Disabled woman claims council bailiffs-illegally seized her car

[Peterbard]

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-03-02/disabled-woman-claims-council-bailiffs-illegally-seized-her-car/

 

A disabled driver claims police and council bailiffs may have broken the law by seizing her car after accusing her of not paying a £60 bus lane fine.

 

Blue Badge holder Cherry Clarke says she was physically removed from her Toyota Yaris by an officer before it was towed away from her home in Perry Barr in Birmingham.

 

She has now been told she has days to pay the fine, which has risen to £93, or her car - her only means of transport - will be sold to pay the debt.

 

Birmingham City Council claims it sent numerous letters to her address and that no Blue Badge was on display when the Toyota was taken.

[Peterbard]

Sorry for posting this without any comment, unexpected interruption. I will post later.

[lookinforinfo]

They say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Birmingham police appear to have that little bit of knowledge. The Council [and apparently the Police] checked that the car was not

under the Motability scheme nor was the car registered to a disabled person.

 

What they don't seem to know [though the bailiffs would] is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/regulation/4/made

(d)a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person;

 

The Police are hiding behind the forcible removal of the disabled woman [ which was apparently showing her blue badge at the time] by stating another TCOG Act

“I would like to draw your attention to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007 − Section 68(1) − ‘A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent." They also said she was removed for her own safety. I am completely at a loss to understand why she was unsafe in her own car when she wasn't driving it plus she was surrounded by three policemen. Perhaps they meant she wasn't safe from them.

 

I understand that the Council would have sent out any number of letters to the lady [who claims she never received them] but have we really got to the stage like in America where black people are being hauled out of their cars for the sake of a £90 fine?

 

I notice that there was no mention of whether anyone checked to see if the car was on finance...........................

[Peterbard]

It will be interesting to see how this case evolves over the coming weeks, I think.

[silverfox1961]

I am a little confused (nothing unusual I hear you shout). The warrant was for £97 and was executed by bailiffs. What about their fee?

 

If she actually did show her blue badge to the bailiffs AND the police, the faecal matter should surely hit the fan!

 

It's at times like this we hope someone had a body worn camera.

[brassnecked]

Most interesting, as the BB should have prevented the seizure, perhaps the EA will try to do her for obstruction on the evidence that the Police Officer pulled her from the car, as sitting in it was prima facie obstruction if they have to give the car back as a revenge.

 

The coppers seem to think the bailiffs were correct, as was said by Lookedinforinfo, a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

I home the doo doo does hit the fan on this as BCC is a Capita infested council.

[Peterbard]

I am a little confused (nothing unusual I hear you shout). The warrant was for £97 and was executed by bailiffs. What about their fee?

 

If she actually did show her blue badge to the bailiffs AND the police, the faecal matter should surely hit the fan!

 

It's at times like this we hope someone had a body worn camera.

 

Yes indeed there would have further £410 due.

Also another report says that there were three police on the scene , why ? I suggest that there is more to this than we are aware of at this point IMO.

[citizenB]

I hope we get to hear any outcome.

[Peterbard]

It seems so far the EA and the authority are both contesting any wrong doing, so it seems that there must be another view on the details of the case.

Personally i cannot imagine what it is.

[brassnecked]

It seems so far the EA and the authority are both contesting any wrong doing, so it seems that there must be another view on the details of the case.

Personally i cannot imagine what it is.

As the council is Capita infested, and the bailiff probably Equita or Ross & Roberts that of itself might be a clue.

[Bailiff Advice]

Yes indeed there would have further £410 due.

Also another report says that there were three police on the scene , why ? I suggest that there is more to this than we are aware of at this point IMO.

 

Unfortunately, as with many of these media stories, there is so much 'missing' information, the most important of which, is the absence of any mention of what happened between the first visit and the second visit.

 

The media reports are stating that her vehicle had initially been clamped last Tuesday and that she was able to get the clamp removed after making a complaint to her 'local neighbourhood council office'. Two days later, the bailiffs re-attended and this time, removed the vehicle.

 

If she had not received any prior notices then she should have submitted an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre last Tuesday (or in any event) on Wednesday.

 

There are some media stories stating that three police officers were in attendance and others stating that three police vehicles were in attendance. Give the number of messages that I have received today regarding this case, it would seem that the lady (and her husband) may well be known to the police.

