Car clamped on public road by JBW for old pcn **WON**

[Fair-Parking]

Because his company will have received an electronic batch of hundreds of names, addresses and registration numbers (but not printed warrants) which in turn they simply feed into the computers of their ANPR equipped bailiffs. Yes there is indeed a major data protection issue. If the bailiff had a printed warrant then he would have no reason not to have attended the OP's property. The car registration number he caught was just a random one of up to 150,000 on his computer (source - Marstons bailiff cross examined in a witness box by HHJ Cryan in June 2011).

[Jamberson]

So we might assume that

- The warrant was applied for by the council?

- It was granted by TEC?

- Details were forwarded to the bailiff?

 

What's the issue then - just lack of a print-out?

[Bluewednesday]

Jamberson, how can I prove he didn't have a warrant of execution, or if there was one?

The bailiff didn't attend my address as they had old address details.

 

I don't know if it's relevant but I just found out the bailiff is certified to Newlyn, and the paperwork he helf when we paid was JBW.

[Fair-Parking]

From that we can be sure that he never showed a warrant. The change of address required a fresh warrant with the new address to be issued.

Your recourse may be to claim this back through the small claims court though an out of time stat dec might help.

[Jamberson]

The change of address required a fresh warrant with the new address to be issued.

 

So now you are saying that a warrant WAS issued, but that the address detail is out of date?

 

It's dangerous to advise someone that the bailiff doesn't have a warrant if they do, and you need to be certain.

 

There is the issue of whether it is valid - ie, can it be enforced now that the OP has moved. It's a grey area and I think it can as the car is not at the address it is outside on the road and fair game. Others may disagree. I don't think there is any definite answer to that, but the safest way is to assume the warrant is valid, and tackle the issue from that point of view.

[Fair-Parking]

I suggest that you read what I have written rather than assuming that I have written something which you hope I may have written in order to elevate your own argument. CPR 75 7 7 states 'Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the authority may request the reissue of the warrant by filing a request -'...... The irony is that no warrant was issued at all in this case. From this it can be seen that a valid warrant can only be enforced at the address written on it - hence that renders all ANPR as being unlawful and thats before the data protection issues.

 

It might be easier to make a judgement on a warrant that has been produced rather than on one which owes its 'validity' to smoke and mirrors. The bailiff should carried it with him as required TEC court rule 9.22.

 

Now why would any bailiff not produce the one document which would confirm unimpeachable authority if he had it with him?

[brassnecked]

So now you are saying that a warrant WAS issued, but that the address detail is out of date?

 

It's dangerous to advise someone that the bailiff doesn't have a warrant if they do, and you need to be certain.

 

There is the issue of whether it is valid - ie, can it be enforced now that the OP has moved. It's a grey area and I think it can as the car is not at the address it is outside on the road and fair game. Others may disagree. I don't think there is any definite answer to that, but the safest way is to assume the warrant is valid, and tackle the issue from that point of view.

 

There is a problem inherent in this, and that is if your viewpoint is correct, and say OP had sold the car, and the DVLA hadn't changed the keeper details yet, and even if they had, it would still be the old RK on the bailiffs ANPR, an innocent party would be forced by JBW to cough up, and they wouldn't care that they were not the debtor. A warrant should be served at a valid address for fairness.

[Bluewednesday]

He did not show any warrant, and was also informed that the address he has is out of date. His notice of ceizure of goods given to us aferwards has an old address on it.

[brassnecked]

He did not show any warrant, and was also informed that the address he has is out of date. His notice of ceizure of goods given to us aferwards has an old address on it.

 

I would consider the warrant unlawful, as the incorrect address is shown, you could have sold the car, and if this procedure was correct, the bailiff would then have clamped a motor unlawfully on merely ANPR data. But there are others far more knowledgeable than me

Edited May 21, 2012 by brassnecked

[Tim Deegan]

This is just flatly false. It doesn't matter why the owner did not get the correspondence. The fact that she didn't is all that is important. It could be her fault, it could be someone else's - it's irrelevant.

 

You are completely missing my point. If it goes to court and the OP didn't receive the correspondence because the council/court/bailifs simply recorded the address wrongly, then it isn't the OP's fault that they didn't receive the correspondence. However as it is because the OP hadn't informed the DVLA as they must do by law, then the council/court/bailifs sent correspondence to the OP at the legally registered address.

 

However what is interesting is the fact that the bailif followed the OP to the school. Now if they live in a small town or village, then the bailif may have just guessed that they might turn up at that school. But if he had found out the new address, and followed them from there, then obviously the bailif had the correct address, so there was no excuse not to send copies of all correspondence to the new address.

 

Now I'm no legal eagle, but the way I understand it is that the bailifs needed a court order to clamp the car. And that once this court order if given, then they can clamp the vehicle wherever they find it.

[Fair-Parking]

Spot on BN - Happens all the time. I probably get at least one person every week having their new car sseized by bailiffs for PCNs that are nothing to do them. Its not the DVLA which needs updating, that has usually already occured, it the bailiffs computer which is lacking updates much against Section 20 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It also requires a certain amount of intelligence which is sadly lacking in many bailiffs.

 

I have a letter on my desk from Task Enforcement (NSL) which actually states in relation to the taking of a car from a person whose name is not on the warrant that they require a 'signed authority from the persion named on the warrant in order to correspond with yourselves'. Too stupid to know just how stupid they are.

 

a) It is precisely because the name of the person who owns the car is not on the warrant that this foolish company should never have taken it

 

b) They are not being asked to correspond with anybody.They are being asked to return the car.

 

Sometimes its hard to think down to their levels.

