Previous Owner Tickets

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

"First it is unlikely that either will deal with you because (get this) - the ticket isn't in your name and thus the Data Protection Act 1998 'prevents' them talking to you. The knock on effect is that you cannot then contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre because you need to know the ticket number and be the person to whom it was addressed". luckily I asked the so called clever Bailiff to email me the Warrant and he emailed me, it has all the details including name of the person penalty charge notices , it also have Newlyn's person name and email who was liaising with the bailiff."

Further, Receipt given was under another name? not under my name? but paid by my debit having my name on it!

On another point which is data protection, they sent me details of previous owners i-e name address, penalty details etc?

Make copies of all the evidence and present them to L B Southwark with a demand for return of your cash, FP may well be able to give better advice in light of the evidence. I would be inclined to report them tro plod with the evidence, as as the bailiff had full knowledge you were not the debtor, it is extortion, but bluebottle may pinpoint the actual offence.

[bluebottle]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Far from being hot under the collar, I am actually quite pleased that Newlyn and LB of Southwark are such complete and total divvies. The "data protection" issues are easily overcome by using the disclosure provisions under the Pre-Action Protocols and Practice Direction under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, which supersedes the Data Protection Act 1998. Newlyns and LB of Southwark have no choice, but to disclose. If they refuse, citing the DPA as their reason for non-disclosure, they are going to be in for a nasty shock when a court turns round and slaps them with a Restoration Order or Forthwith Payment Order and/or a Costs Order to boot for non-compliance.

Bailiffs, bailiff companies and local authorities think people are thick and stupid.

Memo to bailiffs, bailiff companies and local authorities: People are not thick and stupid and are, in fact, a lot more savvy and intelligent than you believe.

I have also looked at the OP's more recent posts and note that the bailiff wrote the actual debtor's name on the receipt. If the bailiff thought he was being clever by doing that, he is not. Far from it. He may have breached the DPA in doing so, but may have also breached the Fraud Act 2006 if his intention was to cause the OP loss by preventing him from obtaining a refund of the illegal fees charged.

[wales01man]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Has the OP contacted the Police Council or Bailiff since this happened?

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Has the OP contacted the Police Council or Bailiff since this happened?

They would be well advised to in light of the receipt the bailiff made out in the real debtors name.

[ainaedil]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

They would be well advised to in light of the receipt the bailiff made out in the real debtors name.

Hi All

Thank you for your kind response, Council, Newlin, Data protection agency and CBC court has been email with all the details and your kind comments - I await their response now.

[ploddertom]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Newlyn/Council may try to fob you off with the "ticket is against the vehicle" malarkey - wrong, the ticket is against the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Newlyn/Council may try to fob you off with the "ticket is against the vehicle" malarkey - wrong, the ticket is against the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence.

Exactly.

It is plainly and patently obvious that a motor car cannot owe money.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

It's a lot more serious than what you are saying, BB. Let's have a look at the evidence -

1. OP shows evidence to the bailiff that he is the new owner/keeper of the vehicle in the form of a bill of sale, insurance and V5C.
2. Bailiff knows name on warrant is not that of the OP and knows or ought to know he has no right in law to levy on or seize vehicle or demand payment from the OP.
3. Bailiff then demands £1270 from OP or he will remove vehicle and claims he can do so, clearly in the knowledge he cannot.
4. OP hands over £1270 that he does not owe in order to stop bailiff removing his car.

Is this a possible case of blackmail, contrary to section 21 (link) of the Theft Act 1968 and punishable by up to 14 years in gaol at the taxpayers' expense?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

What do you reckon the Op's chances are of getting this bailiff arrested BB?

Alas, I would rate the probability as being only marginally greater than that of the OP flying to the moon by flapping his arms up and down.

[bluebottle]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Is this a possible case of blackmail, contrary to section 21 (link) of the Theft Act 1968 and punishable by up to 14 years in gaol at the taxpayers' expense?

From what I can see, Cloggy, there are two offences evident in such circumstances -

1. Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006), by saying the OP has to pay when, in fact, knowing or ought to know that the OP is not the debtor and, therefore, not liable to pay; and
2. Blackmail (Section 21, Theft Act 1968), by threatening to remove the OP's vehicle, knowing he had no right in law to make the demand and that the threats were not a proper means of enforcing the demand as the OP was not the debtor.

As to whether the bailiff would face the might of English Criminal Law, the OP might wish to consider approaching the CPS directly and running the matter past them.

[ploddertom]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

In my view the Bailiff has totally shot himself in the foot. A complaint about him has to be made on the grounds that he has seriously overcharged the OP for this and has shown total disregard for the fact the person charged is not the debtor therefore proving his knowledge of this falls far short of what is expected.

[ainaedil]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Thank you all, Now the big question, should I go for Form 4 or not?

Also would it be against Newlyn or the Bailiff itself?

Thanks!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Thank you all, Now the big question, should I go for Form 4 or not?

No!

Also would it be against Newlyn or the Bailiff itself?

Itself?

Why do you believe the bailiff had been castrated? :grin:

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

No!


Itself?

Why do you believe the bailiff had been castrated? :grin:

And that is a BIG NO from me as well

[ploddertom]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Well I have to disagree and say Yes, you could also ask the Council whether they would submit a Form 5.