Crown or its officers) to make a distress out of his fee or on the Queen's highway or in the common street. The general rule is that a distress can only be made of goods found upon some part of the premises out of which the rent issues (the distress for rent rules are used 'as if'). This, however, does not exclude a distress on that part, if any, of a public highway which by presumption of law is included in the demise. There are exceptions to this but none of them apply even remotely in my opinion so I wont bother listing them here except to say I am ignoring 'hiding' of the goods'. As for rescue I believe although it is generally a breach of the law, a rescue is a legal remedy of an aggrieved person when a distress is wholly wrongful and not merely irregular or excessive, for example, if the distress has been made for a payment which is not rent or if privileged goods are taken. The rescue must take place before the goods are impounded, for after the impounding, whether the distress was lawful or not, the goods cannot be retaken, unless after impounding the distrainor abuses the distress by working it. Plus an injunction taken out at the High court is possible for an illegal distress or even just forth threat of an illegal distress. And damages are possible also. Where the distress is wholly illegal replevin is possible (in the County court) and you can go for either the bailiff or the council or for both of them. this route restricts your options as to damages though. Although the bailiffs enforcing parking warrants and council tax orders ARE court bailiffs they are not acting in that capacity when they do it. Marlborough is just one of the reasons they have to be a court bailiff when doing it in my opinion. Whether or not that gets them through the relevant case law I do not know. As they act in a purely private capacity and enforce something that has no prescribed form but is called a 'Council Warrant' (whatever that is, I see no legal authority granting such powers to Councils. CPE says they can but doesn't grant a power in my opinion) then this may be sort of moot moot or very relevant. They drive around with ANPR all the time ! Marlborough gets 'ignored' - I am not convinced it does not apply.

[brassnecked]

Bailiffs would be clueless on Marlborough, but if they impound or otherwise take a vehicle NOT owned by the debtor, parked on a public highway outside the curtledge of the debtors premises, and the third party makes themselves known to the bailiff and offers proof, which the bailiff ignores and casrries on either clamping or towing, at the point of siezure as it is not the debtors property, and the bailiff knows this or ought to have known as he has been told and offered proof, or he neglects to check DVLA, it becomes a TWOC or theft at that point, and the aggrieved third party could arrest the bailiff at that time.

[lamma]

My point entirely. Not that I think they are entirely clueless. http://web.archive.org/web/20020703195409/http://www.parkinsonbailiff.co.uk/newsletters/nl_003.PDF What do think of about replevin as the remedy for cases such as the one this thread raises.

[brassnecked]

My point entirely. Not that I think they are entirely clueless. http://web.archive.org/web/20020703195409/http://www.parkinsonbailiff.co.uk/newsletters/nl_003.PDF What do think of about replevin as the remedy for cases such as the one this thread raises.

If all else failed it may have merit as a Common law remedy, but would Capquita know what you were hitting them with?

[welsh1]

As I understand it When a distress is illegal because it is taken in the highway, the proper remedy is rescue and if the injured party seeks relief by action he should rely on 52 Hen 3 (Statute of Marlborough) (1267) c 15 This is the common law rule, enforced by 52 Hen 3 (Statute of Marlborough) (1267) c 15, by which it is made unlawful for any person (except the Crown or its officers) to make a distress out of his fee or on the Queen's highway or in the common street. The general rule is that a distress can only be made of goods found upon some part of the premises out of which the rent issues (the distress for rent rules are used 'as if'). This, however, does not exclude a distress on that part, if any, of a public highway which by presumption of law is included in the demise. There are exceptions to this but none of them apply even remotely in my opinion so I wont bother listing them here except to say I am ignoring 'hiding' of the goods'. As for rescue I believe although it is generally a breach of the law, a rescue is a legal remedy of an aggrieved person when a distress is wholly wrongful and not merely irregular or excessive, for example, if the distress has been made for a payment which is not rent or if privileged goods are taken. The rescue must take place before the goods are impounded, for after the impounding, whether the distress was lawful or not, the goods cannot be retaken, unless after impounding the distrainor abuses the distress by working it. Plus an injunction taken out at the High court is possible for an illegal distress or even just forth threat of an illegal distress. And damages are possible also. Where the distress is wholly illegal replevin is possible (in the County court) and you can go for either the bailiff or the council or for both of them. this route restricts your options as to damages though. Although the bailiffs enforcing parking warrants and council tax orders ARE court bailiffs they are not acting in that capacity when they do it. Marlborough is just one of the reasons they have to be a court bailiff when doing it in my opinion. Whether or not that gets them through the relevant case law I do not know. As they act in a purely private capacity and enforce something that has no prescribed form but is called a 'Council Warrant' (whatever that is, I see no legal authority granting such powers to Councils. CPE says they can but doesn't grant a power in my opinion) then this may be sort of moot moot or very relevant. They drive around with ANPR all the time ! Marlborough gets 'ignored' - I am not convinced it does not apply.

