Car clamped by newlyn,

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Do you want me to put this on an open forum or PM you?

Things are best on an open forum.

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Something VERY interesting indeed !!

I have just read the Harrow Contract Tender document (48 pages) and there is a VERY interesting sentence in Section C: Charges Imposed On Debtors where it states the following:


Apart from specific prescribed statutory fees, any fee that may additionally be charged under the legislation as “reasonable fees”,
if not detailed in this part will not be charged to the debtors with the exception of auctioneer’s fees for the sale and/or storage of goods and disbursements in securing property, which the tenderer may have no control over.

As part of our evaluation of any tender submissions, Harrow is also taking on board the proposed fee structure review set out by the Ministry of Justice and would expect bailiffs to have charges within the ranges suggested in the consultation documents.

Well......unless I am wrong under the Consulatation Paper the fees proposed consist of an "admin fee" of approx £75 followed by a ONE OFF "attendance" fee of approx £250.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Things are best on an open forum.

But better in the VIP area.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

I have just read the Harrow Contract Tender document...

Link?

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Things are best on an open forum.

Okay. This case involves what looks very much like breaches of Company Law, VAT legislation and, almost certainly, the Criminal Law.

A bailiff who repeatedly charges or attempts to charge fees not provided for by legislation may be in breach of the Criminal Law, depending on his/her response when challenged as to the veracity of the fees. If the bailiff withdraws any inflated fees or fees not provided for by legislation when challenged, then this would appear to be a Trading Standards matter, as overcharging is a Trading Standards matter. However, if the bailiff insists the fees are correct and persists in this insistence, then, it is an offence under the Criminal Law, that of Fraud by False Misrepresentation.

There is then the matter of the "invoice" for a tow truck. From the evidence available, it would certainly appear that the "invoice" is not authentic. The company whose name appears on the "invoice" has been struck from the Register of Companies for what appears to be non-compliance with a statutory requirement to submit annual accounts and a return of directors of the company. This would have incurred a financial penalty as well as the company being struck from the Register of Companies. However, this is not the only irregularity pertaining to the "invoice". Value Added Tax at 20% has been added to the £90.00 "charge" for a tow truck and the company is not registered for VAT, the names of directors or proprietors are not stated and the business address is not stated. These are all legal requirements. The "invoice" does not comply with current statutory requirements. The matter of the VAT irregularity is a matter for HMRC VAT Section, whilst the other irregularities, including a dissolved company trading, fall within the jurisdiction of the BIS.

Notwithstanding, further questions arise, namely -

How many other debtors have been charged for tow trucks that never materialised?
How many tow trucks did "Trojan" own, if at all?
How many "invoices" have been issued by "Trojan"?

I will not go into any further potential criminal offences relating to the "invoice" as there are at least five potential offences under two different statutes.

Milo's input is going to be important - of that I have no doubt - as this may well reveal further breaches of the law. Let Milo comment and then it should become clearer which path(s) should be pursued.

[bizzybob]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

I feel there are various offences, under VAT, and HMRC rules, not only that but fraud related also.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

The question is, and perhaps we should seek advice from Milo here, what is the best way to move it forward now?

Do you want me to put this on an open forum or PM you?

Things are best on an open forum.

Okay. This case involves what looks very much like breaches of Company Law, VAT legislation and, almost certainly, the Criminal Law.

A bailiff who repeatedly charges or attempts to charge fees not provided for by legislation may be in breach of the Criminal Law, depending on his/her response when challenged as to the veracity of the fees. If the bailiff withdraws any inflated fees or fees not provided for by legislation when challenged, then this would appear to be a Trading Standards matter, as overcharging is a Trading Standards matter. However, if the bailiff insists the fees are correct and persists in this insistence, then, it is an offence under the Criminal Law, that of Fraud by False Misrepresentation.

There is then the matter of the "invoice" for a tow truck. From the evidence available, it would certainly appear that the "invoice" is not authentic. The company whose name appears on the "invoice" has been struck from the Register of Companies for what appears to be non-compliance with a statutory requirement to submit annual accounts and a return of directors of the company. This would have incurred a financial penalty as well as the company being struck from the Register of Companies. However, this is not the only irregularity pertaining to the "invoice". Value Added Tax at 20% has been added to the £90.00 "charge" for a tow truck and the company is not registered for VAT, the names of directors or proprietors are not stated and the business address is not stated. These are all legal requirements. The "invoice" does not comply with current statutory requirements. The matter of the VAT irregularity is a matter for HMRC VAT Section, whilst the other irregularities, including a dissolved company trading, fall within the jurisdiction of the BIS.

Notwithstanding, further questions arise, namely -

How many other debtors have been charged for tow trucks that never materialised?
How many tow trucks did "Trojan" own, if at all?
How many "invoices" have been issued by "Trojan"?

I will not go into any further potential criminal offences relating to the "invoice" as there are at least five potential offences under two different statutes.

Milo's input is going to be important - of that I have no doubt - as this may well reveal further breaches of the law. Let Milo comment and then it should become clearer which path(s) should be pursued.

Isn't that what I suggested in the first place?

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Excellent post.

Okay. This case involves what looks very much like breaches of Company Law, VAT legislation and, almost certainly, the Criminal Law.

