PCN enforcement - car clamped - Taking Control of Goods

[rippedoffagain]

You can't get blood out of a stone! I have nothing to take.

[brassnecked]

The car probably wouldn't fetch enough at auction to cover the Compliance Fee, the Enforcement Fee, let alone the Sales Fee. or any of the debt

[DragonFly1967]

I find it astounding that councils, in general, continue to deal with firms like this that have been shown to be little more than bullies. Whilst I understand a councils need to ensure that any and all debts are paid (to them), the way that it's done surely needs to be both proportionate and legal.

[brassnecked]

I find it astounding that councils, in general, continue to deal with firms like this that have been shown to be little more than bullies. Whilst I understand a councils need to ensure that any and all debts are paid (to them), the way that it's done surely needs to be both proportionate and legal.

 

Councils see use of bailiffs/EA as a low cost low risk option, they forget about stuff like Vicarious Liability, the Joint and several Liability with and for the actions of their agent the EA, if it goes pear shaped. You only have to look at the training given to councils by Equita on the new rules that conveniently left out all mention of the interpleader provisoons to see that there are fundamental issues with private certificated enforcement agents aka greedy gits.

[rippedoffagain]

Off topic, but there are 433 councils in the UK. With figures for liability orders being quickly googled, it would appear that upward of 10,000 are not uncommon. I would reckon that at least 4,000,000 UK households are now experiencing difficulty paying council tax. If 10% have gone to the bailiffs, 400,000 people are under the cosh to these bandits. Somethings got to give sooner or later.

 

The interesting part, I think, is that most of the one's that have gone to the bailiffs will not be "won't pay" but will be "can't pay". So a very peculiar business model for companies that are only paid on collection of cash.

[rippedoffagain]

I certainly can't drive the car. So if I cancel the insurance, an offence of keeping a vehicle on the highway without insurance would presumably apply. Would I be able to argue that I was unable to take it of the highway, as I had no control of the car?

[brassnecked]

I certainly can't drive the car. So if I cancel the insurance, an offence of keeping a vehicle on the highway without insurance would presumably apply. Would I be able to argue that I was unable to take it of the highway, as I had no control of the car?

 

No see Coughdrops posts above, the offence is a summary offence therefore you have the car insured or not.

[rippedoffagain]

The thing is the vehicle is only one thing which the EA has taken control of. They are still entitled (and will I imagine will) to return to try to take control of other goods with a view to entering into an agreement or removing them for sale. If they can't find enough goods of value to cover the warrant, then it should be returned.

 

A fine is NOT a penalty, it is a fine. The ticket was a penalty (PENALTY Charge Notice) but ceased being a penalty when it went to the court.

 

It's not a PCN as far as I remember. Issued by Northampton County Court. Just a pay and display car park. Not yellow lines etc.

Edited July 4, 2014 by rippedoffagain
typo

[unclebulgaria67]

It's not a PCN as far as I remember. Issued by Northampton County Court. Just a pay and display car park. Not yellow lines etc.

 

You could give notice in writing to Jacobs that you will be registering the car as SORN with DVLA and cancelling the third party liability insurance, so it would be up to Jacobs to make sure it was removed from the public highway. You could add that you will not be responsible for any costs associated with removing the car from the public highway, as Jacobs had decided to take control of the car on the highway, even though the value of the car would not provide any proceeds to Newcastle city council.

[ploddertom]

I think you may find you are all barking up the wrong tree. The vehicle would remain the debtors - clamped or not - until such time it was removed & then sold. Only on the fall of the hammer would good title change.

[Coughdrop]

I think you may find you are all barking up the wrong tree. The vehicle would remain the debtors - clamped or not - until such time it was removed & then sold. Only on the fall of the hammer would good title change.

 

Cough....Cough!

 

See post 18.

 

What the OP should rightly do if they're convinced there's insufficient goods of value to take control of in their house is let them in, see that is the case and the warrant will be returned.

[rippedoffagain]

You could give notice in writing to Jacobs that you will be registering the car as SORN with DVLA and cancelling the third party liability insurance, so it would be up to Jacobs to make sure it was removed from the public highway. You could add that you will not be responsible for any costs associated with removing the car from the public highway, as Jacobs had decided to take control of the car on the highway, even though the value of the car would not provide any proceeds to Newcastle city council.

That sounds sensible to me.

[Coughdrop]

That sounds sensible to me.

 

Sounds absolutely mad to me!

[tomtubby]

I only have access to an ipad at present but you will find that goods are 'bound' from the date on which the warrant had been issued. This prohibits goods being transfered or sold. From memory you would need to read sections 4 & 5 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007.

