It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clamping ,and siezure of property in Britain , mostly done illegaly.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   
This is very interesting and salient as the economic times tighten. If someone clamps your car for any reason, you have the right to ask for the Warrant they are using to seize your vehicle. It must be signed by a real Judge as you might expect. If they threaten to call the Police, they have every right to do so but the Policeman is only there to make sure that their is no breach of the peace, as its a civil matter , but might come in handy when the person who wants to take your car produces a bit of paper, with no legitimate basis, and claims it is a legal warrant. Most of these supposed warrants are produced from Microsoft word with impressive fonts but have no legal basis.
More and more because of the lack of the correct legal knowledge, Councils are hiring private firms that use strong arm tactics , to extract funds from people who don't realize their rights under the law.
I came these couple of Vids, where a para legal phones and records the interview with a collection officer at one of these firms that the council uses to garnish funds.


In the second vid, they have clamped a guys car, and when the filming starts, have to produce a legal Warrant, the Cop dodn't know the law but the guy that's doing the clamping does and soon backs down, and unclamps the vehicle when he realizes that's he is dealing with someone who knows the law, and is likely to get sued in court if he doesn't put things right.

edit on 2-5-2018 by anonentity because: adding




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

There is a principle in property law called accession.

This means that something attached to vehicle becomes part of the vehicle.

For example; a if an owner of a vehicle takes out the hifi that came with the vehicle and installs a much more expensive one then that hifi stays with the car when its sold, because it has become part of the car.

Therefore when a vehicle is clamped, the clamp becomes part of the vehicle and so it now belongs to the owner who holds title to the vehicle. The clamper has just surrendered ownership of the clamp; to the owner of the car so he is free to cut it off and keep it.



edit on 3-5-2018 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Thank you.

Should I ever need, I will remember this info.

a reply to: anonentity



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

False warrant problem is endemic in this country. I think companies that use this ploy are fully aware the police have little to no training in understanding how civil law works or how to correctly identify official paperwork from the courts.

I've seen one such false warrant where the content was a copy and paste job from the Home Office website! No case number, no letter from the courts to say the matter had been presented. The court the company (one of the big utility companies, a subsidiary of another company based in Germany) had supposedly applied to was 200 miles away from the address the false warrant was to action. When challenged, the utility company's employee claimed to be the bailiff!

The only reason any company, organisation or individual may apply to a court other than the one closest to the address of the respondent is because of a simple mechanism called PCOL (Public Courts On Line). The court would write to the respondent, notifying them of the details of the action, provide a case number along with a code and instructions on how to access and use PCOL and giving details of any deadline for response.

When you consider that only in criminal cases or where access is required to deal with a gas emergency, warrants are not so easy to obtain without there having been full due process via the courts (civil matters), then I think it safe to say, all such warrants as described in your OP, are false.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: anonentity

There is a principle in property law called accession.

This means that something attached to vehicle becomes part of the vehicle. .
...
Therefore when a vehicle is clamped, the clamp becomes part of the vehicle and so it now belongs to the owner who holds title to the vehicle. The clamper has just surrendered ownership of the clamp; to the owner of the car so he is free to cut it off and keep it.


That´s not how accession works, absolutely not.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter


The fact is if some one clamps your car, you can call the cops, unless they produce a signed warrant in wet ink. They are acting illegally. They know it.


The Police are their to act impartially and uphold the Law, and make sure their is no breach of the peace. Not act as Corporate collection agents.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:54 AM
link   


The fact is if some one clamps your car, you can call the cops, unless they produce a signed warrant in wet ink. They are acting illegally. They know it.

I know. Do you somehow think I argue otherwhise? I merely pointed out that what Azureblue wrote is simply wrong.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: anonentity

There is a principle in property law called accession.

This means that something attached to vehicle becomes part of the vehicle. .
...
Therefore when a vehicle is clamped, the clamp becomes part of the vehicle and so it now belongs to the owner who holds title to the vehicle. The clamper has just surrendered ownership of the clamp; to the owner of the car so he is free to cut it off and keep it.


That´s not how accession works, absolutely not.


So please feel invited to educate me as if I am missinformed then I need to be corrected.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue




There is a principle in property law called accession.
This means that something attached to vehicle becomes part of the vehicle. .

Not necessary by any means.




Therefore when a vehicle is clamped, the clamp becomes part of the vehicle and so it now belongs to the owner who holds title to the vehicle.

False conclusion. If I lend my navigation system to a friend for a year and he decides to bolt it into there, it still belongs to me and not him. It´s in his possession but I am still the owner.


