Newlyn PLC

[tam13sana]

Re: Newlyn PLC

Update
We called Traffic Enforcement Centre

1. They said original Harrow registered for a warrant on 28th of FEb 2013
authority given on 1st of May address address edited out.
Reissued on 2nd July - to Current address

2. received second letter from Newlyn

they missing dates where all dates as 22 on july,
They are asking for me to pay them 10 pounds to see the evidence for booking and cancelling the van.

3. we received a letter from Traffic Enf Northampton county

it says
The respondent filed a statutory declaration/witness statement on 11/sep 2013. It is ordered that the order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked.
It is further ordered that the charge certificate and the notice to owner/enforcement notice be cancelled.



What do you think, what to do next? Does above mean I will only get 170 pound back? or everything paid?

[tam13sana]

Re: Newlyn PLC

Very interesting letters.

You have a lot to do......

Firstly, in the morning you will need to call the Traffic Enforcement Centre and ask them to confirm the precise address on the warrant. If this is your NEW address ask what date a request was made to reissue.

Ask what date authority was given.

Ask the date of the ORIGINAL warrant and please make SURE that you ask the date that AUTHORITY had been given to Harrow to issue the warrant.

Next, it is VITAL that you obtain details of the dates on which all charges had been applied.

You have been charged a stupid "aborted van fee". Newlyn MUST provide you with EVIDENCE that they had been charged such a fee by an outside contractor and evidence that they PAID the contractor.

Approx 2 weeks ago the Local Government Ombudsman made a ruling that there is NO legal basis for charging a Fee 8 charge of £35.

With Harrow Council it is sadly the case that they insist in their contract with their bailiff provider that they are to be paid a "kick back" of 10% of the gross bailiff fees. The most obvious effect of this is that Newlyn will have to charge the debtor at least 10% more than usual.

The bailiff industry "rumour mill" is going into "overdrive" about Harrow Council and Newlyn. More shortly !!

Do NOT make any complaints at this present time as you need to await the outcome of your Out of Time witness statement.

Please post back when you have answers to some or all of the above.

PS:If I have time tomorrow I will check to see whether the fees are the same as those recently provided by LB of Harrow. !!!

Update
We called Traffic Enforcement Centre

1. They said original Harrow registered for a warrant on 28th of FEb 2013
authority given on 1st of May address address edited out.
Reissued on 2nd July - to Current address

2. received second letter from Newlyn

they missing dates where all dates as 22 on july,
They are asking for me to pay them 10 pounds to see the evidence for booking and cancelling the van.

3. we received a letter from Traffic Enf Northampton county

it says
The respondent filed a statutory declaration/witness statement on 11/sep 2013. It is ordered that the order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked.
It is further ordered that the charge certificate and the notice to owner/enforcement notice be cancelled.



What do you think, what to do next? Does above mean I will only get 170 pound back? or everything paid?

[tam13sana]

Re: Newlyn PLC

Please find both letters attached.

I would be grateful for your advice.

[labman]

Re: Newlyn PLC

I think this link will answer your questions. If it doesn't, post back up. :beagle:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/nor...sked-questions

[tam13sana]

Re: Newlyn PLC

I have read the website. What I did not understand is how much will I be able to recover?
only £172, or more?
THe Harrow counsel letter said I can not get the charges Bailiff charged if a warrant is present.

[labman]

Re: Newlyn PLC

Personally I would argue this on the following grounds:

1. The warrant was issued for an unpaid fine
2. That same fine has now been waived and the monies refunded in full.
3. Monies paid to the council's appointed Enforcement Agents, with whom they are vicariously liable, were for the above fine.
4. As the council has refunded the monies for the fine, it has a duty to recover any costs received from you in enforcing the fine as effectively they were enforcing something which has been proven to be erroneously issued.

I realise the council has NOT refunded the money for the fine, but you should be able to recover that.

I, too, am not sure about the monies paid to the bailiff, but common sense would surely dictate that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place, so any money paid under that warrant should thus be refunded.

