Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on V5

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

If they did allow the bailiff to sell the Finace Co would be in breach of their agreement to the debtor, so could be sued for breach of contract and all payments made may well have to be refunded.

That scenario is only for HP, if it was a personal l;ease the vehicle would never be the dcebtors property as that sort of agreement is long term hire.

[enquirer]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Greater Manchester Police is currently under investigation for corruption ...

Talking of GMP, this might be of interest ...

http://www.thebiggestganginbritain.com/stephen-hayes

I've read the first volume in the series and it's a stunner.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Talking of GMP, this might be of interest ...

http://www.thebiggestganginbritain.com/stephen-hayes

I've read the first volume in the series and it's a stunner.

GMP always has been regarded as a maverick police force, so Stephen Hayes' revelations come as no surprise to me. Videos on YouTube showing GMP's Tactical Aid Unit (TAU) aka Thugs Are Us, can be seen engaging in totally unrestrained and blatant violence against peaceful protesters at the Barton Moss Anti-Fracking Camp, near Manchester. It is abundantly and blatantly clear the officers involved have been exposed to psychological reframing and had their personalities skewed in a way that makes them behave in the way they are. It is my understanding that psychologists have viewed the videos and voiced serious concerns about the behaviour of individual officers.

[Magdalena]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Dear All

We are preparing a case. We've asked for a solicitor advice. She called Newlyn Plc stating facts about vehicle ownership. They reply was they believe vehicle is privately owned and they will be pushing for selling vehicle at auction. As solicitor told us "they are calling our bluff" thinking that we are not going to move case forward. Your advice highly appreciated.

In short as few members missread information.
Newlyn Plc took Limited company vehicle BMW for private parking ticket. They didn't took LOAN vehicle AUDI but they kept clamp on it for whole day - even when Police officer told bailiff to take it off. The limited company Director is my partner and Warrant of Execution was issued by Northampton County Court in his private name - not company name.
Hence Newlyn Plc took third party vehicle claiming that my partner is his owner when invoice and V5 says it's company vehicle.

Solicitor advice us to fill form N1 CLAIM FORM with the Injunction against selling company owned vehicle and catch Judge in County Court asking for decision.

We've found out that there is special form N016a which suppose to be used for Injunctions.

Questions:

1. Which form should we use?

2. Should we sue Islington Council where parking ticket was issued, Northampton County Court which issued a Warrant of Execution and hired Newlyn Plc or Newlyn Plc? Or all together as defendants?

3. If all three parties then how to spread claim monies? Who will be responsible for claim?

4. Is it true that if Newlyn Plc will get CCJ against them they will have difficulties in obtaining future contracts? They have to be Crystal Clear? If yes then we would like to strongly go against Newlyn Plc.

5. Should we add Human Rights Act to the case?

6. We've red that if running a case by yourself you can claim only up to £18.00 per hour for preparing a case. What if my partner's hour is charged at £180.00 and he lost already whole friday 21st due to situation, meeting with a Client, and at least 8 hours already getting ready for a case? He is very proud and takes his Liberal Rights very seriously.

7. Should we have two cases in hand, one for injunction and one for claim when we go visit Judge? Or the claim one can be filed online as there's no need for rushing?

8. Case against East Herts Police. Inspector allowed to take 3rd party goods and threat to arrest my partner for Breach of Peace ( by sitting in his company car and not allowing to take company goods as a Director ). Is it a best case under Human Rights Act or different one is more appropiate?
He already won one case in Crown Court where High Judge "suggested" to Jury that this case shouldn't even reach Crown Court, he shouted at Prosecutor for wasting Government funds ( £34k for Solicitor firm we used has to be repaid by Government ). Police overused their authority, used force where not needed and caused a great deal of loss of faith in their "fair" judgement. We haven't filed a case yet against Police force for this old case.

Thank you all for your much appreciated input. I see there are still good people outraged by cowboy behaviour
of civil servants and companies which should follow simple guidance.

By the way few facts about Newlyn Plc finances 2013:

Place of Business: 180-188 Northolt Road, South Harrow, HA2 0LJ
Telephone to offices ( not dark hole for "enquiries" ) 0208 869 84 53

Turnover: £12,836,630.00
Gross Profit: £5,083,391.00
Net Profit: £2,302,376.00
Directors Salaries: £585,355.00
Highest Paid Director: £108.233.00
Dividents Paid: £3,148,590.00

Kevin Charles McCarthy Dividends Paid: £209,916.00
David Robert Smith Dividends Paid: £209,916.00

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Dear All

We are preparing a case. We've asked for a solicitor advice. She called Newlyn Plc stating facts about vehicle ownership. They reply was they believe vehicle is privately owned and they will be pushing for selling vehicle at auction. As solicitor told us "they are calling our bluff" thinking that we are not going to move case forward. Your advice highly appreciated.

In short as few members missread information.
Newlyn Plc took Limited company vehicle BMW for private parking ticket. They didn't took LOAN vehicle AUDI but they kept clamp on it for whole day - even when Police officer told bailiff to take it off. The limited company Director is my partner and Warrant of Execution was issued by Northampton County Court in his private name - not company name.
Hence Newlyn Plc took third party vehicle claiming that my partner is his owner when invoice and V5 says it's company vehicle.

Solicitor advice us to fill form N1 CLAIM FORM with the Injunction against selling company owned vehicle and catch Judge in County Court asking for decision.

We've found out that there is special form N016a which suppose to be used for Injunctions.

Questions:

1. Which form should we use? N16A, an electronic copy of which is attached to this post.

2. Should we sue Islington Council where parking ticket was issued, Northampton County Court which issued a Warrant of Execution and hired Newlyn Plc or Newlyn Plc? Or all together as defendants? The N1 claim should be made against London Borough of Islington, as should the injunction. However, a copy of the injunction should be served upon Newlyns as they are acting as an agent of London Borough of Islington.

3. If all three parties then how to spread claim monies? Who will be responsible for claim? London Borough of Islington.

4. Is it true that if Newlyn Plc will get CCJ against them they will have difficulties in obtaining future contracts? They have to be Crystal Clear? If yes then we would like to strongly go against Newlyn Plc. If London Borough of Islington have a judgement go against them, I doubt very much Newlyn will get any further contracts from them. Notwithstanding, once word gets around that Newlyn have cocked-up and cost London Borough of Islington a court judgement, I doubt many other local authorities who use them will exactly be falling over themselves to renew their contracts.

5. Should we add Human Rights Act to the case? No. You can only cite the Human Rights Act where personal possessions are involved. Goods that are owned by a body corporate (company) are not covered. There was some confusion initially, but it is now clear the car involved is owned by a company.

6. We've red that if running a case by yourself you can claim only up to £18.00 per hour for preparing a case. What if my partner's hour is charged at £180.00 and he lost already whole friday 21st due to situation, meeting with a Client, and at least 8 hours already getting ready for a case? He is very proud and takes his Liberal Rights very seriously. It might be worth speaking to the court staff about this particular point.

7. Should we have two cases in hand, one for injunction and one for claim when we go visit Judge? Or the claim one can be filed online as there's no need for rushing? Normally, where an injunction is being applied for, the N1 claim must be lodged with the court on the same day and no later than three (3) working days from the date of lodging the N16A. However, do check with the court staff.

8. Case against East Herts Police. Inspector allowed to take 3rd party goods and threat to arrest my partner for Breach of Peace ( by sitting in his company car and not allowing to take company goods as a Director ). Is it a best case under Human Rights Act or different one is more appropriate? This is best dealt with by way of formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The circumstances are too serious to be suitable for informal resolution through Hertfordshire Constabulary, but not serious enough to warrant seeking redress through the courts. From what you have said, the Inspector's actions amount to Abuse of Authority.

He already won one case in Crown Court where High Judge "suggested" to Jury that this case shouldn't even reach Crown Court, he shouted at Prosecutor for wasting Government funds ( £34k for Solicitor firm we used has to be repaid by Government ). Police overused their authority, used force where not needed and caused a great deal of loss of faith in their "fair" judgement. We haven't filed a case yet against Police force for this old case. You will need to describe this "old case" separately.

Thank you all for your much appreciated input. I see there are still good people outraged by cowboy behaviour
of civil servants and companies which should follow simple guidance.

