Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Stop or Suspend Enforcement. Appeal the PCN. Claim Damages for Unlawful Interference with Vehicles.
Post Reply
jomac_uk
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Sep 2017 20:00

#1 Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by jomac_uk » 26 Sep 2017 21:02

Ive searched for a topic similar to mine, but was unable to find anything.

Today i had my car clamped by a Marstons 'Enforcement Officer' and sought help to resolve this. A few months ago, i received two fixed penalties for unpaid DART charges, i am going through a DRO and the guy helping me said he would add these to the list of other debts, which he did. Marstons and DART were both notified that this had been done, and at the same time, they were told to communicate direct to the DRO gentleman and not me. I heard no more until today when i found that two cars i have were clamped. I will discuss the main car first which is worth about £400, i paid £375 4 months ago.

During my search for investigations on how i stood on this, i discovered a few things i thought would help me, but according to the enforcement officer, he claims they dont apply in my case. I am disabled and receive the middle rate of PIP, i have a valid Blue Badge that wasnt on display in the car at the time, but i have a sticker in the back window with the wheelchair symbol and the words Blue Badge Holder. The Enforcement Officer (EO) said he checked with DVLA and the vehicle wasnt registered with them as disabled, i told him that this would only be the case if i were receiving the higher rate of PIP, and under those circumstances i would be eligible for free road fund tax, and then that would be registered with the DVLA. He claimed this wasnt applicable in this case, and he was entitled to seize the vehicle. Am i right in assuming that if he has reason to believe that the vehicle is used by a disabled person, he has to take steps to verify the fact?

I also told him that i needed the car for work, i work part time. I find it difficult to use public transport, partly because of my disability, where the bus stops are, they are too far for me to walk to my place of work, and i cant stand for very long. Using taxi's are prohibitive due to cost. He said that if everyone used that excuse, then he would be unable to do his job.

I live in a council property which has been converted into two flats, the ground floor flat where i live is specially adapted for me. My address is 47a and the upstairs flat is 47b. We both have defined area's which are private to each property, and they both have seperate driveways. I have an old car in my driveway (57a) which belongs to a friend, so i am unable to use my own driveway, my neighbours upstairs allowed me to park both of my cars in THEIR driveway (57b). Marstons EO went onto THEIR property (57b) and clamped both cars. When i looked into this, i discovered it was actually illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Part 3 Chapter 2 Offence of immobilising etc. Vehicles Section 54 which says....

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

I clearly read that EO's were not allowed to go onto other private property without a court order. However, Marston's EO has REFUSED to differenciate between 57a and 57b, and says as far as he is concerned, the address is 57, and both cars are parked at 57!! He then said, and anyway, the car was parked within 4 metres of my front door, but when i measured it later, it is actually parked more than 7 metres from my door.

If i am right by assuming he has effectively clamped the vehicles illegally, i read somewhere that i can legally remove the clamp, BUT i have to give him one hours notice. Because if this, i had to use a taxi to get to and from a hospital appointment, and i lost a days work and pay because of this.

The second vehicle mentioned above, was my old car, a faulty gearbox, no MOT and i had sold the vehicle to the neighbours upstairs. They had paid most of the money, but still owed me £45 on the car. When i mentioned it to the EO, the first thing he said, was that he did a DVLA check, and it was still registered in my name, i reminded him that the registration document clearly states that the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner, he replied that as far as he was concerned, the vehicle belonged to me and he was seizing it. My neighbour who had joined me, protested over this and was told the same thing. Then the EO said i had committed an offence as i wasnt a registered finance business, and had broken the law by selling this vehicle to my neighbour on installments.

Where do i actually stand on this matter, this guy the EO had an answer for any comments or points i raised with him? Some of his comments were unprofessional and i noticed he was wearing a bodycam, can i demand a copy of the video?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#2 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Sep 2017 10:26

jomac_uk wrote:
26 Sep 2017 21:02
Ive searched for a topic similar to mine, but was unable to find anything.

Today i had my car clamped by a Marstons 'Enforcement Officer' and sought help to resolve this. A few months ago, i received two fixed penalties for unpaid DART charges, i am going through a DRO and the guy helping me said he would add these to the list of other debts, which he did. Marstons and DART were both notified that this had been done, and at the same time, they were told to communicate direct to the DRO gentleman and not me. I heard no more until today when i found that two cars i have were clamped. I will discuss the main car first which is worth about £400, i paid £375 4 months ago.
I don't knoew much about DRO, but when the practitioner has give notice the debt is being administered, I cannot say whether or not the enforcement power applied. In a bankruptcy, bailiffs cannot seize goods of the bankruipt person because it is a breach of Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) because the goods are the property of the trustee in bankruptcy.



