Car clamped by newlyn,

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Hello everyone, have an update:

I have informed the CEO of the council in question and received this response from them:

Dear Mr XXX

Thank you for your email addressed to Mr XXX

Based on the content of your email and the attachments, we have asked that the Parking Services Manager investigate the issues you raise and respond directly to you within 20 working days. Mr XXX has also requested that Parking Services copy him into their response to you.

Yours sincerely,


Chief Executive’s Office

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Hi everyone,

Received this response today, needless to say I am not pleased based on what has been provided. Can someone advise? Thanks....

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Received this response today, needless to say I am not pleased.

Why?

Because, although they now seem to have stopped their double charging, their "explanation" is still a load of crap?

What else did you expect of those numpties?

They even enclosed a copy of the Regulations, wherein you will see no trace of any "Enforcement Fee". As for the card payment fee, it really does not matter if Harrow Council has agreed for that to be applied or if they have permission from both the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima and the Dalai Lama, it is not listed in the Regulations and soi may not lawfully be charged.

Please don't respond at once - I'll have to review the thread to see what they've claimed in the past.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

OK,

I'll wait for others to chime in too. Thank you

[ploddertom]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

I wonder if this may apply http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...rassment/page3 post 72 onwards.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Await a further post from CC who is thorough over these things, then make sure the CEO has a copy. Post up again first, as it may be an appropriate time to remind him of the council's vicarious liability.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Will do - The warrant subject is obviously a big factor here, but as to finding out if one actually exists, I wouldn't know where to start. I will be forwarding correspondence received to the CEO of HC.

I plan on calling fair parking tomorrow...good idea?

Your on-going support is appreciated.

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

The fees are frankly a shambles and I am horrified that Harrow Council permit their bailiff provider to charge not only an "attending to remove" fee at a 1st visit but to charge a fee of as much as £235. It is awful.

The fee scale provides for 3 initial visits which are charged at 28% of the debt which is roughly £70. However, BEFORE a bailiff can possibly REMOVE a car he must obviously "seize" it first and then to ascertain whether it belongs to the debtor. So WHY are they charging a £235 ATR fee BEFORE they have even "levied" upon the goods.

The fees charged by this company up until the recession were almost always accurate and spot on. I never came across ONE CASE where this company charged an ATR fee until AFTER the 3rd visit and this was perfectly in keeping with the regulations. Everything changed when the recession started and then this firm and others starting introducing an "aborted van fee"........... What the heck is this all about !!!

About 3 years ago I was helping a disabled lady who had a dreadful complaint about a bailiff enforcing 2 parking tickets. She had a Motability vehicle and was confined to a wheelchair. She made a Form 4 Complaint and due to the seriousness of the complaint the bailiff did indeed lose his certificate). Anyhow, at the hearing the Judge questioned the fees and in particular, an ATR fee which was £150 and the "aborted van fee" of £95.

The Judge made the point VERY clear indeed that the fee in this case of £150 was reasonable IF AND ONLY IF.....the bailiff had attended with THE INTENTION of REMOVING previously levied goods. He made clear as well that if the bailiff were to remove a vehicle he would need to attend "TOOLED UP" to carry out this task and this would involve the use of a low loader (hence the fee of £150).

The Barrister at the Form 4 hearing attempted to argue that even though the bailiff had attended with the INTENTION to remove and only had a small van with him that he was nonetheless at the premises with the INTENTION to remove. The Judge would not accept this and questioned HOW it would be possible to "REMOVE" if the bailiff had not PREVIOUSLY levied upon goods. The Judge then said that as an example, lets assume that the bailiff had previously been into the home and levied upon 2 large sofas, a wooden unit and two large televisions and that the debtor had then signed a walking possession and then defaulted. The bailiff would know from the walking possession the size and type of vehicle that he would need to have with him when "attending to remove" ( and the small van would not suffice).

If a bailiff knew that he had previously levied upon a vehicle he would know that he would need a Low Loader when "attending to remove".

When it came time to consider the matter of the "Aborted removal fee" the Judge was really angry as he explained that the "attending to remove" fee was charged at £150 to ensure that the bailiff arrived "tooled up" to carry out the task of removing and such a large fee would cover a Low Loader and therefore WHY was the company ALSO trying to charge and ABORTED removal fee as well.

Given the seriousness of the "aborted van fee" of £90 I will address this in a separate post.

PS: There is more as well.......

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Aborted van fee of £90

I am very surprised indeed to see that Newlyn have provided you with this frankly worrying document.