By the way few facts about Newlyn Plc finances 2013:

Place of Business: 180-188 Northolt Road, South Harrow, HA2 0LJ
Telephone to offices ( not dark hole for "enquiries" ) 0208 869 84 53

Turnover: £12,836,630.00
Gross Profit: £5,083,391.00
Net Profit: £2,302,376.00
Directors Salaries: £585,355.00
Highest Paid Director: £108.233.00
Dividents Paid: £3,148,590.00

Kevin Charles McCarthy Dividends Paid: £209,916.00
David Robert Smith Dividends Paid: £209,916.00

Responses in red text. By the way, I am a retired police officer, but don't let that put you off. Like a number of other LB members who are retired police officers, I am what is often called "old school" from the days when police officers used commonsense, knowledge and discretion unlike today where police officers appear to spout nonsense, have a strange idea about how the law works and what it says and the word "discretion" appears to mean nothing to them.

[Magdalena]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Responses in red text. By the way, I am a retired police officer, but don't let that put you off. Like a number of other LB members who are retired police officers, I am what is often called "old school" from the days when police officers used commonsense, knowledge and discretion unlike today where police officers appear to spout nonsense, have a strange idea about how the law works and what it says and the word "discretion" appears to mean nothing to them.

Dear All,
Just a quick update;
Please note that we have applied for injunction against selling the BMW vehicle and the injunction become valid on Thursday the 3rd of April at noon time. The case will take place on Thursday the 10th and we hope to get the vehicle back. Also we will be claiming all damages soon after.
I will keep you posted with all details later on this week.

Dear Bluebottle,
You have been such a great help and support during this case, thank you so much. I believe in honour, honestly and integrity. It might bee seen as not fashionable those days but those are my personal values and my life, my work will always reflect them. As I have already mentioned I am happy to see that there are still good people outraged by cowboy behaviour of civil servants and companies which should follow simple guidance. Thank you for shearing your knowledge.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Dear All,
Just a quick update;
Please note that we have applied for injunction against selling the BMW vehicle and the injunction become valid on Thursday the 3rd of April at noon time. The case will take place on Thursday the 10th and we hope to get the vehicle back. Also we will be claiming all damages soon after.
I will keep you posted with all details later on this week.

Dear Bluebottle,
You have been such a great help and support during this case, thank you so much. I believe in honour, honestly and integrity. It might bee seen as not fashionable those days but those are my personal values and my life, my work will always reflect them. As I have already mentioned I am happy to see that there are still good people outraged by cowboy behaviour of civil servants and companies which should follow simple guidance. Thank you for shearing your knowledge.

You are most welcome, Magdelena. I am glad to have been able to help you and your partner. I am pleased that the injunction was granted and that the Disposal Hearing is on 10 April 2014 (Yes, it is an odd term, but that is what it is called, apparently.). Be guided by the solicitor who has advised you and your partner where the next hearing is concerned and I wish you every success.

Bluebottle

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

This may be of help. Bailiffs used it to dismiss the status of the LGO but it is also helpful when concerning DVLA checks:

BEFORE His Honour Judge P.R. Main QC, sitting at the Stoke-on-Trent County Court, Bethesda Street, Hanley, Stoke on Trent on 22^nd January 2013.

The Blaby district Council decision

27. A decision of the local authority ombudsman is not one that is binding in county court, although, like any decision well reasoned and analysed, it might well have substantial persuasive effect. At paragraph 44 and 45 of Dr Martin’s determination of 10^th July 2012, she states that subject to the practicability of making a DVLA check, in every case, a bailiff should establish ownership through the DVLA before removing goods to sell. With respect, this is not a view I can agree with for the simple reason that a V5 does not deal with ownership in a legal sense, just the identity of the registered keeper. That is not to say that there is not good sense in getting as much information as possible to establish likely ownership before removing for sale but I doubt a V5 would really take that enquiry reliably, any further forward. As a matter of law, I cannot see any basis for saying that there is any duty on a bailiff to do a DVLA check before removing goods. Mr Clemens has not been able to find any reported authority which supports the observations of the Local Authority Ombudsman in this regard and I am not persuaded this represents a correct statement of the law

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

This may be of help. Bailiffs used it to dismiss the status of the LGO but it is also helpful when concerning DVLA checks:

BEFORE His Honour Judge P.R. Main QC, sitting at the Stoke-on-Trent County Court, Bethesda Street, Hanley, Stoke on Trent on 22^nd January 2013.

