This morning I received an enquiry from the Metropolitan Police about the legal case of R v Ali (Bromley Magistrates Court) 2011. It would seem that a gentlemen had attended a police station in London last Friday and personally delivered a car clamp that he had removed from his vehicle following a bailiff visit earlier that morning. He also hand delivered a notice to the police to outline the reason why he had removed the clamp. The notice left was one that I had featured a copy of on another thread a while ago (details later). Given that the new regulations that were imposed on 6th April specifically state that removal of a wheel clamp without lawful authority is a criminal offence the debtor was arrested and bailed. During questioning the debtor provided another notice to the police (which I will post up later). The document (which appeared to have been obtained from the internet) is extremely worrying as it states the following: DO NOT SHOW THIS DOCUMENT TO A PROSECUTOR, IT CAN BE SHOWN TO YOUR DEFENCE SOLICITOR TO ASSIST IN PRESENTING YOUR DEFENCE TO A COURT. You have been charged with criminal damage under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for cutting off a padlock to release a wheel clamp which had been fixed to your own vehicle by a bailiff for an unpaid debt e.g. A Penalty Charge Notice. YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE Section 1 of the CDA1971 says a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another. In your case, you are excused. You had lawful authority to cut off the padlock[/u][/color] to remove the wheel clamp from your vehicle. This was the finding in the case of R. v Ali Bromley Magistrates Court [2011] on April 18 2011. The accused vehicle had been wheel clamped and was charged with Criminal Damage after he cut it off. The court decided a person removing an illegal clamp is not guilty of criminal damage because this method of distraining goods is not compliant with traffic debt enforcement regulations and procedures. This means you are a victim of unlawful enforcement action. PS: The Met Police officer said that the only reference that they could find to the case of R v Ali was that of a Court of Appeal case from 1995 regarding an appellant who had become involved in drug dealing and owed a large sum of money to his supplier. The supplier threatened that he would be killed unless he robbed a bank. Clearly this case was not the one referred to in the notice.