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

[unclebulgaria67]

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.

 

The reason for introducing the 'personal stuff' is to see whether you would ever see circumstances that might occur, where someone might remove a clamp, because an EA had totally dismissed issues of vulnerability or refused to discuss any payment arrangement.

 

I agree it should not happen, but there is real world out there.

[Peterbard]

The reason for introducing the 'personal stuff' is to see whether you would ever see circumstances that might occur,.

 

Sorry i dont see that, in fact i dont think there is ever any justification for posting someone else's personal stuff in order to make some obscure point.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry i dont see that, in fact i dont think there is ever any justification for posting someone else's personal stuff in order to make some obscure point.

 

Hardly obscure. Debtor finds themselves in a desperate situation, so they remove a clamp and hide the vehicle so they can continue using.

 

In the example case, the situation might have been avoided had the EA bothered to find out the situation and arranged a reasonable repayment arrangement.

 

I don't have any sympathy for those who refuse to pay amounts owed, have no excuses and cut off clamps. But there are genuine cases out there where the EA could show a bit of human kindness and to come to a sensible arrangement, that meets the objective of collecting the debt.

 

If you take a black and white stringent approach to these matters you have stopped being a human being and have become a robot without any emotional programming.

[Peterbard]

Sorry did I say obscure, i meant immaginary. Ther are reall cases on here, have a look at them.

 

Any way this is off topic, whatever the ins and outs of the situation the act of removing a clamp is illegal.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry did I say obscure, i meant immaginary. Ther are reall cases on here, have a look at them.

 

Any way this is off topic, whatever the ins and outs of the situation the act of removing a clamp is illegal.

 

I know you are trying to educate the public, so they don't make matters worse.

 

Perhaps more information can be provided about how the public can quickly resolve a clamping issue, if they don't have the full amount to pay an EA. e. g court application, appeal to creditor, when the EA should accept a payment arrangement, issues of vulnerability making car essential, car is tool of trade etc etc.

[JoeyJoeC]

Quick question. What if someone else cuts off the clamp and you have no knowledge of this at all?

[Bailiff Advice]

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.

 

I suppose it is not the best example as it would be unheard of for a PCN to be enforced 5 years later and for the debtor to have the very same car at a different address. The point that I think that you are trying to highlight is whether it is right to leave a car immobilised after the debtor has explained that the vehicle is needed to take his wife to hospital. Firstly, immobilising a vehicle by using a wheel clamp is a method of 'taking control' of the vehicle and the clamp can remain on the vehicle for a couple of weeks etc.

 

Alternatively, the bailiff could put the vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement and in many case that I assist with this does happen (in particular with vehicles that are of low value). Under the previous road traffic regulations (The Enforcment of Road Traffic Debts Orde 1993) a statutory notice (Form 8) was introduced which was a Walking Possession Agreement. Unfortunately, it was very rare indeed for a bailiff to put a vehicle under a Walking Possession and 20 years later, the new regulations have almost replicated the statutory Form 8 with a Controlled Goods Agreement.

 

A problem that is occurring is that many local authorities are putting pressure on their bailif providers to remove vehicles on the basis that this leads to the debt being recovered sooner.

 

It is the case that many bailiffs do not want to put a vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement. They complain that once an agreement is signed, debtors will try to file Out of Time witness statements or try to set aside the debt by claiming that they had not been GIVEN (in person) a Notice of Enforcement. Also, if a debtor defaults on the payment, the bailif would be required to make another visit to the premises. Lastly, there is the small matter of the bailiff commission and when this becomes payable.

[Stigman]

Quick question. What if someone else cuts off the clamp and you have no knowledge of this at all?

 

Whatever happened to Angle Grinder Man?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3112670.stm

 

Keep he replies clean lol

 

Stigman

[unclebulgaria67]

I suppose it is not the best example as it would be unheard of for a PCN to be enforced 5 years later and for the debtor to have the very same car at a different address. The point that I think that you are trying to highlight is whether it is right to leave a car immobilised after the debtor has explained that the vehicle is needed to take his wife to hospital. Firstly, immobilising a vehicle by using a wheel clamp is a method of 'taking control' of the vehicle and the clamp can remain on the vehicle for a couple of weeks etc.

