Bailiffs clamp my partners car

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Tell the police its a civil matter. You have "stolen" nothing.

 

If the police get involved they commit an offence of harbouring and assisting an offender under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

If a police officer has threatens you with arrest then you have a right to make a complaint to the IPCC for threatening or making a vexatious arrest and you can claim damages from the arresting officers chief police officer.

 

You must say nothing - silence - give a no comment interview if your hand is forced. Get represented (and show your solicitor this forum post) and ask the arresting officer for the name and address of his chief police officer.

 

You may also have a right to claim damages from the authority that instructed the bailiffs. Write everything down. Video is great so get wired for video.

 

If it is a bailiff that is threatening you with police & arrests etc, then you only need to add this to the Form 4 for misrepresenting his powers.

[tomtubby]

This is awful but is something that is happening many times a day.

 

In the first instance a Regulation 46 Complaint may be made to the Magistrates Court that issued to Laibility Order.

 

The police CANNOT arrest your partner. Also if a clamp is damaged then it is for the BAILIFF to issue CIVIL proceedings against the person who has damaged his clamp. This is NOT for the police to take on.

 

One point that is worth making here is that the levy against your partners car is the local authorities levy (the balailiff is merely acting as their agents).If police action is being instigated, I would suggest asking the police who it is who has instructed them !!!!

[rainymaggot]

partner now arrested for theft of motor vehicle!!!!!

[ambershadow]

ARRESTED????????????????? for taking back what they can't legally take

 

My god

[rainymaggot]

i know hes now been stuck in a cell for 4 hours!!!!!

im fuming now really fuming. our babies were screaming when they took him and when i said my partners cars nothing to do with MY BILL they threatened to arrest me!!!

Disgusting

Edited June 29, 2009 by rainymaggot

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I am amazed a police officer was prepared to risk his career over this. He could face an investigation by the IPCC Professional Standards department, and his cheif police officer is liable for the actions of the arresting officer. He will have an even bigger problem if the Form 4 complaint hearing finds the levy is unlawful - so make sure the council tax bill is in your name and the car (which he is accused of stealing) is in his name.

 

You might want to start making enquiries with your MP and contact the local paper, they can make a good headline from this - even if your MP doesn't tow the line.

[ambershadow]

I think Police should now be trained after this matter as to who they stick by

[rainymaggot]

Right my boyf is still locked up for stealing his own car and i have contacted my local MP my local paper and local court. I will not be bullied by the council and i will fight with every inch of myself to sort this out. I have never ever refused to pay i just couldnt pay what they were asking. He had to hand over his car key so they had better not let the bailiff take it. Im so distraght and im trying to hold myself together for my 4 children. But i will fight this as my partner is not named on any of my council accounts. Im fuming still, the police even questioned my neighbours!!!!!

God im so angry

Edited June 29, 2009 by rainymaggot

[hallowitch]

found this hope it helps regarding the bailiff clamping car

 

 

 

In the Central London County Court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

________________

[letsmakeamark]

As the police are involved do not post any further details until this has been settled. As the bailiffs will use this against you. Kent police should be ashamed of theirselves.

[ambershadow]

I can't beleive this has gone this far, Contact Tomtubby from here she will surely sort you out, But do as you have been asked and Don't post anymore on here if you need to shout use the pm facilities

[letsmakeamark]

I thought kent police were better than this. Probably a trainee or a new pc who thought let the works commence.

[ambershadow]

I thought kent police were better than this. Probably a trainee or a new pc who thought let the works commence.

 

 

This is really strange I think as when the rotter's you know who I mean??? clamped my car I called the police and the police did a search and the car waqs not in my name so they had to remove the clamp I just don't understand all this:-o

[letsmakeamark]

Unless the bailiff has tried to entrapp the op into paying more money or something.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

TT empty your PM box, I cannot reply.

[kiptower]

i did ask one of the site team to alert tomrubby to this one yesterday, and I did try to pm TT but the same as you mailbox full

[tomtubby]

TT empty your PM box, I cannot reply.

 

 

 

Done ...

[letsmakeamark]

I really can not believe kent police are doing this. what a pizza take.

[g4r3th]

any news?

[rainymaggot]

Hello all,

 

sorry to say this is still going on.... the police have now said its not a police matter and handed back my partners car key but the council are still pursuing after my partners car. I wrote a form 4 complaint which has gone to court and i have got to attend court about the bailiff. He is lying through his teeth saying that i am trying to deceive the court and saying my partners car is jointly owned by us both!!! I have my local mp on side and the council will not respond to them. The government ombudsman said they cannot take my partners car for my debt. I have set up a standing order to pay the council direct but not until the end of the week. If the council cannot levy my partners car why are they so adament that they can????

 

Any advice for me would be greatly appreciated.. Thanks

[letsmakeamark]

Which court is the bailiff certificated ?

[rainymaggot]

Medway

[rainymaggot]

A bailiff turned up at my door yesterday asking for £900 saying he knows nothing about the car he doesnt want my partners car hes just been asked to collect the money!!! Mr nice guy!!!

Why is he coming round if the council still want my partners car??

 

Something fishy is going on....

 

He basically said i should pay £100 a month and drop the court case as i wont win

 

Also he said if i dont pay in 5 days he will make arrangements for gaining entry.

 

Are the bailiffs allowed to come round when there is a court case going on??

[letsmakeamark]

He can make whatever arrangements he wants to. Just keep on recording their visits.

[rainymaggot]

Sorry me again,

 

could someone tell me if the council have to take back the debt if i pay them direct please?

 

Thanks