Newlyn's And overcharging

[cjakg]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

Ok Here is the letter i will be sending to Newlyn's anything people think i should add or change please let me know will send in a few days. :santa_smiley::santa_smiley:




Reference:

Dear Sir
In reply to you email dated the 10^th December in connection with the cost of the levy incurred on the 22^nd of August.
The said Car. A white Peugeot vehicle registration P*** *** has nothing to do with myself or my wife a check to the DVLA would have confirmed this if you have made one also if the Bailiff who attended this levy had posted a form 7 through my letter box I could have informed you that the said vehicle had nothing to do with us.
And as such all monies charge in connection with the said Levy
Levy Fees: £49.71 *22^nd August 2013
Attendance to Remove Fee: £100.00 *22^nd August 2012
should be remove forthwith

[cjakg]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

It may be interesting to check whether the vehicle with the cited registration number is, in fact, a white Peugeot. It's so easy to make a mistake as one drives by...

It should also be interesting to learn what possible explanation/excuse Screwlyns would use for their oaf's failure to leave a Form 7 Notice of Seizure.

Screwlyns will probably aver once more that the bailiff just needed the reasonable belief that a motor-car parked in the road belonged to the debtor and that DVLA checks would only be needed if the vehicle was to be removed.

Hi CleverClogs :santa_smiley: Have just Checked the white Peugeot and indeed the wrong registration omit by one letter but one letter makes it wrong. lol The white Peugeot belongs to someone who lives over the road or would if it was the right reg. :santa_smiley::santa_smiley:

[bizzybob]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

@bluebottle, the interpleader in the new regulations will be the defacto way of claiming the third party goods, looking at the rules simplistically, if the aggrieved party cannot afford to deposit the value of the seized goods along with all fees as required into the court they will lose the goods to the bailiff with no apparent redress, this is the nub that Milo is challenging.

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

@bluebottle, the interpleader in the new regulations will be the defacto way of claiming the third party goods, looking at the rules simplistically, if the aggrieved party cannot afford to deposit the value of the seized goods along with all fees as required into the court they will lose the goods to the bailiff with no apparent redress, this is the nub that Milo is challenging.

In that case, the provision is potentially unlawful per se by virtue of Article 17, Human Rights Act 1998 (Prohibition of Abuse of Rights) and Article 1 of Protocol 1, Human Rights Act 1998 (Protection of Property). As most of the work certificated bailiffs carry out is on behalf of local and national government, the Human Rights Act 1998 applies and this means the bailiff companies are amenable and liable to the Human Rights Act 1998 in toto. Whoever drafted this provision was clearly trying to stir things up, didn't do their homework and has exposed the civil enforcement industry to litigation.

It will be interesting to see how Milo fares with having the provision you refer to scrapped or modified, BB, as in its current form, it is a licence to steal and defraud.

[bizzybob]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

In that case, the provision is potentially unlawful per se by virtue of Article 17, Human Rights Act 1998 (Prohibition of Abuse of Rights) and Article 1 of Protocol 1, Human Rights Act 1998 (Protection of Property). As most of the work certificated bailiffs carry out is on behalf of local and national government, the Human Rights Act 1998 applies and this means the bailiff companies are amenable and liable to the Human Rights Act 1998 in toto. Whoever drafted this provision was clearly trying to stir things up, didn't do their homework and has exposed the civil enforcement industry to litigation.

It will be interesting to see how Milo fares with having the provision you refer to scrapped or modified, BB, as in its current form, it is a licence to steal and defraud.

It is worse than that
The third party will have to pay in to the court the value of the disputed goods as set by a valuer.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made


PART 6
THIRD PARTY CLAIMING CONTROLLED GOODS
Application of Part 6
48.
This Part applies where a person (“the applicant”)makes an application to the court claiming that goods of which control has been taken are thatperson’s and not the debtor’s.


Payments into court by third party: underpayments
49.
—(1) Any underpayment to be determined by referenceto an independent valuation underparagraph 60(5) of Schedule 12 must be undertaken by a qualified independent valuer.


