Discussion
Rouleur said:
Bella Smallville today said:
jonno990 said:
Out of interest OP Did you tell your insurance company that you where using your car for delivering fast food? I only ask because near me the police have taken to parking up outside such places and 'pulling' drivers and impounding their car's.
p.s. hope you get the alfa back t
ts
We're actually covered third party via Domino's own insurance for their drivers, but you have to be over 21 to drive for them!!p.s. hope you get the alfa back t
tsBella Smallville on 9th September said:
Shaw Tarse said:
As mentioned do you have business use on your insurance?
Yes I do fella, I had to have it for my previous job so just kept up paying it as I knew I would need it 
Before someone asks have I contacted the insurance company and yes I have done, not that it was much use ffs!
Also would it be possible for you to post a scan of the docs showing the change of ownership to LBS?
Oh and Zoller, your correct in that as well. But I would have to tell my insurance comapany even if I didn't claim for myself.
I'll try to scan a copy of the paperwork that shows it was transfered on the 8th September, but the scaner is playing up. I might be able to post a link mind you
Edited by Bella Smallville on Saturday 20th November 11:54
Edited by Bella Smallville on Saturday 20th November 11:59
Simond S said:
e
Be interesting to see what it sold for. I'd wager about £3k or less. (Especially if sold to a mate which I would expect to have happened.)
How did you piss them off so spectacularly? They have a reputation for being bds. You are the only car I know of that has been turned in 24hours. You must have done / said something.
Still on your side btw. Just think you have ridiculously overvalued your car, and something happened in the immediate hour after clamping.
Your right it is overvalued the car, but I was asked how much have I spent on the car since I had it so I just listed everything to the reporter who then valued it as what he put, so I didn't really have much say in what to put towards that I'm afraid fella.Bella Smallville said:
I'll try and provide links and the price it cost me at the time as well, hope I remember everything as well 
So it's actually more than what I thought and that is not including the smaller cosmetic things either
To be fair unless they popped round and collected the spare set of wheels and spare suspension set up I'm not sure they count toward your "value" of the car.- I had orginally bought some Bilstein B8 Sprint shocks - £595.79
- Then a set of Eibach lowering springs - £118.93
- Ragazzon uncilenced centre section - £84.79
- Autodelta backbox - £269.99
- I had then bought a K&N panel filter - £48.00
- BMC CDA with custom intake pipe £189.00
- A set of 16" Lusso alloys with cold weather tires fitted - £750.00
- A set of 17" SuperSport alloys with summer tires (that lasted 8000miles each time) - £1400.00
- GTA style xenon headlights - £1200.00
- GTA ARBs - £200.00
- GT style centre console - £70.00
- GT style leather Recaro seats - £600
- Piper fast road cams - £700
- Most recently a set of Bilstein B16 Coilovers (fully adjustables) - £1365.30
So it's actually more than what I thought and that is not including the smaller cosmetic things either
Be interesting to see what it sold for. I'd wager about £3k or less. (Especially if sold to a mate which I would expect to have happened.)
How did you piss them off so spectacularly? They have a reputation for being b
ds. You are the only car I know of that has been turned in 24hours. You must have done / said something. Still on your side btw. Just think you have ridiculously overvalued your car, and something happened in the immediate hour after clamping.
Now from what I know, LBS did not take very kindly to me getting the police involved as they we're sure they wouldn't be interested, and they didn't like the fact that I won't drop it, also from what I have been told I am one of the only people who have actually got anywhere with the police!
streaky said:
Apologies if this link has been posted previously - a quick scan back through the past few days' posts didn't turn it up ...
Clampers ‘had right to sell Scott's car'.
I wonder whether the argument as to whether a criminal offence has been committed (presumably under the Theft Act 1968) revolves around the time at which the intent to permanently deprive was formed.
