Bailiffs may not clamp or remove Hire Purchase or leased vehicles to recover unpaid debts owed by the hirer or the lessor.
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 his out-of-pocket expenses. [5]
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 the hirer 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 a pretence that 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 they can coerce a finance company is endangering the creditor or council (the authority) it represents because they are liable for the conduct of its bailiffs. [9]
The hirer of the goods may recover his costs for bringing an action for an injunction and for his 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