(2)Any underpayment determined by the qualified independent valuer must be paid within 14clear days after provision of a copy of the valuation to the applicant.


Part 6 (regulations 48 and 49) deals with underpayments where a person who claims that the

goods of which control has been taken belong to him or her, and not the debtor, makes an application to the court under paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 to the Act


Here is SCH 12 paragraph 60 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that applies to third party claims http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12


Third party claiming goods

60(1)This paragraph applies where a person makes an application to the court claiming that goods taken control of are his and not the debtor's.

(2)After receiving notice of the application the enforcement agent must not sell the goods, or dispose of them (in the case of securities), unless directed by the court under this paragraph.

(3)The court may direct the enforcement agent to sell or dispose of the goods if the applicant fails to make, or to continue to make, the required payments into court.

(4)The required payments are—

(a)payment on making the application (subject to sub-paragraph (5)) of an amount equal to the value of the goods, or to a proportion of it directed by the court;

(b)payment, at prescribed times (on making the application or later), of any amounts prescribed in respect of the enforcement agent's costs of retaining the goods.

(5)If the applicant makes a payment under sub-paragraph (4)(a) but the enforcement agent disputes the value of the goods, any underpayment is to be—

(a)determined by reference to an independent valuation carried out in accordance with regulations, and

(b)paid at the prescribed time.

(6)If sub-paragraph (3) does not apply the court may still direct the enforcement agent to sell or dispose of the goods before the court determines the applicant's claim, if it considers it appropriate.

(7)If the court makes a direction under sub-paragraph (3) or (6)—

(a)paragraphs 38 to 49, and regulations under them, apply subject to any modification directed by the court;

(b)the enforcement agent must pay the proceeds of sale or disposal into court.

(8)In this paragraph “the court”, subject to rules of court, means—

(a)the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

(b)a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court;

(c)in any other case, the High Court or a county court.

As can be seen this is a complete feck up

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

Hi CleverClogs :santa_smiley: Have just Checked the white Peugeot and indeed the wrong registration omit by one letter but one letter makes it wrong. lol The white Peugeot belongs to someone who lives over the road or would if it was the right reg. :santa_smiley::santa_smiley:

Exactly!

As I suspected, it was a "drive-by levy", with the details jotted down as the oaf drove down your street. This would seem to be confirmed by the lack of any Form 7 Notice of Seizure served on you; the alleged bailiff may claim he did serve one, but it's more likely that he wrote out the form, submitted the carbon copy (or copies) and destroyed the top sheet.

As such, it is an attempted fraud both against you and against Screwlyns, who may have already paid him his commission for that improper "levy".

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

As can be seen this is a complete feck up

Good God Almighty!

What was the then kakistocracy thinking when it created that load of nonsense?

They have effectively legalised theft!

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

I see what you mean, BB. However, the provisions you have highlighted are "perverse" in the way they have been drafted in that it requires a person to pay to recover their own property that a bailiff or HCEO has wrongfully/unlawfully seized, on pain of forfeiture. Not only does that reward potential dishonesty or incompetence, the provision contravenes Article 1 of Protocol 1, Human Rights Act 1998. I have no doubt the relevant SoS made a written statement claiming it complied with the Human Rights Act 1998. Unfortunately, as history has shown, this is not a guarantee that the written statement of a SoS is going to get the government, local authorities or their private sector cronies/contractors off the hook. As stated previously, this has the hallmarks of someone trying to stir things up and I have a feeling it is going to backfire on those who decided it would be a good idea to even think of proposing such a measure.

[bizzybob]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

I see what you mean, BB. However, the provisions you have highlighted are "perverse" in the way they have been drafted in that it requires a person to pay to recover their own property that a bailiff or HCEO has wrongfully/unlawfully seized, on pain of forfeiture. Not only does that reward potential dishonesty or incompetence, the provision contravenes Article 1 of Protocol 1, Human Rights Act 1998. I have no doubt the relevant SoS made a written statement claiming it complied with the Human Rights Act 1998. Unfortunately, as history has shown, this is not a guarantee that the written statement of a SoS is going to get the government, local authorities or their private sector cronies/contractors off the hook. As stated previously, this has the hallmarks of someone trying to stir things up and I have a feeling it is going to backfire on those who decided it would be a good idea to even think of proposing such a measure.

