I had a similar run in with who I believe to be the same enforcement officer. The debt wasnt mine but my brothers who used to live with me. The officer had the same attitude of I can do what i want. After about 3 months of being passed from pillar to post between marstons and the courts it all came to an end when a court helped me get marstons off my back. Im from hull and the courts wouldnt help. However a court from sheffield did help me.
I renamed the MoJ the Ministry of Injustice long ago so these shocking revelations about the Ministry come as no surprise to me. I also know just what kind of behaviour the Government Legal Department is capable of. I’m a layman – can anyone explain to me what the role of the MoJ is? In the last 15 to 20 years, we’ve witnessed the largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history. Did anyone at the MoJ notice what was happening? Were they all asleep?
I could provide evidence of MoJ corruption but I’m aware your moderators tend to delete any reference to a contributor’s personal experience – even when it is directly relevant to what you are discussing in your blog.
Excellent podcast - as ever. The facility to read the timed transcript to clarify a phrase heard (a chose in action - in this case) is really helpful Joshua - many thanks to your technical bods for including it👏❤️
The work of civil recovery agents feature time and again in television series, and every time it is emphasised that goods which are the property of a finance company (or another third party) may not be taken, so how this recovery agent got it so wrong is a mystery to me.
Clamping in England is an unregulated scam. It needs hard regulation to keep it under control. Private clamping on private property ought to be virtually illegal. Its seizing control of property belonging to another without warrant or reasonable proportional need. Its just excuse to make money.
Mr Bumble was right. The law is an ass. Sometimes. Such as here.
If you ask someone “What car have you got” you expect the answer to cover a car such as the one in this case. Pleasing as it always is to see David beat Goliath the result is absurd.
It’s not just debts due on fines which the law is incapable of collecting; it’s all judgment debt. But that’s a subject on which I had better not get started!
While I agree that technically the MoJ should not do this, it does raise some interesting questions. While a person does not own the car, they do have a propriety interest in it (the lease), and nobody else could use the car while they hold that interest, so depriving him of it could be legitimate. I guess the issue is that it could not be sold to realise the debt, but it does raise interesting questions about what he would have done had they seized it, as he would have had to pay the HP still. I am sure he would have found the money to pay. Currently, as I understand it, goods are seized to dispose of, but if they were seized until the debt was paid, I wonder whether more would pay.
More broadly, there is a problem with collection of fines. An horrendous amount of fines seem to be outstanding and very little effort is made to enforce them. I suspect most of the general public would be surprised to learn that a fine in the Magistrates' Court is usually enforced by civil enforcement procedures. Given the funding crisis of the MoJ, one cannot help wonder whether getting better at enforcing fines may provide some money, and reassurance to the public at a time when, rightly, jailing people for a short time is likely to reduce significantly.
I haven't read the judgment yet, and so it may be that the fine was issued incorrectly and if so, then clearly something has gone wrong, but if it wasn't, then it's perhaps odd he can afford the costs of litigating but not to pay the fine.
Anyway, an interesting case as ever, but as I say, I think there are two interesting issues here. The first is the legal status of the car and that it should not be seized, and second, that we have a problem with fine enforcement.
Thank you. To be honest, I didn't know how fines are enforced either. But I do think there are important public policy issues here: enforcement agents need to be accountable.
I was caught in the hold up on the M25 due to the protestors; I was on my way to Maidstone Crown Court to represent a young and vulnerable defendant. I was 2 hours late and he was very distressed. Not that consequences like these matter to those who decide that their right to protest is more important than thousands of others’ civil rights.
Great piece of work, especially as this topic is so important to the ‘little’ people i.e. The victims who are forced into the justice system to fight for their basic human rights. A great word of encouragement!!
I am delighted that you’re launching a podcast, Joshua, as we’ve badly missed you being on air. I hope that this also gives you the space to explore issues in a depth not always allowed by the constraints of radio commissioning.
But Joshua, why should the finance company have been liable for the hirers unlawful acts? Am I missing something? Thanks for nice short, probing, vigilant pieces.
The finance company was never going to be liable. The only question was whether the creditor (MoJ) was liable for the unlawful acts of the enforcement officer. If not, he could only have been sued personally.
I had a similar run in with who I believe to be the same enforcement officer. The debt wasnt mine but my brothers who used to live with me. The officer had the same attitude of I can do what i want. After about 3 months of being passed from pillar to post between marstons and the courts it all came to an end when a court helped me get marstons off my back. Im from hull and the courts wouldnt help. However a court from sheffield did help me.
Thank you.