 

For the OP your story as it unravels it is consistent with the fact that the bailiff never had a warrant. As I say try a stat dec first

[Bluewednesday]

No, I don't think I was followed to school. He must have used ANPR data.

[Jamberson]

The irony is that no warrant was issued at all in this case.

 

OK, so I'll ask you again to back that statement up. How do you know that?

[Jamberson]

You are completely missing my point. If it goes to court and the OP didn't receive the correspondence because the council/court/bailifs simply recorded the address wrongly, then it isn't the OP's fault that they didn't receive the correspondence. However as it is because the OP hadn't informed the DVLA as they must do by law, then the council/court/bailifs sent correspondence to the OP at the legally registered address.

 

Now I'm no legal eagle, but the way I understand it is that the bailifs needed a court order to clamp the car. And that once this court order if given, then they can clamp the vehicle wherever they find it.

 

First, it will not go to court. There is no mechanism for that.

 

Second, as I said, it is immaterial why the correspondence was not received. I can see whose fault it would be, but it's irrelevant to the statutory declaration procedure.

 

And last, not a court order, a warrant of exectution, which they have (I believe).

[Bluewednesday]

So far I have:

done out of time declaration with TEC

asked JBW for breakdown of charges

asked JBW to confirm that the BAiliff is certified to work for them (I know he isn't)

asked Barking&Dagenham Council if they have a contract with JBW and if they allow subcontracting

asked for a chargeback over the phone (but refused, so will write a letter)

 

Thanks everyone for your feedback, it is really helpful.

[Jamberson]

So far I have:

done out of time declaration with TEC

asked JBW for breakdown of charges

asked JBW to confirm that the BAiliff is certified to work for them (I know he isn't)

asked Barking&Dagenham Council if they have a contract with JBW and if they allow subcontracting

asked for a chargeback over the phone (but refused, so will write a letter)

 

Thanks everyone for your feedback, it is really helpful.

 

Absolutely the right thing to do.

[Bluewednesday]

Second, as I said, it is immaterial why the correspondence was not received. I can see whose fault it would be, but it's irrelevant to the statutory declaration procedure.

 

Jamberson, how do you know it's irrelevant why the correspondence was not received? If that's the case they would have to accept my declaration. I have also e-mailed to TEC copy of Council Tax (it is dated March this year though), and a copy of an invoice that is dated December 2011. All show my current address.

[Bluewednesday]

Just a thought...Could I ask for a copy of the warrant now, or is it too late?

[Jamberson]

Jamberson - the whole purpose of arguing that CPR 75 4 has any validity is that those who do use the argument are trying to say that it allows the bailiff to issue the warrant after receiving details electronically. The only way a local authority can argue that is to admit that it never issued the warrant. When bailiffs and local authorities try to argue that both parties can issue a warrant, it ends in the Whitehall Theatre scenario and is very expensive.

 

My question was how you know that there was not a warrant issued in this case.

[Jamberson]

You must be adopting the SEP approach to this.

 

In short because it ain't anywhere to be seen.

 

Our court civil courts decide cases to a level of proof that is reliant on the 'balance of probabilties'. Applied to this case what do you think a court might decide on the existence of the 'warrant'?

 

If you want to believe the warrants exists then that is up to you, but at some stage you'll have to focus on why like a will o the wisp it remains elusive when every opportunity has existed to produce it.

 

Thers is nothing so elusive as things which do not exist.

 

So if I understand your line of argument, the reason you can say with total assurance, as you did for example in post 31, and I quote, "No warrant was issued at all in this case" - is because you've not seen it yet?

 

Your remark about what a court would believe on balance is academic. This is the real world and there isn't a court and there isn't anyone there to believe or disbelieve it. That's just from your imagination and a lot of good it will do the OP if he wakes up and finds his car has been towed to the pound.

 

By the way, just to clarify, I do not believe a warrant definitely exists, and I have never asserted it. That's why I asked you three times to explain - you might be right, I don't know, but if your certainty is based just on the warrant not having been seen yet, then I think you are guessing rather than knowing.

 

It's no issue unless the OP decides to act on your comments, but as he's already gone down the stat dec route, I hope that will sort the issue out for him.

[brassnecked]

My question was how you know that there was not a warrant issued in this case.

 

Looking at what OP has posted, along with other comments regarding custom and practice v the regulations, there is no evidence extant that in this case like many others an actual printed warrant, existed or indeed still exists. It would be invalid anyway as the address would be incorrect imho.

[Bluewednesday]

I don't think there was a warrant because:

1) he didn't show one

2) the case was dealt by JBW, but the bailiff is employed by Newlyn. So what is the probability that he was carrying a warrant that was not being dealt with by his emplyer?

 

I am assuming he is employed by Newlyn as he texted me his certificate date and its date is the same as on the HMCS website, and the employer on the website shows as Newlyn.

I have also texeted the bailiff today to confirm who his employer is, but no reply so far.

[Tim Deegan]

First, it will not go to court. There is no mechanism for that.

 

Second, as I said, it is immaterial why the correspondence was not received. I can see whose fault it would be, but it's irrelevant to the statutory declaration procedure.

 

And last, not a court order, a warrant of exectution, which they have (I believe).

 

What if the OP takes it to small claims court?

[brassnecked]

What if the OP takes it to small claims court?

 

That is an entirely different issue. but would be an option for Op along with others.

[Bluewednesday]

Fair-Parking, I have paid them, so I got my car. I am now trying to recover the money. I had no choice but to pay. The Bailiff said we had 5 minutes or the track is on its way to remove the car. It was first time we were dealing with bailiffs, and had no idea he should be carrying a warrant with him. Plus my husband was on his way to pick up my son from nursery, so there was a bit of a panic.