Bailiff enforcement:Debtor 'steals' vehicle from new owner after it had been sold by bailiff company.

[Bailiff Advice]

To ensure that only accurate information is reported on here, I need to correct something that I wrote above. Regrettably, I relying upon false information posted by the McKenzie Friend.

 

Mr Ross Kirby did not use his 'spare key' to drive the vehicle.

 

It would now seem that in court it was stated that this utterly devious couple turned up at the garage with their young child and dog looking to 'purchase' an estate car. They selected the Volvo estate. The car was started by a representative at the garage and he trusted the couple to take the car on a short 'test drive'. They didn't return. The garage realised that they had been conned when they failed to return within 30 minutes.

 

Neither Ross Kirby or his partner Stacie Greengrow were legally represented in court. A genteman was 'assisting' them. We can only guess who.

 

The V5c was never in the name of a the limited company. It was only ever registered in the trading name.

[Peterbard]

Yes this is what I had imagined. The police would have been loathe to prosecute on this because the car was taken away with the consent of the owner. The only route for a criminal prosecution would be theft by false representation. Unfortunately proving this can be quite difficult, as you have to show that dishonesty was involved, which requires proving criminal intent, section 2 of the theft act 1968.

In other words you have to prove that that they did not believe they had a right to take the vehicle to a criminal standard of proof

[Peterbard]

It is acknowledged that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the EA s they acted completely correctly. Hence the frantic backpedaling going on in various places.

[caledfwlch]

Yes this is what I had imagined. The police would have been loathe to prosecute on this because the car was taken away with the consent of the owner. The only route for a criminal prosecution would be theft by false representation. Unfortunately proving this can be quite difficult, as you have to show that dishonesty was involved, which requires proving criminal intent, section 2 of the theft act 1968.

In other words you have to prove that that they did not believe they had a right to take the vehicle to a criminal standard of proof

 

It is possible that the CPS simply could not prove "Mens Rea" - Guilty Mind, that the Defendants claimed they didn't believe they were committing a theft, as they believed they still lawfully owned the car, therefore were not intending to deprive a lawful owner of his or her property, its possible.

 

It's why specific legislation like "Taking without Consent" was introduced, in the 60's people would often "borrow" a car to get home and claim they were only borrowing and intended to return the vehicle, and thus under the existing legislation of the time, Guilty Mind/Intent to permanently deprive could not be proven.

[citizenB]

Would be good to see the actual judgment.

 

As this was a case considered in the Crown Court, there will not be an actual judgment as such.

 

 

This is a shame, is there no way a copy of the Judgment can be obtained ?

[unclebulgaria67]

I think it is a simple case of a jury not being able to come to a guilty verdict, because it was directors of a company retrieving a car they believe they owned. If this was not true and the directors would have been aware that legally they had no claim to it, then the prosecution would have easily made their case. There is mention that this couple had no Barrister or Solicitor representing them, but yet they managed to win. I did not think a Judge would allow people to not be properly legally represented in a Crown Court theft case.

 

Some of the points being made do not make any sense. A garage lets strangers with kids and dog drive away a car, not bringing it back. How did these people get to the garage ?

 

Not sure the exact position has been clarified anywhere.

[Peterbard]

It is possible that the CPS simply could not prove "Mens Rea" - Guilty Mind, that the Defendants claimed they didn't believe they were committing a theft, as they believed they still lawfully owned the car, therefore were not intending to deprive a lawful owner of his or her property, its possible.

 

It's why specific legislation like "Taking without Consent" was introduced, in the 60's people would often "borrow" a car to get home and claim they were only borrowing and intended to return the vehicle, and thus under the existing legislation of the time, Guilty Mind/Intent to permanently deprive could not be proven.

 

Yes you're absolutely right, i didn't want to overcomplicate what is already a complicated idea.

[Peterbard]

I think it is a simple case of a jury not being able to come to a guilty verdict, because it was directors of a company retrieving a car they believe they owned. If this was not true and the directors would have been aware that legally they had no claim to it, then the prosecution would have easily made their case. There is mention that this couple had no Barrister or Solicitor representing them, but yet they managed to win. I did not think a Judge would allow people to not be properly legally represented in a Crown Court theft case.

 

Some of the points being made do not make any sense. A garage lets strangers with kids and dog drive away a car, not bringing it back. How did these people get to the garage ?

 

Not sure the exact position has been clarified anywhere.

 

THe issue is disproving what the defendants say they believed, not an easy thing to do. The option of a jury does not make it any easier to get a prosecution either, because it is a technical prosecution and they are being asked to understand the intricacies of bailiff law.

