Cutting off a clamp, is it legal ? - Enforcement Officers

[Peterbard]

One of the most dangerous pieces of advice being given on the web, is to remove clamps on cars which have been taken under control.

 

intentionally interfering with goods which have been taken into control is a criminal offence under Paragraph 68(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Punishable summarily by a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, and/or a Level 4 fine (currently £2,500 on a guilty judgement. This is in addition to other actions that the EA make take under common or civil law.

 

There is much talk of debtors interpretation of the law in this area. This is irrelevant. The EA will interpret the law and make the decision regarding taking control of goods. He should take all actions needed to ensure he is acting within the law, but he is empowered by the law to do as he sees fit.

 

If the debtor feels the EA has acted illegally in taking a third party or exempt goods there is legal recourse in CPR 85. This is a free procedure.

[fkofilee]

Of course its not legal... :sigh: Whos giving the info.

[Peterbard]

Of course its not legal... :sigh: Whos giving the info.

 

It is all over he place unfortunately and there is very little which gives the true picture. Thought I would spell it out in simple terms.

[obiter dictum]

Just flip the coin

 

What about if the clamp has been put on by a private parking company on private land?? (eg pub car park)

The act of attaching the clamp will be unlawful in England and Wales unless through an officer of the court?

 

So by removing that clamp cannot be unlawful (Criminal damage) as the act of attaching the clamp was a criminal offence.?

[Peterbard]

Just flip the coin

 

What about if the clamp has been put on by a private parking company on private land?? (eg pub car park)

The act of attaching the clamp will be unlawful in England and Wales unless through an officer of the court?

 

This would not be taking under control and a different issue.

[unclebulgaria67]

One of the most dangerous pieces of advice being given on the web, is to remove clamps on cars which have been taken under control.

 

intentionally interfering with goods which have been taken into control is a criminal offence under Paragraph 68(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Punishable summarily by a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, and/or a Level 4 fine (currently £2,500 on a guilty judgement. This is in addition to other actions that the EA make take under common or civil law.

 

There is much talk of debtors interpretation of the law in this area. This is irrelevant. The EA will interpret the law and make the decision regarding taking control of goods. He should take all actions needed to ensure he is acting within the law, but he is empowered by the law to do as he sees fit.

 

If the debtor feels the EA has acted illegally in taking a third party or exempt goods there is legal recourse in CPR 85. This is a free procedure.

 

Even if the clamp is removed, it is still under the control of the EA and if the vehicle is driven away to be hidden, it will no doubt be reported as stolen.

 

So i am not sure what the point is of removing the clamp. The alleged debtor needs to resolve the issue of why the clamp is being applied.

 

I think the EA companies should train their agents better and provide better documentation. If they fully explained the situation, provided the documents and more importantly explained the relevant process to appeal the debt or clamping, then they might face an easier job. Instead, as evidenced by the Youtube videos i have seen, the EA is purely interested in obtaining the money they think is due and they sometimes don't bother to explain themselves properly.

[SabreSheep]

2 Completely different issues, although the thread title "Cutting off a Clamp, is it legal?" Does not indicate which issue is being discussed (Although the forum this is in would be a clue) Added to subject line for clarity.

[ploddertom]

This has been done to death many times previously and cannot see the need for doing it again. I realise it is being talked about elsewhere but why do we have to follow them which will only end up in them making criticism or worse.

[unclebulgaria67]

This has been done to death many times previously and cannot see the need for doing it again. I realise it is being talked about elsewhere but why do we have to follow them which will only end up in them making criticism or worse.

 

There are a couple on here obsessed with what is said elsewhere. As i doubt many debtors will cross reference CAG, before deciding what to believe, I cannot see the point. The EA should be providing full information to debtors and i would have thought spending time campaigning for better EA company standards, would be more worthwhile. If they were doing a better job of enforcement, then the bailiff advice sites would not be needed !

[Peterbard]

2 Completely different issues, although the thread title "Cutting off a Clamp, is it legal?" Does not indicate which issue is being discussed (Although the forum this is in would be a clue) Added to subject line for clarity.

 

Sorry but isn't this part of the forum entitled bailiff action etc. ? Also see the first line of my first post.

