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

[Peterbard]

Re readung you orriginal post BA there seems to be some suggestion that this Mckensie was involved in the proceedings in Crown court, this is of course nonsense, if this is what is being claimed.

[Bailiff Advice]

The claim elsewhere is that some from Newlyns did attend.

 

It would make sense to me that Newlyn did attend, because a defence Barrister is likely to call on those witnesses that were involved in taking the car, being that the seizure of the car is likely to be relevant in a theft case. Directors of a business taking back a car that they believe is still owned by the company would be a valid act, if the seizure and sale was not valid.

 

In fact the McKenzie yesterday 'claimed' the following:

 

 

"The 1st day of the trial was ‘dominated by Newlyn staff taking the witness stand...a lot of them"

 

His statement is false and is completely at odds with the official court information provided on the website of Lawpages.com which states that on the 1st day of the trial, only ONE witness was called (at 12.15 and completed giving his evidence at 12.35). The official court record further confirms that one the 2nd day of the trial, a further TWO witnesses were called. In total only 3 witnesses gave evidence in the trial.

 

As is always the case with such serious trials in a Crown Court, once a witness has completed giving their evidence (and answered any questions from the prosecution and defence), they are not permitted to remain in court.

 

I would assume that in the next few days, further accurate information will come to light and if so, I will of course update the thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

What this case once again does is to show debtors in an extremely poor light and will once again harm genuine debtors with genuine Part 85 (Interpleader claims).

 

These two defendants have been to court nine times and according to Law Pages.com, five of these cases have been in Luton Crown Court. Also according to the court, no costs were awarded.

 

The Form 4 Complaint was issued before the vehicle was sold. Mr Kirby confirmed at the time that Newlyn were charging storage fees of £30 per day. If he had not received any statutory notices then the correct course of action should have been to file an Out of Time witnesss statement.

 

He confirmed in his Form 4 Complaint that he was personally liable for the penalty charge notice. It therefore begs the question....why didn't he just pay the debt.

[BazzaS]

This supports my previous point, so why were the to defendants found innocent if it was not because of an illegal seizure ?

 

A subtle distinction, but they weren't "found innocent". They never had to prove their innocence,

They were found "not guilty" ; the prosecution did not prove its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

 

This may be related to "because of an illegal seizure"' but we can't assume that, unless the reason was stated (e.g. as part of a directed verdict, stated by the judge)

 

Do we know, for sure, the grounds for the verdict?

[unclebulgaria67]

Please read the thread. The allegation of theft is against the former owners, when they took the car and for taking the car.

I didn't say anything about relevance. Newlyns may have taken the car totally legitimately, in fact BAs posts seems to indicate they did.

If this is true then there would be no need for them to attend the crown court.

 

I have read the thread and information elsewhere.

 

Newlyn apparently took a car owned by a Ltd company, not the property of a sole trader and not personally belonging to the person who owed the PCN.

 

The car was later recovered by two directors of the Ltd company and they have been found not guilty of theft, because there was doubt it was theft. The case at Luton Crown court was over 2 days (14/3 & 15/3) and it was possible there was evidence by Newlyn concerning their seizure of the car.

 

There is i understand an issue of property owned by ltd companies being taken by enforcement companies, when the debt is owed personally by a director of a ltd company. This appears to be a grey area, hence the questions i asked earlier, which have not been answered. If i were on a jury, where there was doubt about theft in this situation i would have found them not guilty.

[brassnecked]

I think you have nailed it UB, the Director went about the claim in an incorrect manner, Form 4 being inappropriate when other avenues were open to him, he could have paid the penalty, but due to the issue of ownership and driver Newlyn's seizure and sale was somehow faulty and void allowing the Directors to retrieve the vehicle.

 

Wonder if that grey area would fall under the "Beneficial Interest" as found in that weird" County Court judgment that EA's will use to justify taking vehicles on finance?

[Bailiff Advice]

A subtle distinction, but they weren't "found innocent". They never had to prove their innocence,

They were found "not guilty" ; the prosecution did not prove its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

 

This may be related to "because of an illegal seizure"' but we can't assume that, unless the reason was stated (e.g. as part of a directed verdict, stated by the judge)

 

Do we know, for sure, the grounds for the verdict?

