PCN enforcement - car clamped - Taking Control of Goods

[wonkeydonkey]

I would think there is nothing to stop me transferring "Registered Keeper" to a motor dealer (friend). Not to try to remove control, or change ownership. Just to comply with continuous insurance legislation.

 

Motor traders - exceptions

 

If a vehicle is between registered keepers or registered as ‘in trade’ with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), it is excluded from continuous insurance enforcement.

 

But your vehicle was not between registered keepers at the time it was taken into control and you would be getting into deeper water if you attempt to claim it was.

[rippedoffagain]

If the car is not clamped, it might just be easier to remove it somewhere off road and if you want to SORN/cancel the insurance, you can do so.

 

I suspect that the EA is not really interested in the car. It is being used to try to make you come to a payment arrangement.

 

It is clamped.

[rippedoffagain]

But your vehicle was not between registered keepers at the time it was taken into control and you would be getting into deeper water if you attempt to claim it was.

 

Transferring the keeper would have no effect on the EA, he has taken control and clamped. This is just about responsibility for insurance.

 

For arguments sake, lets say the EA turns up with a tow truck tomorrow and moves the car to some location that I am not aware of, and leaves it parked on the highway. Say outside an auctioneers. The car has gone, and I therefore cancel the insurance. The police then discover the car parked on the highway. Am I then still liable?

[Coughdrop]

But your vehicle was not between registered keepers at the time it was taken into control and you would be getting into deeper water if you attempt to claim it was.

 

Absolutely right Wonkeydonkey. The car is now bound. In fact, off the top of my head, Schedule 12 Section 4 is entitled "Binding goods of debtors". By changing RK you would be acting unlawfully, no matter why you are doing it. I appreciate it is not changing legal ownership, but nevertheless it is wrong.

[Coughdrop]

Transferring the keeper would have no effect on the EA, he has taken control and clamped. This is just about responsibility for insurance.

 

For arguments sake, lets say the EA turns up with a tow truck tomorrow and moves the car to some location that I am not aware of, and leaves it parked on the highway. Say outside an auctioneers. The car has gone, and I therefore cancel the insurance. The police then discover the car parked on the highway. Am I then still liable?

 

Yes.

 

The only thing you would not be liable for is any damage caused to your vehicle by the EA or removal company.

[rippedoffagain]

Just a Sunday morning debate!

 

The point is that the EA could leave the car on the road outside my house indefinitely. There must or should be some procedure for removing responsibility from me.

[brassnecked]

Just a Sunday morning debate!

 

The point is that the EA could leave the car on the road outside my house indefinitely. There must or should be some procedure for removing responsibility from me.

As it is Jacobs, and I have seen their MO, they could leave it clamped for a month or two, the one they clamped when they tried to seize my car with me sat it it, was clamped for a month or so.

[rippedoffagain]

I need a car for work, so my employer will sort me out another, but not as a company car. So I will need to insure a different car.

[unclebulgaria67]

I need a car for work, so my employer will sort me out another, but not as a company car. So I will need to insure a different car.

 

I still think that Jacobs have a responsibility for the car, as they are in control of it.

 

If you cannot afford to keep insurance on the car, it is up to Jacobs to take it off the road or remove the clamp so you can do this.

 

Suggest that speak to Jacobs about this and at the same time see if they are interested in a payment arrangement which you can afford. I would suggest that you record the conversation. If Jacobs are not helpful, make a complaint to the council.

[Coughdrop]

I still think that Jacobs have a responsibility for the car, as they are in control of it.

 

If you cannot afford to keep insurance on the car, it is up to Jacobs to take it off the road or remove the clamp so you can do this.

 

Suggest that speak to Jacobs about this and at the same time see if they are interested in a payment arrangement which you can afford. I would suggest that you record the conversation. If Jacobs are not helpful, make a complaint to the council.