[Peterbard]

This has been done to death many times previously and cannot see the need for doing it again. I realise it is being talked about elsewhere but why do we have to follow them which will only end up in them making criticism or worse.

 

Is it being discussed over there , i dont know, i was referring to the Facebook organisation.

 

I had a look here before i started the thread and couldn't se anything that addressed this directly, in any case not the first time something had been discussed on a number of threads.

 

I think it needs addressing again because people seem, to be taking this course of action again and need to be correctly advised.

[Bailiff Advice]

I would just add a few points on this subject.

 

Yes, the subject has been discussed a number of times and I have also started various threads to inform the public that cuttting off a wheel clamp can be very serious indeed and I have provided plenty of evidence to support the fact that many debtors have been prosecuted for this serious offence.

 

You only have to look at YouTube and there are many videos showing debtors cutting off wheel clamps but what is always missing, is what happens after the clamp has been cut off!!

 

Take for example the illegal and appalling behaviour of an individual who set up a Limited Company called Mary the Clamp Fairy. He would drive around the country openly cutting off car clamps for debtors and then attempting to invoice enforcement agencies over £2,000 for the return of their clamp. Of course, he never received payment. He is currently in custody courtesy of HM Prison awaiting trial for some other very serious offences. I somehow doubt that he will cut off any more clamps in the future.

 

What I can say with certainty is that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of any debtor suing a police force , a local authority or an enforcement company because they were wrongly arrested for cutting off a wheelclamp.

[Bailiff Advice]

The problem is that members of the public are unaware that the regulations actually impose a duty on the enforcement agent to immobilise a vehicle if it is located on a highway.

 

If a bailiff finds a vehicle on a highway then, unless the debtor voluntarily surrenders the keys to the vehicle, the enforcement agent MUST secure the vehicle with a wheel clamp. This is outlined under section 13(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/ways-of-taking-control?view=plain

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed, the vehicle in such a case cannot be secured just by a controlled goods agreement, the seizure would be invalid and the debtor could just drive it away.

[unclebulgaria67]

Perhaps it would help if discussion is based on examples.

 

Mr Jones incurred PCN's from his local authority, shortly before moving abroad to live. He failed to pay the penalties or to appeal them in his rush to sell his house and to organise the move. 5 years later Mr Jones returns to the UK but in a different part of the UK. Within months of moving in, he receives a loud knock on the door to be met by EA saying that he has clamped the car on the driveway, wanting payment for a large sum that Mr Jones cannot pay. The EA insists on full payment and will not accept instalments. The EA tells Mr Jones that the clamp would remain in place until he has obtained the money due, but he would be back to take the car to be sold, if not paid within 48 hours. There will be further fees due etc.

 

What would you advise Mr Jones ? Mrs Jones is currently being treated by an NHS Hospital 10 miles away and the car is needed to take her to the Hospital for continued treatment. There is no other transport available and also Mr Jones is unable to get to his place of work.

[Peterbard]

I hate hypothetical situations, because hypothetical events seldom happen.

 

 

Howeveer i would explain the circumstances to the EA, if he still refused (which I think he would). I would phone my GP and get hospital transport.

 

Then i would try an negotiate a repayment arrangement. However as the creditor has already been waiting for 5 years for his money i doubt that they would allow one, would you if it were your money.

[unclebulgaria67]

I hate hypothetical situations, because hypothetical events seldom happen.

 

 

Howeveer i would explain the circumstances to the EA, if he still refused (which I think he would). I would phone my GP and get hospital transport.

 

Then i would try an negotiate a repayment arrangement. However as the creditor has already been waiting for 5 years for his money i doubt that they would allow one, would you if it were your money.

 

So in this case the EA refuses instalments, the car is taken to be sold, Mrs Jones is admitted to Hospital due to the extra strain put on her and Mr Jones cannot get to work or visit his sick wife in Hospital.

 

Think it answers why some people might cut off a clamp and hide their cars.

 

As i have said, it would be better if EA companies had a better process which looked to help people, rather than just a way of earning the most money they can.

 

Hypothetical situation it might be, but i have read similar real accounts of such situations.

[Peterbard]

So in this case the EA refuses instalments, the car is taken to be sold, Mrs Jones is admitted to Hospital due to the extra strain put on her and Mr Jones cannot get to work or visit his sick wife in Hospital.