 

 

You are absolutely correct and this is where there is a distinct difference with cases in the Crown Court. There have been three recent examples of this:

 

One recent case that was featured on here was one where a lady had failed to pay a penalty charge notice and her vehicle was clamped. She 'claimed' that she was 'vulnerable' and that the bailiffs was acting unlawfully as she had been displaying a 'valid' Blue Badge in her car. She refused to show the Blue Badge to the enforcement agent. She was encouraged by social media sites to cut the clamp off the car. She was arrested and charged with 'theft' and obstructing an enforcement agent. It then transpired that the Blude Badge was not hers. It belonged to a friend but she had been using it because there was restricted parking in the road where she lived. She had many court appearances and at the last one was warned to expect a custodial sentence. She was given a small fine.

 

The second case is the one regarding the 'Rooftop six' who broke into the bungalow that had been previously belonged to Tom Crawford and his wife. By this time, the property had been sold by the building society. The six defendants (mainly Freeman on the Land supporters) broke into the property and caused considerable damage. They remained in the roof space overseeing and sent endless live streaming videos to YouTube and other media outlets. They were arrested and charged with a variety of offences and remarkably, were all cleared in the Crown Court.

 

As I have mentioned on here, there is no reliable evidence regarding the charges against Mr Kirkby and his partner or the verdict.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think you have nailed it UB, the Director went about the claim in an incorrect manner, Form 4 being inappropriate when other avenues were open to him, he could have paid the penalty, but due to the issue of ownership and driver Newlyn's seizure and sale was somehow faulty and void allowing the Directors to retrieve the vehicle.

 

BN,

 

Can I just correct your above statement. The court have NOT found Newlyn's sale to be faulty or void !!!

 

This case was only in connection with Miss Kirby and his partner and centred only on the theft of the motor vehicle. The case did not involve Newlyn's and this is why they were not called as a witness. The purchaser of the vehicle would have been fully aware that he was buying a vehicle that had been subject to bailiff enforcement as this is made very clear indeed on the eBay adverts.

 

When a vehicle is sold, 'good title' passes to the new purchaser.

 

 

It is regrettable that another site saw fit to publish details of this case as all that has been achieved is that once again, a debtor is shown in a bad light seeking ways in which to avoid paying a parking debt. If he considered that he had valid grounds to challenge the penalty charge, then he should have completed an Out of Time witness statement. He did not do so.

 

If he considered that he had grounds to challenge the removal of the vehicle, he should have filed an Interpleader claim. He did not do so.

 

Also, we must not lose sight of the fact that he filed a Form 4 Complaint and the court found against him and ordered that he pay costs to the enforcement agent of almost £3,000. It was after filing the Form 4 that the vehicle was sold.

[brassnecked]

BN,

 

Can I just correct your above statement. The court have NOT found Newlyn's sale to be faulty or void !!!

 

This case was only in connection with Miss Kirby and his partner and centred only on the theft of the motor vehicle. The case did not involve Newlyn's and this is why they were not called as a witness. The purchaser of the vehicle would have been fully aware that he was buying a vehicle that had been subject to bailiff enforcement as this is made very clear indeed on the eBay adverts.

 

When a vehicle is sold, 'good title' passes to the new purchaser.

 

 

It is regrettable that another site saw fit to publish details of this case as all that has been achieved is that once again, a debtor is shown in a bad light seeking ways in which to avoid paying a parking debt. If he considered that he had valid grounds to challenge the penalty charge, then he should have completed an Out of Time witness statement. He did not do so.

 

If he considered that he had grounds to challenge the removal of the vehicle, he should have filed an Interpleader claim. He did not do so.

Thanks BA, I see I wondered why the director went to Form 4 rather than Interpleader, and that the Crown Court case was purely on the theft of the vehicle from the new owner who should have good title.

[Peterbard]

UB and BN

 

I feel you are missing the point. We are all aware of the inability of bailiffs to seize a car if it is not the debtors property, as would be the case if it was owned by a limited liability company.

This was the contention, however it was shown that this claim was disproved at the time as the car was found to be registered to a sole trader and being used by both members of the family, thus also avoiding any claim of tools of the trade exemption.

 

This throws a question over the other contention, in that the case against the persons was not proven because they cannot steal their own property

 

As I have said several times , there are many reasons why a prosecution may fail.

i could cite some, but it would be theorising and i prefer to await further information.

 

There have been a great many claims on various forums in the past , including this one, which have turned out to be less than accurate. The reasons for misrepresenting the details of a case a varied , ranging from somone just trying to prove a point to the more sinister one of using misinformation to dupe people for their personal financial gain.

[unclebulgaria67]

BN,

 

Can I just correct your above statement. The court have NOT found Newlyn's sale to be faulty or void !!!