 

It is NOT up to Jacobs to take it off the road (though there must surely be some sort of time limit - I'm not aware of what this is, if it exists, without ploughing through the legislation which I'm not inclined to do this minute). Jacobs have taken control of the vehicle, not ownership. The OP needs, and I think this is the third time I've said it, to engage with the EA's, let them see they don't have goods of sufficient value to repay the debt so the warrant goes back to court and the car is unclamped.

 

If the debtor is not prepared to do this, they only have themselves to blame. I know this sounds harsh, but you can't not pay a fine and then complain about the consequences of your actions, especially where there is a solution which you are willfully refusing to take.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Coughdrop
typos

[rippedoffagain]

It is NOT up to Jacobs to take it off the road (though there must surely be some sort of time limit - I'm not aware of what this is, if it exists, without ploughing through the legislation which I'm not inclined to do this minute). Jacobs have taken control of the vehicle, not ownership. The OP needs, and I think this is the third time I've said it, to engage with the EA's, let them see they don't have goods of sufficient value to repay the debt so the warrant goes back to court and the car is unclamped.

 

If the debtor is not prepared to do this, they only have themselves to blame. I know this sounds harsh, but you can't not pay a fine and then complain about the consequences of your actions, especially where there is a solution which you are willfully refusing to take.

 

Unless I am completely misinformed, This is not a fine. It is a penalty which is now being enforced. It is a County Court action, for breach of contract. I parked in a council car park, and forgot to get a ticket. If I wrong in this, I stand to be corrected.

[unclebulgaria67]

It is NOT up to Jacobs to take it off the road (though there must surely be some sort of time limit - I'm not aware of what this is, if it exists, without ploughing through the legislation which I'm not inclined to do this minute). Jacobs have taken control of the vehicle, not ownership. The OP needs, and I think this is the third time I've said it, to engage with the EA's, let them see they don't have goods of sufficient value to repay the debt so the warrant goes back to court and the car is unclamped.

 

If the debtor is not prepared to do this, they only have themselves to blame. I know this sounds harsh, but you can't not pay a fine and then complain about the consequences of your actions, especially where there is a solution which you are willfully refusing to take.

 

Of course Jacobs have responsibility for the car that is clamped on a highway. If this were not the case, Jacobs could park the car in place which presents a hazard, someone gets killed as a result and Jacobs could point to legislation saying that they had no liability, take it up with the owner.

 

Whoever has 'control' over a vehicle would be responsible. The only people who could remove the car at the moment, due to the clamp would be Jacobs. It does not need a rocket scientist to work that one out.

[josephbloggs]

Unless I am completely misinformed, This is not a fine. It is a penalty which is now being enforced. It is a County Court action, for breach of contract. I parked in a council car park, and forgot to get a ticket. If I wrong in this, I stand to be corrected.

 

Then you are mis-informed, because the scenario you quote refers to private parking companies not local authority penalty charge notices.

[Coughdrop]

I don't believe I said what you appear to think.

 

Nobody would condone them parking it in a place which presents a hazard. I think one has to exercise a degree of common sense. It doesn't need a rocket scientist to work that one out either, but let's not let this degenerate into a slanging match. I'm just going to check some legislation!

[rippedoffagain]

Then you are mis-informed, because the scenario you quote refers to private parking companies not local authority penalty charge notices.

 

It is my understanding that a fine is imposed for committing an offence, or crime, and is imposed by a Magistrate or Judge, and would be enforced in a far more aggressive fashion. Whereas a penalty is a civil matter and is dealt with in Count Court. Have I committed a crime?

[Coughdrop]

Unless I am completely misinformed, This is not a fine. It is a penalty which is now being enforced. It is a County Court action, for breach of contract. I parked in a council car park, and forgot to get a ticket. If I wrong in this, I stand to be corrected.

 

No, you are right re the county court. However, when registered with the TEC it is registered as a debt. This can then be enforced through the county court.

 

Apologies for any misunderstanding.

[rippedoffagain]

No, you are right re the county court. However, when registered with the TEC it is registered as a debt. This can then be enforced through the county court.

