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

[RudeOod]

Thanks for the replies. The bailiff returned this morning before I went to work. Raging that I have removed his clamp but I just pleaded innocence saying there was no clamp on it. He said he's going to call the police but I've not heard anything since. I left for work whilst he was still ranting.

 

My son emailed over his proof of ownership but he's had no reply as yet. He didn't leave his car here today and he's on a long weekend, back to work tuesday, so he won't need to use my drive for the next few days. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.

 

tomtubby, the original debt was for just over £500 not £200. Should I just pay the £10 a month anyway? I didn't pay before as they said it wasn't enough. I can pay it online, so I guess they can't refuse it!? Would that stop any action as the amount owed would change?

[tomtubby]

Can you confirm what notice the bailiff left following the clamping of your son's car and what information was provided on the form.

[RudeOod]

It said Notice of Seizure, with my name, address, ref number, and details of the car, make, reg number etc. There's a bit where I'm meant to sign but it's blank.

[JoeyJoeC]

Isn't it theft if they take someone else's car that has no connection to the dept?

 

Also, (unrelated) What happens if a complete member of the public came and decided they wanted the clamp for scrap metal and cut it off? Can the bailiffs charge the cost of the clamp to you?

[unclebulgaria67]

I can't see how a notice of seizure would be valid against a car owned by a third party. The enforcement agent as a private contractor for a council and not a court bailiff would not have the protection of a court. i.e the EA would not be acting as the agent of a court, with a warrant issued by a court.

 

Therefore I can't see how it would not be reasonable for the third party to remove the clamp on their vehicle, but in doing so they may attract the attention of the Police, if a complaint of criminal damage was made. The legal situation is not something I have knowledge to comment on and if this were to happen, I would suggest that a duty Solicitor is requested. Certainly your Son or yourself should not make any comment about cutting off the clamp and just say no comment to any questions. If the Police wish to ask questions under caution, a duty Solicitor should be requested.

[RudeOod]

Yeh, at the moment I've just denied knowledge of the clamp and my son will do so also. More fool the bailiff for leaving it I guess? My son's had no reply yet.

[tomtubby]

It said Notice of Seizure, with my name, address, ref number, and details of the car, make, reg number etc. There's a bit where I'm meant to sign but it's blank.

 

.

On this notice does it state the amount of the debt and fees charged?

 

The NEW notice is not called a Notice of Seizure and it would seem from the name of the notice that this debt relates to one where enforcement commenced before 6th April. On the form is there any mention of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013?

[tomtubby]

 

The significance of this clamping of sons car on OP's drive has big implications with rent a drive for commuters becoming popular, with the risk of a fair number of such clamping where a debtor rents the parking space to a commuter whilst they are not using it.

 

You are so right and in fact this is something that I have recently written about in a public sector publication. It is due to be published in approx 10 days time and I can then post a copy on the forum.

[seanamarts]

If you do pay online make sure it has the ref number for the year the debt accrued. I would send them an email just to make them aware that you have paid something. It may not change their decision but it shows you are willing to pay some of the debt off.

[brassnecked]

You are so right and in fact this is something that I have recently written about in a public sector publication. It is due to be published in approx 10 days time and I can then post a copy on the forum.

 

It just needs a Capita infested council and Equita to seize a bigwig Bankers BMW or Porsche from a debtors drive where they rent the parking space by day, and it could blow up in MOJs face bigstyle., especially as they would have money and clout to take on Capita.

[HCEOs]

I see your son has posted on another forum. God help him if if follows the advice given on there.

 

He'll be paying them for pointless (and technically wrong) drafted letters and suing the Queen before long...

[brassnecked]

I see your son has posted on another forum. God help him if if follows the advice given on there.

 

He'll be paying them for pointless (and technically wrong) drafted letters and suing the Queen before long...

 

Not the one that calls TT and WD every name under the son? If so may whatever deity he believes in help him.

[unclebulgaria67]

Not the one that calls TT and WD every name under the son? If so may whatever deity he believes in help him.

 

I did raise a suspicion yesterday by PM that this thread may be a spoof, to provoke an argument, which was then continued over on the other site. Clamping of third party vehicle and issue of private land, has been the subject of debate previously.

[tomtubby]

Lets hope that the original poster returns.

[RudeOod]

Hi again. Thought I'd see f anyone had any further ideas. Still not heard anything from the police, nor has my my son had a reply from the bailiff. I phoned the council and left a message but no-one got back so I've emailed them as well. From what I've read, they hold the ultimate responsibility.

 

That's where we stand at the mo. I spoke to my son about which site he'd been on and I've seen his messages and told him to leave it to me. Seems there's a bit of friction going on there!! I'll stay out of that if you don't mind. It's not a spoof thank you! I'm just worried what will happen when my son needs to use my drive again next week.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi again. Thought I'd see f anyone had any further ideas. Still not heard anything from the police, nor has my my son had a reply from the bailiff. I phoned the council and left a message but no-one got back so I've emailed them as well. From what I've read, they hold the ultimate responsibility.