A bailiff who repeatedly charges or attempts to charge fees not provided for by legislation may be in breach of the Criminal Law, depending on his/her response when challenged as to the veracity of the fees. If the bailiff withdraws any inflated fees or fees not provided for by legislation when challenged, then this would appear to be a Trading Standards matter, as overcharging is a Trading Standards matter. However, if the bailiff insists the fees are correct and persists in this insistence, then, it is an offence under the Criminal Law, that of Fraud by False Misrepresentation.

There is then the matter of the "invoice" for a tow truck. From the evidence available, it would certainly appear that the "invoice" is not authentic. The company whose name appears on the "invoice" has been struck from the Register of Companies for what appears to be non-compliance with a statutory requirement to submit annual accounts and a return of directors of the company. This would have incurred a financial penalty as well as the company being struck from the Register of Companies. However, this is not the only irregularity pertaining to the "invoice". Value Added Tax at 20% has been added to the £90.00 "charge" for a tow truck and the company is not registered for VAT, the names of directors or proprietors are not stated and the business address is not stated. These are all legal requirements. The "invoice" does not comply with current statutory requirements. The matter of the VAT irregularity is a matter for HMRC VAT Section, whilst the other irregularities, including a dissolved company trading, fall within the jurisdiction of the BIS.

Notwithstanding, further questions arise, namely -

How many other debtors have been charged for tow trucks that never materialised?
How many tow trucks did "Trojan" own, if at all?
How many "invoices" have been issued by "Trojan"?

I will not go into any further potential criminal offences relating to the "invoice" as there are at least five potential offences under two different statutes.

Milo's input is going to be important - of that I have no doubt - as this may well reveal further breaches of the law. Let Milo comment and then it should become clearer which path(s) should be pursued.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Excellent post.

Really? It said the same as I did, but took a page to say it.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Really? It said the same as I did, but took a page to say it.

I probably noticed it more because it was a page long..

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

There is then the matter of the "invoice" for a tow truck. From the evidence available, it would certainly appear that the "invoice" is not authentic. The company whose name appears on the "invoice" has been struck from the Register of Companies for what appears to be non-compliance with a statutory requirement to submit annual accounts and a return of directors of the company. This would have incurred a financial penalty as well as the company being struck from the Register of Companies. However, this is not the only irregularity pertaining to the "invoice". Value Added Tax at 20% has been added to the £90.00 "charge" for a tow truck

Or would have been, if the simpleton who had concocted the invoice had learned how to add £18 to £90.

and the company is not registered for VAT,

Whilst it seems unlikely that the company exists and that it is therefore unlikely that it is registered for VAT, this has not yet been established as a fact. If the company's bookkeeping is up to the standard of that "invoice", though, one may be relatively certain that it wouldn't exist for much longer.

the names of directors or proprietors are not stated

True.

and the business address is not stated.

An address was stated, just below the business name. See attachment.

I feel unwilling to state whether that is the home address of anyone currently operating a business of that name, or whether it is also used as the business address of that apparently unlimited company and whether any business rates are payable on what may be a mixed habiliment.

How many other debtors have been charged for tow trucks that never materialised?
How many tow trucks did "Trojan" own, if at all?
How many "invoices" have been issued by "Trojan"?

How many other debtors have been charged for Trojan's very first invoice?

Milo's input is going to be important - of that I have no doubt - as this may well reveal further breaches of the law. Let Milo comment and then it should become clearer which path(s) should be pursued.

From what has been learned, one might reasonably believe that challenging the fees with Newlyn plc is not likely to result in them refunding improper or unlawful fees and it must be said that the same surely must apply to the arrogant dolts at Harrow Borough Council, as they seem convinced that a local contract takes precedence over the appropriate Regulations.

I would suggest that the CEO of Harrow Borough Council be given just one chance to remedy this matter before it is referred to the Local Government Ombudswoman.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

I think if that were the route to be followed, one would have to have a very clear notion of what one expected as an outcome. The issue here is that the outcomes are multiple.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

I think if that were the route to be followed, one would have to have a very clear notion of what one expected as an outcome. The issue here is that the outcomes are multiple.

Other than a refund of the improperly exacted fees, what else should the outcome be in this specific case?

There are still other matters that have arisen from this case which would not go away even if HBC were to repay the whole sum paid, plus interest. If the LGO does not look into the matter of HBC's enforcement contracts, then the Audit Commission (link) should.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Other than a refund of the improperly exacted fees, what else should the outcome be in this specific case?

The other matters to which you go on to refer should also be resolved - ideally every single one of them, but I fear that would be worthy of one of my flying pigs! :beagle:

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

O

I would suggest that the CEO of Harrow Borough Council be given just one chance to remedy this matter before it is referred to the Local Government Ombudswoman.

With a complaint such as this you would need to be careful about sending it to the LGO because if the complaint has a "criminal" element to it then the LGO cannot be involved.

Also, BEFORE sending to the LGO they would require that it at least goes through the Harrow complaints procedure first.

The Harrow East MP is by far the best person to look at this.....at least at this present moment.

There are a lot of rumors circulating at present about the Harrow and Newlyn contract and I am sure there will be something happening quite shortly.