 

As I have said above, there is a great deal of confusion surround the unclamping of her car on Tuesday and the reclamping and removal on Thursday.

[Peterbard]

Unfortunately, as with many of these media stories, there is so much 'missing' information, the most important of which, is the absence of any mention of what happened between the first visit and the second visit.

 

The media reports are stating that her vehicle had initially been clamped last Tuesday and that she was able to get the clamp removed after making a complaint to her 'local neighbourhood council office'. Two days later, the bailiffs re-attended and this time, removed the vehicle.

 

If she had not received any prior notices then she should have submitted an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre last Tuesday (or in any event) on Wednesday.

 

There are some media stories stating that three police officers were in attendance and others stating that three police vehicles were in attendance. Give the number of messages that I have received today regarding this case, it would seem that the lady (and her husband) may well be known to the police.

 

As I have said above, there is a great deal of confusion surround the unclamping of her car on Tuesday and the reclamping and removal on Thursday.

 

HI BA "known to the police" ?. Was this a bailiff related matter.

 

Also do we know if the blue badge was "on display" in the vehicle at the time it was taken under control in the first instance ?

[Bailiff Advice]

HI BA "known to the police" ?. Was this a bailiff related matter.

 

Also do we know if the blue badge was "on display" in the vehicle at the time it was taken under control in the first instance ?

 

According to the press reports, the lady said that the disabled Blue Badge was on display when the car was orignally clamped. If this is correct, then the vehicle was unlawfully 'taken into control'. There is a great deal of confusion. For instance:

 

Did the Blue Badge belong to her?

 

What advice was she given at the local council office (which I assume was not Birmingham City Council's offices)?

 

Who removed the clamp?

[Peterbard]

According to the press reports, the lady said that the disabled Blue Badge was on display when the car was orignally clamped. If this is correct, then the vehicle was unlawfully 'taken into control'. There is a great deal of confusion. For instance:

 

Did the Blue Badge belong to her?

 

What advice was she given at the local council office (which I assume was not Birmingham City Council's offices)?

 

Who removed the clamp?

 

I didn't read that, i understood that the blue badge was on the car when they came to take it for sale, which is a completely different thing, because taking under control. if there was no blue badge on display would be legitimate, irrespective of the debtor coming up with one at the removal for sale stage.

Why they should take it when it was produced is conjecture.

 

I wondered also about the circumstances regarding the removal of the clamp.

 

I also think that there as a reason for such a pronounced police presence, be interesting to see out what this was also

 

I think that in any case the using of force is completely against regulations whether it be by the bailiff or on behalf of the bailiff.

The act says that nothing within it permits the use of force against the person.

[wonkeydonkey]

According to the press reports, the lady said that the disabled Blue Badge was on display when the car was orignally clamped. If this is correct, then the vehicle was unlawfully 'taken into control'. There is a great deal of confusion. For instance:

 

Did the Blue Badge belong to her?

 

What advice was she given at the local council office (which I assume was not Birmingham City Council's offices)?

 

Who removed the clamp?

 

I am a blue badge holder and it is issued with the warning DO NOT leave the badge on display when the vehicle is not in use....so where does that leave people who follow the warning but get a visit from bailiffs???

[citizenB]

I am a blue badge holder and it is issued with the warning DO NOT leave the badge on display when the vehicle is not in use....so where does that leave people who follow the warning but get a visit from bailiffs???

 

I understood this to be the case as well.

[ploddertom]

There is a some misconception over who & how a car is obtained for those who are "disabled".

 

The most common form we are used to is the Motability Scheme whereby the recipient gives up their Mobility Component of DLA/PIP in order to receive & run a vehicle. With these the recipient does not receive the V5 which is retained by Motability who of course know where the vehicle resides. Any person who receives a raft of parking tickets is at risk of having their contract cancelled and the vehicle taken away.

 

Another part of the scheme is whereby Motability allow a user to take a vehicle of Hire Purchase & in this case the user will have the V5 and likely to have an exemption for VEL. Then there are those who have their own vehicle and apply to have an exemption from paying VEL.

