Car illegally seized against PCN, legal option?

redpete

Intelligent enough to take this through the courts but not intelligent enough to avoid 11 parking tickets nor to pay the fine that you say you could afford before it got to the vehicle being sieved?

Humminghorse23

Thanks for your posts, I intentionally haven't gone into detail about the PCN's themselves. There was a whole process of dispute etc regarding those which is now largely irrelevant so don't be too judgemental about how and why so many were accrued.
The point is, that ultimately they were, regardless of how my intelligence is perceived. And that horse has bolted. I don't expect to get away with them, and I would make that very clear in the case. it was just a question.
The way Brighton and Hove deal with parking is much like westminster, its very aggressive, and communication with the department very difficult and limited. Its a huge revenue stream for them, and tickets are issued to excess with a great many being cancelled.

The single issue at hand is whether the seizure of the vehicle was legal. And regards purely to how the collection of the debt was enforced.

The loss in income is directly related to having that vehicle taken away. I am a self employed carpenter who transports numerous tools and materials to and from numerous locations. And the claim for loss of earnings would be proportional and thoroughly documented.

This is a complex issue, if it was cut and dry I probably wouldn't be on here! This is why I'm seeking opinion.

That said,I appreciate the time taken and advise given!

fatbelly

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

The single issue at hand is whether the seizure of the vehicle was legal.

We're mostly not specialists in that legislation. However, one poster is so if Herbie21 comments you should take note.

She also posts on consumeractiongroup I believe.

The other guy who would be useful is John Kruse but I'm not sure how you would contact him

For what it's worth I can't see that a court would declare your case unlawful but there may be some technical details a specialist would be able to pick out.

Your angle is that the vehicle was protected goods as it was a tool of your trade worth less than £1350? Herbie has written about this here

http://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/index/motor-vehicles-clamping-anpr/i-need-my-car-for-work-or-business

Herbie21

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

Hi there,

So they came, they clamped. and called for the truck to take my vehicle away.

-I immediately contacted a debt advice solicitor and he instructed me to make a sworn declaration that the vehicle did not in fact belong to me, but to my partner. (handing over ownership, different from registered keeper-this may have been a mistake, but in either case the seizure was still illegal...)

So this was immediately done. (in front of a local solicitor, all whilst the Bailiff waited for the truck)

This was duly ignored by the bailiff on instruction of his boss

I am particularly interested in the advice that you received about making a sworn declaration. As I understand it, the advice came from a solicitor.

Was the vehicle registered in your partners's name?

Was your partner named on the insurance policy?

Did your partner pay the yearly (or monthly) payments to DVLA for the Road Fund Licence?

Did you draft the declaration or was it drafted for you by the solicitor?

Who signed the Declaration in the presence of a local solicitor (you or your partner?)

antrobus

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

...But because its connected to a vehicle, they can essentially find, clamp and seize that vehicle to cover the debt. Wherever it is..Now I tried and tried to contact the council themselves to organise either a payment schedule, or to consolidate the PCN's but they are uncontactable. They explicitly state that they will not discuss PCNs by phone or in person. They're only response to letters are standard responses, and will never address a specific issue....

What "specific issues"? Brighton and Hove City Council also explicitly state that they do not allow payment of PCNs by installment. So given that you "do not dispute the PCN's", the only issue would be when you are going to pay the PCN.

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/parking-and-travel/parking/instalment-payments-penalty-charge-notices-pcns

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

....I immediately contacted a debt advice solicitor and he instructed me to make a sworn declaration that the vehicle did not in fact belong to me, but to my partner. (handing over ownership, different from registered keeper-this may have been a mistake, but in either case the seizure was still illegal...) So this was immediately done. (in front of a local solicitor, all whilst the Bailiff waited for the truck)...

No one is going to believe that. Making a sworn declaration that it isn't your car, but rather your girlfriend's when the bailiffs are actually in the process of seizing your car?

Besides, according to you, your girlfriend has "zero income".

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

..-I also discovered that legally, if an item essential to your employment is worth no more than £1350 they cannot legally seize it.....

That's the argument you should have put to the bailiffs.

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

....I am intelligent enough to follow this through via small claims, and have little left to lose. But would be in schtuck if I lose. so in your opinions, do I have a case?...

You say your are "applying for personal insolvency". So what would be the point? Even if you won the money would go to your creditors. I don't know what kind of insolvency you have applied for, but normally that means that it would not be your decision.

