The bailiff did not have any document to show authority to clamp the vehicle in connection of a PCN belonging to the previous owner and this was captured incognito using a mobile phone camera.
Police arrested the suspect, also on camera, and admitted arresting the suspect for cutting off the clamp because he was satisfied the bailiff had authority to use the clamp and that he had checked the bailiff's documents. The police officer disregarded the suspect’s evidence the PCN was dated before he acquired the vehicle and continued to say that he was "satisfied the offence has been committed".
This turned out to be untrue, because the prosecution was unable to show any evidence the PCN was the responsibility of the defendant.
The police are refusing to reimburse the acquitted the sum he paid to me as my fee, even though my defence I drafted and deployed at court successfully acquitted him with the help of the duty solicitor.
Consequently, my client is now asking for an investigation into the police officer who said (on camera) he had checked the bailiff's documents when there is evidence to the contrary that shows he had not.
There is a civil claim in the county court ongoing in respect of bailiff’s fees for using the wheel clamp and other non-compliant fees. I recommended this claim to be postponed until after his acquittal in the magistrates court so the aquittal can be used to strengthen the civil claim.
I don’t normally publish client cases unless there is a public interest. There has been a run of identical cases just like this, and I am using the same draft statements to get them acquitted, even though the police continue to make repeat arrests under 68(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007). The police appear to be unaware this does not apply to illegal wheel clamping or where goods have not been properly taken into control under the regulations.
The law says under 68(2)
If anyone is arrested by the police for cutting off an illegal wheel clamp, then they should contact me, Jason at dealingwithbailiffs.co.ukA person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.