 

This case was only in connection with Miss Kirby and his partner and centred only on the theft of the motor vehicle. The case did not involve Newlyn's and this is why they were not called as a witness. The purchaser of the vehicle would have been fully aware that he was buying a vehicle that had been subject to bailiff enforcement as this is made very clear indeed on the eBay adverts.

 

When a vehicle is sold, 'good title' passes to the new purchaser.

 

 

It is regrettable that another site saw fit to publish details of this case as all that has been achieved is that once again, a debtor is shown in a bad light seeking ways in which to avoid paying a parking debt. If he considered that he had valid grounds to challenge the penalty charge, then he should have completed an Out of Time witness statement. He did not do so.

 

If he considered that he had grounds to challenge the removal of the vehicle, he should have filed an Interpleader claim. He did not do so.

 

Also, we must not lose sight of the fact that he filed a Form 4 Complaint and the court found against him and ordered that he pay costs to the enforcement agent of almost £3,000. It was after filing the Form 4 that the vehicle was sold.

 

We all know the score here. It is just a game being played by various. ( not directed at anyone here).

 

When you boil this all down, it is a battle of wills, between a ltd company director who did not pay a PCN and the authorities. It has ended up with authorities trying to prosecute for theft and a jury not being convinced a theft has taken place.

 

We are just spectators in this and not sure of all of the facts. Having read a number of these threads, in some cases i don't think we ever get to the exact truth, because it is difficult to see through the spin.

[Peterbard]

We all know the score here. It is just a game being played by various. ( not directed at anyone here).

 

When you boil this all down, it is a battle of wills, between a ltd company director who did not pay a PCN and the authorities. It has ended up with authorities trying to prosecute for theft and a jury not being convinced a theft has taken place.

 

We are just spectators in this and not sure of all of the facts. Having read a number of these threads, in some cases i don't think we ever get to the exact truth, because it is difficult to see through the spin.

 

Not at all i would have thought it would be the person who bought the car in good faith that would alert the police of the "theft". It is he who looses out in this.

[Peterbard]

Incidentally the above is one of the reasons which may have proven problematic there is an issue of interest in goods bought in good faith even if the car was improperly seized, which is usually decided by a court.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks BA, I see I wondered why the director went to Form 4 rather than Interpleader, and that the Crown Court case was purely on the theft of the vehicle from the new owner who should have good title.

 

I cannot see where there can be any doubt that good title did not pass to the new purchaser. In 2013, the relevant regulation would have been the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 and section 15 states very clearly the following:

 

 

Enforcement of specified debts

 

15.—(1)Subject to paragraph (2), a warrant of execution against goods issued by an authority shall bind the property in the goods of the respondent from the time at which the warrant was issued to the enforcement officer.

 

Such a warrant

shall not prejudice the title

to any goods of the respondent acquired by a person in good faith and for valuable consideration etc

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/article/15/made?view=plain

 

As I have mentioned earlier, the vehicle was advertised on Ebay and with all vehicles sold by the particular site in question, adverts clearly states that the sale is on the instructions of a bailiff company.

 

PS: Section 15 also also 'binds' the goods from the date that the warrant of execution is received by the enforcement agent. It may have been the case that Mr Kirby had tried to transfer ownership of his vehicle to either his Limited Company/Sole trader company or himself. We do not know what happened. Suffice to say, that if he did so, any transfer would have been 'void' if it had been made after the date that the warrant had been issued to the enforcement agent.

[unclebulgaria67]

Incidentally the above is one of the reasons which may have proven problematic there is an issue of interest in goods bought in good faith even if the car was improperly seized, which is usually decided by a court.

 

Good points regarding new owner and their interest.

 

I don't know enough about the law. From what i have read previously, the case law is not entirely clear. A new owner can still lose property in some cases, even if they paid a correct market value and the person selling it provided reasonable evidence that they owned what they were selling or were authorised to do so.

[Peterbard]

A subtle distinction, but they weren't "found innocent". They never had to prove their innocence,

They were found "not guilty" ; the prosecution did not prove its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

 

This may be related to "because of an illegal seizure"' but we can't assume that, unless the reason was stated (e.g. as part of a directed verdict, stated by the judge)

 

Do we know, for sure, the grounds for the verdict?

 

If you wantr to be pedantic the correct form would be that the guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[unclebulgaria67]

I cannot see where there can be any doubt that good title did not pass to the new purchaser. In 2013, the relevant regulation would have been the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 and section 15 states very clearly the following:

 

 

Enforcement of specified debts

 

15.—(1)Subject to paragraph (2), a warrant of execution against goods issued by an authority shall bind the property in the goods of the respondent from the time at which the warrant was issued to the enforcement officer.