 

As for the Blue Badge then this is person specific for use in any vehicle even if they are not the owner. There are some who think that leaving the time clock only on display is sufficient.

 

Surely in this case the EA's should have some form of photographic evidence to back up their claims?

[Peterbard]

Also the blue badge does not automatically render the vehicle exempt, it just indicates that it may be being used to transport a vulnerable or disabled person.

 

If the person it related too was not (or believed not to be)in the above category or believed not to use that car, the blue badge would not prevent action being taken

 

(d)a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person;

[Peterbard]

In any case not withstanding the above. The correct procedure would be a complaint under section 85.9 CPR after the event.

[caledfwlch]

It seems so far the EA and the authority are both contesting any wrong doing, so it seems that there must be another view on the details of the case.

Personally i cannot imagine what it is.

 

There probably is not another view on the case, Council's and EA's contest every case as a matter of principle in the hope the complainant goes away, and Council's tend to have the attitude of "we are the Council, we cannot possibly be wrong" We have seen Council's losing court and ombudsmen cases over all sorts of issues and problems where their guilt, or wrongdoing was evident, but because they know more than us, they took it all the way, costing their Taxpayers a fortune in legal costs.

 

Their might be a light in the Capita tunnel.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/02/councils-outsourcing-cumbria-public-private-partnership-in-house

 

Council's are discovering that outsourcing services is actually costing them far more than returning services inhouse. With luck, councils will start realising the same applies to council tax .

[Peterbard]

There probably is not another view on the case.

 

There i always another view. Facts that are not yet known, different opinions etc.

[brassnecked]

There i always another view. Facts that are not yet known, different opinions etc.

Most definitely there is something else here not reported.

[lookinforinfo]

My partner holds a Blue badge so I have looked at the rules relating to it.

She has her own car not under any Motability scheme but her badge is transferable to any car that she is travelling in.

In this case, it is as yet unclear whether it is the husband or the wife who owns the car .Either way, if she is not travelling in the car, the Blue badge cannot be used but from the wording of the Regulations, it would appear that the car is exempt.

Here is the wording below taken from the Schedule-

a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person;.

The Council are throwing up a smokescreen when they say that the car was not part of the Motability scheme nor was it registered as a car for a disabled person-it does not need to be to

allow its use by a Blue badge holder. The Council did know that she had a Blue badge [i am assuming that it is a genuine one] and so if there is only one car in that household then the

exemption would appear to apply.

As the Council knew that the lady has a disabled badge even though that badge would not necessarily be on display at all times, there were more than reasonable grounds for believing that

the car is used for the carriage of a disabled person. So if it were true that when the bailiffs came to seize the car that the badge was displayed then one would have thought that they and the

Police were wrong to continue the action.

On another matter, I have grave doubts about the Police manhandling the woman out of the car. If she were under arrest then you could see that the Police were justified in getting her out

that way but without an arrest how legal was it? Of course the Police would know the furore that arresting a disabled woman from her car would occur, but not arresting her has prevented

her from being able to charge them with false arrest if it transpires that the car is exempt and she had committed no offence.

 

It would be interesting to see what the EAs on here think. Was it justified to remove the car when it is known there is a person in the house who is disabled or is it a case of Bailiffs once

again pushing the boundaries of the Act.

[Peterbard]

Yes i think the key point here is whether it was reasonable to believe that the car was for the use of transporting the disabled person.

 

I think it is more reasonable to believe this if the car were on a motability scheme in her name, not that the idea should be dispensed with if she has bought the car through private financing, but it would need more investigation possibly.

 

I think many think that just presenting a blue badge makes a vehicle exempt. In fact I have seen advice which says this, it may be that it is, or it may be that it is not because it is not the blue badge on it own which renders it so.

Unfortunately we are not aware of any other matters which may shift the value of her testimony, not that there is any just theorising.

 

In any case if there is doubt it should be resolved by a section 85 claim made after the event.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

We definitely need the full story. Impossible to comment with a one sided story as there are likely other factors.

As a general rule, if a blue badge is displayed, then we dont sieze. If however, we have seized, and the debtor or a third party then grabs a blue badge from another vehicle and puts is in the seized car, then that likely wouldn't stop us.

There are 101 scenarios in reality and until the full story is known, its impossible to say who was in the wrong.