Very good but still shocking that those in authority are not visibly held to account when they abuse it.
Dear Joshua,
I renamed the MoJ the Ministry of Injustice long ago so these shocking revelations about the Ministry come as no surprise to me. I also know just what kind of behaviour the Government Legal Department is capable of. I’m a layman – can anyone explain to me what the role of the MoJ is? In the last 15 to 20 years, we’ve witnessed the largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history. Did anyone at the MoJ notice what was happening? Were they all asleep?
I could provide evidence of MoJ corruption but I’m aware your moderators tend to delete any reference to a contributor’s personal experience – even when it is directly relevant to what you are discussing in your blog.
Dudley, That’s right, I’m afraid. General comments are fine, though.
Joshua
Excellent podcast - as ever. The facility to read the timed transcript to clarify a phrase heard (a chose in action - in this case) is really helpful Joshua - many thanks to your technical bods for including it👏❤️
Thank you. This time, the technical bod is me. Sorry the software is thrown by smart quotes.
Well done you 👏🙂
The work of civil recovery agents feature time and again in television series, and every time it is emphasised that goods which are the property of a finance company (or another third party) may not be taken, so how this recovery agent got it so wrong is a mystery to me.
One for the little people.
Clamping in England is an unregulated scam. It needs hard regulation to keep it under control. Private clamping on private property ought to be virtually illegal. Its seizing control of property belonging to another without warrant or reasonable proportional need. Its just excuse to make money.
Mr Bumble was right. The law is an ass. Sometimes. Such as here.
If you ask someone “What car have you got” you expect the answer to cover a car such as the one in this case. Pleasing as it always is to see David beat Goliath the result is absurd.
It’s not just debts due on fines which the law is incapable of collecting; it’s all judgment debt. But that’s a subject on which I had better not get started!
While I agree that technically the MoJ should not do this, it does raise some interesting questions. While a person does not own the car, they do have a propriety interest in it (the lease), and nobody else could use the car while they hold that interest, so depriving him of it could be legitimate. I guess the issue is that it could not be sold to realise the debt, but it does raise interesting questions about what he would have done had they seized it, as he would have had to pay the HP still. I am sure he would have found the money to pay. Currently, as I understand it, goods are seized to dispose of, but if they were seized until the debt was paid, I wonder whether more would pay.
More broadly, there is a problem with collection of fines. An horrendous amount of fines seem to be outstanding and very little effort is made to enforce them. I suspect most of the general public would be surprised to learn that a fine in the Magistrates' Court is usually enforced by civil enforcement procedures. Given the funding crisis of the MoJ, one cannot help wonder whether getting better at enforcing fines may provide some money, and reassurance to the public at a time when, rightly, jailing people for a short time is likely to reduce significantly.
I haven't read the judgment yet, and so it may be that the fine was issued incorrectly and if so, then clearly something has gone wrong, but if it wasn't, then it's perhaps odd he can afford the costs of litigating but not to pay the fine.
Anyway, an interesting case as ever, but as I say, I think there are two interesting issues here. The first is the legal status of the car and that it should not be seized, and second, that we have a problem with fine enforcement.
Thank you. To be honest, I didn't know how fines are enforced either. But I do think there are important public policy issues here: enforcement agents need to be accountable.
I was caught in the hold up on the M25 due to the protestors; I was on my way to Maidstone Crown Court to represent a young and vulnerable defendant. I was 2 hours late and he was very distressed. Not that consequences like these matter to those who decide that their right to protest is more important than thousands of others’ civil rights.
Zeigler judgment. Its given a near endless legality to do virtually wtf demonstration want regardless of how much others are inconvenienced.
The sentencing judge is well aware of the economic damage caused by the protests but it’s good to have practical examples in mind too.
Great piece of work, especially as this topic is so important to the ‘little’ people i.e. The victims who are forced into the justice system to fight for their basic human rights. A great word of encouragement!!
Thank you
I am delighted that you’re launching a podcast, Joshua, as we’ve badly missed you being on air. I hope that this also gives you the space to explore issues in a depth not always allowed by the constraints of radio commissioning.
Indeed!
Thank you! Radio certainly involves constraints. But it also provides resources.
Very true!
But Joshua, why should the finance company have been liable for the hirers unlawful acts? Am I missing something? Thanks for nice short, probing, vigilant pieces.
The finance company was never going to be liable. The only question was whether the creditor (MoJ) was liable for the unlawful acts of the enforcement officer. If not, he could only have been sued personally.
CA URL returns no case in my browser Joshua. Is it correct?
It should give you this: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/681.pdf