Herbie21

fatbelly wrote: »

We're mostly not specialists in that legislation. However, one poster is so if Herbie21 comments you should take note.

She also posts on consumeractiongroup I believe.

The other guy who would be useful is John Kruse but I'm not sure how you would contact him

For what it's worth I can't see that a court would declare your case unlawful but there may be some technical details a specialist would be able to pick out.

Your angle is that the vehicle was protected goods as it was a tool of your trade worth less than £1350? Herbie has written about this here

http://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/index/motor-vehicles-clamping-anpr/i-need-my-car-for-work-or-business

Thank you for your kind words above. They are very much appreciated.

In the link that you provided to my website I state the following:

A significant change made to the regulations is the right to ‘appeal’ (object) to the creditor (local authority etc) if goods are taken by the bailiff which are considered by the debtor to be ‘exempt’. This is a very simple and speedy procedure and one that we have used successfully many times and avoids the need for court injunctions etc.

The 'appeal' route that I talk about is a Part 85 claim which refers to part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Part 85 claims were introduced in 2014 and have been very successful in avoiding the need for costly court action. They are primarily used as a way of 'appealing' that goods (almost always a motor vehicle) should be 'exempt'. This can be for a variety of reasons.

Under a 'Part 85' Claim, the owner of the vehicle is required to write formally to the enforcement company to outline in detail WHY they consider that the seized item should be exempt. In this particular case, the OP could have used this procedure to argue that his vehicle was a 'tool of the trade' and had a value BELOW £1,350.

The enforcement company receiving a Part 85 Claim are then required to submit a copy of the claim to the creditor (this will usually be the local authority client). It will be for the creditor to decide whether to accept or reject the claim. If they accept, the goods must be released.

As outlined above, the claim should have come from the OP and could have been submitted on the basis that the vehicle was considered by him to be exempt as it was BELOW the £1,350 limit set by Parliament. However, because of the actions that he took when the vehicle was clamped.....HE could not issue a Part 85 Claim !!!

The advice that he received from a 'solicitor' was to make a sworn declaration to claim that his partner (and not him) owned the vehicle. Accordingly, it would be for his partner (and not him) to make a 'Third Party Claim' under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

As a 'third party' she would have been required to provide at least 3 items of evidence to support he claim. These would include the following:

Evidence as to the purchase of the vehicle

Evidence that the insurance policy is in her name

Evidence (usually by way of a copy of a bank statement) that she pays the Road Fund Licence.

It may be the case that the OP's partner genuinely owned the vehicle. Hopefully the OP will respond.

System

"Its not my car but yes its registered in my name, I tax it, I insure it, I pay the repairs for it, I'm the sole user of it but really its not mine honest guv, I gave it to my girlfriend when you knocked on the door".

Yeah not happening. As to the value not being £1350 which you claim, if it managed to sell for £1100 in the auction, given there would be buyers fees around £200-£250 then there is a more than probable chance it was worth more than £1350.

In regards to the loss of income, its going to be hard to prove that as a self employed person in the building trade on the run up to Xmas when people generally don't have much building work done. It is going to be even harder to claim for given that your business could still continue if you bought a cheaper car. If your girlfriend was a named driver then again, your claim is going nowhere.

Bogalot

Humminghorse23 wrote: »

Hi naedanger,

Thanks for post,

It was my car. I was advised by the solicitor to sign over ownership (different from registered keeper) to my partner as a strategy to stop them from taking it. Something I'm legally entitled to do.

However they took it anyway, stating my document was not legally valid. Therefore. As far as they are concerned, and according to their actions, it was my car.

Point being, if it became my partners car, legally speaking, then it was also an illegal seizure, as the debt has nothing to do with her.. See what I mean? As far as I can see they are wrong in either case...

The car was signed over to the partner in an attempt to stop it being seized.

Herbie21

Bogalot wrote: »

The car was signed over to the partner in an attempt to stop it being seized.

I am struggling to understand how any solicitor would not be aware that goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' (in other words, cannot be sold or transferred) from the date of service of the Notice of Enforcement.

Accordingly, it would not be legal to transfer the vehicle to another person?

Secondly, signing a Statutory Declaration knowing that it's contents is untrue is a very serious offence (which a solicitor would know perfectly well).

FBaby

The loss in income is directly related to having that vehicle taken away. I am a self employed carpenter who transports numerous tools and materials to and from numerous locations. And the claim for loss of earnings would be proportional and thoroughly documented.

The reason you lost earning is because you couldn't get yourself another car, not because you lost that one.