The defendants represented themselves I believe, which they have a perfect right to do so, although the common opinion is that a person who defends himself has a fool for a client, in this it seems to have paid off. An impassioned plea form one of the defendants at summing up will weigh far more with them than some law they do not understand. Short of the judges direct instruction it could not have gone any other way.

 

As for the garage owner giving the car out for a test drive, it is a sad case of affairs when every kind act is treated with such despicable behaviour.

[brassnecked]

It is possible that the CPS simply could not prove "Mens Rea" - Guilty Mind, that the Defendants claimed they didn't believe they were committing a theft, as they believed they still lawfully owned the car, therefore were not intending to deprive a lawful owner of his or her property, its possible.

 

It's why specific legislation like "Taking without Consent" was introduced, in the 60's people would often "borrow" a car to get home and claim they were only borrowing and intended to return the vehicle, and thus under the existing legislation of the time, Guilty Mind/Intent to permanently deprive could not be proven.

That could well be what happened. proving mens rea in the circumstances would not be easy.

[Peterbard]

 

Some of the points being made do not make any sense. A garage lets strangers with kids and dog drive away a car, not bringing it back. How did these people get to the garage ?

 

Not sure the exact position has been clarified anywhere.

 

Have to comment on this, dont know where you read it but it is garbage. Would it have made more sense if the pair were a couple of shaven head tattooed bikers. The presence of a family would re assure most of us. The fact is that this is what the garage owner did, and he was punished for his trusting nature.

[unclebulgaria67]

Have to comment on this, dont know where you read it but it is garbage. Would it have made more sense if the pair were a couple of shaven head tattooed bikers. The presence of a family would re assure most of us. The fact is that this is what the garage owner did, and he was punished for his trusting nature.

 

BA commented on this earlier. It begs the question how this family including a dog actually got to the garage. Did they leave a car behind, while they drove away in the Volvo, never to be seen again ?

 

I am sympathetic to the garage owner, as he has lost a car and probably the money it cost him. The fault must be with Newlyn and the council for selling a car owned by a company. Had they not done that, this garage owner would not have suffered the loss.

[Peterbard]

BA commented on this earlier. It begs the question how this family including a dog actually got to the garage. Did they leave a car behind, while they drove away in the Volvo, never to be seen again ?

 

I am sympathetic to the garage owner, as he has lost a car and probably the money it cost him. The fault must be with Newlyn and the council for selling a car owned by a company. Had they not done that, this garage owner would not have suffered the loss.

 

Nope ther is no fault to the EA in this case , they did everything by the book as did the council, the EA did not sell a car owned by a limited company.

[Peterbard]

BA commented on this earlier. It begs the question how this family including a dog actually got to the garage. Did they leave a car behind, while they drove away in the Volvo, never to be seen again ?

 

I am sympathetic to the garage owner, as he has lost a car and probably the money it cost him. The fault must be with Newlyn and the council for selling a car owned by a company. Had they not done that, this garage owner would not have suffered the loss.

 

Missed the first pice, i presume they arrived in another car and someone drove it off ?

[Peterbard]

I know some will be attempting to distract attention from this, but this story was supposed to illustrate how the MF defeated the EA in a court case.

In fact the EA were not involved nor were they implicated in any court case. That was another complete fabrication from this individual.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

There is mention that this couple had no Barrister or Solicitor representing them, but yet they managed to win. I did not think a Judge would allow people to not be properly legally represented in a Crown Court theft case.

 

Some of the points being made do not make any sense. A garage lets strangers with kids and dog drive away a car, not bringing it back. How did these people get to the garage ?

 

Not sure the exact position has been clarified anywhere.

 

To answer your first question:

 

Defendants can indeed represent themselves in Crown Court cases and in fact, this was precisely the case in the very recent 'Rooftop Six' trial.

 

The following is true:

 

In Court it was stated that Ross Kirby and his partner Stacie Greengrow arrived at the car sales premises on a Sunday afternoon with their young child and small dog. Mr Kirby indicated that he wanted to test drive an estate car. He selected the Volvo V70.

 

He indicated that he wished to drive the car himself (as opposed to being a passenger). The garage owner was initially hesitant and required some documentary evidence that Mr Kirby was licensed to drive. Mr Kirby provided a copy of his driving licence. As it was a Sunday afternoon, the only staff member available was the owner of the car sale business. At the time, other visitors were viewing vehicles and with Mr Kirby indicating that he was a keen prospective purchaser, the garage owner allowed Mr Kirby and his partner to take the vehicle on a 10 minute test drive. His business insurance covered such test drives.

 

After 20 minutes, the garage owner became slightly concerned and went to see whether the couples car was still in the car park. It wasn't. At this stage, the garage owner became very concerned and accordingly, checked the CCTV cameras. This revealed that the couple arrived at the car sales premises as passengers in another vehicle. CCTV cameras also revealed that when Mr Kirby took the vehicle on the test drive, the other vehicle followed. It was then that the garage owner realised that this devious company had 'stolen' his companies vehicle.

[unclebulgaria67]

BA

 

Begs the question, that if your contact was in the court, they will have full account of everything, so should know why the theft prosecution was unsuccessful.

 

There is a question mark in regard to exact ownership of the car at the time it was seized by Newlyn. It is claimed that the car was seized at a joint roadside operation with the Police.

 

There is also a question mark in regard to why the car was sold when there was doubt about ownership and when it is claimed the PCN together with most bailiff fees were paid after this seizure.

 

There is a truth out there somewhere and we might get to it eventually.

[Bailiff Advice]

BA

 

Begs the question, that if your contact was in the court, they will have full account of everything, so should know why the theft prosecution was unsuccessful.

 

There is a question mark in regard to exact ownership of the car at the time it was seized by Newlyn. It is claimed that the car was seized at a joint roadside operation with the Police.

 

There is also a question mark in regard to why the car was sold when there was doubt about ownership and when it is claimed the PCN together with most bailiff fees were paid after this seizure.

 

UB,

 

There was no doubt about the vehicle's ownership and I have said this many times. The vehicle was not...I repeat NOT in the name of a limited company when it was seized. It was in the name of a sole trading business and accordingly, in the eyes of the law, it is considered a personal item belonging to the debtor. As I have said to you many times over the past 2 days, the McKenzie Friend has been astonishingly silent about the term 'Limited Company'...and instead, uses the word 'company'.

 

With regards to the vehicle being stopped by the police three years ago, if that was the case, Mr Kirby should have issued either an interpleader application or an injunction. With the greatest of respect, there is as much truth in that allegation as there is in the notion that this couple had previously had a Barrister representing them. The couple have had assistance from the Mc Kenzie Friend for quite some time.

 

However, if it is the case that the vehicle had been stopped by the Police then this in itself raises even more questions. With any ANPR operations, the camera's would be looking to find the vehicle that matches the one that appears on the penalty charge notice. Therefore it would seem that it was the Volvo V70 estate that had been involved in the parking contravention. As I have said many times, the vehicle when seized was registered in the sole trading name.

 

I too was interested to read the comment about the penalty charge notice being paid. I also noticed that there was no mention as to when this supposed transaction took place !!!

 

Mr Kirby confirmed in his Form 4 Application that the vehicle was used by his partner; Stacie Greengrow (who by the way, was not a Director of his limited company) and that without it, she would be unable to work.

 

Lastly, I have carefully read back my notes from 2014 when I first reported about this Form 4 Complaint and it is quite clear in that although the Form 4 complaint was submitted in the name of the Limited Company, Mr Kirby did not once refer to the vehicle as belonging to a Limited Company !!!

 

There was no doubt then and there is no doubt now, that the vehicle was owned and registered by Mr Kirby as a sole trader. It was therefore, able to be seized.

[unclebulgaria67]

The reason i have questionned so much, is that i have faith in the Jury system, that they are provided with the facts, overseen by a Judge. In this case, there has been a not guilty verdict, based on the evidence provided and therefore we should accept that no crime of theft took place.

 

What we all want to know is the crux of the defence case, which led to the verdict. My guess is that there was doubt about the ownership at the time the car was taken back. If the prosecution had proof that the car was correctly seized and sold at auction to the garage owner, there would be no doubt about ownership in the minds of a Jury. I cannot come to any other conclusion.

 

Logic suggests a problem with Newlyns seizure and sale of the car.

[Peterbard]

Newlyn were not involved in the court case ?

[Peterbard]

There is something else regarding the ownership of the vehicle in these proceedings. The criminal court does not rule on ownership of goods, that is a civil matter.

Ownership of goods would have to be decided before a criminal case can begin.

 

If it fell into question during proceedings the case would have to be halted until the matter was resolved elsewhere.

The issue the crown court is concerned with here is theft or fraud not the ownership of goods.

 

The whole premise is flawed.

[Bailiff Advice]

The reason i have questionned so much, is that i have faith in the Jury system, that they are provided with the facts, overseen by a Judge. In this case, there has been a not guilty verdict, based on the evidence provided and therefore we should accept that no crime of theft took place.

 

What we all want to know is the crux of the defence case, which led to the verdict. My guess is that there was doubt about the ownership at the time the car was taken back. If the prosecution had proof that the car was correctly seized and sold at auction to the garage owner, there would be no doubt about ownership in the minds of a Jury. I cannot come to any other conclusion.

 

Logic suggests a problem with Newlyns seizure and sale of the car.