The clamper has just surrendered ownership of the clamp; to the owner of the car so he is free to cut it off and keep it.

The clamper did not surrender ownership, as the clamp is a device to disable a vehicle. The clamp might be physically attached but while it is, the idendity of the object you attached it to, is altered to non-functional. It´s not longer driveable.

Example:
If you bolt your own stuff into your car and then sell it, all those modifications are part of the deal if physically, permanently attached to the vehicle. However if you sell a car "as is" and even if it´s trash inside, you can´t remove it because it´s part of the deal even without being attached.

Example:
If I sell my house to you, I can´t come back and unmount your heat radiators, because they became part of the house when it was installed. Except, I make an exclusion in the contract that specififally states, that I don´t sell the radiators and will unmount them.


So no, the clamp does not belong to you.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I am in the UK. I moved in to a new home.
I switch't my Gas and electric from SSE southern electric.
as the last people in the house had a pay as you use meter!
you take a card to the shop pay cash then stick it in the meter.
and they would Not let me have direct debit?

so i switch't to scottishpower.
SSE sent me a Bill ? saying I owe them money?
but did not say what for?? odd. as it was pay as you go.
so I rang up and had a talk! with them.
and they say oops! their mistake!
I now dont owe any thing???

how many people Just Pay this Bill?
this IS stealing from people for ending the contract with them.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Azureblue




There is a principle in property law called accession.
This means that something attached to vehicle becomes part of the vehicle. .

Not necessary by any means.




Therefore when a vehicle is clamped, the clamp becomes part of the vehicle and so it now belongs to the owner who holds title to the vehicle.

False conclusion. If I lend my navigation system to a friend for a year and he decides to bolt it into there, it still belongs to me and not him. It´s in his possession but I am still the owner.


The clamper has just surrendered ownership of the clamp; to the owner of the car so he is free to cut it off and keep it.

The clamper did not surrender ownership, as the clamp is a device to disable a vehicle. The clamp might be physically attached but while it is, the idendity of the object you attached it to, is altered to non-functional. It´s not longer driveable.

Example:
If you bolt your own stuff into your car and then sell it, all those modifications are part of the deal if physically, permanently attached to the vehicle. However if you sell a car "as is" and even if it´s trash inside, you can´t remove it because it´s part of the deal even without being attached.

Example:
If I sell my house to you, I can´t come back and unmount your heat radiators, because they became part of the house when it was installed. Except, I make an exclusion in the contract that specififally states, that I don´t sell the radiators and will unmount them.

So no, the clamp does not belong to you.




If I lend my navigation system to a friend for a year and he decides to bolt it into there, it still belongs to me and not him. It´s in his possession but I am still the owner.


If he sold it with your navigation system in it then it would belong to the new owner and not yourself.

Suggest looking up the defintion of accession, in Blacks Law, the earlier edition the better.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue



If he sold it with your navigation system in it then it would belong to the new owner and not yourself.


No it would not.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: buddha


A lot of people would pay the bill especially older people who usually pay up when requested, or think they would get frozen up during the winter.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter


The people who put the Clamp on your car, are acting as a Corporation a Corporation is classed as a person. They operate under Contract law, they assume that you have entered into a Contract with them unless you have informed them that you have not. When informed that you don't want to enter into a contract with them, they must with all reasonable speed remove the clamp. As they have impeded your right to go about your business in a legal manner. Because it is Contract law if you clearly display a sticker saying if the vehicle gets interfered with , and they interfere with it, then they have entered into a contract with you. Not you with them.so you are within your rights to recoup reasonable expenses. Just because they have fancy paperwork , they are working under the same Laws that you do, which have to be administered without fear of favor.
Its in a Corporations interest to make people think, they have far reaching powers above yours so any demands should be met without any argument, but this is far from the case. Any time they loose, gathering revenue because of unprofitable paperwork, makes them think about desisting because any reasonable request must be answered, and most of them haven't got enough staff to spare .If they have to hand your case over to the legal department for advise they have to pay big time. Not you .In the end its cheaper to leave you alone.
The DVLA is a Corporation, they charge for information when a Parking ticket gets issued, the Corporation that issued the ticket has to pay them or they wont get your address. Even then they are just charging the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver at the time of the infringement, who would be the one liable if you entered into contract.Their was a traffic cop who registered all his Vehicles, as owned by Mickey Mouse. He knew the law . The registered owner is also a legal fiction.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Azureblue



If he sold it with your navigation system in it then it would belong to the new owner and not yourself.


No it would not.



If you loaned a navigation system to your friend and you made it clear that it was for a temporary period of time and your friend deliberately sold it along with the car, then then it would technically constitute to theft. The friend would be appropriating the property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving you of it.

