Bailiff Clamped Your Hire-purchase Car.
Bailiffs cannot take control of or clamp vehicles that are leased or on hire purchase because these do not belong to the debtor until the option to purchase has been exercised.
Enforcement against hire-purchase goods breaches Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. You may recover the vehicle and claim damages along with legal expenses.
Bailiff companies frequently mislead debtors by claiming a "beneficial interest" in hire purchase vehicles, a legal argument initially introduced by solicitor Peter Felton Gerber of Felton's Law.
Despite being repeatedly overturned in court, Mr Felton Gerber persists in using this defence, often resorting to personal attacks against claimants and their representatives during proceedings.
Ironically, while he accuses claimants of using internet templates, his own "beneficial interest" defence is his standard, boilerplate argument.
It's not uncommon for bailiffs to falsely claim that the hirer is liable for tickets and that the Warrant of Control is 'against the vehicle.' However, Warrants of Control are issued to the 'respondent,' whether a person or a company.
Bailiffs are fully aware that they cannot clamp hire-purchase vehicles. Attempting to do so exposes the creditor to significant risk, potentially resulting in expensive claims for damages and legal expenses.
You may apply to the court for an injunction against the council for whom the bailiff is acting. This interim order will facilitate the return of your vehicle.
It is crucial not to bring proceedings against the bailiff company itself, as limited companies lack legal standing in such claims for breaches of enforcement provisions.
If you use a hire-purchase car for work, such as minicab driving or food delivery, you may recover damages for loss of earnings.
Template: Notify both the bailiff company and the bailiff by email and text message that the vehicle is on hire purchase.
Make sure to keep screenshots of the sent messages, including timestamps, as proof of communication.
If the deadline is missed, you can apply for an injunction requiring the bailiff to remove the wheel clamp from your car or release the vehicle then make a claim for damages.
Before applying for an injunction or claiming damages, gather the following:
-
A photograph of the clamped vehicle showing the number plate and the wheel clamp in the same picture.
A close-up photograph of the Warning of Immobilisation attached to the driver's door window.
The complete hire-purchase or lease agreement.
A settlement quotation dated on or after the date the bailiff clamped the vehicle.
An HPI check dated on or after the date the bailiff clamped your vehicle.
The V5 logbook for the vehicle shows the address of the registered keeper.
Misunderstandings about hire purchase, as promoted by bailiff companies, when defending against an injunction or a claim for damages
Newlyn Plc: The hirer has cumulative beneficial interest in the goods.
Defeated, Mulwayni v.s LB Croydon, Central London County Court, 7 April 2017.
Marston (Holdings) Limited: The bailiff cannot sell hire purchase cars, but can still clamp them.
Defeated,Kelly v. Highways England, Central London County Court, 11 June 2018.
Marston (Holdings) Limited: The bailiff can put a debtors hire-purchase "on clamp" to coerce the hirer to give a money transfer.
Defeated, Tandea v Marston Group Limited, Central London County Court, Jan 2020.
Drakes Group: The bailiff can approach the lender and discharge the finance by selling the vehicle, paying the finance company out of the proceeds and apportion the balance between themselves and the creditor.
Defeated, the hirer sued the lender for breach of contract.
Marston (Holdings) Limited: The bailiff can put a debtors hire-purchase "on clamp" to coerce the hirer to give a money transfer.
Defeated, Rafiq v. Transport for London, Central London County Court, 2 March 2020
Marston (Holdings) Limited: The debtor has a 'interest' in the car.
Defeated, Ande v. Highways England Ltd, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court. Client awarded damages £10,813.99 plus costs. 3 May 2022