Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi all

 

 

My cousin has just been on the phone giving chapter and verse on her run in with a bailiff who clamped her car for a pcn, she is of course furious (this not my 'bag' so to speak so I couldn't offer much advice)

 

 

She has been reading various forums and I fear she is about to go off at a tangent taking bad advice en route.

 

 

It comes across to her she needs to quote Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court among others to take matters further but. she can't tell me why she thinks it is relevant only that she has 'read' it on a forum as advice given to another!!!! I have done a bit of searching and drawn a blank, does anyone know of this case please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WD

[citizenB]

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/

[brassnecked]

Hi WD hope you had a good Christmas, did she give the details of how she had the PCN, and is it police or council, did she say which bailiffs they were also?

 

Not too sure how Ali v Bromley Magistrates would help, as it appears to be a case where someone cut off a clamp put on by a PPC (like Parking Eye) clamper

 

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/

 

I'm sure tomtubby will know the best way forward as long as you get your cousin to give the full facts, and tell her to keep off that other site as it won't make the situation any better at all.

 

The quoted case seems to be used on two sites I better not name on here as my post will be deleted.

[brassnecked]

CitizenB you beat me to it....

[citizenB]

CitizenB you beat me to it....

 

 

[tomtubby]

The case of Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court was one of many similar cases that were successful before the Protection of Freedoms Act was introduced and private clampers BANNED from applying an immobilisation devices on vehicles that were parked on private land (such as supermarkets, out of town shopping precincts and service stations etc).

 

The following are the details of Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court taken from the news article:

 

 

A PROPERTY developer who fought back against a wheel clamper by cutting a clamp off a workmate’s van has been found not guilty of criminal damage and common assault.

 

Jengiz Ali admitted using an angle grinder to cut the clamp off the vehicle at the back of the old Woolworths shop in Chatsworth Parade, Queensway, Petts Wood, during a dispute between clampers and builders.

 

He also admitted pushing the clamper who had put the device on the white Renault van during the incident on November 4 last year.

 

But on Monday (April 18) Bromley Magistrates’ Court heard the signage about clamping in the area was unclear and Mr Ali had cut off the clamp after asking for it to be removed because he believed it had been unlawfully put on.

 

The 45-year-old told the court he thought the clamping was unlawful because he thought when he bought the old Woolworths plot, he had also bought the service road behind.

 

And he told the court he had pushed the clamper away because he did not want him to be harmed when he was using the grinder.

 

Mr Ali’s solicitor Mike Arnsby also said they did not believe there was a contract between the clampers London Parking Services and Smartypants, the dry cleaner which actually owns the stretch of service road where the van was parked

 

Finding Mr Ali not guilty of both charges, the chairwoman of the bench Lynne Ramsay said: “We do not find the criminal damage proved as Mr Ali believed he was removing an unlawful clamp on a private road.

 

“Mr Ali thought he was acting reasonably as he did not want Mr Dawson [the clamper] to be harmed by his actions.

“We find Mr Ali not guilty of criminal damage or common assault.”

 

Speaking after the verdict Mr Ali, of Towncourt Lane, Petts Wood, said: “I’m just delighted.

 

“I do not think they had any right to clamp the vehicle and I think they were trying it on.

 

“If they had a contract with the drycleaners they would have produced it.”

 

END

[tomtubby]

As I have said, Mr Ali's case was one of many similar cases before the Protection of Freedoms Act prohibited private clamping companies from apply an immobilisation device to a vehicle.

 

It should be made VERY CLEAR that this case has nothing at all to do with bailiffs and was at the time only applicable to private clampers (which thankfully were banned under PoFA).

 

This case has no relevance today.

[tomtubby]

Sorry,

 

The matter of bailiffs being EXCLUDED from the Protection of Freedoms Act was the subject of the following thread and in post number one I have exhibited as evidence a copy of a joint Home Office and DVLA Fact Sheet.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394562-Protection-of-Freedoms-Act-2012-EXCLUDES-bailiffs-!!!!