 

Think it answers why some people might cut off a clamp and hide their cars.

 

As i have said, it would be better if EA companies had a better process which looked to help people, rather than just a way of earning the most money they can.

 

Hypothetical situation it might be, but i have read similar real accounts of such situations.

 

I dont think the bailiff can be criticised for doing his job, i know that this is not a popular view on these forums. Yes the bailiffs job is to recover as much as the debt as he can ?

 

Nothing wrong with hiding the car before it is taken under control, however removing the clamp will only make a bad situation much worse, as also illustrated many times.

[unclebulgaria67]

I dont think the bailiff can be criticised for doing his job, i know that this is not a popular view on these forums. Yes the bailiffs job is to recover as much as the debt as he can ?

 

Nothing wrong with hiding the car before it is taken under control, however removing the clamp will only make a bad situation much worse, as also illustrated many times.

 

An EA should look to obtain the debt, but not in a way that could lead to consequences that the PCN issuing council, may wish to avoid. There should be an acceptance of some payment say a min of 10% of the debt and the signing of some payment arrangement without leaving a car clamped or taken away.

 

Commonsense should be applied.

 

I would have thought that someone who has had a health issue would show a bit more sympathy to the public. There will be people who just refuse to pay and have no issues for an EA to consider. A good EA should be able to talk to the debtor, find out the situation and deal with it in a sympathetic manner if needed.

[Bailiff Advice]

If you wish to discuss a real situation then a case that I assisted with yesterday may help.

 

In this case, the debtor's vehicle was clamped on the highway (outside of his property). The enforcement agent provided the necessary documentation. the debtor claimed that the vehicle was exempt (he works in property maintenace) and secondly, he claimed that the examption also applied as the vehicle was subject to a 'logbook' loan. The bailiff required evidence and gave the debtor till 5pm. After the enforcement agent left, the debtor cut the clamp. Police were called by the enforcement agent and he was arrested. The police (and not the enforcement agent) removed his vehicle and it has remained in the police pound for 8 weeks.

 

Following the vehicle being taken, he has received a lot of documentation regarding prosecution. Unfortunately the debtor could not provide sufficient evidence to support the vehicle being exempt. With regards to the 'logbook' loan it transpired that there was just ONE payment remaining to the finance company.

 

After lengthly discussions with him yesterday he accepted that the enforcement company had acted perfectly correct and that he had been wrong to cut off the wheel clamp. The result was that he accepted a police caution last night and this morning (with the agreement of the enforcement company) he was given permission to collect his vehicle from the police pound. The enforcement company have accepted a payment proposal to repay the £512 over 4 monthly payments.

[Peterbard]

An EA should look to obtain the debt, but not in a way that could lead to consequences that the PCN issuing council, may wish to avoid. There should be an acceptance of some payment say a min of 10% of the debt and the signing of some payment arrangement without leaving a car clamped or taken away.

 

Commonsense should be applied.

 

I would have thought that someone who has had a health issue would show a bit more sympathy to the public. There will be people who just refuse to pay and have no issues for an EA to consider. A good EA should be able to talk to the debtor, find out the situation and deal with it in a sympathetic manner if needed.

 

I dont know what my "health issue" has to do with anything, lets try and stay clear of the personal stuff, leave that to people who do not understand the issues.

 

I take a pragmatic approach and prefer to look at the issue from all sides.

[mikeymack2002]

Oh no not again, same subject same reviews why oh why? This is one thread I will not be returning too.....

[mikeymack2002]

Rather than argue about a clamp why not discuss how something like this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441693-Mental-Capacity-and-debt can it be incorporated into the standards of how the EA deals with debtors... Now this IS something worth discussing!!

[Peterbard]

Oh no not again, same subject same reviews why oh why? This is one thread I will not be returning too.....

 

So you just came on here to tell us you would not be coming on here. I have to say that your logical approach will be sorely missed.

[Peterbard]

Rather than argue about a clamp why not discuss how something like this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441693-Mental-Capacity-and-debt can it be incorporated into the standards of how the EA deals with debtors... Now this IS something worth discussing!!

 

That was quick.

 

Seriously the purpose of this thread is to advise and give correct advice, if you put the heading of this thread into your search engine you will have to wade through many pages before you come across the correct advice. I think this should be remedied.