 

Alternatively, the bailiff could put the vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement and in many case that I assist with this does happen (in particular with vehicles that are of low value). Under the previous road traffic regulations (The Enforcment of Road Traffic Debts Orde 1993) a statutory notice (Form 8) was introduced which was a Walking Possession Agreement. Unfortunately, it was very rare indeed for a bailiff to put a vehicle under a Walking Possession and 20 years later, the new regulations have almost replicated the statutory Form 8 with a Controlled Goods Agreement.

 

A problem that is occurring is that many local authorities are putting pressure on their bailif providers to remove vehicles on the basis that this leads to the debt being recovered sooner.

 

It is the case that many bailiffs do not want to put a vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement. They complain that once an agreement is signed, debtors will try to file Out of Time witness statements or try to set aside the debt by claiming that they had not been GIVEN (in person) a Notice of Enforcement. Also, if a debtor defaults on the payment, the bailif would be required to make another visit to the premises. Lastly, there is the small matter of the bailiff commission and when this becomes payable.

 

In my example, it was a different car, but the EA company traced them, when they moved back to the UK, updating various records including driving licence. It was a different car that was clamped.

 

My point was that in many cases a debtor may not have the money to pay a sudden request on the doorstep. If they need the car for work or for issues of vulnerability, the EA should be required to enter into an agreement. It the debtor is self employed, cannot access alternative transport and cannot work to obtain the money for the EA, it would lead to the car being taken. This might be good for those looking to earn money from the situation, but i would question the fairness of it and whether it is good for the country. In the example situation, the debtor cannot work, so is unable to pay tax and may need benefits. His wife in needing longer Hospital stays is an extra cost to the NHS.

[unclebulgaria67]

Quick question. What if someone else cuts off the clamp and you have no knowledge of this at all?

.

 

Police are likely to be involved and will question the vehicke keeper. No admission or evidence would mean no charge can be brought.

 

If the car is missing, the EA is likely to report it stolen, so it makes it difficult to still use due to ANPR. You would have to deal with the EA issue and report the car had been found, to get it taken off the stolen database.

[Peterbard]

I suppose it is not the best example as it would be unheard of for a PCN to be enforced 5 years later and for the debtor to have the very same car at a different address. The point that I think that you are trying to highlight is whether it is right to leave a car immobilised after the debtor has explained that the vehicle is needed to take his wife to hospital. Firstly, immobilising a vehicle by using a wheel clamp is a method of 'taking control' of the vehicle and the clamp can remain on the vehicle for a couple of weeks etc.

 

Alternatively, the bailiff could put the vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement and in many case that I assist with this does happen (in particular with vehicles that are of low value). Under the previous road traffic regulations (The Enforcment of Road Traffic Debts Orde 1993) a statutory notice (Form 8) was introduced which was a Walking Possession Agreement. Unfortunately, it was very rare indeed for a bailiff to put a vehicle under a Walking Possession and 20 years later, the new regulations have almost replicated the statutory Form 8 with a Controlled Goods Agreement.

 

A problem that is occurring is that many local authorities are putting pressure on their bailif providers to remove vehicles on the basis that this leads to the debt being recovered sooner.

 

It is the case that many bailiffs do not want to put a vehicle under a Controlled Goods Agreement. They complain that once an agreement is signed, debtors will try to file Out of Time witness statements or try to set aside the debt by claiming that they had not been GIVEN (in person) a Notice of Enforcement. Also, if a debtor defaults on the payment,

 

 

 

the bailif would be required to make another visit to the premises. Lastly, there is the small matter of the bailiff commission and when this becomes payable.

 

I am not convinced that a vehicle found on the highway can be included in a walking possession agreement without it being immobilised. Possibly a vehicle which is on the debtors property can, but the regulations states quite clearly:

 

13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

I have case law where vehicles have been said to be secured by a sticker placed on a window and a letter delivered through the box. The car being driven away, the debtor was found not guilty of interference with goods because they were not under control, as the vehicle was not clamped.