As you will see it apparently has been sent to Newlyn by a company trading as Trojan. This "invoice" for want of a better word is clearly the VERY FIRST invoice that this "company" have ever issued given that the number of the invoice is number 1.

Trojan have also charged vat of 20%. Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that it is a serious offence if the "company" have not displayed their registered VAT number on the invoice.

The only contact details on this "invoice" are two mobile numbers. I assume that the "company" does not have a landline.

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Aborted van fee of £90

I am very surprised indeed to see that Newlyn have provided you with this frankly worrying document.

As you will see it apparently has been sent to Newlyn by a company trading as Trojan. This "invoice" for want of a better word is clearly the VERY FIRST invoice that this "company" have ever issued given that the number of the invoice is number 1.

Trojan have also charged vat of 20%. Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that it is a serious offence if the "company" have not displayed their registered VAT number on the invoice.

The only contact details on this "invoice" are two mobile numbers. I assume that the "company" does not have a landline.

You are quite right about the VAT, Milo. I was registered for VAT when I ran a printing and publishing business and had to display the VAT Registration Number on all stationery. It is a legal requirement under the VAT regulations.

As for this "Trojan" business, I have serious doubts not only about the authenticity of the invoice, but the existence of "Trojan". If what I suspect has happened has, indeed, happened, someone or a number of people within Newlyn are going to be in very serious trouble indeed.

Is there a Company Registration Number by any chance?

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Milo, Bluebottle, first of all thank you for your timely responses. I am very annoyed of what Newlyn have provided me. Do they honestly think I was born yesterday? I knew it was illegitimate as soon as I lay eye on it. Just to my exact surprise did some diligence on the company and found this, which is of little surprise to me.

Who ever is running this mess of a company are leaving themselves open for serious problems...which will be coming their way soon.

So if this company is still operating, it is doing so illegally as they are not paying any tax, this gets better by the letter. Picture below from companies house.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

You are quite right about the VAT, Milo. I was registered for VAT when I ran a printing and publishing business and had to display the VAT Registration Number on all stationery. It is a legal requirement under the VAT regulations.

As for this "Trojan" business, I have serious doubts not only about the authenticity of the invoice, but the existence of "Trojan". If what I suspect has happened has, indeed, happened, someone or a number of people within Newlyn are going to be in very serious trouble indeed.

Perhaps HMRC should be told?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

The fees are frankly a shambles and I am horrified that Harrow Council permit their bailiff provider to charge not only an "attending to remove" fee at a 1st visit but to charge a fee of as much as £235. It is awful.

Harrow Borough Council may have agreed such fees with Newlyn plc but, if the fees are not laid down in the Regulations, they are simply may not be lawfully applied.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Well this is getting interesting. If you look up the Directors for Trojan Recovery and Storage Ltd, you will find Ms Diana Mcauliffe (48 years old). See here. Also the address of the NEW company matches THIS.

Now I remember a case with my charity where a bailiff involved was the one here. As you will see, there is a link between the company, Newlyn PLC and Trojan - is this a coincidence? Somehow I doubt it.


So let's take this a step further. If you go to 192.com and scroll down to Number 40, things get seriously interesting. Take a look here (scroll to Number 40).

So we have an invoice charging VAT from a non VAT registered Company (or not displaying a VAT number), sharing a name with a director of a recently dissolved company of EXACTLY the same name (except no longer limited liability).

We also have a bailiff I remember, sharing a house with a person of exactly the same name, working for Newlyn PLC.

This is a HUGE coincidence is it not?



I wonder if there's any more to come out.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Aborted van fee of £90

I am very surprised indeed to see that Newlyn have provided you with this frankly worrying document.

No. You are probably amazed, astonished or astounded, but I hope it will be "Trojan" and/or Newlyn plc who get "surprised" - preferably by inspectors from HMRC. :grin:

As you will see it apparently has been sent to Newlyn by a company trading as Trojan. This "invoice" for want of a better word is clearly the VERY FIRST invoice that this "company" have ever issued given that the number of the invoice is number 1.

It certainly does seem most remarkably unimaginative.

Trojan have also charged vat of 20%.

Wasn't it nice of Newlyn plc not to have charged that VAT to their clamping victim?

Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that it is a serious offence if the "company" have not displayed their registered VAT number on the invoice.

If the company does not exist, how can it have a VAT number to display?

The only contact details on this "invoice" are two mobile numbers. I assume that the "company" does not have a landline.

Has anyone tried those numbers?