At the time the car was removed there was (arguably) no intent. Any intent was formed later (that day according to reports here and in the local press) when LBS re-registered the car and sold it to cover 'the debt'. Whether the 'debt' was at that stage (a) enforceable, and (b) enforceable in that way is debatable. My lay view is that it was not and could not have been. If I am correct (in law) then Scott's car was stolen by LBS or someone acting on LBS's behalf.
However, and this notwithstanding, I wonder whether there is a fine line of law here that LBS have trodden, or a befogged division between criminal and civil law that LBS have exploited, and that the police have seized upon to mitigate both their need to take action and their potential embarrassment through not having acting positively in this and other, similar, cases.
Streaky
See that is where we tried drilling into the police that they had infact 'stolen' the car and had no intension of giving it back when I found out the information about them transfering the car into their name, but they we're just not bothered about it. Clampers ‘had right to sell Scott's car'.
I wonder whether the argument as to whether a criminal offence has been committed (presumably under the Theft Act 1968) revolves around the time at which the intent to permanently deprive was formed.
At the time the car was removed there was (arguably) no intent. Any intent was formed later (that day according to reports here and in the local press) when LBS re-registered the car and sold it to cover 'the debt'. Whether the 'debt' was at that stage (a) enforceable, and (b) enforceable in that way is debatable. My lay view is that it was not and could not have been. If I am correct (in law) then Scott's car was stolen by LBS or someone acting on LBS's behalf.
However, and this notwithstanding, I wonder whether there is a fine line of law here that LBS have trodden, or a befogged division between criminal and civil law that LBS have exploited, and that the police have seized upon to mitigate both their need to take action and their potential embarrassment through not having acting positively in this and other, similar, cases.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Sunday 21st November 16:31
We even pounted out to the DC and DI and showing them where it says:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly.
But they kept on saying that it happened on private land so is a civil matter, and that was the last time I have spoken to them as I just got so pissed off at them for it.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
BliarOut said:
streaky said:
Apologies if this link has been posted previous;y - a quick scan back through the past few days' posts didn't turn it up ...
Clampers ‘had right to sell Scott's car'.
I wonder whether the argument as to whether a criminal offence has been committed (presumably under the Theft Act 1968) revolves around the time at which the intent to permanently deprive was formed.
At the time the car was removed there was (arguably) no intent. Any intent was formed later (that day according to reports here and in the local press) when LBS re-registered the car and sold it to cover 'the debt'. Whether the 'debt' was at that stage (a) enforceable, and (b) enforceable in that way is debatable. My lay view is that it was not and could not have been. If I am correct (in law) then Scott's car was stolen by LBS or someone acting on LBS's behalf.
However, and this notwithstanding, I wonder whether there is a fine line of law here that LBS have trodden, or a befogged division between criminal and civil law that LBS have exploited, and that the police have seized upon to mitigate both their need to take action and their potential embarrassment through not having acting positively in this and other, similar, cases.
Streaky
That being the case, couldn't Bella lawfully take an LBS vehicle and sell it to recover the outstanding monies owed on the sale of his vehicle?Clampers ‘had right to sell Scott's car'.
I wonder whether the argument as to whether a criminal offence has been committed (presumably under the Theft Act 1968) revolves around the time at which the intent to permanently deprive was formed.
At the time the car was removed there was (arguably) no intent. Any intent was formed later (that day according to reports here and in the local press) when LBS re-registered the car and sold it to cover 'the debt'. Whether the 'debt' was at that stage (a) enforceable, and (b) enforceable in that way is debatable. My lay view is that it was not and could not have been. If I am correct (in law) then Scott's car was stolen by LBS or someone acting on LBS's behalf.
However, and this notwithstanding, I wonder whether there is a fine line of law here that LBS have trodden, or a befogged division between criminal and civil law that LBS have exploited, and that the police have seized upon to mitigate both their need to take action and their potential embarrassment through not having acting positively in this and other, similar, cases.
Streaky
- Please note there is no evidence at this point that the plod were bribed its merely a guess.
In fact does it not say on the ticket that you are given by the clampers how long they will keep the car before attempting to sell it to recover their costs???