 

Sensibly goods are placed under control and left with the debtor for their use(unless secured), on the grounds that they are not removed and the bailiff has access to them to either check them or to take them for sale.

Since the only use of a car is to move, i dont see how the permission to use the goods can be given.

[Peterbard]

I know you are trying to educate the public, so they don't make matters worse.

 

Perhaps more information can be provided about how the public can quickly resolve a clamping issue, if they don't have the full amount to pay an EA. e. g court application, appeal to creditor, when the EA should accept a payment arrangement, issues of vulnerability making car essential, car is tool of trade etc etc.

 

This may not be helpful but the best method would be to address the debt at compliance or sooner.

 

I do sympathise with debtors who find themselves in this situation but cant help thinking the advice that is often given to not engage with bailiffs at all has a lot to do with it.

 

As you rightly say the EA is principally interested in collecting the creditors money, if he can see an asset which can be taken he will do it no question.

 

John Kruse says that the reason the enforcment fee is so high is because it is supposed to give the EA time to examine the debtors ability to pay and negotiate with the creditor enabling a equitable solution. This is not happening at the moment.

 

In my view it is not only the bailiff to blame in this. Advice being given not to interact with bailiffs, not to supply information which would allow them to properly assess the debtors ability to pay and recommend the plan to the creditor for instance.

 

It is a learning curve all around, and as you say there are those in the bailiff industry who must be encouraged to give up their old ways.

[Peterbard]

Seems like this thread is coming to an end now, so just to summarize some of the points.

 

It is illegal to remove a clamp which has been applied by a certified bailiff.

 

Goods on a highway must be clamped, in order to be taken under control.It is pointless arguing that the EA should have explored the option of a CGA, because he would have to clamp the vehicle anyway.

 

Vehicles in the debtors usual place of residence , may be listed on a CGA unsecured, but this is unlikely to happen without car being clamped. This is because of the mobility and purpose of the goods.

 

Other items may not be secured when listed because by their nature they supply other functions and remain on the premises, a tv for instance can be watched , a settee may be sat on etc. A car can only be driven away. It is possible I believe to make an arrangement with the EA where the vehicle may be used in the latter case, but this would depend on the EA the creditor and the individual circumstances.

[Bailiff Advice]

Under the One Year Review, I am aware that figures have been provided showing an extraordinary level of debts being paid (either in full or by way of a payment arrangement) during the Compliance Stage and this bears out with the significant reduction in the level of complaints being received in the past 18 months since the new regulation came into effect. Complaints to courts have significantly reduced and the number of 'Interpleader' applications is almost non existent (and is being closely monitored by the Ministlry of Justice).

 

Clamping of a vehicle is something that I have been very much against for a long time and I detest with a passion the use of ANPR to locate a vehicle and I have written extensively about this on many occassions (including in my response to the One Year Review). Regulars on here will know that I played a significant role in getting 'Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations' banned.

 

Since the new regulations it is unfortunate that the Internet is being swamped with ''advice' that at best is nonsense, and at worst....highly illegal. Debtors are encouraged to clamp off wheel clamps

and in some cases, even told to take the clamp to the police station!! Those following this dangerous advice are naturally being arrested.

 

Anyone spending an hour or so reading through the ever decreasing posts on the various Beat the Bailiffs Facebook pages will see that the entire focus of advice is to encourage debtors to do anything possible so as to ensure that they do NOT make a payment to a bailiff. The advice will range from submitting Out of Time applications to making statutory declarations to the Magistartes Courts. In the vast majority of cases that I witness, the person being encouraged to pursue such routes had known of the summons or road traffic debt and is being encourage to commit perjury. Another ruse is to advise the debtor to claim that enforcement should cease as they live in a 'vulnerable Household'.

 

The sad fact is that those giving this advice are the ones who really hould be held responsible for bailiffs being reluctant to include motor vehicles in a Controlled Goods Agreement.

