what is the correct way to deal with a bad bailiff

[Peterbard]

Firstly the piece you have quoted originally from HCEO is not "rubbish" it is the legislation.

 

You chose to remove the clamp, this was an illegal act unless there is lawful excuse, you were then arrested, this is completely within the law, you should have used the proper procedure.

 

After your arrest it was found that you may have had lawful excuse because the levy was irregular, this is the procedure in dealing with people who are suspected of committing a crime, they then had to explore any other crime you may have committed, luckily you made them believe that there was no criminal intent to damage goods, nor to steal the vehicle, you just wished to to recover your property. You were then released without charge because there was insufficient cause to proceed to trial.

 

You were not treated badly, you committed an offence, the police arrested you and processed the arrest, there is nothing in that which constitutes police malpractice.

 

Incidentally this case resulted in you being pulled over by the police, you having to go to the police station for interview under caution and stretched over a couple of weeks i believe. Using the correct procedure, the clamp would have been removed and everything would be sorted in probably three days at the most, lore likely 24 hours. So hardly a case of getting one over on anyone.

 

In my opinion you chances of reclaiming damages are slight as said earlier. Any damages you did incur where mainly of your own doing for not following the correct procedure, something the judge is bound to bring up.

 

As for helping the bailiff, I have no thoughts on that at all, I take it that you do not contest the fact that you did have a debt which had not been paid ?

 

It may well be that the bailiff did not exercise his duties correctly and should not have seized the goods, if this is your belief a civil action under section 68 should be taken, but as said it is unlikely to bear any fruit regarding damages.

[outlawla]

i did raise that point at the station but the police adviced me to complain and take the civil route as if i wanted him charged it would not be in the public interest. but taking someone to court for damage to a £12 padlock is ?

 

there is a culture of helping bailiffs out there! my opinion.

 

i believe the police know that laws are broken by bailiffs all the time but unless there breaking peoples legs they dont ever seem to get charged???? but if you look around you see loads of people cutting off clamps being arrested for pennys of damage and lots of them if not all not even making it to a court room!! with cases dropped. so why keep charging people if there not getting convicted? and more the point why are bailiffs not charged more often?

 

Spot on!

 

The police aren't paid by the taxpayer to pick and choose which crimes they investigate, but that's exactly what they do. When they brush this kind of crime, which impacts significantly on the people paying their wages, under the carpet then it amounts to the police force defrauding the taxpayer.

[Peterbard]

Spot on!

 

The police aren't paid by the taxpayer to pick and choose which crimes they investigate, but that's exactly what they do. When they brush this kind of crime, which impacts significantly on the people paying their wages, under the carpet then it amounts to the police force defrauding the taxpayer.

 

I dont see this at all, complaint had been made by the bailiff that a clamp had been removed, the clamp was in the hands of the police and the car was unsecured. There is at least prima- facia evidence that on offence had been committed, so the police investigated.

[koby]

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was interfering with my goods without cause (tort) as it was exempt.

 

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was charging for using the clamp knowing he shouldn't have ( fraud)

 

Surprise surprise they don't want to know and I surpose you don't think these are crimes either do you as I'm not a bailiff making the allegations !

[Peterbard]

Pointless complaining to the police about a tort that is civil, the police are criminal.

 

V unlikely the police will pursue an action for fraud in a case like this, matter of proving intent etc. very unlikely indeed.

 

As you imply not surprising at all that they were not interested in your complaint.

 

You are right I do not think that at least one of these is a criminal charge

[obiter dictum]

To be honest this whole thread is now becoming pointless with all the bickering, especially with the other baliff thread running in tandum

 

It is starting to lose its shine which is a shame as a lot of referenced valuable information has been posted

[Peterbard]

Not sure what you mean, bickering ?

[obiter dictum]

Wrong choice of words

 

The message seems to be getting lost

[Peterbard]

Well i am not convinced that the OP came on here with the intention of getting advice to be honest.

They had already had a long thread elsewhere on a similar subject, and were less than forthcoming on the original posts.

Judging from later posts illustrate that they were already of the opinion that they were able to take everyone to court on criminal charges etc. I think that this thread was started merely to provoke argument and it backfired somewhat.

[obiter dictum]

I know nothing about Baliff law but i have been a participant on many threads and:

 

I must agree to that in my own opinion

 

I liked things to be referenced, that is why i like Dogeball and his posts, i can then research and draw my own conclusions

 

Just because the police released an individual does not mean you are innocent. It just means the police decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute

 

That is the way i see it anyway

Edited September 29, 2015 by obiter dictum

[caro]

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was interfering with my goods without cause (tort) as it was exempt.

 

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was charging for using the clamp knowing he shouldn't have ( fraud)

 

Surprise surprise they don't want to know and I surpose you don't think these are crimes either do you as I'm not a bailiff making the allegations !

 

If you want advice, then you've come to the right place, and you are always best to check it out before deciding how to proceed. You don't have to agree with everyone posting, but everyone posting on cag is required to be civil to other posters as per the site rules.