Also as has been stated elsewhere surely if they sell that car to recover their costs they are obliged in law to give any difference between sale price and costs removed back to the owner??
If they stated for ex that Bella owed £900 and they sold the car for £10k surely they are only legally allowed to keep the £900?
But on there it does it not say anything about how long you have before they sell the car to recover the 'debt' and no where does it say anything about giving the rest of the money back.
NoNeed said:
Have you considered a private prosecution?
I have but I simply don't have the funds to take it on by myself, so I have contacted the reporter who has done the story about LBS and other drivers and asked if he could supply the persons email addresses and phone numbers, then see if we can all pull together (money) and take out a PP against Mark Stone and Matthew Boosey.So it'll be 'the people vs Mark Stone/Matthew Boosey
If you get what I mean?
Tallbut Buxomly said:
Bella have you not spoken to a lawyer yet about this???
I have googled images of clamping tickets and on none of them do i see any note saying the vehicle will be sold to recover their costs. Indeed all they say is they will take you to court to recover their costs.
To me it would seem that if your ticket said the same then what the clampers did can only be defined as theft (regardless of where from) as they gave no reasonable warning in writing or verbal to the effect your car would be sold to recover the cost.
You also gave them no authority to sell the vehicle in writing or verbal.
That is in my opinion theft. Pure and simple. There are solicitors and lawyers on ph surely one of them would be able to verify my thinking here???
I have been to see a solicitor and he can't see what I can do against LBS as they just won't turn up to court or anything, he suggested taking action against the directors but to do that I need money which I just don't have I have googled images of clamping tickets and on none of them do i see any note saying the vehicle will be sold to recover their costs. Indeed all they say is they will take you to court to recover their costs.
To me it would seem that if your ticket said the same then what the clampers did can only be defined as theft (regardless of where from) as they gave no reasonable warning in writing or verbal to the effect your car would be sold to recover the cost.
You also gave them no authority to sell the vehicle in writing or verbal.
That is in my opinion theft. Pure and simple. There are solicitors and lawyers on ph surely one of them would be able to verify my thinking here???
plg said:
plg said:
I strongly suggest you contact a local lawyer who will provide a 30 minutes consultation free of charge - many will.
Before you do that, write down, in chronological order, all of the events. No allegations, no thoughts of corruption, etc, just the facts.
Collate your evidence together in a neat bundle with references to the chronology. Keep it factual. If material is missing, state that it is. Make it easy to follow.
Approach the lawyer with this info.
Before you do that, write down, in chronological order, all of the events. No allegations, no thoughts of corruption, etc, just the facts.
Collate your evidence together in a neat bundle with references to the chronology. Keep it factual. If material is missing, state that it is. Make it easy to follow.
Approach the lawyer with this info.
Bella Smallville said:
hadenough! said:
Bella Smallville said:
I have been advised by someone that I should of taken out an injunction against them for getting the car back but I guess that is to late now, or can I take out the injunction against whoever now owns the car?
Thought your dad was a solicitor?Why isn't one of your fathers colleagues advising you on this? Law is a smallish world, why doesn't he know someone in the right field? Or a colleague who will give you an hour of free advice?
To be honest I'm shocked that he didn't give you the same advice I have regarding documentation and chronology. Is there anything you haven't told him, but have told us, or vice versa?
Edit: The above comes across a bit negatively - sorry - wasn't meant to - just surprised you aren't leaning hard on you fathers network of solicitors and that you haven't got some formal advice yet.
Edited by plg on Monday 22 November 11:37
over_the_hill said:
in the paper
http://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news/echo/867513...
It says your father works with Solicitors not that he is one.
Is he or isn't he.
He works with solicitors, that's how he knows all that he does http://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news/echo/867513...
It says your father works with Solicitors not that he is one.
Is he or isn't he.
plg said:
Bella Smallville said:
The solicitors that I have been to see has been through my father, it's not that my dad does not know what I can do, but he wanted me to go and see someone who would be able to help me more and offer better advice
And what was his formal advice?Hence why he put me in contact with several solicitos for me to chat with and see what I else I can do.