[bizzybob]

Re: Newlyn PLC

@ Labman "I, too, am not sure about the monies paid to the bailiff, but common sense would surely dictate that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place, so any money paid under that warrant should thus be refunded."

The bailiff may argue thast irrespective of the erroneous warrant, they did the work so are keeping the money, as the council are liable for the bailiff it would be they jointly with the bailiff you approach imho

The bailiff would probably refuse to return monies they took from Mr Jones at No 6 under duress when they should have called at Mr Brown at No 7 for the debt, they are generally that greedy and arrogant..

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn PLC

Unfortunately for Newlyns, the law doesn't work in the way they think - or hope - it does. If you take money from someone, even if it was under a warrant, and are then told the warrant was issued erroneously and you actually had no lawful authority to take the money, you must return the money to the person from whom you took, as soon as you know no lawful authority existed at the time you took it. Refuse to return the money to the person from whom you took it or tell that person they are not entitled to a refund and you are in serious trouble.

If Newlyns want to stay on the right side of the law, they would do best to return the money to the OP and claim any expenses they may claim they have incurred from the creditor - if they can justify their expenses, that is.

[labman]

Re: Newlyn PLC

I hope Bluebottle is correct, but even if Bizzybob is correct, I would argue that the council should bear the financial loss, NOT the OP. It was the council who issued the ticket, so they should bear the costs of anything to do with it if it has been repealled.

I must admit tam13sana that I still don't understand the bit about the council may still take action. They state one thing, then appear to contradict themselves.

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn PLC

I hope Bluebottle is correct, but even if Bizzybob is correct, I would argue that the council should bear the financial loss, NOT the OP. It was the council who issued the ticket, so they should bear the costs of anything to do with it if it has been repealled.

I must admit tam13sana that I still don't understand the bit about the council may still take action. They state one thing, then appear to contradict themselves.

You are correct in that the local authority should carry the can financially, Labman. However, Newlyns are under a duty to return any monies they have taken from the OP without lawful authority as soon as they became aware that no lawful authority existed to take it. If they don't, then they are vulnerable to legal action from which they are likely to come out of badly. Handing the money back to the OP and then claiming any expenses they have legitimately incurred from the local authority is not only the correct course of action to follow, but the right one.

[labman]

Re: Newlyn PLC

I agree totally. I was actually talking about the council as being council and Newlyns. They have vicarious liability, so the money should be returned IMO.

What do you make of the apparent contradiction?

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn PLC

If you are referring to the communication from the TEC, Labman, it appears to read to me that -

a. TEC has ordered the local authority to cease enforcement action;
b. the warrant has been cancelled;
c. Newlyns have to pay the fees they have extorted back to the OP or, alternatively, the local authority has to repay them to the OP and then recover them from Newlyns.

The contradiction is one that I am having problems trying to fathom out. If the PCN was wrongly or wrongfully issued, then the PCN is null and void. It follows the principle of no offence, no penalty.

[labman]

Re: Newlyn PLC

This is what I perceive as a contradiction - maybe I'm misunderstanding it - see attachment for extract from attachment above.

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn PLC

This is what I perceive as a contradiction - maybe I'm misunderstanding it - see attachment for extract from attachment above.

I agree with you entirely, Labman. If TEC, having examined the evidence presented by a motorist, adjudge the PCN to be unenforceable for whatever reason, e.g. wrongly/wrongfully issued, then enforcement of the PCN must cease. Unless there is legislation or case law that explains the apparent contradiction, my argument would be that a local authority has no right in law, per se, to attempt any further enforcement action or to demand payment.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn PLC

There is no contradiction.

The Penalty Charge Notice (the allegation, if you prefer, that the motor car was wrongly parked) has not been cancelled. If the local authority wishes to pursue the matter, they may, or the keeper of the vehicle may pay the appropriate sum in parking tax.

The Charge Certificate - which is always more than the parking tax allegedly owed - has been cancelled and hence the reason for the spivs of Newlyn plc to extort monies has been revoked.