I agree with your deductions, and consider it is a breach of Human Rights, however DC and the Con part of the ConDim Alliance want out of the European Convention on Human Rights. If it isn't sorted there will be an almighty stink when the bailiffs go on a legalised. car stealing rampage after April. Jamie Waller & his cohorts must be creaming their jeans at the prospect.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

As the date of that daft Act is 19t^h July 2007 - link - it would seem to be the work of wacky Jacqui.

[bizzybob]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

As the date of that daft Act is 19t^h July 2007 - link - it would seem to be the work of wacky Jacqui.

Yes wonder if Jaqui Spliff had indulged when this feck up was being planned. However equally egregious is that the current lot are steamrollering Jaqui's nightmare into the enforcement process, without any compunction or consideration. Also it looks like VAT will be put on top of bailiff fees to go on with. Wonder if the money to be paid in under Part 6 for the interpleader and debt plus fees will have VAT on top?.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

DC and the Con part of the ConDim Alliance want out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Which would be odd, as that would seem to devalue the legacy of Sir Winston Churchill.

It would require the UK (or the remaining bits of the UK) to resign from the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member, and also to leave the EU as the ECHR is now a requirement of EU membership. It would also cause trouble at the United Nations and could lose the UK its permanent seat on the Security Council.

Cameron's trouble is that he looks at every possible problem through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe.

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

I agree with your deductions, and consider it is a breach of Human Rights, however DC and the Con part of the ConDim Alliance want out of the European Convention on Human Rights. If it isn't sorted there will be an almighty stink when the bailiffs go on a legalised. car stealing rampage after April. Jamie Waller & his cohorts must be creaming their jeans at the prospect.

I have a feeling the civil enforcement industry will be in for one almighty shock, come April 2014. If bailiff firms don't get hauled into court, I can see a number of bailiffs getting slapped. A person is, after all, within their rights to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to protect their property. However, this is all dependent on Cameron & Co. remaining in office long enough to see the provisions come into force.

[wales01man]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

So come April next year poor old us Joe public come out of our house to see a bailiff getting ready to clamp our car cos the guy over the road owes money.
We sit back and say OK Mr nice Bailiff you can take my car I will pay money into a court to retrieve my car,
Or some of us OR we take the Moronic idiot to task at start to complain,he then says a new law has come into force and I can legally take the car because the debtor doesn't have one OH YES some of us and many of those I have known would give them a kicking .
Well this is really a suitable new law to introduce in the 21st century and is bound to work in favour of the Bailiff or push many people into situations no one wants,
The lunatics have really taken over the asylum?

[bluebottle]

Re: Newlyn's And overcharging

So come April next year poor old us Joe public come out of our house to see a bailiff getting ready to clamp our car cos the guy over the road owes money.
We sit back and say OK Mr nice Bailiff you can take my car I will pay money into a court to retrieve my car,
Or some of us OR we take the Moronic idiot to task at start to complain,he then says a new law has come into force and I can legally take the car because the debtor doesn't have one OH YES some of us and many of those I have known would give them a kicking .
Well this is really a suitable new law to introduce in the 21st century and is bound to work in favour of the Bailiff or push many people into situations no one wants,
The lunatics have really taken over the asylum?

Like I've said before, Wales, someone seems determined to stir things up and have people kicking seven buckets of crap out of each other so they can achieve their unachievable fantasy of communitarianism in the UK. What will stop these nutters is that more and more people are waking up to what is going on and word is getting about. Those who are trying to push the communitarian agenda are gradually being identified, evidence amassed - Surprisingly, at a rate of knots - and the nutters are being exposed, exposure being what they fear more than anything else.