 

Apologies for any misunderstanding.

 

Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), is a registration point for local authorities (LAs) that have de-criminalised on-street parking charges. De-criminalised. Not a fine.

 

This is an important point, as I have complained to the City Council for the EA specific use of the word "fine"

Edited July 6, 2014 by rippedoffagain
added

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't believe I said what you appear to think.

 

Nobody would condone them parking it in a place which presents a hazard. I think one has to exercise a degree of common sense. It doesn't need a rocket scientist to work that one out either, but let's not let this degenerate into a slanging match. I'm just going to check some legislation!

 

No intention of a slanging match.

 

This is grey area stuff, but is important. There will be situations where vehicles are seized and clamped on highways. In some cases the car owner won't be able to continue paying for insurance and they may ask what they can do. It would be sensible in my opinion for the car owner to alert the EA who had clamped the car that the insurance on the car could not be maintained, so they would need to do something about the car. The owner of the car could not do anything, as it was clamped.

 

The council concerned are responsible for the PCN and bailiff actions. If bailiffs are not being reasonable, the OP should speak to the council.

[rippedoffagain]

No intention of a slanging match.

 

This is grey area stuff, but is important. There will be situations where vehicles are seized and clamped on highways. In some cases the car owner won't be able to continue paying for insurance and they may ask what they can do. It would be sensible in my opinion for the car owner to alert the EA who had clamped the car that the insurance on the car could not be maintained, so they would need to do something about the car. The owner of the car could not do anything, as it was clamped.

 

The council concerned are responsible for the PCN and bailiff actions. If bailiffs are not being reasonable, the OP should speak to the council.

 

Exactly so. They can take the car or not, I don't care. But to use clamping as a means not to seize and sell, but to deprive the owner of it's use, is in my opinion, misuse of their powers.

[Coughdrop]

When we used to have a levy, there was such a thing as an abandoned levy. What is the equivalent under the reforms?

[unclebulgaria67]

Exactly so. They can take the car or not, I don't care. But to use clamping as a means not to seize and sell, but to deprive the owner of it's use, is in my opinion, misuse of their powers.

 

That is a really good question. Something that hopefully someone will take up with the relevant government departments.

 

I don't think there was any intention within the new laws for EA's to clamp purely to deprive owners of a vehicles use. It is supposed to be about seizing to sell if necessary.

[Coughdrop]

Possibly a complaints procedure with a view to going to the LGO? Views invited.

[josephbloggs]

When we used to have a levy, there was such a thing as an abandoned levy. What is the equivalent under the reforms?

 

notice of abandonment - prescribed form

[rippedoffagain]

Interestingly, there should be no reason for EA not to remove the vehicle for auction within the week. If it were to remain clamped outside my home for more than that long, it would be clear evidence that the EA is indeed using a clamp to deprive use.

 

I can feel another complaint to Newcastle City Council coming on.

[josephbloggs]

Interestingly, there should be no reason for EA not to remove the vehicle for auction within the week. If it were to remain clamped outside my home for more than that long, it would be clear evidence that the EA is indeed using a clamp to deprive use.

 

When the vehicle was clamped, the EA would of written the prescribed forms "Warning of immobilisation" & "Notice after entry or taking control of goods (on a highway) and inventory of goods taken into control"

 

The notice after entry states on page 2 - "the goods will be released on payment in full of the sum outstanding."

 

On page 3 it says - "if you do not pay or do not agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent they may remove any goods they have taken into control to sell or secure them to sell on site."

 

It does not specify a period of time that a vehicle has to be clamped so I do not believe you have an argument or evidence that the EA is indeed using a clamp to deprive use, because the goods are in their control.

 

Should they choose to remove it they will issue you a "notice that goods have been removed for storage or sale." (you will also be charged £110.)

 

If you are still refusing to pay what you owe, and the EA decides your vehicle is insufficient to clear the debt, the clamp will be removed and you will be issued a "notice of abandonment" and goods will be placed back into your control.