Bailiffs may not clamp or remove hire purchase or leased vehicles to recover unpaid debts owed by the hirer or the lessee.
The law says the bailiff may only take control of the goods that belong to the debtor.[1]
The hirer can apply to the court for an emergency injunction[2] or for interlocutory relief.[3]
The hirer can claim interlocutory relief and damages[4] for the unlawful deprivation of the use of the goods together with out-of-pocket expenses.[5]
When the injunction is served and the clamp is removed, the traffic contravention debts and the bailiff's fees being recovered are usually a lost cause for the bailiff. That does not mean the debtor is off the hook, but it becomes financially untenable for the bailiff to continue with enforcement because he pays the legal costs of the injunction.
It is well established in law that a hirer's property in the hired goods is limited to the right of possession under the terms of the hire purchase or leasing agreement. The hirer gains no proprietary right until he exercises the right to purchase the goods. Until then, the property in the goods remains solely with the owner.[6]
A court found that debtors have no beneficial interest in hire purchase goods because bailiffs cannot sell them, nor can the bailiff approach the finance company to discharge the finance on the vehicle from the proceeds of sale and pay the remainder to the debtor.[7]
It is the practice of Marston Group Limited to clamp hire purchase goods under the pretence they can only immobilise goods without removing them, then defend an injunction on the basis that the debtor behaved unreasonably.[8]
Any bailiff company that believes it can coerce a finance company is endangering the creditor or council (the authority) it represents, because they are liable for the conduct of their bailiffs.[9]
The hirer of the goods may recover legal costs for bringing an action for an injunction and for damages.[10]
[1] Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[2] Paragraph 66 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[3] Section 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
[4] Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
[5] Section 3(5) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
[6] Chitty on Contracts (32nd ed.), ss39-307
[7] Mulwanyi v London Borough of Croydon and Newlyn Plc, Central London County Court, 7 April 2017
[8] Tandea v Marston Group Limited, Central London County Court, January 2020
[9] Preston v Peeke [1895] EB&E 336
[10] Civil Procedure Rule 46.5