son cut clamp off his car, my CTAX debt not his - help

[lookinforinfo]

While Mr Lloyd lost that case there is another case involving deliberate criminal damage where the decision went in favour of the person doing the damage. He deliberately knocked down a brick wall but the principles remain re the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The case was-CHAMBERLAIN C J applicant v . LINDON CE respondent [1998] EWHC Admin 329 (18th March, 1998)

 

Justice Sullivan pointed out that the Act provides-

"A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse -

 

(b) if he destroyed ... the property in question ... in order to protect property belonging to himself ... or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself ... and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed -

 

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

 

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all of the circumstances.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held."

 

So whoever removed the clamp from your son's car has very little to worry about.

[seanamarts]

Thanks for clearing that up guys

[brassnecked]

Very strange, wheelclamps go missing when gangs of scrap metal scavengers are in an area, the clamps are cut off and weighed in along with any stray cycles they can take

[josephbloggs]

Whilst i have just read and understand the points raised in relation to the judges comments and legalities, it is important to realise, that under the new regulations, NO case law from pre 6th April 2014 is relevant. Until test cases set a precedent the new regulations are based on how each individual (council/ bailiff/ public) understand them.

[brassnecked]

Whilst i have just read and understand the points raised in relation to the judges comments and legalities, it is important to realise, that under the new regulations, NO case law from pre 6th April 2014 is relevant. Until test cases set a precedent the new regulations are based on how each individual (council/ bailiff/ public) understand them.

Equaslly important is that in making a judgment regarding the new rules, the judge will use the precedents set in the earlier case law to make his decision, and therefore it is still most likely applicable, as these cases, along with thre reasonableness of the clamping in all the particular circumstances in the case in front of the court will be considered.

 

So it is possible that the court may find in the defendants favour against a charge of criminal removal of a clamp, if say, the EA clamped next doors car, refused to acknowledge or consider the evidence provided by the owner viz V5 and insurance at the scene as the car owner saw the bailiff apply the clamp to his car parked on the road outside, and said the clamp stays on and the car will be removed tomorrow whatever. Owner says he has to go to work early hours in the morning 40 mile commute with no public transport, so warns EA that the clamp is coming off and later when EA goes cuts the padlock off and leaves it in his garden not the debtors for the EA to retrieve when he returns tomorrow, the innocent being at work with the car..

 

Now Caggers go out and consider your verdict, is the innocent owner guilty or not guilty?

[unclebulgaria67]

Whilst i have just read and understand the points raised in relation to the judges comments and legalities, it is important to realise, that under the new regulations, NO case law from pre 6th April 2014 is relevant. Until test cases set a precedent the new regulations are based on how each individual (council/ bailiff/ public) understand them.

 

I don't think that is how it works. Judges will look how the new laws affect existing case law. Just because new legislation is passed, does not mean that all related case law is deleted. The new laws either make situations clearer to rule on or more complicated.

 

Plus it is always open to arguments, claimants/defendants. Judges don't know everything, they have to be given the information.

[seanamarts]

.

 

Plus it is always open to arguments, claimants/defendants. Judges don't know everything, they have to be given the information.

Hence why a Judge is called a Judge, so he can Judge his decisions on the information he is given. I doubt there is a Judge in this land that knows every legislation and regulation etc.

[seanamarts]

If you get no joy complaining to the council, you can always complain to the LGO http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-bailiffs/

[lookinforinfo]

I think we rather missed the point of Joseph Bloggs' post.

What he actually said was that initially it will be how Councils, bailiffs and each individual interpret the new legislation. It won't be until cases come to Court that the position

will become clearer.

[brassnecked]

I think we rather missed the point of Joseph Bloggs' post.

What he actually said was that initially it will be how Councils, bailiffs and each individual interpret the new legislation. It won't be until cases come to Court that the position

will become clearer.

Exactly so, but the same judges will consider it all in light of the old case law developed under the old rules and hopefully apply common sense.

[HCEOs]

I think we rather missed the point of Joseph Bloggs' post. What he actually said was that initially it will be how Councils, bailiffs and each individual interpret the new legislation. It won't be until cases come to Court that the position will become clearer.

 

Very true, we are all awaiting precedents to be set for all sorts of scenarios and actions.

[brassnecked]

Very true, we are all awaiting precedents to be set for all sorts of scenarios and actions.

 

The cases will no doubt be along shortly, it will be intersting whether Observer v Gordon will make a showing in Principal or Obiter

[russelldash]

have you seen a clamping order and you can cut it off if you don't see it and make sure its signed by a magistrate and not a doggie clerk