 

Such a warrant

shall not prejudice the title

to any goods of the respondent acquired by a person in good faith and for valuable consideration etc

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/article/15/made?view=plain

 

.

 

This might be a silly question.

 

But according to the act quoted, that relates to London authorities. Was the PCN issued in London or does the act now apply across England and Wales ?

[BazzaS]

If you wantr to be pedantic the correct form would be that the guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

That is the yardstick the magistrates would use, or that a jury would be instructed to apply.

However (& yes, it is pedantic : but sometimes cases turn on pedantry),

the verdict delivered remains "guilty", or "not guilty" ; not "innocent"

(Leaving aside the Scottish possibility of "not proven").

 

Pedantry? Cases have turned on placement of a comma.

Are commas that important?

"Let's eat Grandma!" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma!"

 

So, yes, pedantic : but relevant as we don't know why there was the "not guilty" verdict

A) they weren't "found innocent"

B) the lack of proof of guilt (to the criminal standard) might have been due to prior illegality of the seizure, but we still don't know for sure!

[Bailiff Advice]

This might be a silly question.

 

But according to the act quoted, that relates to London authorities. Was the PCN issued in London or does the act now apply across England and Wales ?

 

As far as I know, the penalty charge notice was issued by London Borough of Croydon.

[Peterbard]

That is the yardstick the magistrates would use, or that a jury would be instructed to apply.

However (& yes, it is pedantic : but sometimes cases turn on pedantry),

the verdict delivered remains "guilty", or "not guilty" ; not "innocent"

(Leaving aside the Scottish possibility of "not proven").

 

Pedantry? Cases have turned on placement of a comma.

Are commas that important?

"Let's eat Grandma!" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma!"

 

So, yes, pedantic : but relevant as we don't know why there was the "not guilty" verdict

A) they weren't "found innocent"

B) the lack of proof of guilt (to the criminal standard) might have been due to prior illegality of the seizure, but we still don't know for sure!

 

Cases do not "turn on pedantry" if it is pedantic it is by definition of no consequence, if case turned on the point it would hardly be of no consequence. Anyway back to the topic.

[unclebulgaria67]

If the prosecution were totally clear a theft took place, they would have explained it and any Jury would have found them guilty. It would have been straightforward that previous owners using a spare key stole the car, from the new owner who had aquired good title.

 

I cannot think there is any explanation other than the Jury were not convinced that it was possible to convict two ltd company directors of theft, when the car was originally seized for a debt owed by a person. The seizure was faulty as the warrant only allowed endorcement against an individual. The new owner did not have any protection in regard to the legislation Bailiff Advice quotes above.

[Bailiff Advice]

That is the yardstick the magistrates would use, or that a jury would be instructed to apply.

However (& yes, it is pedantic : but sometimes cases turn on pedantry), the verdict delivered remains "guilty", or "not guilty" ; not "innocent" (Leaving aside the Scottish possibility of "not proven").

 

Pedantry? Cases have turned on placement of a comma. Are commas that important? "Let's eat Grandma!" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma!"

 

So, yes, pedantic : but relevant as we don't know why there was the "not guilty" verdict

A) they weren't "found innocent"

B) the lack of proof of guilt (to the criminal standard) might have been due to prior illegality of the seizure, but we still don't know for sure!

 

As I have said before, there is no reliable evidence available.

[Peterbard]

This might be a silly question.

 

But according to the act quoted, that relates to London authorities. Was the PCN issued in London or does the act now apply across England and Wales ?

 

Each Authority has to apply for permission to deregulate and give particulars of financial viability, area of the deregulated zone etc. the london rules are then rolled out to cover that area.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I cannot think there is any explanation other than the Jury were not convinced that it was possible to convict two ltd company directors of theft, when the car was originally seized for a debt owed by a person. The seizure was faulty as the warrant only allowed endorcement against an individual. The new owner did not have any protection in regard to the legislation Bailiff Advice quotes above.

 

UB. I am not sure what you have been reading but you cannot state that the seizure was 'faulty' and neither is it right to state that the 'new owner did not have protection'. It is not right to guess what the court decided.

[Leakie]

The trouble is no one on here knows, what was presented at court,

for the jury to come to there Not Guilty verdict.

 

This is on both sides of the argument.