Stolen property, always remains stolen property, irrespective of time.

Your friends only defence, would be that he honestly believed you would have allowed him to keep your device or give it away to another. Due to the fact you made it clear the loan of the item was temporary, that defence would collapse.

Your friend on the other hand could be in breach of contract if he misrepresented to the buyer, that he owned the sat nav and it was being sold with the car, when clearly he didn't at it wasn't.

Just because the buyer thought he was getting the Sat Nav does not mean he is legally allowed to keep it, if it belongs to another.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
It does make me laugh though when people ask a Police Officer about civil law and because the state they have no idea, they get berated in a Monty Python style shriek of " " Ooohhhhh he doesn't know the law!"

Police officers in the UK undergo zero training with respect to Civil law.....Non...Nada because it is not their job to know or to understand it. Just as they have zero training in consumer law etc.

They are trained in certain basic elements of criminal law that allows them to carry out their duties as an officer. That's it.

In civil cases they instructed to advise that it is not a Police matter and attend only to prevent a breach of the Police.

So quite frankly, it's not their job to know any law apart from criminal law.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: verschickter


The people who put the Clamp on your car, are acting as a Corporation a Corporation is classed as a person. They operate under Contract law, they assume that you have entered into a Contract with them unless you have informed them that you have not. When informed that you don't want to enter into a contract with them, they must with all reasonable speed remove the clamp. As they have impeded your right to go about your business in a legal manner. Because it is Contract law if you clearly display a sticker saying if the vehicle gets interfered with , and they interfere with it, then they have entered into a contract with you. Not you with them.so you are within your rights to recoup reasonable expenses. Just because they have fancy paperwork , they are working under the same Laws that you do, which have to be administered without fear of favor.
Its in a Corporations interest to make people think, they have far reaching powers above yours so any demands should be met without any argument, but this is far from the case. Any time they loose, gathering revenue because of unprofitable paperwork, makes them think about desisting because any reasonable request must be answered, and most of them haven't got enough staff to spare .If they have to hand your case over to the legal department for advise they have to pay big time. Not you .In the end its cheaper to leave you alone.
The DVLA is a Corporation, they charge for information when a Parking ticket gets issued, the Corporation that issued the ticket has to pay them or they wont get your address. Even then they are just charging the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver at the time of the infringement, who would be the one liable if you entered into contract.Their was a traffic cop who registered all his Vehicles, as owned by Mickey Mouse. He knew the law . The registered owner is also a legal fiction.


Good thought actually.

David Wynn Millar (i think is his name) suggests a sign on the car reading "the charge for renting this vehicle is $xyz per day. By clamping or removing this car,the clamper agrees to all the terms and conditions of the rental agreement attached herein."



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I know and I agree. I´m not definding this practice, never did. It´s not my point.

My point is, what Azureblue wrote is not fact. The point about ownership. You can´t sell something that does not legal belong to you. And the point about surrendering ownership of the clamp is also not correct.

If you sell my navigation system as part of your car, the navigation system was never legally yours, it was mine. I don´t argue if it´s seen as theft, fraud or whatever. Fact is, the navigation system is still mine.

You can´t sell something legally that does not belong to you except you have a signed "power of attorney" and then still the money belongs to me, except I specifically state it´s a gift.. By lending something away for a limited time, I don´t surrender ownership.

Nothing more and nothing less is my point.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter



True he has caused you loss and must make recompense. These things happen.
The bigger problem and we all know and can see it is the steady erosions of freedoms. I think in 2015 the police no longer accompany a Bailiff unless their is a good chance of a disturbance of the peace. This might be simply that a Police force is a Corporation and as such could be sued. So now they are making Police officers personally liable as One forth of all murders in Britain are caused by the Police, by rights they should be paying out a lot of money in damages, but if anyone claims, the claimant is up against the Police and the Judge which are paid by the same people so theirs an immediate conflict of interest. As far a Common law goes, they no longer exist to uphold the rights of the people , they never really did. Here's a good vid, explaining the difference between Common law and Corporate law. The lack of knowledge will get a lot of people screwed over, but the old adage of signing nothing still holds true, unless you enter into Contract they cant really do much, they think they can, but Judges know better as they very rarely sign Corporate Warrants , simply because they then become personally liable.
Californian Police officers according to this guy are told to put all their assets in their wives name as they are also personally liable. In the YouTube vid their are a mass of cases where the high court in the states have acknowledged that you don't need a license to use a car unless you are getting paid. Its in the comments section. www.youtube.com...







 
2

log in

join