Previous Owner Tickets

[bluebottle]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Turning to Newlyn
They should have returned the monies and disciplined the Bailiff - by not doing anything they are condoning this. I agree. It could also impact upon the company and senior management of Newyln. There is legal provision that allows CPS to prosecute, bailiff, company and company management.

As for the Council
Once brought to their attention they in turn must inform Newlyn to return all monies plus a sum in consideration of the hassles so caused. They just cannot turn a blind eye and should be prepared to file a Form 5 themselves. I agree. There is nothing to prevent a local authority submitting a Form 5. Notwithstanding, Form 5 is for complaints that have already been investigated.

This type of thing goes on so much on the principle they get away with it. It's about time it was stopped and there is enough in this one for a Bailiff's suitability to be called into question.

The practice will only cease when it is made clear, repeatedly, to bailiffs and bailiff companies alike that -

a. there is no automatic right to a hearing for a Form 4 complaint;
b. the court has the power to dispose with a case without a hearing;
c. the court can make a decision of its own initiative;
d. the court does not necessarily require a Form 4 complaint in order to make a decision to revoke a bailiff's certificate.

In the case I often refer to, that happened in Hampshire, during June 2012, a letter to the senior judge at the bailiff's certificating court from the complainant with accompanying evidence was all that was needed to bring about the revocation of the bailiff's certificate. In fact, the complainant received a letter confirming revocation of the bailiff's certificate two weeks after submitting the letter and evidence.

There is also an argument that where an errant bailiff demands a hearing, knowing they have committed a serious breach of the law, whatsoever that breach may be, this potentially amounts to an abuse of the legal process.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Can you please direct what to tell them, Visa chargeback scheme?

I cannot, so I've asked Amethyst to ask someone else to comment.

However, I believe that it may be salient that not only were you obliged to pay under duress but also that the bailiff may have made false representations.

Would Visa have refused a chargeback if you'd entered your PIN when a robber was literally holding a gun to your head?

Of course, the way to speed up being recompensed is to take your story to the press - You & Yours on the BBC Home Service, Watchdog on BBC One or the tabloid press such as the Daily Wail - where the publicity should shame the council (if not Newlyn plc) into resolving the problem quickly.

[ainaedil]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Would Visa have refused a chargeback if you'd entered your PIN when a robber was literally holding a gun to your head?

Thats exactly what I tried to explain her but she insisted on PIN and duress not covered

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Daily Heil, Torygraph and Grauniad all worth a go, Newlyn need a severe tolchocking along with the council, there should be a CRIMINAL investigation into this, but sadly plod will shrug and say it's civil...meaning really they can't be arsed as it is a council and bailiffs.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Would Visa have refused a chargeback if you'd entered your PIN when a robber was literally holding a gun to your head?

Thats exactly what I tried to explain her but she insisted on PIN and duress not covered

I believe that she may be mistaken, as she is no more than a mere minion.

[Guest]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Chargeback would not be appropriate under the circumstances, this is used to reverse transactions due to breach of contract or failure to perform.

In this case the OP paid for a service and this was carried out(rightly or wrongly).

Chargeback can be applied where there is fraud, but this would need to be proven before it could be applied.

[bluebottle]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

I believe that she may be mistaken, as she is no more than a mere moron.

I've fixed your post for you. :grin:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Chargeback would not be appropriate under the circumstances, this is used to reverse transactions due to breach of contract or failure to perform.

Please explain how levying distress on a motor car that did not belong to the alleged debtor complies with the contract Newlyn plc has with the council.

Please explain how demanding that someone other than the named debtor should pay the fine, fees and charges complies with that contract - or even with the law.

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Please explain how levying distress on a motor car that did not belong to the alleged debtor complies with the contract Newlyn plc has with the council.

Please explain how demanding that someone other than the named debtor should pay the fine, fees and charges complies with that contract - or even with the law.

I would tend to agree with you CC, the bailiff knew ab initio, the OP was not the named debtor, and any retrospective claim that the warrant is against the car, so the bailiff could have it in the face of good title, is spurious and disingenuous Any fraud is on the part of the bailiff, as whatever the contract between the Newlyn and the council, they cannot seize goods not belonging to the named debtor.

[Guest]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Please explain how levying distress on a motor car that did not belong to the alleged debtor complies with the contract Newlyn plc has with the council.

Please explain how demanding that someone other than the named debtor should pay the fine, fees and charges complies with that contract - or even with the law.

As far as the bank is concerned the contract is between the purchaser and the supplier, the purchaser being the OP and the supplier being the bailiff. The contract was for the release of the car upon payment , this was completed.

This is all the bank or the FOS will be concerned with. Unless you can prove that the transaction was fraudulent of course.

[bizzybob]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

The demand for payment was ab initio fraudulent, as the debt was not the Op's

[Guest]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

The demand for payment was ab initio fraudulent, as the debt was not the Op's

Then the OP would need to get the police to investigate and make a case for fraud, when the allegation was proven the resultant judgment could be used to support a claim for chargeback..

I will ask Milo to pop in perhaps she will be able to explain the situation better to you.

[wales01man]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

Have to Police been contacted there must be a crime here?

[Guest]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

I doubt the police wold be interested in practice. Complaint should be made to the bailiff and the authority.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Previous Owner Tickets

The complaint should be made public, via the national press or via a programme on the wireless.