Bailiffs damage to car when getting to another car

rich13348

My thought is they wrapped a chain around the back axle and gave it a good tug with their van or removal truck. That could cause the damage to the axle but not sure how that would effect the oil or cause an oil leak.

Hintza

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

They've gone to seize a car and had to move another to get to it.

So on that basis if we declare war on Switzerland and invade France to get there that is OK since we just had to move the French out the way?

Marktheshark

The police will always side with authority over public.
So forget them and issue a Letter before action to the Bailiff company .

arcon5

Whoever said its criminal damage until a judge says otherwise clearly has never heard of the concept 'innocent unless proven otherwise'

angrycrow

ado wrote: »

How did the bailiffs manage to break the axle of the second car and cause a problem with its oil. I know the OP said that she wasn't very knowledgeable about cars but even taking that into account I'm struggling to see how they managed to cause so much damage. I ask that as a genuine question rather than trying to find fault with the OP's situation.

Tow rope around a front drive shaft could pull the drive shaft out of the diff housing which would allow the gearbox oil to drain out and potentially damage the oil seal or even the diff / gearbox casting. This sort of damage could easily write off an older car.

worried_jim

Wouldn't they just use the tow hook?

chris_n

Would that not require them to have the keys to get it out of the boot?

pgoncalv

Kimkardashian wrote: »

He has contacted his insurance company who have suggested he pursue the bailiff company for damages.

Has the insurance company opened a claim?
If so, your friend needs to be ready for a hike in insurance renewal premium when the time comes... Even if all was solved without liability, the insurance company will see an increased risk. Clearly unfair but it's the way it works. They request to be told about anything and even when all they do is to update paperwork, they still "charge" you for it.
Except for expensive claims, it's better to not bother with insurance.

Car_54

pgoncalv wrote: »

Has the insurance company opened a claim?
If so, your friend needs to be ready for a hike in insurance renewal premium when the time comes... Even if all was solved without liability, the insurance company will see an increased risk. Clearly unfair but it's the way it works.

In what way is it unfair? They see an increased risk (based on decades of experience and millions of claims), and price accordingly.

Herbie21

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Where is the intent to cause damage or the reckless element?

The police can refuse to take the report if it doesn't meet the alleged offence. As it stands there is no evidence an offence has occurred.

I've seen hundreds of vehicles moved and recovered, with or without keys. The mere fact it could be damaged isn't relevant to the offence you claim has taken place as you are lacking intent to damage or the fact it was reckless.

This wouldn't get anywhere near a judge to say it's not criminal damage. It doesn't meet the elements of the offence so under crime recoding standard would not be a crime. It wouldn't meet the threshold test so wouldn't get a charge or goto CPS and therefore wouldn't get into a magistrates court.

Until the OP provides evidence they were reckless or intended to damage his car his best bet is civil action, it's the only sort he will get.

I have to agree with you.

Only this morning I was reading a recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman regarding a complaint made to them in connection with the wrongful clamping of a vehicle. The Ombudsman ruled (quite rightly) that the vehicle should not have been clamped and advised the local authority to pay £400 for each month that the vehicle was immobilised.

As part of the complaint, it was alleged that because the vehicle had been clamped for a long period of time (12 weeks) that damage of £20,000 had been caused to the engine.

Interestingly, the Local Government Ombudsman said that the complainant would need to obtain EVIDENCE from a garage to support the amount being claimed and most importantly, evidence that any supposed damage had been caused by the actions of the enforcement agent.

The LGO report confirms that the complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence.