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

[Peterbard]

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.

 

There are many, also if you search the case you will see that the charge was theft by misrepresentation, which is not quite as straightforward to prove.

Edited March 18, 2016 by citizenB
restored quote box

[Bailiff Advice]

 

If you search the case you will see that the charge was theft by misrepresentation, which is not quite as straightforward to prove.

 

Once again, accuracy is essential. The charges were theft/ false representation.

[unclebulgaria67]

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.

 

As i understand it, the warrant only allows seizure of goods belonging to the debtor ( a person). I thought in this case that Newlyn were shown paperwork showing the car was owned by a company. Yet they proceeded to sell the car and this is where i think it falls down.

 

If they knowingly sold a car not belonging to the debtor, they are taking a risk. The warrant would not cover them taking this risk and i thought there was some wording about there being reasonable belief the goods were the property of the debtor. I am not sure they had reasonable belief. Once the seizure under a warranty is faulty, any protections the new owner had under the legislation is not valid.

 

If you were correct BA, the new owner would just go to a court and claim their car back.

 

As for this theft case, if there was any reasonable doubt about ownership transferring from this ltd company to the new owner, the Jury would not have had much choice. I doubt they discussed too much about bailiff law, apart from a basic outline.

[Peterbard]

UB the claim by the debtor that the car was owned by a limited company was disproved he or his partner was in fact the owner. The V5 presented did not show the vehicle registered to the limited company but to the individual. This is one of the reasons the initial form four complaint failed.

[unclebulgaria67]

UB the claim by the debtor that the car was owned by a limited company was disproved he or his partner was in fact the owner. The V5 presented did not show the vehicle registered to the limited company but to the individual. This is one of the reasons the initial form four complaint failed.

 

Is that definitely true ?

 

I thought it was being claimed it was owned by a limited company, just that ltd had been left off the paperwork ?

[brassnecked]

Would be good to see the actual judgment.

[Peterbard]

We hve nno idea wht was being claimed UB, however the third party issue is not a likely scenario given the impartial evidence provided.

 

As said once or twice on here there are many reasons a criminal prosecution can fail.

 

All will become clear shortly no doubt.

[Peterbard]

Is that definitely true ?

 

I thought it was being claimed it was owned by a limited company, just that ltd had been left off the paperwork ?

 

The only people claiming this are the ones who are pusing this point, in fact the V5 was not made out to a limited company.

[unclebulgaria67]

The only people claiming this are the ones who are pusing this point, in fact the V5 was not made out to a limited company.

 

So you have seen the V5 or some proof of what it showed ?

[Leakie]

V 5 is only the registered keeper, not proof of ownership.

as an EA will tell you when it suits.l

 

Leakie

[Bailiff Advice]

Is that definitely true ?

 

I thought it was being claimed it was owned by a limited company, just that ltd had been left off the paperwork ?

 

UB. You cannot surely just 'leave off' the Limited name from a V5C!!! Granted, an error could occur but then it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to check the V5c to see if it contains an error.

 

Also, reading back on my notes from 2014 there is a further question about the date that Mr Kirby acquired the vehicle. According to my notes, the defendant acquired the vehicle in 2010. It would not have been possible for him to register the vehicle in the name of the limited company given that the company was not formed until some time in 2011 !! This was very likely to be why the vehicle had been registered in the name of his sole trading firm.

 

This case has all the hallmarks of somebody trying to evade paying the debt to the local authority (and bailiff company).

[unclebulgaria67]

If it is true the ltd company still has the car they took back, then that speaks volumes to me. Or was the new buyer waiting to see if the theft charges were successful, as they could not bring any civil case, while it was subject to criminal court proceedings ? Now the theft charges are no longer valid, the new owner and others will have to battle it out.

[Bailiff Advice]

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.

[Peterbard]

the V5 supports a presumption of ownership unless the contrary is proven., In any case ther was other evidence this is as said why the form four hearing was dismissed and the seizure allowed to continue.

 

I seem to remember saying this before once or twice, but in a criminal case of theft there are many things which can defeat an action by the CPS.

[unclebulgaria67]

UB. You cannot surely just 'leave off' the Limited name from a V5C!!! Granted, an error could occur but then it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to check the V5c to see if it contains an error.

 

Also, reading back on my notes from 2014 there is a further question about the date that Mr Kirby acquired the vehicle. According to my notes, the defendant acquired the vehicle in 2010. It would not have been possible for him to register the vehicle in the name of the limited company given that the company was not formed until some time in 2011 !! This was very likely to be why the vehicle had been registered in the name of his sole trading firm.