[unclebulgaria67]

Under the One Year Review, I am aware that figures have been provided showing an extraordinary level of debts being paid (either in full or by way of a payment arrangement) during the Compliance Stage and this bears out with the significant reduction in the level of complaints being received in the past 18 months since the new regulation came into effect. Complaints to courts have significantly reduced and the number of 'Interpleader' applications is almost non existent (and is being closely monitored by the Ministlry of Justice).

 

Clamping of a vehicle is something that I have been very much against for a long time and I detest with a passion the use of ANPR to locate a vehicle and I have written extensively about this on many occassions (including in my response to the One Year Review). Regulars in here will know that I played a significant role in getting 'Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations' banned.

 

Since the new regulations it is unfortunate that the Internet is being swamped with ''advice' that at best is nonsense, and at worst....highly illegal. Debtors are encouraged to clamp off wheel clamps

and in some cases, even told to take the clamp to the police station!! Those following this dangerous advice are naturally being arrested.

 

Anyone spending a hour or so reading through the ever decreasing posts on the various Beat the Bailiffs Facebook pages will see that the entire focus of advice is to encourage debtors to do anything possible so as to ensure that they do NOT make a payment to a bailiff. The advice will range from submitting Out of Time applications to making statutory declarations to the Magistartes Courts. In the vast majority of cases that I witness, the person being encouraged To pursue such routes had known of the summons or road traffic debt and is being encourage to commit perjury.

 

One contention is whether a vehicle needs to be clamped, in order for a payment arrangement to be agreed. There is a choice that can be made by EA companies and the clients they work for.

 

In regard to a CGA of household goods, the EA does not remove them or prevent them being used. But the EA can come back to take them, if the agreement is breached. I know a vehicle can be moved, but so can household goods. Both household goods and vehicles can be damaged while under a CGA, which would affect their sale value.

 

The clamp is being used to hold a vehicle to ransom. The EA knows that depriving a vehicle owner of its use, is going to be very inconvenient and therefore they are more likely to gain quicker repayment. Therefore the clamp is more about the finances of the EA company and its clients. This might prevent an EA using their judgement, where the vehicle owner needs it to earn money or it is needed for family, who may be vulnerable.

 

It would be interesting what the stats are for clamp usage. Has it become the main way to obtain payment ? Do they clamp a car on the driveway,before approaching the door of the debtor, without any prior DVLA check ? What debts are the clamps used for ? Where the debt amount cannot be paid, is a clamp left in place and if so what is the average time they are left ?

 

There will be many questions. Think the relevant government/parliamentary committee should review clamping and get hold of stats from EA companies, plus public feedback, to see how much of an issue it is.

[Peterbard]

I think the point is being missed, goods which are taken under control can also be secured, either on the premisses or taken away and secured elsewhere. The bailiff will have to decide which goods to secure and which not to. A car as said has one function and that is to move, why would it not be secured ? A TV does not have the function of rolling out of the driveway, it can be used and still be available for the bailiff to remove.

 

If the debtor agrees to not move the vehicle and take a CGA , what would be the point, if it is just going to sit in the driveway, it may as well have a clamp on it.

 

The securing of the goods on debtors premises does not preclude a controlled goods agreement being made in any case,

 

I remember this being discussed way back and these points being raised, it is just a matter of the practicalities involved. As regards goods on a highway, the EA has no choice he has to secure them.

[unclebulgaria67]

You could argue that a home owner could move the goods and then not tell the EA. It is easier applying a clamp,than taking a van full of goods away for storage.

[Peterbard]

Perhaps of I try a different way. If the goods are not secured, the implication is that the debtor can continue to use them.

 

When the EA calls to take goods for sale ie a car that is not secured. The debtor could say sorry the wife is picking up the kids then she is off to Tesco you are better calling back, because this is what the car is for.

 

You cannot say sorry the wife has taken the TV set out for a walk

[Peterbard]

This is what John Kruse says in his practice notes on taking control of vehicles

 

Method of taking control Vehicles may be taking into control by one of several means:

 

• Clamping on the debtor’s premises;

• Clamping on the highway;

• Immediate removal to storage; or,

• By a controlled goods agreement, although this method is hardly to be recommended given the value and mobility of cars.