PCN enforcement - car clamped - Taking Control of Goods

[Coughdrop]

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"

 

I agree - my wording was carefully chosen. I stated they registered it as a debt, I didn't mention fines. We agree with each other!

[rippedoffagain]

So can anyone tell me what the implications might be for a key not being available for the car. Without the key the car is more or less without value.

[Coughdrop]

So can anyone tell me what the implications might be for a key not being available for the car. Without the key the car is more or less without value.

 

The implications are that without a key you can't attempt to drive it off with a wheel clamp on which would cause a lot of damage. A key is useless as long as it is clamped.

 

Are you saying nobody has a key?

[rippedoffagain]

The implications are that without a key you can't attempt to drive it off with a wheel clamp on which would cause a lot of damage. A key is useless as long as it is clamped.

 

Are you saying nobody has a key?

 

LOL. No I am saying that whenever the EA returns, no one will be at home to provide a key.

[mikeymack2002]

it will mean you get less for the car so the fees will still be the same but you will owe much more.

 

 

Have you tried talking to the EA yet to arrange something that is financially acceptable to everyone?

[rippedoffagain]

it will mean you get less for the car so the fees will still be the same but you will owe much more.

 

 

Have you tried talking to the EA yet to arrange something that is financially acceptable to everyone?

 

I try not to support the practice of legalised extortion. The people that are effected by this system are more often than not the poorest in society.

[Coughdrop]

I try not to support the practice of legalised extortion. The people that are effected by this system are more often than not the poorest in society.

 

The legalised extortion is enacted legislation. This is now the fourth time I've said that the correct way for this to be dealt with would be to let the EA's into your property, see there was insufficient value of goods there to pay, the warrant would be returned to the court and the car unclamped.

 

This is not meant as harshly as it is going to sound, but you can't not pay the PCN on one hand and then complain when it is enforced with the other. Equally, if there is a way of settling it as you possess goods of insufficient value to enforce the debt, why not take it and be done with it? It would surely be easier than entrenching yourself in an invidious position.

[brassnecked]

The legalised extortion is enacted legislation. This is now the fourth time I've said that the correct way for this to be dealt with would be to let the EA's into your property, see there was insufficient value of goods there to pay, the warrant would be returned to the court and the car unclamped.

 

This is not meant as harshly as it is going to sound, but you can't not pay the PCN on one hand and then complain when it is enforced with the other. Equally, if there is a way of settling it as you possess goods of insufficient value to enforce the debt, why not take it and be done with it? It would surely be easier than entrenching yourself in an invidious position.

 

Would I be correct in thinking then that the only fee the EA could have is the Compliance fee of £75 in that circumstance. Mind you personally I would be willing to do time for a Jacobs EA if he unlawfully clamped my car for a third party debt, I would cut his clamp of and give it back to him, and tell him to do his worst then show the proofs to plod when they turn up. It is my mission in life to get them closed down, after how they treated me, and I wasn't even the debtor, not to mention the VW camper debacle they were involved in, they have clamped seized and sold third party cars a little to eagerly in the past.

[rippedoffagain]

Would I be correct in thinking then that the only fee the EA could have is the Compliance fee of £75 in that circumstance. Mind you personally I would do time for a Jacobs EA it is my mission in life to get them closed down, after how they treated me, and I wasn't even the debtor, not to mention the VW camper debacle they were involved in.

 

I have no intention of letting them in. They would take control of anything they could, legally or otherwise. Could you imagine the grief of having them threatening forced re entry.

 

Is there a thread on the VW debacle?

[brassnecked]

I have no intention of letting them in. They would take control of anything they could, legally or otherwise. Could you imagine the grief of having them threatening forced re entry.

 

Is there a thread on the VW debacle?

 

Check Volkszone

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/archive/index.php?t-646595.html

 

They had to get the VW back at great expense to themsevles I don't suggest for one moment you interfere with the clamp on your car, but try to come to some arrangemeent, when they get shirty and nasty complain to the council under a Formal Complaint, to CEO elected leader and Ward councillor. Have you contacted your local ward councillor to tell him how the councils appointed agents are operating.

[runaround]

I have no intention of letting them in. They would take control of anything they could, legally or otherwise. Could you imagine the grief of having them threatening forced re entry.

 

Good for you. I trust you have had a bad experience?

[rippedoffagain]

Good for you. I trust you have had a bad experience?

 

You trust I have had a bad experience?

[runaround]

Fair do's. I'll change that to you've clearly had a bad experience. Me too.

[rippedoffagain]

Check Volkszone

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/archive/index.php?t-646595.html

 

They had to get the VW back at great expense to themsevles I don't suggest for one moment you interfere with the clamp on your car, but try to come to some arrangemeent, when they get shirty and nasty complain to the council under a Formal Complaint, to CEO elected leader and Ward councillor. Have you contacted your local ward councillor to tell him how the councils appointed agents are operating.

