Can a bailiff clamp for an unpaid PCN ?

[lamma]

the TEC does not issue warrants for parking tickets, the local authorities do. The TEC merely 'authorises'. Though how the TEC can authorise a non-judicial body to issue a warrant is beyond me - leaving to one side for the moment the status of the TEC. In the case of a parking parking ticket issued under CPE the bailiff acts as a private bailiff so surely the only putative offence is criminal damage should the clamp be damaged that is, it is possible to remove a clamp without damage. What view would the courts take ? You would have to produce hard irrefutable evidences the fact that the bailiffs was acting as a private bailiff I think. And even then.....

[No Surrender]

If the bailiff was properly licensed and acting on a warrant issued by The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), you may well of committed an offence by removing it. If it was clamped on behalf of the DVLA, you deffo will have committed an offence.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

Yeah let's not look at legality of the Bailiff in question.... Anyway no recourse, he did return, though did nothing as the car was close up to a wall, with the rear plate and tax disc removed so he couldn't read the registration.. That was the last I heard & saw of them..!

[Fair-Parking]

PT - 13,

 

The bailiff is only licensed under the Distress For Rent Rules Act 1988, but does not operate under it when attempting to seize following a PCN - that comes under the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993, whilst the fees should be (but never are) subject to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 which also requires that a Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory be left (sometimes - but very often not by ANPR bailffs due to the unlawful nature of their activity).

[TB Law]

I had a Bailiff clamp my car, which I promptly removed with an angle grinder and gave the clamp to my mate for scrap!

 

If the levy on the vehicle was invalid then you can remove the clamp immune from criminal damage act because you had "lawful excuse" but you must return the remainder of the clamp otherwise you might be liable under the 1967 theft act.

[TB Law]

but very often not by ANPR bailffs due to the unlawful nature of their activity).

 

Interesting comment because ANPR clamping is seizure without a valid levy.

[TB Law]

The car does not become the property of the bailiff when distressed.

 

It is in the "custody of the law". There is a citation but I cant remember it.

[lamma]

How exactly ? When its a someone acting only in the capacity of a private bailiff ? Not possible. Also: Isn't there something in the rules that says when attending to levy and they leave one of their letters, if they do in fact leave one !, that the charges should be itemised on the back ?

[ploddertom]

PT - 13,

 

The bailiff is only licensed under the Distress For Rent Rules Act 1988, but does not operate under it when attempting to seize following a PCN - that comes under the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993, whilst the fees should be (but never are) subject to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 which also requires that a Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory be left (sometimes - but very often not by ANPR bailffs due to the unlawful nature of their activity).

 

In my view if the clamping was lawful then it would probably be classed as a form of impounding. From what I see the bailiffs are clamping first then issuing the Notice of Seizure whereas it should be the other way round. It seems the Bailiffs make it up as they go along - we even have one who says CPR Part 75.7 does not apply http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?368917-HELP-NEEDED-Baliffs-reject-my-vunerable-household-plea%283-Viewing%29-nbsp&p=4040694#post4040694 pages 4 & 5.

[ploddertom]

Also: Isn't there something in the rules that says when attending to levy and they leave one of their letters, if they do in fact leave one !, that the charges should be itemised on the back ?

 

I agree with what you say but they make it up as they go along and it seems extraordinary how many admin errors that never usually happen crop up. Should be time for more & more complaints. We have seen how they try to abuse the Form 4 complaint process so instead a letter should be sent to the Court advising of the Bailiffs failures and ask the letter be left on file for consideration when a Certificate needs renewing.

[lamma]

From that linked thread - "The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 allows for the distress and sale of the respondent's goods (wherever they may be found in England & Wales)." Where does it say that in the SI ? I can see this though http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2072/regulation/3/made