[unclebulgaria67]

I only have access to an ipad at present but you will find that goods are 'bound' from the date on which the warrant had been issued. This prohibits goods being transfered or sold. From memory you would need to read sections 4 & 5 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007.

 

If a car has been 'bound' on a highway, who is responsible for the car ?

 

If the owner of the car could not afford third party insurance and is unable to move a 'bound' car from the highway, if they gave notice to the EA, in theory the EA would be responsible ?

[rippedoffagain]

If a car has been 'bound' on a highway, who is responsible for the car ?

 

If the owner of the car could not afford third party insurance and is unable to move a 'bound' car from the highway, if they gave notice to the EA, in theory the EA would be responsible ?

 

Thank you.

[rippedoffagain]

Just had a quick look at the Act. Am I reading this right. Can an EA now force entry?

 

Entry without warrant

 

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

(2)Where there are different relevant premises this paragraph authorises entry to each of them.

 

(3)This paragraph authorises repeated entry to the same premises, subject to any restriction in regulations.

 

(4)If the enforcement agent is acting under section 72(1) (CRAR), the only relevant premises are the demised premises.

 

(5)

[brassnecked]

Don't think he can force entry at that stage, he could enter through an unlocked door, but if you don't let him in he can't break the door down or drill the locks without going back to court for authorisation. Other Caggers will no doubt be able to expand on this,

[mikeymack2002]

If you remain the RO and cancel the insurance you will face the following from plod

 

 

1. A s165a (rta 1988) for having an uninsured vehicle on a public highway

1a. (Not having a valid VED yet more offences)

2. a fine (you cannot afford another fine for no insurance)

3. points on your license (totting up may cause issues)

4. as per rules for s165 plod will arrange for it to be lifted (this costs you)

5. a fee per day for storage (more money you cannot afford)

6. after a set period of time the vehicle is crushed

7. if 6 happens you have interfered with goods subject to a control of goods agreement. This will mean more fees.

8. If 1. happens then your insurance premiums sky rocket points on your license for 4 years higher premium's for that period

 

 

So have you actually thought this through in FULL yet?

 

This in turn will get you more trouble than it's worth please forgive my bluntness to the above, I just put in to words things that are very obvious and damaging to your wealth.

[Coughdrop]

I only have access to an ipad at present but you will find that goods are 'bound' from the date on which the warrant had been issued. This prohibits goods being transfered or sold. From memory you would need to read sections 4 & 5 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007.

 

Yes, I agree. In fact that is exactly as stated in posts 18 and 23.

 

The best way to resolve this is to engage with the EA (knowing you do not have goods of sufficient value there), then the warrant will be returned to the court.

[Coughdrop]

Don't think he can force entry at that stage, he could enter through an unlocked door, but if you don't let him in he can't break the door down or drill the locks without going back to court for authorisation. Other Caggers will no doubt be able to expand on this,

 

No - if you think about it there is nothing inside which is bound, or taken control of, so there would, as you say, be no right of forced entry.

[mikeymack2002]

When a car is clamped and control of the goods has been effected. Who owns or is responsible for the vehicle?

 

I have just had my car clamped for non payment of a parking ticket. My fault I know.

 

The car is worth much less than the amount I owe, and I don't mind them taking it.

 

It is now on a public highway. If I can't use the car, and they don't at this stage seem interested in taking it to auction. Why should I keep it insured?

 

 

see post #44

 

Then have a read here http://www.surrey.police.uk/portals/0/pdf/about%20us/S165-Seized-Vehicle-Information.pd

 

finally read here

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

 

and here

 

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

[rippedoffagain]

I would think there is nothing to stop me transferring "Registered Keeper" to a motor dealer (friend). Not to try to remove control, or change ownership. Just to comply with continuous insurance legislation.

 

Motor traders - exceptions

 

If a vehicle is between registered keepers or registered as ‘in trade’ with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), it is excluded from continuous insurance enforcement.

[mikeymack2002]

Again you are trying to hide goods that could be subject to a control of goods agreement, please think your actions through before you take any action, as your thoughts could get you into serious trouble.

[unclebulgaria67]

I would think there is nothing to stop me transferring "Registered Keeper" to a motor dealer (friend). Not to try to remove control, or change ownership. Just to comply with continuous insurance legislation.

 

Motor traders - exceptions

 

If a vehicle is between registered keepers or registered as ‘in trade’ with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), it is excluded from continuous insurance enforcement.

 

If the car is not clamped, it might just be easier to remove it somewhere off road and if you want to SORN/cancel the insurance, you can do so.

 

I suspect that the EA is not really interested in the car. It is being used to try to make you come to a payment arrangement.