During my search for investigations on how i stood on this, i discovered a few things i thought would help me, but according to the enforcement officer, he claims they dont apply in my case. I am disabled and receive the middle rate of PIP, i have a valid Blue Badge that wasnt on display in the car at the time, but i have a sticker in the back window with the wheelchair symbol and the words Blue Badge Holder.
The law actually says:

  • 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;



I don't think you can bring an interpleader claim for exempt goods on the basis of a sticker because it's not a valid blue badge. Most badge users leave it permanently displayed unless parked publicly without the disabled person as a passenger.



The Enforcement Officer (EO) said he checked with DVLA and the vehicle wasnt registered with them as disabled,
I've never come across a register of disabled vehicles. My own car is not registered disabled, but it has a blue badge even though I am able-bodied. My mother is wheelchair bound and I carry her in the car. When I applied for her blue badge, I did not need to "register" vehicle details.

I think the bailiff is talking nonsense, because that is not how blue badges work.


i told him that this would only be the case if i were receiving the higher rate of PIP, and under those circumstances i would be eligible for free road fund tax, and then that would be registered with the DVLA. He claimed this wasnt applicable in this case, and he was entitled to seize the vehicle. Am i right in assuming that if he has reason to believe that the vehicle is used by a disabled person, he has to take steps to verify the fact?

I know its not good news, but the blue badge must be displayed immediately before the bailiff takes control of it.


I also told him that i needed the car for work, i work part time. I find it difficult to use public transport, partly because of my disability, where the bus stops are, they are too far for me to walk to my place of work, and i cant stand for very long. Using taxi's are prohibitive due to cost. He said that if everyone used that excuse, then he would be unable to do his job.
You might be off the hook if the bailiff took control of the car at a time the vulnerable person was at home alone. The law says the bailiff may not take control of goods.

Regulation 10(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 states;

  • 10.—(1) The enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor where—

    (a)the debtor is a child;

    (b)a child or vulnerable person (whether more than one or a combination of both) is the only person present in the relevant or specified premises in which the goods are located; or

    (c)the goods are also premises in which a child or vulnerable person (whether more than one or a combination of both) is the only person present.


See if anyone was present, then if not, then the enforcement fails on breach of regulation 10.



I live in a council property which has been converted into two flats, the ground floor flat where i live is specially adapted for me. My address is 47a and the upstairs flat is 47b. We both have defined area's which are private to each property, and they both have seperate driveways. I have an old car in my driveway (57a) which belongs to a friend, so i am unable to use my own driveway, my neighbours upstairs allowed me to park both of my cars in THEIR driveway (57b). Marstons EO went onto THEIR property (57b) and clamped both cars.
Enforcement fails because the law says the bailiff can only take control of goods where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business. Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) states:

  • (6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—
    (a)usually lives, or
    (b)carries on a trade or business.


Unless the bailiff has a warrant of entry under paragraph 15 of Schedule 12.

I should add, that a recent High Court case involving an aircraft at Stansted Airport got behind this by allowing the enforcement to succeed when a warrant of entry was obtained for a different airfield. The enforcement still failed because a bank (Credit Suisse) has a legal charge over it, therefore anyone buying it cannot file a flight plan until the legal charge is settled. Meanwhile. it will be racking up a lot of ramp fees for somebody.


When i looked into this, i discovered it was actually illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Part 3 Chapter 2 Offence of immobilising etc. Vehicles Section 54 which says....

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

You are right. It is a criminal offence. The police might try saying the crime is a civil matter.


I clearly read that EO's were not allowed to go onto other private property without a court order. However, Marston's EO has REFUSED to differenciate between 57a and 57b, and says as far as he is concerned, the address is 57, and both cars are parked at 57!! He then said, and anyway, the car was parked within 4 metres of my front door, but when i measured it later, it is actually parked more than 7 metres from my door.
The bailiff is not right. The law does not provide for goods to be taken into control if they are four meters outside the boundary of the debtors home of place of business.


If i am right by assuming he has effectively clamped the vehicles illegally, i read somewhere that i can legally remove the clamp, BUT i have to give him one hours notice.
There is no minimum notice. Under the Criminal Damage Act, section 5(2)(b), a person may remove the clamp provided the bailiff has been given reasonable opportunity to remove it after being told why it is unlawful. In your neighbours case, it deprives his use and enjoyment of his land where the clamped car is situated.



Because if this, i had to use a taxi to get to and from a hospital appointment, and i lost a days work and pay because of this.
These are called "special damages", you just recover them from the creditor the bailiff is acting for by bringing an action in the small claims court: here is how it is done: http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Co ... edure.html When bringing he claim. Give in ytour evidelce a copy of the title plan setting out what land is yours and your neighbours. You can download title plans for £3 for the HMLR website.