 

This case has all the hallmarks of somebody trying to evade paying the debt to the local authority (and bailiff company).

 

We don't know really. Only those involved in seeing all of the paperwork will know the true situation.

 

I suspect a game is being played, as i said before.

[Peterbard]

If it is true the ltd company still has the car they took back, then that speaks volumes to me. Or was the new buyer waiting to see if the theft charges were successful, as they could not bring any civil case, while it was subject to criminal court proceedings ? Now the theft charges are no longer valid, the new owner and others will have to battle it out.

 

Do you know this is the case , where are you getting this from ?

[brassnecked]

zzzzzz :yawn:

[Bailiff Advice]

We don't know really. Only those involved in seeing all of the paperwork will know the true situation.

 

I suspect a game is being played, as i said before.

 

And this is precisely why I said yesterday that everyone should stop trying to guess what was said in court.

 

This case is so very unimportant given that despite what the jury may have decided, this does not in any way enable the Limited Company to make a civil claim against the enforcement company. Also, if it is the case that Mr Kirby has retained the use of the car for the past 3 years then there can be no claim.

 

There is little point in speculating about the case any further and unless and until any further information comes to light, I have nothing more to add to the thread.

[Peterbard]

Also I see a lot of mention regarding starting a civil claim on the facts presented on a criminal decision. This is incorrect, you cnnot start a civil claim for theft, you would have to use the equivalent tort of conversion or other, you would also have to prove from the start, damages and their relationship to that tort under the four rules process, just the same as you would in a new claim.

 

You certainly could not be able to claim or reclaim fees as these would not be incurred as a direct consequence of the tort(remoteness).

[unclebulgaria67]

Do you know this is the case , where are you getting this from ?

 

If the other site is believed, the car was never given back to the new owner. It is where it was taken back to for storage and is not in use.

 

I don't automatically disbelieve information, just because of where it is published. I weigh up the likelyhood as to whether it is likely to be true. The other site did start their thread earlier with more information, so they have obviously been in touch with someone involved. But as to whether all information is true is not for me to answer . The same is probably true from sources on the opposite side of this argument.

[Peterbard]

If the other site is believed, the car was never given back to the new owner. It is where it was taken back to for storage and is not in use.

 

I don't automatically disbelieve information, just because of where it is published. I weigh up the likelyhood as to whether it is likely to be true. The other site did start their thread earlier with more information, so they have obviously been in touch with someone involved. But as to whether all information is true is not for me to answer . The same is probably true from sources on the opposite side of this argument.

 

I thought you said that playing "ping pong" between the two sites was a bad idea ?

[unclebulgaria67]

I thought you said that playing "ping pong" between the two sites was a bad idea ?

 

This is a joke.

 

Is Jason the ping and Bailiff Advice the pong !

 

I have said this numerous times. If CAG is used to react to the latest 'news story' from elsewhere, before all the true facts are known, then you get several pages of debate, before people get a bit fed up. Perhaps leave it for at least a week, to see what information becomes available.

 

( No disrespect to Bailiff Advice or others meant, but i think you get my point, even if you don't find it funny. Humour can be cruel sometimes )

[Peterbard]

This is a joke.

 

Is Jason the ping and Bailiff Advice the pong !

 

I have said this numerous times. If CAG is used to react to the latest 'news story' from elsewhere, before all the true facts are known, then you get several pages of debate, before people get a bit fed up. Perhaps leave it for at least a week, to see what information becomes available.

 

( No disrespect to Bailiff Advice or others meant, but i think you get my point, even if you don't find it funny. Humour can be cruel sometimes )

 

No need to leave this a week apparently, looks like someone's been rumbled, now thats funny.

[Bailiff Advice]

Background:

 

In June 2013 (3 years ago) a bailiff from Newlyn Plc had seized a vehicle belonging to a 'company' in connection with an unpaid parking ticket owed by one of the company Directors. The vehicle in question was then taken to the auctioneers premises where it was eventually (on a date unknown) advertised for sale on ebay.

 

The purchaser of the vehicle was a used car company. Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, they advertised it for sale themsleves on their own website.

 

It would seem that the defendant (Mr Kirby) discovered that the vehicle was advertised and contacted the company via their website to arrange to 'view' the vehicle. He was provided with the address where the vehicle was located (which was in Hertfordshire). With his partner (Miss Greengrow) he attended the address and using the spare key (that he had retained) they stole the vehicle.

 

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.

[Peterbard]

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.

 

I should just mention this again, this person is the only one here who has suffered by all this, The dealer did nothing wrong here yet it seems he has lost a car and is unlikely to see any compensation.