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

[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.

[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 !

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.