ZOLLAR said:
Bella Smallville said:
over_the_hill said:
in the paper
http://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news/echo/867513...
It says your father works with Solicitors not that he is one.
Is he or isn't he.
He works with solicitors, that's how he knows all that he does http://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news/echo/867513...
It says your father works with Solicitors not that he is one.
Is he or isn't he.
Should of made that clear and included that at some point!
ZOLLAR said:
Bella Smallville said:
I did say that, but his actually a Law Costs Consultant, he used to be a solicitor before moving into what he does now
Should of made that clear and included that at some point!
I think there are alot of things you need to make clear...Should of made that clear and included that at some point!
I'll say again something is missing from the whole situation which has caused LBS to do this and the police not to take action, but i'm not sure what..
ZOLLAR said:
Bella Smallville said:
ZOLLAR said:
Bella Smallville said:
I did say that, but his actually a Law Costs Consultant, he used to be a solicitor before moving into what he does now
Should of made that clear and included that at some point!
I think there are alot of things you need to make clear...Should of made that clear and included that at some point!
I'll say again something is missing from the whole situation which has caused LBS to do this and the police not to take action, but i'm not sure what..
I'd never leave it rest!!.
Nick M said:
Bella Smallville said:
Like I have said before, I don't know why they have done this to me and no one else, maybe they saw a nice car and thought that they can get more money selling it rather than me paying them the money, I feel i'll never know why and neither will anyone on here
Forgive me, but that sounds like you've admitted defeat.Have you ?
And if so, what lessons have you learned from this whole sorry saga ?
k and look after the criminals!!!So I am not giving up, I won't give up until I satisfied with the outcome.
What have I learnt? Erm...not to count on the police to do the right thing, maybe take law into your own hands and NEVER park in a private carpark!!
BlueTwo2 said:
Let's see those documents!
What documents would you like me to put up on here and i'll see if I can find them I have a copy of the check which shows when the car was transfered!
https://www.mycarcheck.com/customers/retrieve/1005...
oldcynic said:
Bella Smallville said:
I have a copy of the check which shows when the car was transfered!
https://www.mycarcheck.com/customers/retrieve/1005...
Love that information - protected against Identity theft, no record of it being stolen, and it covered 7000 miles from July 2007 to October 2007, before reversing for 500 miles over the following month!https://www.mycarcheck.com/customers/retrieve/1005...
streaky said:
oldcynic beat me to it on the 'clocking' discrepency, as I was checking something from earlier in the thread.
The last date of transfer was 8 September, but BS stated in the OP that the 'lift' happened at night on the 8th (which was a Wednesday). It it possible to re-register a vehicle during DVLA's silent hours? Can it be done online?
Streaky
No idea, waiting for someone with more knowledge with the DLVA to come alone.The last date of transfer was 8 September, but BS stated in the OP that the 'lift' happened at night on the 8th (which was a Wednesday). It it possible to re-register a vehicle during DVLA's silent hours? Can it be done online?
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Monday 22 November 15:02
streaky said:
Bella Smallville said:
oldcynic said:
Bella Smallville said:
I have a copy of the check which shows when the car was transfered!
https://www.mycarcheck.com/customers/retrieve/1005...
Love that information - protected against Identity theft, no record of it being stolen, and it covered 7000 miles from July 2007 to October 2007, before reversing for 500 miles over the following month!https://www.mycarcheck.com/customers/retrieve/1005...
Whether or not this actually happened, it is the sort of remark that increases one's feeling of scepticism. Continual corrections of earlier statements doesn't help either.
Streaky
ked!
ollie j said:
Ok, so i've read this whole thread and I must say, it's an awful position that you're in. I hope that this is resolved in your favour soon.
I do have a slightly O/T question though... Why Bella Smallville?!
Bella was the name of the car, as a noun in Italian it means beautiful and Smallville is because I love Smallville I do have a slightly O/T question though... Why Bella Smallville?!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff