PCN enforcement - car clamped - Taking Control of Goods

[unclebulgaria67]

An informed reply.

 

 

That was along the same lines, as I posted earlier in the thread. If you could not afford to continue the insurance, the MOT or road tax is due to run out, as long as you notified the EA's of this in writing and gave them the opportunity to resolve, I think the Police would see that you had acted reasonably.

 

If Jacobs and other EA's are silly enough to clamp vehicles on the highway for long periods just to cause inconvenience, then they will have to deal with the problems they caused.

[rippedoffagain]

The Local Authority Ombudsman "ruled/suggested" that EA must check with DVLA before taking control. I have a PDF of the decision on my PC at home. It cost the LA several hundred quid in compo.

 

Article with PDF download

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcomes/benefits-and-tax/benefits-and-tax-archive-2005-to-date/blaby-district-council-11-007-684/

[brassnecked]

Ah yes the Blaby ruling, I feel it may be applicable but an Ombudsman's findings are not binding, so I feel that it could be used in a complaint, but even the Ombudsman says that they are watching how the new rules develop and whether their findings and the "advice" to councils and EAs is still valid.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-bailiffs/

 

Quoted:

"Change in the law - April 2014

 

On 6 April 2014 the law on how bailiffs operate underwent a major change. All enforcement agents (as bailiffs are now called)

operate under the same legislation on ‘taking control of goods’ regardless of the type of debt they collect. Any of our decisions

made or advice given before April 2014 may not be relevant to the new process."

 

so this one regarding levys on low value goods, does it still apply under TGA, where an EA clamps a banger on the highway that is worth less than the cost of the VED on its disc? (quite easy in the case of some Mondeos with a £400 or so VED cost) or a junker SORNED on a drive?

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2011/apr/ombudsman-criticises-bailiffs-practice-seizing-low-value-items-charging-fees/

 

I feel we must watch developments closely and see whare and if the old LGO findings would apply if common sense is applied, whilst remembering that common sense is out of the window when a council or an EA is after money. After all the best way to get them is if they have breached the correct procedures, as in incomplete and inaccurate Controlled Goods Order, Compliance Stage letters arriving on or after the & clear days, unrealistic payment demands in light of the debtor's circumstances etc.

[HCEOs]

To follow the Ombudsman's advice on checking with the DVLA before clamping means a minimum of two visits. One to see the vehicle and then DVLA check and once the results are back (if positive) one to go back and take control (if it's still there). Maybe the visit fee of £235 should be allowed to be charged twice if that is to be the case something that will no doubt go down like a lead balloon.

 

Further to this I would suggest that a vehicle is always 'in jeopardy' as it can easily be removed and hidden. Therefore, in my opinion it should be clamped (secured) when first seen, the DVLA check done and then possibly removed and sold once the results are in. This will come down to the EA having reasonable belief that it belongs to the debtor of course and that there is some value in it over and above the removal and auctioneers fees.

 

Of course there is also the issue of the registered keeper may not the necessarily the legal owner so this will need investigation also, possibly by way of a 3rd party claim.

 

If the DVLA allowed real time checks like the Police have then there would be far less issues in the process.

[tomtubby]

As you will know there are 'some' bailiff companies that do have the 'real time' check. The sad fact is that the use of DVLA records by bailiff companies is hopelessly flawed. There are some dreadful complaints coming forward at the moment.

 

With council tax recovery a bailiff company is not allowed to search DVLA records. Another route must be used.

 

With road traffic debts problems are ongoing and MY suggestion is that the local authority should undertake a 2nd DVLA search BEFORE applying to TEC for permission to issue a warrant. If a new address is identified at this stage..the LA would not incur the TEC fee of £7 and would be in a position to abide by sections 10.68 through to 10.70 of the Operational Guidance and to reisssue a new NtO to the new address established.

 

I included this suggestion in my response to the recent DfT and DCLG Consultation.

[HCEOs]

I am not aware of any companies with 'real time' checks but then the enforcement of LA debt is not my area of expertise.

[brassnecked]

I am not aware of any companies with 'real time' checks but then the enforcement of LA debt is not my area of expertise.

 

You can almost see a re run of the Jacobs/Volksworld VW camper scenario playing out with less happy consequences for the third party given rent a drive and parking of a commuters car ouside a debtors terraced home with only on street parking.

[rippedoffagain]

A new twist in the tale.The car remains clamped outside my house.

 

My wife (the car is registered in her name) applied for a disabled badge around three months ago, and after a lot of messing around. has today been informed that her application has been approved. She will receive her blue badge in around two weeks. So that should put her firmly in the vulnerable person category.

[brassnecked]

A new twist in the tale.The car remains clamped outside my house.

 

My wife (the car is registered in her name) applied for a disabled badge around three months ago, and after a lot of messing around. has today been informed that her application has been approved. She will receive her blue badge in around two weeks. So that should put her firmly in the vulnerable person category.

Send a photocopy of the badge to the EA company and creditor, and tell them it is in the windscreen of a clamped car,

[rippedoffagain]

Not got it yet:whoo:

[rippedoffagain]

Another new development.

 

The EA has returned and removed the clamp, but apparently not abandoned the control. I will know more when I get home.

[rippedoffagain]

The EA removed the clamp and posted a "Notice of intentention to remove goods" through my door. I have read the regulations and can see only two reasons to abandon goods.

 

wrong procedure or documentation, or failure to sell at auction.

 

Since neither apply, and the regulations state that a vehicle must be imobilised, I can only assume that removal of the clamp, to all intents and purposes, makes the control nil and void. Any thoughts?

[lookinforinfo]

Under Schedule 12 section 13 [2] it would appear that your question about responsibility is answered there

 

Any liability of an enforcement agent (including criminal liability) arising out of his securing goods on a highway under this paragraph is excluded to the extent that he acted with reasonable care.

[rippedoffagain]

Seven months on, and the LA has passed this on to another Enforcement company. Is there a time limit on the warrant?

[HCEOs]

Yes, 12 months but it can be renewed.

 

Have you made an attempt to pay by instalment arrangements?

[rippedoffagain]

Back to the pre enforcement stage, so I may make an offer!

[Coughdrop]

Back to the pre enforcement stage, so I may make an offer!

 

That would seem a sensible way forward now. Just ensure you only offer what you can sustain in the long term.