Can Bailiffs clamp/immobilise a LEASE car for unpaid PCN’s?

[R831]

Hi all

I’d like some advice as I’m getting conflicting information! Apologies for the long winded question in advance!

Background: I have been in an ongoing dispute with the local authority over PCN’s
issued while I was on duty (NHS healthcare worker). Case went to Bailiffs, Penham Excel, an enforcer arrived yesterday without warning (I think it’s pointless arguing the point I didn’t receive any notification, apparently the regulations state they don’t need proof of postage provided they have logged that a letter was sent?)

I digressed, they arrived yesterday and clamped a LEASE car that I drive. The car is leased to the Trust via a leasing company. I protested that the Control of Goods Act, does not permit for an enforcer to immobilise what is essentially someone else’s property.

Penham Excel claim they are within their rights to clamp it *but not remove it*.

I can’t find any piece of legislation that allows for them to do this. When I asked for it, they claim they are doing it under the Road Traffic Act and that’s apparently the distinction? For context, the PCN’s were issued due to overstay when my parking ticket expired (which occurred due to the unpredictable nature of my work. I can’t always leave mid-treatment to update the parking meter), I was otherwise parked legally.

At the time the car was clamped it was parked illegally, in a residential road. Is there a piece of legislation under the Road Traffic Act that allows them to do this?

To be clear, there are obviously two issues here; the legality over the clamping and the debt itself. The latter I have now reached an agreement with the local authority and the clamp has been removed. However, I wish to make a complaint regarding the behaviour of Penham Excel.

Another point is immobilising a car that is essential for my work as a community healthcare worker. As I understand it, this is apparently one of the ‘exemptions’ under Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

I advised them of this, to no avail. Fortunately I wasn’t due to work yesterday so clinical patient care wasn’t compromised, but it potentially could have been, given the immediate enforcement.

[zeke]

Can Bailiffs clamp/immobilise a LEASE car for unpaid PCN’s?

No. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

In your case, it is irrelevant that you use your car for health emergency care. The legislation is regulation 4(1)(f) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 which says the car must display a BMA or health emergency badge.


We know there is misleading advice on the internet. One such website was debated at court recently in injunction proceedings against a bailiff company.

sheila.png

The author was identified after a bailiff clamped a car on hire purchase and was asked to return control of it because it was on hire purchase, and the bailiff text the client back with the telephone number of the author of the above-mentioned website. All her dirty history came out in full because the bailiff company and the author are both aware of the case of Mulwayni vs Croydon and Newlyn Plc, the latter had been openly critical of the judgment in an internet discussion forum.

Together with the text message from the bailiff, It was averred that the bailiff company and the author colluded to mislead a victim that the regulations allow bailiffs to deprive a hirer the use of his hire purchase car.

After the bailiff sent the text message, the client injuncted, off came the clamp, and on came a big bill.

As the bailiff company knew it could not take control of goods not belonging to the debtor, the client was awarded "exemplary damages". The same bailiff company had already lost a previous case of drive-by clamping of a hire-purchase car.

A solicitor for a bailiff company Newlyn Plc, the same one representing Newlyn Plc against Mulwayni v Croydon and Newlyn Plc, Peter Felton-Gerber, did originally persuade a judge in Reiss vs Barnet and Newlyn Plc that a hirer has a "contingent beneficial interest" in hire purchase cars. That was later defeated, and likewise, the case of Singh vs Sandy because that judgment has been ruled "incompatible with Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007".

In any case, your car is leased, therefore you would never attain a beneficial interest in the car.

[Syd Snitkin]

So this bailiff company is now using the advice that the site above gives, relying on that advice to justify their position?

Says it all really doesn't it? Even worse considering that site's author knows it to be false. Wonder if they still advise that a stat dec cannot be sent by post?

[zeke]

It was interesting to see that website exhibited in a witness statement, but the point made is the bailiff company referenced it to give legal advice they knew is wrong.

Clients are acheiving better rates of damages because the same bailiff companies are repeatedly clamping hire purchase cars and getting injuncted.

[R831]

Thanks, guys. So, as they removed the clamp (because the local authority asked them too as an agreement had been reached, not because Penham Excel bothered to play by the rules), can I still make some kind of complaint or do something for the stress and hassle they caused for the half a day it was clamped and the embarrassment caused.

[zeke]

I wouldn't bother with a complaint.

Make a claim under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

[R831]

How do I go about making the claim? Who to? Thanks.

[R831]

Also, why did Penham Excel say they can immobilise the car, but not toe it. Is this simply to obfuscate? They also claim they can do it under the Road Traffic Act? I’m wondering if there is some obscure piece of legislation, open to interpretation? Thanks, you’ve been so helpful.

[zeke]

How do I go about making the claim? Who to? Thanks.

https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Ta ... Court.html

[zeke]

Also, why did Penham Excel say they can immobilise the car, but not toe it. Is this simply to obfuscate? They also claim they can do it under the Road Traffic Act? I’m wondering if there is some obscure piece of legislation, open to interpretation? Thanks, you’ve been so helpful.

Exhibit their legal advice in your claim. The judge can ask questions and it ups your claim value.