The second vehicle mentioned above, was my old car, a faulty gearbox, no MOT and i had sold the vehicle to the neighbours upstairs.
Your neighbour will have to interpleader it, but as it has no material value (unless it's a classic car) it is no use to the bailiff. It will cost him more than it's worth to have a truck come and take it for scrap. Your neghbour can return the V5 as given away as scrap and that stops anyone getting a new V5.



They had paid most of the money, but still owed me £45 on the car. When i mentioned it to the EO, the first thing he said, was that he did a DVLA check, and it was still registered in my name, i reminded him that the registration document clearly states that the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner, he replied that as far as he was concerned, the vehicle belonged to me and he was seizing it. My neighbour who had joined me, protested over this and was told the same thing. Then the EO said i had committed an offence as i wasnt a registered finance business, and had broken the law by selling this vehicle to my neighbour on installments.

I don't think a court would recognise a loan against a car unless it is a regulated loan.



Where do i actually stand on this matter, this guy the EO had an answer for any comments or points i raised with him? Some of his comments were unprofessional and i noticed he was wearing a bodycam, can i demand a copy of the video?
There is no need to get the bodycam footage. If the bailiff beings a defence that would have been recorded on his bodycam, then he can give the footage. If he doesn't then his defence will most probably fail. The same is true of the bodycam footage would prove your case and the bailiff refuses to disclose it (standard disclosure) then his defence is defeated.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#3 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Sep 2017 11:14

I don't think you can bring an interpleader claim for exempt goods on the basis of a sticker because it's not a valid blue badge. Most badge users leave it permanently displayed unless parked publicly without the disabled person as a passenger.
This is something you've mentioned before, and it's something I really don't agree with.

By having the blue badge on display would mean the bailiff cannot take control of the car. In this case, the car was not exempt from being taken into control but once evidence is provided using a p85.8 claim that the car is used for a disabled person, the car should be released.

Also, the legislation you quoted has the second part "there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person;". The sticker should give the bailiff reasonable belief.

When parked at home, unless required, most blue badge holders do not leave them on display as they are a target for thieves. The scheme even suggest that it's not left on display if not needed.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#4 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Sep 2017 11:17

I don't think a court would recognise a loan against a car unless it is a regulated loan.
If a contract is in place then a private loan is absolutely enforceable in court.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#5 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Sep 2017 12:27

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Sep 2017 11:14


This is something you've mentioned before, and it's something I really don't agree with.

By having the blue badge on display would mean the bailiff cannot take control of the car. In this case, the car was not exempt from being taken into control but once evidence is provided using a p85.8 claim that the car is used for a disabled person, the car should be released.

I'm with you all the way on this, but I have to follow court proceedings and its findings.

A client brought a claim for the loss of his ex-Motability vehicle because it was clamped with a blue badge displayed. The bailiff company was able to show a photograph of the clamped car without the badge in the window and dismissed any claim for breach of regulation 4 of the TCGR's.

I only got him off because the client was living alone and was alone at the time the bailiff clamped the car which is a breach of Regulation 10, and the bailiff did not report any other person present.




Also, the legislation you quoted has the second part "there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person;". The sticker should give the bailiff reasonable belief.

I don't think I would be able to persuade a court because it says:
  • 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;


I read that to mean that a badge must be displayed. Even if the badge was on a passenger seat, that might be interpreted as not being "displayed" for the purpose of being used to carry a disabled person.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#6 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Sep 2017 12:43

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Sep 2017 11:17
I don't think a court would recognise a loan against a car unless it is a regulated loan.
If a contract is in place then a private loan is absolutely enforceable in court.
I'm not sure if that would be followed by a court.

I can try it if such a case came to me and I can present it as a defence, but I can see it being defeated because the loan would have to pass title of the car to the lender, and introduce paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 into the argument.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#7 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Sep 2017 16:37

If a written contract is in place then a loan is enforceable. Saw it on Judge Rinder once.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#8 Re: Marstons Bailiff clamped my car and is now giving me the run around

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Sep 2017 16:42

Schedule 12 wrote:
27 Sep 2017 12:27
A client brought a claim for the loss of his ex-Motability vehicle because it was clamped with a blue badge displayed. The bailiff company was able to show a photograph of the clamped car without the badge in the window and dismissed any claim for breach of regulation 4 of the TCGR's.
You've mentioned that case before but to be fair it's only once case. You know that DJs can be ignorant of enforcement rules, and this particular DJ seemed to have come very close to making an appalling decision.

He went behind 85.8 of the CivPR - evidence was provided that the car was exempt; it doesn't matter if evidence isn't in place when it was taken control - that's the whole point of an interpleader, to provide evidence not available at the time of taking control.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Post Reply