Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Bailiff Advice

Debtor found guilty of criminal damage for using angle grinder to cut off a wheel clamp.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1772 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Last week yet another debtor appeared in court for cutting off a wheel clamp.

 

In this case, a bailiff from JBW Group applied a wheel clamp to the debtors car in relation to a debt for council tax. The debtor 'claimed' that he thought that the clamp had been left on his car by a friend as a joke and accordingly, he used an angle grinder to remove the clamp.

 

Clearly the court did not believe his story and after admitting causing criminal damage the court ordered him to pay £435 which was made up of a fine of £250, costs of £85, compensation of £75 and victims surcharge of £25.

 

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-used-angle-grinder-cut-wheel-clamp-car/story-26547903-detail/story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was his first hearing and he was bailed until June 18th but the hearing for sentencing was brought forward.

 

The problem that faces debtors who get prosecuted for cutting off a wheel clamp is that they not only end up paying a lot of money (in this case £435 ) but they have to endure two court hearings and a criminal record that could hamper their future employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was his first hearing and he was bailed until June 18th but the hearing for sentencing was brought forward.

 

The problem that faces debtors who get prosecuted for cutting off a wheel clamp is that they not only end up paying a lot of money (in this case £435 )but they have to endure two court hearings and a criminal record that could hamper their future employment.

Just as bad if the vehicle clamped is NOT the debtors, and the lawful owner cuts off the clamp.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar topic, but assaulting a bailiff, does anyone know the outcome of this case which will have been heard this month?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68%281%29-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

 

Are the 'statements' in question those discussed here previously (around February I think) that relate to the poster CAM ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should have just said he knew nothing about how the clamp was removed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as bad if the vehicle clamped is NOT the debtors, and the lawful owner cuts off the clamp.

 

Can someone explain this ? This scenario.

 

Clamped Vehicle is not the debtors i.e. mine ? Can I not lawfully remove something added to it to prevent my use ? What if there is no contact details of the clamp owner ?

 

EA could contact the police on the registered owner of the vehicle and claim CD, but the registered owner could

i) deny knowing about a clamp

ii) counter claim for damamge

 

Surely any costs from NOT having access to the vehicle are due to me ?

 

Can understand in BA's post why this happened as the goofs were seized correctly in this case..

 

N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the 'statements' in question those discussed here previously (around February I think) that relate to the poster CAM ?

 

Yes, the reference is indeed to the case of 'CAM'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

 

Having now read these 'statements' again last night I notice that mentioned is made that the bailiff had 'apparently' not been certificated on the date (17th September 2014) that he visited the debtor (CAM). This is actually not true and a simple check with the MOJ bailiff register will confirm that the bailiff was granted his certificate on 12th April 2014 !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i were in the crap with this scenario i would handle it in another way.


So whats cooking today ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If i were in the crap with this scenario i would handle it in another way.

 

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start i would not even think of admitting what i had done. If i had cut the clamp then i would have made sure it had been disposed of properly.


So whats cooking today ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a start i would not even think of admitting what i had done. If i had cut the clamp then i would have made sure it had been disposed of properly.

 

Like a canal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like a canal?

No canals by me, so on the back of the scrapman's truck probably.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you would just get rid of it and deny any knowledge. However if you have the i am going to fight this or i am going to defend my castle type of thing kick in then you are stuffed.


So whats cooking today ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...