marston Marstons - clamped partners car

[cadencealex]

I paid a fine with the court for £145, albeit a few days late. For a speeding fine. My partner has his car clamped by the HCEO for an outstanding amount of £310. How can it be so high?

 

He has to prove he is the owner for them to remove the clamp but say they will do so today.

 

The car isn't mine but has been clamped because of the fact I owe £310.

 

What can I do?

[fkofilee]

£75 + £235

 

Compliance stage and enforcement stage.... So youve paid the fine direct to the court.

Have you spoken to them? I would do so this morning. See if they will call off and remove the extra charges.

[cadencealex]

OK so I ring the court and not the bailiffs? Thanks

[cadencealex]

The bailiff will not accept the DVLA log book and want proof of purchase?

[huggy41]

That's bs anybody paying for a car does not make you the owner only the log book.

I purchaste my car of my brother inlaw i did not get a recipe the log book is now in my name as I am the owner get backon the phone and tell them.

[CrappoMan]

NO!The log book (V5) is not proof of ownership. it says so on the front of the V5. The RK and the owner can be 2 different entities.

[cadencealex]

I contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

[ploddertom]

Moved to Bailiff Forum

[Bailiff Advice]

I contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

 

Is it possible for you to provide a bit more background on the matter.

 

When the bailiff came into the house did he get you to sign something called a Controlled Goods Agreement? If so, when was this and can you please list down the items that appear on the agreement.

[Peterbard]

Hi

Its not quite clear from your first post. Did you pay the court after the debt was passed to the bailiff or before. What notices had you received before you paid ?

[mikeymack2002]

I contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

 

 

 

 

 

The EA cannot take control of goods that belong to someone else other than the debtor see here

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12 the section you want to read up on is part 10

 

 

Goods which may be taken

 

9 An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are—

(a) on premises that he has power to enter under this Schedule, or

(b) on a highway.

 

10 An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The EA may only take control of goods of the debtor. And a car being park on or at the property is to be assumed as the debtors until proof can be shown to the contrary.

Not only that, but there us a good chance the vehicle clamped could be the one the warrant relates too.

At the end if the day, the EA will never be in trouble with the company, or with the court, for seizing goods if has the reasonable belief that they are goods of the debtor.

[Peterbard]

Yes and he behaved perfectly properly in that regard in this instance.

[mikeymack2002]

Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

[brassnecked]

Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

 

Wonder how many people who have owned a car for 6 months or more have come home to find it clamped for another previous owners debt? JBW were doing just that with ANPR until recently.

[mikeymack2002]

The EA may only take control of goods of the debtor. And a car being park on or at the property is to be assumed as the debtors until proof can be shown to the contrary.

Not only that, but there us a good chance the vehicle clamped could be the one the warrant relates too.

At the end if the day, the EA will never be in trouble with the company, or with the court, for seizing goods if has the reasonable belief that they are goods of the debtor.

 

 

 

Again this statement is saying the EA has the last word If the debtor has the V5 in the name of someone else then this is still not proof the car belongs to either party, a very gray area indeed

[Coughdrop]

I think the Act makes it clear the EA can seize property if they have a reasonable belief it is the debtors. If they do so incorrectly, the correct owner can easily get their property back. Where there is real conflict over the ownership it would go to interpleader. I believe this is how it works in reality.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Again this statement is saying the EA has the last word If the debtor has the V5 in the name of someone else then this is still not proof the car belongs to either party, a very gray area indeed

 

Not a grey area at all. A V5 is NOT proof of ownership and is purely a registered keeper.

Proof of ownership.is often supplied in the way of a signed and named receipt.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I think the Act makes it clear the EA can seize property if they have a reasonable belief it is the debtors. If they do so incorrectly, the correct owner can easily get their property back. Where there is real conflict over the ownership it would go to interpleader. I believe this is how it works in reality.

Exactly how it works. Where we feel enough evidence has been supplied, we will leave the asset be. Where we do not believe the debtor or have some doubts, then we will let the client decide. If the clients agrees with the 3rd party claim, the asset will be released. If the client refutes the validity of the 3rd party claim, the it would be foe a court to decide via interpleader.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

 

No, but if the car is at the address of the debtor, then we can assume it is an asset if the debtor. Even more so if it is listed on the warrant as the offending vehicle.

[brassnecked]

No, but if the car is at the address of the debtor, then we can assume it is an asset if the debtor. Even more so if it is listed on the warrant as the offending vehicle.

What if a car is parked outside the debtor's and someone is sat in the car, a third party say taking a phone call or looking for an address for a customer call and the EA tries to take control of that vehicle and won't be told even on being given proof of ID showing a different address and proceeds to clamp it? .Would the third party be entitled to cut off the clamp, I know I would. Or would the EA be able to get them done for obstructing him, remember this is a third party with no connection to the debtor.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The EA cant. He must have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle belongs to the def. On the defs drive, identified by a neighbour, private plate, id hanging from the mirror etc.

Certainly parked on the highway like you describe is not enough to take, or attempt to take, control of assets.

 

Obviously there are rogues out there that might, but the numbers are slowly but surely being whittled down.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

What if a car is parked outside the debtor's and someone is sat in the car, a third party say taking a phone call or looking for an address for a customer call and the EA tries to take control of that vehicle and won't be told even on being given proof of ID showing a different address and proceeds to clamp it? .Would the third party be entitled to cut off the clamp, I know I would. Or would the EA be able to get them done for obstructing him, remember this is a third party with no connection to the debtor.

 

No, criminal damage is still criminal damage. You might have a civil claim for losses if you were clamped and the EA was proven to have acted not in accordance with the regulations.

[brassnecked]

No, criminal damage is still criminal damage. You might have a civil claim for losses if you were clamped and the EA was proven to have acted not in accordance with the regulations.

Don't think the EA acted incorrectly in OP's case, as if partner is living with as if married, then the assumption is reasonable, if partner is non resident and V5 etc is to different address and partner is not registered to vote at OP address then dodgy.

 

As to criminal damage in a wrongful clamping, I would willingly do time on the principle he committed Tort unlawful interference with goods. Need a good long holiday anyway. That is me but I wouldn't advise anyone to cut off a clamp.