Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

[michael the mouse]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

I did receive notifications from the Council, yes. I will write back to Newlyn asking for that information, they did say on the phone they could not provide proof and seem to assume that it's not needed. I'm aware it's my word against theirs, but surely the burden of proof is on them as they are making the claims of visits and letters. You would think they'd send letters by recorded delivery.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

Also, am I correct in querying the Levy Fee of £63 as this exceeds the 28% of sums over £100 as stated in the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment) 2003?

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

Query all and any fees that are not in accordance with the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003. It is Newlyn's responsibility to provide evidence that their fees are legitimate. Make them quote the dates they say they made visits and for the full name(s), certificating court(s) and issue and expiry dates of certificate(s) for all and any bailiffs involved.

Please remember that the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 contains a provision that allows a person being pursued by bailiffs to submit bailiff fees for formal scrutiny by a County Court Registrar (a junior judge). If the Registrar finds or is of the view that there is overcharging to the point where it brings into question a bailiff's fitness to act as a bailiff, the Registrar has the power to notify the court that issued the bailiff's certificate of this. If you have to do this, make sure you have the bailiffs' details first.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

Letter sent to Newlyn today asking for explanation of the vague "Enforcement Fee" 1 & 2, querying the Levy Fee (28% of £112.00 isn't £63) and stating that I am not aware of any visits or have received any letters, and happy to make a Stat Dec to that effect. I'll post their reply when it turns up.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

update -

Reply received by Newlyn staing that :

Enforcement Fee 1 is for attending with the intention to seize goods
Enforcement Fee 2 is for the commencement of the removal process and securing the goods
The Levy fee is charged on the amount due at the time of the levy (presumably the debt plus their enforcement fee - is this normal?)
They also confirmed that no visits had taken place prior to locating the vehicle (which was parked in a public car park at the time of clamping)
They are claiming the have a clear audit trail for the letter they claim to have sent and nothing has been returned as undelivered. That to me still does not constitute proof of delivery, but I doubt there's any further action I can take here. Had I of course received a letter then the debt situation would have been attended to immediately and the clamping would not have taken place (and inconveniently depriving them of the ability to stick their snouts in the money trough, surprise surprise).

Since I can't prove they never sent a letter and they can't prove I never received it, I'm not sure where I stand here. I'm sure they can make up whatever audit trail they wish to cover themselves, and logic says the onus is on them to prove receipt of their letter, however is there any point in taking this further?

thanks in advance

[ploddertom]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

Do they have proof of postage? This is not the same as saying it was sent, after all it could still be on the floor in the post room. Minimal proof of postage is a Certificate of Posting from the Post Office.

[ploddertom]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

Did youalso ask them which Rule/Regulation allows them to clamp? Have you actually seen the Warrant of Execution?

[michael the mouse]

Re: Newlyn / Medway - lying extortionist swine

I would guess that's covered by their statement "commencement of the removal process and securing the goods to prevent pond breach" (whatever pond breach is??). I have seen the warrant of execution though I do not have that currently on hand to refer to. I was not shown any warrant or copy of a warrant by the clampers themselves.