 

Unfortunately, trying to guess the reason why a jury reached a decision is futile. Unfortunately, as much as I would like, I do not share your faith in the jury system. You only have to look back at the unbelievable verdicts in the cases of the 'Rooftop 6' (Tom Crawford repossession) and the 'Guy Taylor' case (and indeed many others).

 

Leaving guesses aside, what we should not lose sight of is the following:

 

Ross Kirby incurred a penalty charge notice. He did not appeal the ticket and he confirmed in his Form 4 Complaint that he was personally liable to pay it. He failed to do so (within the given time).

 

His vehicle was seized. He had the opportunity to pay the debt (with bailiff fees) to avoid the vehicle being removed to the vehicle found. He failed to do so.

 

His vehicle was taken to the pound and he was being charged £30 per day storage. He again failed to pay.

 

He issued a Form 4 Complaint. It was rejected. He was ordered to pay almost £3,000 in legal costa. I don't believe he paid this sum either (although I may be wrong).

 

He did not issue an interpleader claim or apply for an injunction.

 

After his vehicle was sold, he and his partner hatched a devious plan to get the vehicle back.

 

He and his partner (Stacie Greengrow) were arrested and as confirmed by their McKenzie, were charged with Fraud and Theft (later amended to theft of the Volvo V70).

 

Since 2015 the couple have been to court nine times and as confirmed by Law Pages.com, five of these hearings were in the Crown Court. The cost to the taxpayer must have run into many thousands of pounds.

 

An innocent purchaser is significantly 'out of pocket'.

 

With the greatest of respect I consider it despicable for anyone to try to find 'loopholes' as to why the vehicle should not have been taken as all that this does is to defect from the real issue which is....

 

Why did he not pay the debt when it became due.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hopefully, my last input into this thread for the time being:

 

The defendant failed to pay the local authority for the penalty charge notice.

 

He failed to pay the enforcement agents legal costs following the failed Form 4 Complaint.

 

He and his partners actions have left a garage owner with significant loses.

 

 

It would seem that the only person who has gained financially out of this awful mess.......is the McKenzie Friend.

 

Nobody else.

[unclebulgaria67]

Newlyn were not involved in the court case ?

 

leave others to answer that.

 

The prosecution would have been aware of the arguments the defence would make. As it was highly likely that the defendants would bring the Enforcement companies actions into the proceedings, it would be very odd if the prosecutors had not obtained information to assist them. Whether Newlyn had to attend or did attend, i don't know, but it would be odd if Newlyns had not contributed any evidence into the proceedings.

 

If the Judge thought that the enforcement action leading to the sale was irrelevent to the theft, then surely they would have ruled evidence regarding seizure and sale as not being something for the Jury to consider. The Judge must surely have allowed evidence regarding Newlyns seizure and sale to be put to the Jury.

 

Logic suggests that in deciding whether theft was relevant that the Judge and Jury listened to evidence about ownership from the point the car was seized until it was sold to the garage owner. The Jury decided a not gullty verdict, as they were not sure a theft took place having listened to all arguments.

 

Draw your own conclusions. But you can't say the Jury got it wrong or they only considered a technical matter. if you are arguing a techical matter of law, then i would think the defendant would have had trouble representing them self. The issues regarding ownership would most likely have been the main talking point.

[Peterbard]

There is something else regarding the ownership of the vehicle in these proceedings. The criminal court does not rule on ownership of goods, that is a civil matter.

Ownership of goods would have to be decided before a criminal case can begin.

 

If it fell into question during proceedings the case would have to be halted until the matter was resolved elsewhere.

The issue the crown court is concerned with here is theft or fraud not the ownership of goods.

 

The whole premise is flawed.

 

To those few who may understand what this means, it also explains why ther was no bailiff presence, there was no issue over ownership, there could not be.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hopefully, my last input into this thread for the time being:

 

The defendant failed to pay the local authority for the penalty charge notice.

 

He failed to pay the enforcement agents legal costs following the failed Form 4 Complaint.

 

He and his partners actions have left a garage owner with significant loses.

 

 

It would seem that the only person who has gained financially out of this awful mess.......is the McKenzie Friend.

 

Nobody else.

 

People only run rings around authorities, if they allow it to happen. If there is a legislation deficit in regard to company owned vehicles, then the councils, enforecement companies etc are powerful enough to lobby government to gain new legislation.

 

Sorry but i think there are issues raised for Newlyn and the council concerned, even if the defendants have engaged in a game of wills with the council and Newlyn. They took the decision to sell the car and have to deal with the consequences.

 

I don't know the legal ramifications of this criminal case, but there may well be civil cases between parties, so you are probably not going to find out much information, as it would not be helpful to parties to have online debates with leaked information.