 

 

This has been raised before,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?261277-Urgent-help.-bailiff-took-my-work-van-and-tools./page2

See my post #32

This is a very misunderstood statute rolled out all the time,All it does is stop a "common man"from seizing goods ,anyone acting for the crown has the authority to seize,all bailiffs have been granted that permission by the crown.

Edited March 30, 2012 by welsh1
wrong post number

[Fair-Parking]

Some might think there's nothing here that a loaded shotgun couldn't solve.....

[Fair-Parking]

Oh sorry - its April Fool's Day Tomorrow....

[brassnecked]

Oh sorry - its April Fool's Day Tomorrow....

In which case if a bailiff jumps the gun on the MOJ Consultation, and calls on Sunday to tow a car for a PCN he will be an April Fool

[Anus Horribilis]

We have a thread where a Bailiff has seized and removed a vehicle which does not belong to the "debtor", it belonged to the "debtors" representatives friend.

 

So, would the "Rep" and indeed any neighbours have been well within their legal rights to perform an Any Persons Arrest on the Bailiff, as he was committing the criminal offence of theft of a vehicle?

 

No, because he was not committing the criminal offence of theft of a vehicle.

[caledfwlch]

No, because he was not committing the criminal offence of theft of a vehicle.

 

How do you figure that out?

 

The bailiff took without permission a vehicle he had no legal right to take, nor did he possess a court warrant to take that vehicle, or indeed levy against this random third party. So how is that not theft?

[lamma]

"anyone acting for the crown has the authority to seize" As I pointed out they are not acting for the crown when enforcing CPE.

[queensclose]

In the case I mention, the Bailiff had been provided with 2 pieces of information which at the very least should have triggered a basic DVLA check. They did not, and removed a vehicle not belonging to the debtor (the debtor incidently being deceased)

 

I would say he therefore had no right to "assume" he could take the car, and thus the offence of TWOC was created. He cannot cover himself because he did not make that 1 simple DVLA call. AFAIK preventing a TWOC would be covered under citizens arrest - preventing theft/damage to property.

 

It would be really funny if someone could hack into Bailiff ANPR, and fill it with a load of police officers licence plates, both unmarked car and personal vehicle. I bet the Police would soon get clued up on Bailiff law then!

 

i,m going to throw a spanner in the works here. are you saying the car was part of the deceased estate and someone inherited it

[caledfwlch]

i,m going to throw a spanner in the works here. are you saying the car was part of the deceased estate and someone inherited it

 

No.

 

Bailiff came to enforce a warrant, the named debtor however is deceased.

The Debtor's Son was there.

The Bailiff then levied upon and removed a vehicle belonging to a third party.

 

So, the Bailiff attempted to enforce against a 2nd party who was not named on the debt, and then took a 3rd party's vehicle.

 

Or theft, as its generally known. He was advised that A: The Named Debtor was Deceased, and B: That the vehicle belonged to a 3rd party who was nothing to do with the debt or the deceased.

 

He did not make any DLA checks.

[Anus Horribilis]

How do you figure that out?

 

The bailiff took without permission a vehicle he had no legal right to take, nor did he possess a court warrant to take that vehicle, or indeed levy against this random third party. So how is that not theft?

 

 

Because the bailiff was, or must be presumed to have been, acting in good faith in the belief that it was reasonable, necessary & lawful to seize that vehicle. I can see no grounds to suggest that he had the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a criminal conviction.