 

Not my local council. Visiting Newcastle at Christmas, hence why I didn't get a pay and display ticket. I didn't realise it was a pay and display.

[rippedoffagain]

Fair do's. I'll change that to you've clearly had a bad experience. Me too.

 

I have dealt with dozens of bailiffs over the years. The County Court variety are fine and fair, no problem. Private bailiffs are in my experience a disgrace. But no bad experiences, I generally ignore them.

[runaround]

I've only had the pleasure of Rossendales and Jacobs.

[rippedoffagain]

I've only had the pleasure of Rossendales and Jacobs.

 

I was in business 1990's and again in the mid 2000's. Had a lot of dealing with bailiffs over the years. As said, County Court are fair and professional, they don't get commission. The commercial variety seem to be filled with bullies and other such types.

[Coughdrop]

I've been reflecting on this over the course of this evening and tonight. I asked earlier about the current equivalent of an abandoned levy and was pointed to the Notice for Abandonment of Goods which must be served within "the permitted period."

 

This permitted period is an evasive little swine, but can be tracked down in Schedule 12 Part Two Paragraph 40 (5) where it states:

 

 

(5) Unless extended the permitted period is 12 months beginning with the day on which the enforcement agent takes control of the goods.

 

 

This is a mad situation as the way I read this it gives the EA free reign to deprive the OP of the vehicle for a full year. Surely this can't be correct, is it?

[tomtubby]

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

 

.

 

Section 52 & 53 of 'Schedule 12' outlines the procedure regarding 'abandonment'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

[unclebulgaria67]

.

 

Section 52 & 53 of 'Schedule 12' outlines the procedure regarding 'abandonment'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

For a vehicle of very low value which will probably be sold as scrap, does the legislation allow an EA to clamp purely to deprive an owner of its use, when there may be no current intention to sell the vehicle ?

[brassnecked]

For a vehicle of very low value which will probably be sold as scrap, does the legislation allow an EA to clamp purely to deprive an owner of its use, when there may be no current intention to sell the vehicle ?

 

UB could not one add to that that Jacobs's perverse logic of clamping a worthless (to sell) asset which effectively may prevent the debtor from working, and therefore earning monty to go towards paying the debt is disingenuous, and counter productive?

 

wonder if such a clamping if it led to job loss and then a JSA sanction by DWP for being sacked, as the work was unsociable hours, no public transport with a 2 am start and 35 mile commut, could be actionable against an EA on the ground of unreasonable and excessive enforcement such that rendered the debtor unable to discharge the debt or cover living expenses?

 

Jacobs would clamp a pushbike if they thought it would force a debtor to pay. The vehicle they clamped when they went after my car with me sat in it was worth £200 tops being a small hatchback on a 1996 plate.so clamping worthless motors is obviously standard MO for Jacobs.

[unclebulgaria67]

UB could not one add to that that Jacobs's perverse logic of clamping a worthless (to sell) asset which effectively may prevent the debtor from working, and therefore earning monty to go towards paying the debt is disingenuous, and counter productive?

 

wonder if such a clamping if it led to job loss and then a JSA sanction by DWP for being sacked, as the work was unsociable hours, no public transport with a 2 am start and 35 mile commut, could be actionable against an EA on the ground of unreasonable and excessive enforcement such that rendered the debtor unable to discharge the debt or cover living expenses?

 

Jacobs would clamp a pushbike if they thought it would force a debtor to pay. The vehicle they clamped when they went after my car with me sat in it was worth £200 tops being a small hatchback on a 1996 plate.so clamping worthless motors is obviously standard MO for Jacobs.

 

And they wonder why people cut the clamps off ?

 

At some point people will start fighting back and it will become a more dangerous world to be a bailiff. They really should think about their actions and whether they will make it easier or harder to perform their jobs in the future.

[Coughdrop]

.

 

Section 52 & 53 of 'Schedule 12' outlines the procedure regarding 'abandonment'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

Yes, that was where I looked first. That only talks about 'the prescribed period' though, it doesn't define it.

 

The only place I could find it defined was following links in the legislation through to the one arrived at mentioned above. It would be great if you're able to state a different time period, but I couldn't see one.

[HCEOs]

So I must transfer to the EA!

Just for info we have had cars that we've seized registered to us before. We just write to the DVLA who take it out of our name and put it back in the original.

 

Given this I wouldn't bother with what was suggested.

[brassnecked]

And they wonder why people cut the clamps off ?

 

At some point people will start fighting back and it will become a more dangerous world to be a bailiff. They really should think about their actions and whether they will make it easier or harder to perform their jobs in the future.

 

It shows that the Enforcement industry is a dead duck long term, direct access to bank account and a fair equitable scale of affordable deductions is key.