Small Claims Gaff

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

3) Plenty of clamping firms out there with dozens of ignored CCJs and still going about their business ..so I'm afraid bailiffs clearly are ineffective in these circumstances, which is why best advice is to claim against the landowner.

Absolutely agree. In any such case the best advice is always to go for the money. Landowners will have assets that can be distrained upon or ultimately a charge could be put against. No landowner is going to want that and so he will almost certainly cough up.

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

The same could be said about any business equipment but it didn't stop one bloke getting a warrant of execution against his bank for his 'penalty' charges did it.

At the end of the day, clampers make a lot of money, of course there is something the bailiff can do.

You would think that a bailiff should be able to seize something but in successful clamper-suing cases reported on pepipoo I have never ever seen any case where a bailiff could get anything from a clamper. Have seen reports that people have tried but failed as there's nowt a bailiff is allowed to seize. That's why a claim must include the people who have most to lose, those who allow clampers on site in the first place and who have assets.

In contrast, there have been plenty of cases where the landlord or managing agent paid - and in makara's case on pepipoo at the moment he is planning to send in a bailiff to a local Supermarket (Quality Foods) who were found jointly liable for the actions of their clamper.