Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 280 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

Hoping for some advice.....

 

Had my car clamped this morning for an unpaid parking ticket.

 

The car itself is on finance, so when I told the bailiff this he said he was immobilising the car instead.

He's acknowledging that they can't remove or sell the car, but says immobilising it is fine. His paperwork states he has taken control of it, though he says that telling me he's changed that to just immobilising it is enough.

 

Surely he shouldn't have immobilised it in the first place, it's not my property, though it is the car mentioned in the paperwork for the PCN.

 

He's adamant I have to pay the clamping fees to get my car released - is he correct?

 

I'm of the opinion he should never have taken control of it in the first place, as it's on finance. He hadn't checked before he clamped it, he's admitted that - though he says he's still entitled to clamp it.

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of Finqance,? HP PCP, Lease


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 OTHER

 

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

The fine element is £188 - he's charged an additional £75, and £235 enforcement fee.

 

He's saying he would have charged that whatever had happened, ie just for visiting.

 

If he hadn't clamped my car, would he be able to do that, ie are the fees for the visit, or clamping? That's what I'm also interested in.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his fees are ok

the fact he's immobilised it is ok too [no fees]

 

bailiff advice has a info thread here on this .

 

when did you get the notice of enforcement?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read up, seems like I'll just have pay up, and look happy.

One to chalk down to experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fine element is £188 - he's charged an additional £75, and £235 enforcement fee.

 

He's saying he would have charged that whatever had happened, ie just for visiting.

 

If he hadn't clamped my car, would he be able to do that, ie are the fees for the visit, or clamping? That's what I'm also interested in.

 

Cheers

 

The fees are absolutely correct I'm afraid and would have been the same whether the car had been clamped or not. Any reason why you did not pay at the 'Compliance' stage when the bailiff fees were just £75?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/schedule/made?view=plain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one going to comment about the car being on finance and what the EA will do if you refuse to pay? Just playing devils advocate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one going to comment about the car being on finance and what the EA will do if you refuse to pay? Just playing devils advocate.....

 

Seems uncertain, I believe there was a judgement supporting the bailiffs position to clamp/seize a car under hire purchase, something to do with "beneficial interest", I've also read a judgment (don't have it to hand) that supports such vehicles cannot be seized, I'm not aware of any case law though.

 

A lot of HP agreements include a clause that states you default/breach the agreement if the vehicle is seized by police, DVLA, or if they become controlled goods by an enforcement agent, so there could be ramifications under the HP agreement if a vehicle is seized and the finance company become aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, most HP and Finance agreements also contain a clause that it will be a breach of the agreement if 'fines or penalties' are not paid.

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the helpful input folks.

 

My main concern is that the EA can't return and clamp a different car, as I have another registered to my name - hence why I wasn't too worried about one being clamped, from a transport point of view at least.

 

It's not worth over £1350, so I should be ok? I can't pay the full amount for 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not worth over £1350, so I should be ok?

 

 

Only if it is essential for your employment otherwise it can be seized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one going to comment about the car being on finance and what the EA will do if you refuse to pay? Just playing devils advocate.....

 

Yes.

 

The facts are, that HP cars can be seized. The bailiffs decision is generally down to the creditor and if he will cooperate in any sale.

They in turn will make there decision based on policy, or just the amount of equity left on the agreement.

Most just leave it, but by no means all.

Sorry no yes or no answer.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry you are completely wrong. Vehicle subject to undischarged finance cannot be seized, and cannot be clamped. This has already been decided. I think the advice you have given is your personal view and interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D00CL916 NATHAN OKI- V- LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK & LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON & NEWLYN PLC Case of HP by HHJ Wulwik costs against Newlyn Totaling 5k, with further sums to be assessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BailiffCo's were emboldened by a CC decision that a Judge ruled that there could be a Beneficial Interest in a vehicle similar to equity in a property, so many chanced their arm with cars on HP especially those where the Finance Co needed a court order to repossess. This thread from 2015 explores this concept https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest


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 OTHER

 

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

A Circuit Court decision (which this case was), whilst persuasive, is not legally binding. Another point is that a vehicle subject to finance can still be 'taken into control'. There is no doubt about this at all.

 

Lastly, another point that seems to be overlooked is that if the vehicle were removed, it would be for the 'third party' (in other words, the finance company) to issue a Part 85 Claim. It should not be for the hirer to issue proceedings.

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...