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

[brassnecked]

I would side with Old Bill and contend that the warrant is only valid for the address on it, and if OP or debtor has moved, the warrant is now unuseable as a licence to seize, whether at a new address or by ANPR remotely, there is a serious risk of seizure of a third party motor with ANPR

[old bill]

Jamberson... What you don't seem to understand or grasp is that a warrant of execution only entitles a bailiff to levy on/seize property at the address endorsed on the warrant.

 

When I was in the police force, when we executed search warrants, we had to check we were at the right address, the one stated on the warrant, before we effected entry. For example, if the address on the search warrant said 1, Acacia Avenue, Newtown, that is the address we, the police, were empowered to enter and search. If we effected entry to 2, Acacia Avenue, Newtown, not only were we in breach of the warrant, we were also in breach of the law, as we were not authorised, by the court, to enter and search 2, Acacia Avenue, Newtown.

 

It's exactly the same with a warrant of execution. It is only valid in respect of the person named on the warrant at the address stated on the warrant, not anywhere else or anywhere that takes a bailiff's fancy. If the person whose name is on the warrant has moved to another address by the time the bailiff arises at the address on the warrant, the bailiff is not allowed to levy on or seize any goods at that address and neither is he allowed to enter the property, even peaceably. Under those circumstances, the warrant ceases to have any effect in law whatsoever. It becomes a worthless piece of paper. Even if the bailiff does subsequently see the debtor's car at another location on their way back to the office, they cannot levy on or seize it as they have no legal authority from a court.

 

In the OP's case, in my considered judgement, JBW need to get their story straight or agree settlement terms with the OP. Because if the matter is pursued through the criminal courts, which is perfectly feasible, the court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of JBW's ANPR van. Yes, that does mean that JBW's ANPR van could end up being crushed. The courts have the power to do this where a vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime.

[brassnecked]

Why would you side with him? On what basis?

 

Are you aware that the out of time stat dec/witness statement allows provision to contest the warrant on the basis that one did not receive the correspondence - there's no such provision for contesting it on the basis that the address detail is wrong. According to the logic you side with, if one moved house, one would be contesting a warrant which isn't valid and had to be returned anyway.

 

Note too that Fair-Parking has been asked repeatedly to support this supposition with something concrete. His last comment ignored the request of course and concerned the relative roundness of a billiard ball and the Earth. What does that tell you?

You would only look to challenge a warrant if the OOT route fell through, and they continued to enforce at a new address with the original warrant for the old address.

[old bill]

I would side with Old Bill and contend that the warrant is only valid for the address on it, and if OP or debtor has moved, the warrant is now unuseable as a licence to seize, whether at a new address or by ANPR remotely, there is a serious risk of seizure of a third party motor with ANPR

 

You've hit the nail right on the head, BN. With certificated bailiffs behaving the way they do, there is a very real and serious risk of them seizing a third-party vehicle.

[Bluewednesday]

I don't think it's been first time they've caught someone using ANPR on the highway. How come nobody ever challenged their actions.

[Jamberson]

Jamberson... What you don't seem to understand or grasp is that a warrant of execution only entitles a bailiff to levy on/seize property at the address endorsed on the warrant.

 

When I was in the police force, when we executed search warrants, we had to check we were at the right address, the one stated on the warrant, before we effected entry. For example, if the address on the search warrant said 1, Acacia Avenue, Newtown, that is the address we, the police, were empowered to enter and search. If we effected entry to 2, Acacia Avenue, Newtown, not only were we in breach of the warrant, we were also in breach of the law, as we were not authorised, by the court, to enter and search 2, Acacia Avenue, Newtown.

 

It's exactly the same with a warrant of execution. It is only valid in respect of the person named on the warrant at the address stated on the warrant, not anywhere else or anywhere that takes a bailiff's fancy. If the person whose name is on the warrant has moved to another address by the time the bailiff arises at the address on the warrant, the bailiff is not allowed to levy on or seize any goods at that address and neither is he allowed to enter the property, even peaceably. Under those circumstances, the warrant ceases to have any effect in law whatsoever. It becomes a worthless piece of paper. Even if the bailiff does subsequently see the debtor's car at another location on their way back to the office, they cannot levy on or seize it as they have no legal authority from a court.

 

In the OP's case, in my considered judgement, JBW need to get their story straight or agree settlement terms with the OP. Because if the matter is pursued through the criminal courts, which is perfectly feasible, the court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of JBW's ANPR van. Yes, that does mean that JBW's ANPR van could end up being crushed. The courts have the power to do this where a vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime.

 

It's not that I don't grasp what you are saying. I do grasp it intellectually but I disagree with it in fact.

 

What the police does concerns crime and operates within a criminalised framework. These parking charges have no criminality attached and work on a different basis within a different framework. I think this confusion is illustrated by your comment "if the matter is pursued through the criminal courts". It's a different process - the recourse to justice with council-issued PCNs is the stat dec process which has no meaningful court involvement at all. That's how cases are considered and how one is compensated if wrong has been done.

