Clamped on home property, bailff left.

[wales01man]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

What evidence is there that the OP removed the clamp? In temper he could have said to police he removed it was this a written and recorded in a formal interview?

I always thought you were innocent until PROVEN Guilty in a Court

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

What evidence is there that the OP removed the clamp? In temper he could have said to police he removed it was this a written and recorded in a formal interview?

I always thought you were innocent until PROVEN Guilty in a Court

Da dutti Babylon will charge first ask questiions later, but if EA caslled police and Op admitted it, the Interfering with controlled Goods Offence is a Strict Liability offence so needs no Mens Rea or guilty mind to ground it. see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...%28criminal%29

The problem with this one is if an innocent third party is clamped even though they are nothing to do with the debt n per se ab initio, if they remove the clamp from their vehicle, they are guilty of the offence so can be done win win for EA and babylon, hooray a crime cleared up an incorrigible rogue given a heavy financial penalty for removing a clamp from a car that has nothing to do with the debtor (not) It needs testing in court regarding third parties who are unaware of the interpleader and proving ownership to the EA who wrongly clamped a third party car, as in the commuter who habitually parks outside a debtor's house getting clamped as the EA saw the car there on an almost daily basis.

That offence takes no reasonable account of an innocents lack of knowledge of TCGA provisions and the exiting new offences contained within, being Strict Liability the removal of the clamp, the actus reus, the criminal act, is sufficient to infer and establish guilt whatever the status of the person removing the clamp. This is at direct odds with the civil Tort Interference with goods, which may well be a defence otherwise.

[wales01man]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

As Mr Bumble says " The Law is an ASS"

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

As Mr Bumble says " The Law is an ASS"

Absolutely Wales. The Criminal Justice system is becoming more perverse and riddled with Common Purpose at the expense of Common Sense daily.

As it stands with that Interfereing with Controlled goods offence, it is a trap for innocent third parties to be criminalised, as they are guilty even though the EA has taken control of goods not belonging to the debtor if they remove a clamp, after they have provided adequate proof, and the EA refuses to remove the clamp, so at that point they resort to the angle grinder.

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

I see in this case the vehicle concerned was a van & the OP claims it should not have been clamped but has not explained why. If there was a valid reason then the Bailiff should have unclamped. If just because he removed the clamp because he thought he should just do it then in some respects he has to take what is coming.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

I see in this case the vehicle concerned was a van & the OP claims it should not have been clamped but has not explained why. If there was a valid reason then the Bailiff should have unclamped. If just because he removed the clamp because he thought he should just do it then in some respects he has to take what is coming.

If it was a liveried company van, then there is no excuse for an EA not to knock on the door, although I suspect it is a plain white one. If it was say a hire van and the EA refused to remove the clamp, then it would look bad from an ethical standpoint for the EA if someone from XYZ hire came along and cut off the clamp, and the EA tried to get them done for Interfering with Controlled goods, the press would have a field day.

As it is it looks like OP can only try to plead mitigating circumstances.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The van is used for work. Not sign written.

As it is unlawful for an EA to clamp a vehicle used for business the do I not have a lawful excuse to remove the clamp?

And you are right, he should have knocked my door rather than do the hit and run job he did. I could have shown him my insurance documents proving commercial cover but I wouldn't trust an EA as far as I could throw him. Seen videos on YouTube of them shoving feet in doors etc.

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The van is used for work. Not sign written.

As it is unlawful for an EA to clamp a vehicle used for business the do I not have a lawful excuse to remove the clamp?

And you are right, he should have knocked my door rather than do the hit and run job he did. I could have shown him my insurance documents proving commercial cover but I wouldn't trust an EA as far as I could throw him. Seen videos on YouTube of them shoving feet in doors etc.

If the van is worth more than £1350, and not on HP or lease, then under the new regs since April 2014, it would be fair game as the total value of all the tools must not exceed £1350, so if you had hand tools worth £1350, and a van worth 1350, either the van or the hand tools could be taken.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Van is worth way in excess of £1350 so what does that mean exactly? So way over £1350 he had the right to clamp it?

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Not wanting to pry but what line of work are you in & what would you need to carry? Just a genealisation will do.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Not wanting to pry but what line of work are you in & what would you need to carry? Just a genealisation will do.

Forgive me but I'm keeping my cards close to my chest. I can well imagine there's a lot of lowlife scouring this site so I best not mention the work thing.

Just had a development with the council during a phone call and I will update everything that happened start to finish once my case is heard in court.

[Guest]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

Regardless of whether he could have lawfully clamped the vehicle, he should have consulted the OP to ascertain if the van was on lease, on hire, on HP, used for connection with work for the emergency services or whether there was any other reason to make it exempt. The charge for this visit was a mandatory £235. The figure is so high, because it allows for some time spent with the debtor to ascertain the above and also to try to arrange a way of repaying the debt that is mutually acceptable to both parties. The figure is NOT set so high, purely and simply to allow the bailiff higher commission for doing as little work and spending as little time at the property as possible.

I would add that the bailiff and indeed the council should be bought to task to explain why this vehicle was clamped without the bailiff even bothering to knock the door. Why was a CGA not considered? Why was the vehicle clamped without the debtor being invited to enter into a CGA? As the vehicle is clearly a work vehicle, there needs to be good reason to clamp before even exploring the possibility of a CGA and the council need to explain why they are permitting their agents to do so. In the case of outstanding court fines, forced entry is permissible but it is never carried out on the first visit, just as immobilising vehicles should not be done initially-Especially when the bailiff has not even spoken to the debtor.

[ploddertom]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

There is fault on all sides here. The EA and/or Council not bothering to enquire as to vehicle status. The OP for cutting off the clamp if he clearly had the ability to prove use otherwise unless of course the vehicle is used by more than 1 person. Of course it is easy to say all this after the event and seemingly the OP has to face the music as prosecution appears to have been brought by the Police and not the aggrieved party. Possibly one of the few things he can do is to try to mitigate his actions by apology and did not realise the seriousness of the situation. Shame really he confessed to his actions.

[APX-500]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The clamp was not cut off. If it was cut off I'd have been facing criminal damage charges. Best I don't say how easy it is to remove clamps when you know how :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[bizzybob]

Re: Clamped on home property, bailff left.

The clamp was not cut off. If it was cut off I'd have been facing criminal damage charges. Best I don't say how easy it is to remove clamps when you know how :tinysmile_twink_t2:

There are several non destructive ways of getting a clamp off. If the vehicle is leased as in Contract Hire, or on HP he should not clamp it,