Bailiff clamped your hire-purchase car.

Enforcement agents (bailiffs) are prohibited from taking control goods under lease or on hire purchase.

Ownership does not transfer to the debtor until the vehicle purchase option is exercised.

Enforcement agencies may argue that debtors hold a "beneficial interest" in hire purchase vehicles. However, this argument was dismissed in court during a case involving Newlyn Plc (represented by Peter Felton Gerber) and Marston (Holdings) Ltd "marston recovery". The solicitor attempted to deceive a judge with this flawed legal assertion but were unsuccessful.

Some bailiffs may claim that the hirer is responsible for fines incurred "on the vehicle." However, warrants for traffic debts are directed at the driver, identified as "The Respondent," rather than the vehicle itself.

Enforcement agents know they cannot clamp hire-purchase vehicles. Moreover, they are aware of the significant risk of facing costly legal claims. Therefore, they proactively remove the clamp when they anticipate an impending injunction application.

You have the option to seek a court injunction against both the bailiff and the council, demanding the release of the vehicle, and you may claim damages, such as loss of earnings, and the expenses incurred in initiating legal proceedings.

Upon serving the injunction and removing the clamp, the likelihood of recovering traffic contravention debts and bailiff fees diminishes significantly for the bailiff.

Nevertheless, this does not absolve you of the debt and associated enforcement fees. Yet, continuing enforcement actions become financially burdensome for the bailiff due to bearing the legal expenses of the injunction.

Consequently, clamping hire-purchase goods presents a high-risk scenario for bailiffs.


The Law:

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Binding property in the debtor's goods

(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.

(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given.

By taking control of the Hire Purchase or leased vehicle, the bailiff breaches the following:

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.

The bailiff is unable to sell the vehicle because, in accordance with the law, a purchaser does not acquire legitimate ownership.

Paragraph 51 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Passing of title

(1)A purchaser of controlled goods acquires good title, with two exceptions.

(2)The exceptions apply only if the goods are not the debtor's at the time of sale.

(3)The first exception is where the purchaser, the creditor, the enforcement agent or a related party has notice that the goods are not the debtor's.

(4)The second exception is where a lawful claimant has already made an application to the court claiming an interest in the goods.

(5)A lawful claimant in relation to goods is a person who has an interest in them at the time of sale, other than an interest that was assigned or transferred to him while the property in the goods was bound for the purposes of the enforcement power.


(6)A related party is any person who acts in exercise of an enforcement power, other than the creditor or enforcement agent.

(7)"The court" has the same meaning as in paragraph 60.

You commence the injunction against the creditor (or council) represented by the bailiff company, in accordance with provision 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which stipulates:


Remedies available to the debtor

66(1)This paragraph applies where an enforcement agent—

(a)breaches a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective.

(2)The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser.

(3)But the debtor may bring proceedings under this paragraph.

(4)Subject to rules of court, the proceedings may be brought—

(a)in the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

(b)in the county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by the county court;

(c)in any other case, in the High Court or the county court.

(5)In the proceedings the court may—

(a)order goods to be returned to the debtor;

(b)order the enforcement agent or a related party to pay damages in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach or of anything done under the defective instrument.

(6)A related party is either of the following (if different from the enforcement agent)—

(a)the person on whom the enforcement power is conferred,

(b)the creditor.

(7)Sub-paragraph (5) is without prejudice to any other powers of the court.

(8)Sub-paragraph (5)(b) does not apply where the enforcement agent acted in the reasonable belief—

(a)that he was not breaching a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)(as the case may be) that the instrument was not defective

(9)This paragraph is subject to paragraph 59 in the case of a breach of paragraph 58(3).


Template: Inform the bailiff company and the bailiff through email and text message about the Hire Purchase status of the vehicle. Ensure to save screenshots of the sent messages displaying the time of delivery (notification).

This step invalidates any prospective sale and satisfies the pre-action protocol for pursuing an injunction if the hire purchase vehicle remains unreleased by the designated deadline.

Should the deadline elapse, you have the option to seek an injunction compelling the bailiff to either remove the wheel clamp from your vehicle or release the car.

Gather the following items:

    A photograph of the vehicle displaying the number plate and the wheel clamp.

    A copy of the hire-purchase agreement or leasing contract, highlighting the section stating that the goods remain the property of the lender until the final payment has been completed.

    If under hire purchase, evidence of outstanding finance, which can be obtained through an online screenshot of the balance.

    Capture a clear image of the document attached to the vehicle, identifying the bailiff responsible for clamping the car.

    In the event that the bailiff company maintains the clamp on the car despite receiving notice, you may proceed to apply for an injunction and claim damages and costs.



Misinterpretations of hire purchase agreements perpetuated by bailiff companies when defending against injunctions.

Newlyn Plc: The assertion that the hirer possesses a cumulative beneficial interest in the goods was overturned in Mulwayni v. LB Croydon* at the Central London County Court on 7 April 2017.

Marston Group Limited: Despite bailiffs being unable to sell hire purchase cars, they are permitted to clamp them. This argument was dismissed in Kelly v. Highways England at the Central London County Court on 11 June 2018.

Marston Group Limited: The practice of placing a debtor's hire-purchase vehicle "on clamp" to coerce the hirer into making a money transfer was defeated in Tandea v. Marston Group Limited at the Central London County Court in January 2020.

Drakes Group: The notion that bailiffs can settle the finance by selling the vehicle and distributing the proceeds was invalidated when the hirer sued the lender for breach of contract.

Marston Group Limited: The tactic of clamping a debtor's hire-purchase vehicle to coerce the hirer into making a money transfer was rejected in Rafiq v. Transport for London at the Central London County Court on 2 March 2020.

Marston Group Limited: The claim that the debtor holds an 'interest' in the car was disproven in Ande v. Highways England Ltd at the Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, where the client was awarded damages of £10,813.99 plus costs on 3 May 2022.


* At the 'Mulwayni' hearing, solicitor Peter Felton Gerber (of Feltons Law), representing the Defendant LB Croydon, directed personal criticisms towards the legal draftsman, Jason Bennison, who was engaged in the aforementioned cases.