 

Your middle paragraph, I almost don't know where to start. This is what I think:

"It's exactly the same with a warrant of execution. It is only valid in respect of the person named on the warrant at the address stated on the warrant, not anywhere else" - so according to you they can't clamp a car anywhere other than the address - for example, if it's on the road, six doors up. Or 10 doors up. Or 15 doors up. Or around the corner.... (Which is it, by the way?)

 

"If the person whose name is on the warrant has moved to another address by the time the bailiff arises at the address on the warrant, the bailiff is not allowed to levy on or seize any goods at that address and neither is he allowed to enter the property, even peaceably." - This is true and also irrelevant. The bailiff did not seize goods from the old address or enter the property.

"Even if the bailiff does subsequently see the debtor's car at another location on their way back to the office, they cannot levy on or seize it as they have no legal authority from a court." - They do. They have a warrant of execution. You think it is invalid, I say you are wrong and they do have authority.

[old bill]

I don't think it's been first time they've caught someone using ANPR on the highway. How come nobody ever challenged their actions.

 

Could you expand on this, please, Bluewednesday?

[Jamberson]

You would only look to challenge a warrant if the OOT route fell through

 

This shows a profound confusion. The OOT stat dec IS a challenge to the warrant. That's what it's for. You believe that one would be challenging an invalid warrant which has already been returned.

[Jamberson]

You've hit the nail right on the head, BN. With certificated bailiffs behaving the way they do, there is a very real and serious risk of them seizing a third-party vehicle.

 

Which would be a completely different ball game. They cannot take property belonging to someone else. The owner would need to show evidence that they are the owner and would be absolved. That has nothing to do with where the true debtor is living.

[caledfwlch]

Easiest way to resolve this is to contact a court tomorrow.

 

It strikes me though, as a layman, that if a Bailiff was empowered to seize a debtor's goods wherever they are, the Warrants would reflect that, by simply stating that the warrant is for Mr Smith, OF Somewhere, Newtown and any and all assets.

 

From what I understand, its possible with an addition in the Domestic Crime act, they sneaked stuff into, that a Warrant for a court FINE may give the Enforcement Officer the authority to level distress on a debtors goods wherever they may be. That does not apply to other debts though, not Council Tax, CCCJ enforcement etc, only Fines.

 

I believe a Warrant regarding fines may include the following “enter and search any premises” clearly, as this argument is showing, all other Bailiff Warrants do not have this, or it would be a case of cut and dried.

[Bluewednesday]

I will be contacting TEC tomorrow to clarify that.

 

OB, what I meant is tha tthere must have been some poor soul like me caught by ANPR van before. I am not the only one that it happened to. Did no one challege it in the cout before?

[ploddertom]

I don't thin that's right. I think he only has to do that if he wants to show up at the new address and seek to gain entry.

 

It's called "data cleansing" and is not allowed, the bailiff, his company & the LA know this but disregard on the principle the debtor does not & hey presto another result.

[ploddertom]

The problem here is that you are decalring the warrant invalid and then saying what happens if he acts on an invalid warrant. That's true - but the address situation doesn't invalidate it in my view. By your reasoning, if he had a valid warrant and saw the car 20 metres from the house, ie "at a location that is not the address endorsed on the warrant" then what can he do? Is he entitled to clamp or not? What about 10 metres? Or 50 metres? What are the facts, as you know them?

 

You have to remember that as I said earlier the Warrant of Execution empowers the Bailiff to attend the address on the Warrant to distrain on the goods of the debtor. In your observation above the Bailiff could be dealing with fire by just distraining on a vehicle - that vehicle for arguments sake could be a Bentley Convertible and the warrant value is for arguments sake £250. He runs the risk of an excessive levy as he has not been able to demonstrate he has tried to distrain on goods at the debtors address, he could lose his Certificate for doing this. It should be noted that any expensive vehicle seized by ANPR on the street or public highway could be treated as thus.

 

PT

[old bill]

You have to remember that as I said earlier the Warrant of Execution empowers the Bailiff to attend the address on the Warrant to distrain on the goods of the debtor. In your observation above the Bailiff could be dealing with fire by just distraining on a vehicle - that vehicle for arguments sake could be a Bentley Convertible and the warrant value is for arguments sake £250. He runs the risk of an excessive levy as he has not been able to demonstrate he has tried to distrain on goods at the debtors address, he could lose his Certificate for doing this. It should be noted that any expensive vehicle seized by ANPR on the street or public highway could be treated as thus.

 

PT

 

I had an awful vision of certificated bailiffs pulling a debtor from their car at traffic lights. That would be illegal and dangerous.

[seanamarts]

And OB - pulling a person out of a car by a bailiff isn't a vision, it happened to a lady on Shoreham High St, 30th January 2012 and in front of a PCSO. On 27th January 2010 a 68 yr old had his head jammed into a car door by a bailiff with two officers standing 20 yds away.