[koby]

i did want advice! yes i have had the whole matter else where, and yes they did sugest a few things i could do but im no expert on this and have read for hours on where to go from here. i have posted on 3 other sites with the same original question of how to complain to get as much information as i can before i chose to procede.

 

i didnt want to get into the whole debate of was i right i just wanted advice on the basis i was.

 

im no man of law as im sure you can see from above but i cant see how its fair to be arrested and released as there was no crime commited according to the police.

 

and surley if a bailiff puts a clamp on where he shouldnt of done he must be outside the law somwhere? even if it where for wasting police time as they decided there was no crime commited.

 

again people i was looking for info on the basis that i was right and the police said i had the right to remove it (even if you belive i dont)

[Peterbard]

i did want advice! yes i have had the whole matter else where, and yes they did sugest a few things i could do but im no expert on this and have read for hours on where to go from here. i have posted on 3 other sites with the same original question of how to complain to get as much information as i can before i chose to procede.

 

i didnt want to get into the whole debate of was i right i just wanted advice on the basis i was.

 

im no man of law as im sure you can see from above but i cant see how its fair to be arrested and released as there was no crime commited according to the police.

 

and surley if a bailiff puts a clamp on where he shouldnt of done he must be outside the law somwhere? even if it where for wasting police time as they decided there was no crime commited.

 

again people i was looking for info on the basis that i was right and the police said i had the right to remove it (even if you belive i dont)

 

Koby.

I have tried to explain that there is no criminal element to this. You were arrested because there was a reasonable belief that you had committed a criminal act and released without charge because there was insufficient evidence to continue to court, this happens all the time, the ability of the police to arrest someone who they believe has committed an offence is the only way it can work, they are not judge and jury, nor does anyone expect them to be, on the face of it they had good cause to arrest you, that is all that is required.

 

In any case the police would not consider assisting you, so you have to realistic option other to accept this and move on.

 

A civil action however requires a smaller burden of proof, in a civil case you only have to prove that it is likely that the actions of the other party were responsibility for your losses, as opposed to being guilty beyond reasonable doubt, this is far easier to prove.

 

However once you have shown this and in order to get any damages you have to show why the action caused you financial (or or other losses which when liquidated can represent a financial) loss.

 

Losses giving rise to a damage claim are subject to various tests under common law, one of which is remoteness. In this test the client has to show that there was a direct causal link between the tort and the damages incurred, saying that you were unable to make an interview, which could have generated income if you got the job for instance is far to remote, it involves far to many if's.

 

The law is not simple as some would have you believe especially not in this area, taking advice from people who would not know a law book if they fell over it is not a good idea, even taking advice form me is not a good idea, if you are considering an action like this you need professional advice from a qualified source. Before you part with any of your hard earned.

[caro]

i did want advice! yes i have had the whole matter else where, and yes they did sugest a few things i could do but im no expert on this and have read for hours on where to go from here. i have posted on 3 other sites with the same original question of how to complain to get as much information as i can before i chose to procede.

 

i didnt want to get into the whole debate of was i right i just wanted advice on the basis i was.

 

im no man of law as im sure you can see from above but i cant see how its fair to be arrested and released as there was no crime commited according to the police.

 

and surley if a bailiff puts a clamp on where he shouldnt of done he must be outside the law somwhere? even if it where for wasting police time as they decided there was no crime commited.

 

again people i was looking for info on the basis that i was right and the police said i had the right to remove it (even if you belive i dont)

 

What outcome are you looking for?

 

Is the original issue resolved and if not (and are willing to share) what is the situation now?

[Bailiff Advice]

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was interfering with my goods without cause (tort) as it was exempt.

 

I made a complaint to the police that the bailiff was charging for using the clamp knowing he shouldn't have ( fraud)

 

From the little information that there is on your query it would seem that the starting point is that you failed to deal with the debt at the Notice of Enforcement stage (during which time a payment arrangement can be proposed) and that the bailiff then identified a vehicle belonging to you and clamped it. You considered that he was wrong to do this on the basis that YOU BELIEVED that your vehicle was 'exempt'. You then took the law into your own hands and removed the clamp and you were then arrested but later released.

 

You are now wanting to find out what steps you can take to complain. I am not sure from your posts whether you are looking for financial compensation or just an apology. That is not important at the moment.

 

In the first instance, you need to be aware that the regulations are clear in that if payment is not made during the 'compliance stage' (this is the date given on the Notice of Enforcement) then the bailiff can visit the debtors property and the PURPOSE of the visit is to 'take control of goods' (hence the name of the regulations..The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013).

 

Secondly, whilst the regulations do state that a vehicle could be 'exempt' in certain circumstances this does NOT mean that every vehicle needed for work or self employment etc is exempt. Every case will be different and the reality is that in the vast majority of cases exemption will not apply. Can I ask a simple question:

 

On what basis did you consider that your vehicle should be exempt?

 

What EVIDENCE did you provide to the enforcement company or agent?

 

What is the value of the car and is it on finance?

[koby]

Yes Baliff advice you are correct i had a letter and then a first visit, and yes i do owe the council for a unpaid PCN.

