Newlyn Charges

[Amy]

Re: Newlyn Charges

At some risk of adding to my notoriety for the use of this (unreported) precedent, one might wish to refer Newlyns to the celebrated retort in the 1971 case of Arkell v. Pressdram ----> link

See post #27, circa 2009.

Parking Fine - Civil Enforcement - Page 2 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Amy]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Regardless of what the company "cannot" do or, more pedantically, should not do...

... they have done it.

This is precisely why one should not ask nicely and instead do it formally, as per my post #8.

[ExBailiff31]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Thanks for your advices.

The car is my next door neighbours. Nothing to do with us. The breakdown does state the council tax amounts but one of these keeps changing depending on the letter, as I said before. Are you saying that they cannot charge for an attendance fee and levy if they came on the same day??

Exactly right they cannot charge for an attendance fee and levy on the same day, and further more the levy fee and walking possession fee should also now be removed as they levied a vehicle that is not your's and so therefore have not completed a levy which they have charged you to do my advice would be to contact them direct and make an arrangement over the phone (don't let them charge you for this) the levy that the Bailiff kindly left at your house should now state a break down of the costs and fine so you can see exactly whats owed minus these ILLEGAL COSTS

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Not sure where it was, I don't have a drive so I can only assume it was parked on the road either outside my house or in the vicinity.

Have you told the berks that it was not your motor car and, if you have, what was the response?

[Mrs H]

Re: Newlyn Charges

I will be telling them in the letter that I am writing now. I didnt know until their most recent letter what the levy was for. Thanks for your help guys, I will keep you updated on events.

[ploddertom]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Have you ever seen this:

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman


As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.


Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

[Mrs H]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Hi just to give you all an update, Newlyn has just removed all levies and the Attendance Fee. We just have to pay the visit fee, which I am quite happy to do now. Thanks for all your help.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Hi just to give you all an update, Newlyn has just removed all levies and the Attendance Fee. We just have to pay the visit fee, which I am quite happy to do now. Thanks for all your help.

Why should you pay anything to those moronic monkeys?

[WendyB]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Why should you pay anything to those moronic monkeys?

Because they did actually visit? That would be a reason to pay. If they are only asking a first visit fee, £24, then this is legitimate, as after all they did visit.

Well done Mrs H on seeing it through and getting a satisfactory result.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Because they did actually visit? That would be a reason to pay. If they are only asking a first visit fee, £24, then this is legitimate, as after all they did visit.

Yes, but then they tried to add charges for an improper levy which one might say does look like attempted fraud. As the spurious charges were imposed at the same time as the "visit", to pay for that visit does seem wrong; it is generally public policy that nobody should benefit from any crime or attempted crime.

Even if the fee for the visit were legally enforceable, Newlyn should have waived it and written it off as a good will gesture.

As they have therefore demonstrated a dearth of good will on their part, Mrs H would be fully justified to repay them in kind by making an official complaint about their antics.

[Amy]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Well done Mrs H and you are right to pay it. Two wrongs do not make a right x

[Mrs H]

Re: Newlyn Charges

Thanks WendyB, We did think we should pay as they did actually visit, that fee we had no problem with it was the other dubious and extortionate amounts we did. However CleverClogs I see your point and we will make an official complaint.