Edited December 31, 2013 by tomtubby

[brassnecked]

"This case has no relevance today." (tomtubby)

 

As I thought it is of it's time and the activity in question clamping by private clampers and PPCs is now defunct, so it cannot be applicable now, and certainly not to bailiffs

[wonkeydonkey]

Thanks guys....why did I get the feeling she had been to a particular site and the information she was reading lived up to its reputation of being rubbish ????

 

 

I am going to ring her later today but thought it best to give her time to calm down and gather her thoughts. It was very much a one sided conversation earlier and I didn't really get all the details in any way, shape or form as she danced all over the place lol!! I did grasp it is a pcn and the Council is Waveney District I never got to ask who the bailiffs were but as I understand it is an old pcn from 2007 and I know she has moved house several times since then (I think we all have gypsy blood in us as we do tend move around a lot) and the chances of her ever knowing about it would be a zero.

 

 

Thanks TT at least I can now tell her with certainty the precedence she has been reading about has absolutely no bearing on bailiffs whatsoever and is now defunct to all intent and purpose.

[lamma]

inter alia, airports. viz:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/2

[brassnecked]

If this was first she heard the good old Stat Dec may be of assistance

[tomtubby]

I received an email this morning from a debtor thanking me for posting details of this case as she had complained to Hackney Council regarding a bailiff clamping her car and she too had relied upon this case law (Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court).

 

The council has asked her to provide details of the legal case to support her argument and have warned her of the dangers of relying upon information on the internet. She also believed that the Protection of Freedoms Act applied to bailiffs ( which of course it does not).

[Ganymede]

I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about!

[brassnecked]

I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about!

 

I would have thought Mr Ali was defending his action in removing the clamp.either way it is of no use whatsoever regarding a bailiff clamping a car, as the clamper in question was the sort now banned.

[Ganymede]

I would have thought Mr Ali was defending his action in removing the clamp.either way it is of no use whatsoever regarding a bailiff clamping a car, as the clamper in question was the sort now banned.

 

 

Even if he was the Defendant that is not how you report a criminal case. Try and use that citation in Court and the Judge will laugh at you and kick your arse.

[brassnecked]

Even if he was the Defendant that is not how you report a criminal case. Try and use that citation in Court and the Judge will laugh at you and kick your arse.

 

Exactly so Ganymede, and it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard (oops forgot, you could eat that) in any case

[Ganymede]

Exactly so Ganymede, and it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard (oops forgot, you could eat that) in any case

 

 

Yum. Sounds pretty useful to me.

[tomtubby]

I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about!

 

 

And therein lays a common problem.

 

If you read the opening post from the following thead that I started a few months ago you will see that one particular debtor was left with a legal bill of £4,000 for relying on case law that he had read about on the internet and which in reality.... did NOT say what the website CLAIMED it did.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?393990-WARNING.....Legal-claim-for-quot-levy-abandonment-quot-.-Case-LOST....claimant-ordered-to-pay-%A34-000-to-bailiff-company-!!!

I

 

In that particular case the debtor had been lead to believe that the legal case of Bannister v Hyde had confirmed that if abailiff clamped a car and then left the premises that this was levy abandonment and accordingly, the clamp can be removed and the debtor wil not be prosecuted. You will see that I have provided a copy of the judgment and not surprisingly, the judgement says NO SUCH THING!!

 

The case of Ali v Bromley was pretty well known about in the days when "rouge clampers" terrorised motorists but cannot be of any relevance whatsoever since PoFA was introduced.

 

Like you I am most concerned at the title as there can be no way that Ali sued the court!!

Edited January 2, 2014 by tomtubby

[ploddertom]

I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".

[tomtubby]

I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".

 

I have come across the case of Mr Ali v London Parking Services a number of times regarding private parking contractors prior to the PoFA being introduced but to my knowledge there is no judgment as such and merely a news article, As much use as a chocolare teapot.

[Ganymede]

I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".

 

 

 

Sometimes cases can be "reported" by The Times, but not a red tops or some local paper.