 

I didnt dispute the fact i had not paid and without getting to personal lets just say at times i dont deal with what life throws at me when i should (Medical reasons)

 

But a bailiff at the doors forces the situation and i tried to deal with it, i made a offer of £50 a week but the agent wasnt happy with this and long story short he goes away empty handed.

 

Then around a month later i come out to my work van clamped.

 

The van is in my name no finance, it has business use only insurance, and is used for visits to multiple places a day with the tools or materials i need for that day.

 

the van acording to auto trader and varouis other places is worth £500-£1200 pounds. the police for purpose of interview valued it at £850. to be honest at a push i might get £1000 if i sorted a few problems with it (rust on cills and like).

 

when i found the van clamped the bailiff turned up shortly after then i stated it was excempt and he denied it. i told him he knows he's lying and he needs to get it off! after a while he comes over to me showing me the new rules to which i point out the value, he then goes to a different page on his ipad and show me a auto trader search of a van similar to mine but was a better model with all bells and trimings! and low milage. i told him that was not a fair comparsion and i got my iphone out and entered my vans real details and as i said above £500-£1200. his reply was i dont care the clamps staying.

 

I phoned his company but they refused to speak to me and said i had to speak with him only, i asked for a supervisor or manager and i was told there was not one to talk to.

 

I phoned the council who spoke with the bailiff firm and they were told a price of £2250 so they wouldnt help me either, I emailed proof to council of the vans price ect but they still didnt want to know.

 

I phoned the police as the clamp should not be on the van due to it being excempt, but they view it as a civil mater but gave me a ref number for the call.

 

The bailiff council and police were all told the following day that I would take it off it it wasnt removed by the bailiff. so I took it off.

 

This isnt about getting rich from this!

 

For me now that I have been released without charge and i have police on tape saying i didnt break any laws and the clamp should never have been put on etc, i want the council to admit they should have done more than just take a bailiffs word for it, i want the bailiff to explain why he kept the clamp on even though i had proved its value, and i would like the police to stop taking baliffs word for it, and at least look into things before arresting people!

 

Im no saint as i said before there is a bill to be paid, but im no push over either and i dont think baliffs who dont follow there set of rules should not be held acountable

[Peterbard]

Business only on a car, not heard of that I thought you were driving to work ?

 

I think from what you say that the car was exempt by reason of the value, providing it was only for business use It seems to be excepted that it was, in any case. I dare say you could take an action against the bailiff.

I also think that if you are awaiting an apology you will be waiting a long time. The council will probably be of the opinion that you had chance to settle the debt and you failed to.

 

As I explained at length earlier the police acted perfectly properly as the vehicle was under control and you had removed the clamp, there was sufficient to suggest that there had been a criminal act committed and would require further investigation.

 

I dont think you are suggesting that the bailiff committed a criminal offence are you ?

[koby]

Dodgeball,

 

to clarify its a connect van not a car.

 

I will still try with the council as i feel they had the power to stop the bailiff or at least make him take the clamp off as they are responsable for the bailiff. they were given all info which they ignored and could have saved a whole lot of other trouble.

 

I am not saying the police broke the rules, im not law trained enough to comment on that but as i said a little more research before arresting people wouldnt hurt and might lead to less arrests and wasted time and i intend on telling them my thoughts whether they use my complaint as toilet role or not i feel i need to have my say.

 

am i right in saying no one has ever been convicted of stealing there own car and/or cutting off a clamp ?

[renegadeimp]

If they LEGITIMATELY clamped your vehicle, then in law, the vehicle belongs to them until its removal and vehicle returned to you. If it wasnt clamped lawfully, then its another ball game completely.

[obiter dictum]

Just stick my nose in

 

You say a connect van is not a car

 

I am sure it is classed as a Car Derived Van (CDV) with DVLA

 

Just a guess and opinion

[brassnecked]

Just stick my nose in

 

You say a connect van is not a car

 

I am sure it is classed as a Car Derived Van (CDV) with DVLA

 

Just a guess and opinion

A connect is a van, it is over 2 tons GVW so is not a CDV like a berlingo, or nemo etc. It is also subject to the same 50mph single carriageway NSL as a Sprinter or suchlike, as is a VW Caddy.

[obiter dictum]

Thanks

 

As you can see i am no petrol head

[Peterbard]

Really doesn't mater if it as a car or van, to be exempt the goods must be essential for you to carry out your job. not just getting to work

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball,

 

 

 

am i right in saying no one has ever been convicted of stealing there own car and/or cutting off a clamp ?

 

Sorry I missed this query, I am sure there must have been cases where debtors have been arrested and charged for interfering with controlled goods.

 

The vehicle ceases to be your goods once it is taken under control, so yes removing goods under control would be theft.

[Coughdrop]

 

am i right in saying no one has ever been convicted of stealing there own car and/or cutting off a clamp ?

 

No, you're not right. However, you don't appear to be far wrong either. Pepipoo reveals a couple of cases on a very quick Google, so I'm sure there'd be more. Far more commonly people are not prosecuted for this. I don't know whether that means they're convicted of something else, or whether the vast speed of my Google search didn't show cases up given I spent about 20 seconds on it!