Bailiff took money on expired warrant?

mrwhosane

Hi all,

Yesterday, JBW came along and put a clamp on my car for a PCN for over a year ago. Warrant was issued on 3/5/2013

Now, they basically threatened to take my car away, unless I handed £450 over.

Cut to the chase, in the end I did.

After they left and took the clamp off, I looked at the paperwork in detail and saw that the warrant expired two weeks ago.

Is there anything I can do now? As they took the money illegally.

I appreciate your help.

Thanks.

Hintza

You could try the small claims court but I'm not sure of your chances of winning especially if you owed the money. Do you want to risk that?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Maybe next time you won't be so stupid as to allow a parking fine to escalate to £450. I have no sympathy.

This is the Money Saving website. The clue's in the name.

peter_the_piper

I suggest a look at bailiffadviceonline.co.uk, may be a small charge but she knows an awful lots about bailiffs. Hope this helps.

AdrianC

mrwhosane wrote: »

After they left and took the clamp off, I looked at the paperwork in detail and saw that the warrant expired two weeks ago.

So let's assume you noticed the date issue before you paid up. The bailiff, having been made aware of his error, apologised profusely and left.
The following day, he came back, with correctly dated paperwork to enforce the debt that you don't actually deny. Except, of course, the fees - and thereby your total debt - would now almost certainly be higher.

This would be preferable, would it?

Sometimes, it's better to man up and sort your mistakes out than to try to hide behind minor details.

Tilt

They would of probably been in 'muddy waters' if they had took you car as their lawful document entitling them to do so was technically invalid.

BUT they didn't as you paid what you obviously owed. So what's the problem?

Joe_Horner

Assuming for now that a one-post-wonder like this is genuine (sorry, but the way the forum's been lately it has to be mentioned), I'd suggest that the problem is that we've just had shiny new laws passed to ensure bailiffs play by the rules. Levying on an expired warrant is very much not by the rules.

There would certainly be a case for making a complaint and (bearing in mind the caveat above) really spoiling a bailiff's day - it could go as far as losing his certification and job.

Would I personally do that in the situation described? Yes. There's no point at all having rules to keep professions like this in line if those rules aren't enforced. And if you're going to enforce the rules, you have to enforce them to the letter or there's always a big grey area of just how far outside them is it ok to go.

As for getting your money back - the bailiff fees maybe if they misbehaved, the original debt not a snowflake's chance

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Assuming for now that a one-post-wonder like this is genuine (sorry, but the way the forum's been lately it has to be mentioned), I'd suggest that the problem is that we've just had shiny new laws passed to ensure bailiffs play by the rules. Levying on an expired warrant is very much not by the rules.

There would certainly be a case for making a complaint and (bearing in mind the caveat above) really spoiling a bailiff's day - it could go as far as losing his certification and job.

Would I personally do that in the situation described? Yes. There's no point at all having rules to keep professions like this in line if those rules aren't enforced. And if you're going to enforce the rules, you have to enforce them to the letter or there's always a big grey area of just how far outside them is it ok to go.

As for getting your money back - the bailiff fees maybe if they misbehaved, the original debt not a snowflake's chance

Why? The warrant would be to remove goods if the debt wasn't paid. The OP has paid the debt so the warrant wasn't (in affect) enforced. In fact I think the bailiff may have used a bluff instead of wasting time re-newing the warrant which paid off. That's the way I see it, job done.

The OP would of had ample opportunity to challenge this before it reaching this stage so I doubt a court would be very sympathetic to any claim he may make.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

Why? The warrant would be to remove goods if the debt wasn't paid. The OP has paid the debt so the warrant wasn't (in affect) enforced. In fact I think the bailiff may have used a bluff instead of wasting time re-newing the warrant which paid off. That's the way I see it, job done.

The OP would of had ample opportunity to challenge this before it reaching this stage so I doubt a court would be very sympathetic to any claim he may make.

Because an expired warrant isn't a warrant - it's just a piece of pretty paper - and, without a warrant, a bailiff has no pore powers than any DCA agent.

That means that threatening to take action that they're not entitled to is unlawful, just as it is when DCAs make unenforceable claims.

Not only that, in this particular case the bailiff apparently went as far as clamping the car - which is only legal with a valid warrant. It doesn't matter that he released it after payment, he still clamped illegally.

As fo a court's opinion, the two matters are entirely unrelated. the fact that the OP could have prevented the need for bailiffs does not in any way give bailiffs a licence to go beyond what the law allows them to do.

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Because an expired warrant isn't a warrant - it's just a piece of pretty paper - and, without a warrant, a bailiff has no pore powers than any DCA agent.

That means that threatening to take action that they're not entitled to is unlawful, just as it is when DCAs make unenforceable claims.

Not only that, in this particular case the bailiff apparently went as far as clamping the car - which is only legal with a valid warrant. It doesn't matter that he released it after payment, he still clamped illegally.

As fo a court's opinion, the two matters are entirely unrelated. the fact that the OP could have prevented the need for bailiffs does not in any way give bailiffs a licence to go beyond what the law allows them to do.

I am aware of that. But the OP presumably had sight of the paperwork so was in a position to challenge but chose to pay HIS debt instead. At the end of the day, he owed the money and the money has been paid. Challenging the legalities now is a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Of course the OP could complain, sue for the money back from the bailiffs, refer to the relevant ombudsman. But this will not make the debt go away, it will just prolong the process and possibly increase the debt.

The OP has come here seeking a loop hole in paying the charges which he could of challenged earlier. He has now settled the debt so my advice is to move on and see it as a learning process.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

He has now settled the debt so my advice is to move on and see it as a learning process.

So it's ok for baliffs to break the rules as long as that gets results, and the people they do that to should just treat it as a learning thang.

Why waste time with clamps if that's the case? Why not just come round with baseball bats? After all, if you didn't owe the money.....