The Blaby district Council decision

27. A decision of the local authority ombudsman is not one that is binding in county court, although, like any decision well reasoned and analysed, it might well have substantial persuasive effect. At paragraph 44 and 45 of Dr Martin’s determination of 10^th July 2012, she states that subject to the practicability of making a DVLA check, in every case, a bailiff should establish ownership through the DVLA before removing goods to sell. With respect, this is not a view I can agree with for the simple reason that a V5 does not deal with ownership in a legal sense, just the identity of the registered keeper. That is not to say that there is not good sense in getting as much information as possible to establish likely ownership before removing for sale but I doubt a V5 would really take that enquiry reliably, any further forward. As a matter of law, I cannot see any basis for saying that there is any duty on a bailiff to do a DVLA check before removing goods. Mr Clemens has not been able to find any reported authority which supports the observations of the Local Authority Ombudsman in this regard and I am not persuaded this represents a correct statement of the law

I don't think a bailiff could rely on the above ruling if an individual obtained an N16A injunction and ticked the Human Rights Issues box on the form, to dig them or a local authority out of a hole if the individual is a third party and the bailiff has seized their motor for someone else's debt.

If the pleadings and skeleton arguments are drafted correctly, the local authority will be liable to return the motor and pay damages. Under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, a public authority cannot deprive a person of their possessions except under exceptional circumstances.

In the case of a third party, the arguments are -

a. No court has adjudged them to be liable for any debt; and
b. They are not liable in any way for the actual debtor's debt; and
c. The public authority has no lawful authority to deprive them of their possessions; consequently,
d. They are entitled to enjoyment of their possessions without interference from the State or any public authority.

For the purposes of the Act, a public authority includes a government department, local authority, commercial entity acting as or on behalf of a public authority or any person whose function is that of a public authority or is of a public nature.

Section 6 of the Act provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to perform any act which is incompatible with a person's Convention rights. Seizing someone's possessions for someone else's debts is incompatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol.

The most likely cause of action for damages would be under the Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977 for Wrongful Interference With Goods.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

You're missing the point.

This argument has a double edged sword. Whilst the case in question favoured the bailiffs argument that a DVLA check could not advance the enquiry any further, so too can the OP use this argument.

A V5 does not deal with ownership in a legal sense-That is the key.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

You're missing the point.

This argument has a double edged sword. Whilst the case in question favoured the bailiffs argument that a DVLA check could not advance the enquiry any further, so too can the OP use this argument.

A V5 does not deal with ownership in a legal sense-That is the key.

In short, the bailiff should conduct proper checks and not assume a vehicle belongs to the debtor?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

No-In short a DVLA check does not advance the enquiry any further & a V5 registration is not proof of ownership.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

Magdalena - if you read this today, please contact me as a matter of urgency. I am very wary of injunction applications and I know how they can go horribly wrong to the tune of several thousands of pounds in legal costs - particulary those concerning Newlyn.

There are issues here that Newlyn's solicitor will gloss over or ignore in court. District judges are not trained in parking and traffic management regulations and as such are not always best placed to spot irregularities in this area

[Milo]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

No-In short a DVLA check does not advance the enquiry any further & a V5 registration is not proof of ownership.

You are correct in your above comment. What is very important to note however is that the vehicle 'keeper ' is assumed to be the vehicle owner..............

UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.

In simple terms, this means that an enforcement agent is entitled to ASSUME that the keeper is the rightful owner of a vehicle UNLESS proof is provided otherwise.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff from Newlyn took the car which belongs to the company because my name on

He may well be entitled to assume this however the judge in the quoted case clearly disagrees.

As you know, this particular case is used by enforcement companies. If they want to start quoting it then its reasonable for debtors to use it as well.

Otherwise, they are having it both ways, firstly claiming they are entitled to remove vehicles regardless of whos name is on the V5 (as seen in the Panorama programme) then secondly claiming that if a persons name is on the V5 then they can assume ownership. It must be either, or but not both.