 

That's where we stand at the mo. I spoke to my son about which site he'd been on and I've seen his messages and told him to leave it to me. Seems there's a bit of friction going on there!! I'll stay out of that if you don't mind. It's not a spoof thank you! I'm just worried what will happen when my son needs to use my drive again next week.

 

We do get spoof postings on occasions, sometimes from another site, where there has been a long running disagreement. Pretty silly really.

 

The council are the responsible parties here. The enforcement agent (EA) cannot clamp your Sons car. The legislation only allows for the EA to try to collect using property you own. If there is any attempt by the EA to use your Sons car to try to harass you into paying, your Son should make a complaint to the Police and council.

 

In regard to the council tax you owe, you should start making affordable payments to the council using their online system. Confirm in writing by recorded delivery to the council, what affordable payments you will be making. Advise the council of your problem in being able to make payments to them and that you will try to work with them, if they are helpful. Advise the council that you will not deal with any enforcement agent, who is only interested in adding as many fees as they can get away with.

[tomtubby]

Given the action already taken a lot depends on which enforcement company were involved. Some are much more 'reasonable' than others. As the clamp has been cut off (and disposed of) I would NOT suggest that the name is given on the open forum. Instead, can I suggest that you send a message to one of the moderators (ploddertom ) for instance visits the bailiff section very often.

[seanamarts]

They have been made aware that the car does not belong to you, so they would be very silly if they tried to clamp the car again. Not to mention in a lot of trouble.

I personally believe that your son had every right to take the clamp off, however he should of left it somewhere the bailiff could of seen so too pick it up. I would of left a note with it explaining why.

Saying that though they should of checked to see if the car had belonged to you. They do have ways of finding out.

Have you or your son called the bailiff, his number should have been left with you. If you do call him, I would record the conversation.

[seanamarts]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I am sure it becomes a civil matter if the bailiff clamps a car that does not belong to the debtor.

In other words if he takes the clamp off its not a criminal matter for the police

[brassnecked]

Any action the bailiff takes to clamp the car again or take it way and sell it would be seriously detrimental to their career. He will be doing it in full knowledge it is NOT the property of the named debtor.

[unclebulgaria67]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I am sure it becomes a civil matter if the bailiff clamps a car that does not belong to the debtor.

In other words if he takes the clamp off its not a criminal matter for the police

 

This has been debated recently. My view from what I have seen, is that a third party removing a clamp from their own vehicle relating to the debt of another party, would not be a criminal matter. If however a debtor removes a clamp from their own vehicle themselves, then they or any third party who helps them remove the clamp, will be committing a criminal offence. I think the new law points to the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act, but that act makes it clear that an EA can only take control over goods owned by the debtor. If the EA tries to take goods owned by a third party, then that particular act does not criminalise an innocent third party removing a wrongly applied clamp. The Police may however investigate a complaint for criminal damage, but I can't see that getting anywhere.

[brassnecked]

Agree with Unclebulgaria, with regard to any alleged offence, if the car clamped is not the debtors, then the owner has a right to remove the clamp without penalty.

 

if it was my car clamped by a bailiff for next doors debt, and I had to go to work shortly I would phone the bailiff on the number he provided on the sticker, tell him the clamp is coming off and the removal would not constitute any offence under the TCGA as it isn't the debtors property, , the angle grinder would be out and the clamp off, and delivered to the bailiffs office with a bill for my time and mileage. If he phoned plod and I was pulled over for stealing my car, I would explain to the officers what the law is regarding a third party seizure.

 

But that is what I would do, I don't advise or encourage anyone else to do that, it's just that I am fed up with Enforcement parasites and their greed, and would just do it to ruin their day for unlawfully interfering in mine...

 

Now where can i source a tracked and therefore unclampable vehicle

[lookinforinfo]

Interestingly there was a case where a clamp had been removed and the Judge ruled that though the car should not have been seized, he was not happy that the motorist

had not waited for the Court to order the removal of the clamp! What planet is that Judge on? We need our cars to carry out so much of our daily way of life. It's ok for some Judge to be chauffeur driven around the Country at our expense but we don't have that luxury.

[unclebulgaria67]

Interestingly there was a case where a clamp had been removed and the Judge ruled that though the car should not have been seized, he was not happy that the motorist

had not waited for the Court to order the removal of the clamp! What planet is that Judge on? We need our cars to carry out so much of our daily way of life. It's ok for some Judge to be chauffeur driven around the Country at our expense but we don't have that luxury.

 

Ruled or just commented / Ruling indicates some form of sanction against the person who did this.

[lookinforinfo]

It was a comment by Nolan LJ about a motorist who cut off a clamp that had been, in the Judges view, lawfully applied Lloyd - v - Director of Public Prosecutions [1992]

where he said In my judgment, the suggestion that there was a lawful excuse for his action is wholly untenable. At the worst what he had suffered was a civil wrong. The remedy for such wrongs is available in the civil courts. That is what they are there for. Self-help involving the use of force can only be contemplated where there is no reasonable alternative. Here, as in Stear -v- Scott , there was such an alternative.

 

My apologies for misstating the position.