 

Blue Wednesday. This all happens because of a combination of no overall body supervising the industry and a complete indifference by those involved within it. In neither of the cases cited above did the relevant local authorities or the police give a damn.

 

Unfortunately these incidents do happen, its very wrong and makes my blood boil every time I hear of this happening.

[seanamarts]

Thread has re-opened. Posts that had no bearing on this matter have been moved to the discussion thread here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?351615-For-discussion-thread-only!-PCN-s-etc(7-Viewing)-nbsp

 

any post's that are nothing to do with this thread will be removed.

[angeljs]

Bluewednesday - have you contacted the council yet and asked that question?

No, not yet. I want to record all the phonecalls from now on now, but haven't got this option on my samsung mobile yet.

I'm not sure if you've managed this or not, but I use Skype along with a program for it called 'Pamela' that automatically records any phone calls made via Skype and you can keep the record on your PC.

 

I hope you get this sorted!

[Bluewednesday]

I managed to speak to TEC, and the lady over the phone informed me that bailiffs can clamp my car anywhere. Strange...

The lady at the Council basicly said that once the case goes to the bailiff it's up to them how they get the money (they simply don't care). When I mentioned that they are responsible for actions of their agent I was told I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm lost for words...

[seanamarts]

I would gather up all the information that you have here and send it to her, or send her a link. She may learn something, especially that the council ARE responsible for their agents actions, they employed them they deal with them.

[brassnecked]

The council CANNOT divest itself of responsibility for any action lawful or unlawful, carried out in their name by their agent the bailiff, they are subect to vicarious liability for their agents actions, and this liability is also joint and several. tell the council this.

[old bill]

I've attached an up to date copy of the MoJ National Standards for Enforcement Agents that you can email to said lady at council. I would also ask said lady at council if she would care to put what she has said into writing. Sometimes, calling their bluff can pull them up with a jolt.

 

With regard to liability, in this respect, Brassnecked has explained the situation in plain and simple terms that anyone can understand. Unless case or statute law says otherwise, the council are vicariously liable for the actions of the bailiffs. My local council were horrified when I told them about this and of the misconduct of bailiff firms. They were even more concerned when I told them the vast majority of certificated bailiffs and HCEOs aren't even CRB-checked.

 

I would also ask the TEC which legislation they are drawing their incredulous statement from. The only persons who can legitimately clamp a motor vehicle anywhere for a debt is H.M. Revenue & Customs (HMRC). However, they operate under statute. Bailiffs act under a warrant issued by a court and have to comply with the conditions of the warrant.

national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

[theoldgit]

Old Bill, I note that in The National Standards you helpfully attached that vulnerable people include the elderly and those unemployed, do you think a person over the age of 65 and not working but in receipt of the State Pension would fall into either of these categories?

 

I also note that the expression "if appropriate" is used throughout the standards, do you think this could this be used as a get out clause?

 

Keep up the good work.

[brassnecked]

I think a pensioner would come under the vulnerable category, depending ion health and icome, as the guidelines indicate "the Elderly" are "potentially vulnerable".

 

The problem is that this is open to interpretation, with no line in the sand to say exactly who is actually vulnerable.

[theoldgit]

I think a pensioner would come under the vulnerable category, depending ion health and icome, as the guidelines indicate "the Elderly" are "potentially vulnerable".

 

The problem is that this is open to interpretation, with no line in the sand to say exactly who is actually vulnerable.

 

I suspect you are right, my only worry would be that it would probably be the bailiff on the scene who would make an assessment on the vulnerability of the person.

[brassnecked]

I suspect you are right, my only worry would be that it would probably be the bailiff on the scene who would make an assessment on the vulnerability of the person.

 

The bailiff would rather no one was vulnerable, it prevents them adding fees and if there is an obvious vulnerability, they could get their backsides kicked later on when it is put before a relevant authority, or it gets in the press.

 

OP's situation is not as rare as people think, and I have no doubt that the bailiffs would have no compunction in immobilising a Motability car for a dodgy PCN for the blue badge being at 10 degrees off the correct orientation or some other ludicrous reason and leaving a wheelchair user to wheel themselves home, in flagrant breach of the regulations, when the ANPR went kerching, car being leased, and the debtor vulnerable. They would clamp first , likely ignore the disabled tax disc and carry on clamping, now there is an idea for a short documentary. Old bill and others, I 'm game to make it if you are Quick resurrect the Carry on Team, and cue Sid James as a clamper/bailiff, and Kenneth Williams as the smarmy bailiff company gaffer.

 

The problem in the situation OP found themselves would be showing evidence of vulnerability at the time the bailiff clamps, unless there is a physical evidence of a disability, say a wheelchair, zimmer, walking stick., or a handy DWP letter they happen to be carrying.

Edited May 27, 2012 by brassnecked