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

[Peterbard]

So you think that the question of if mr K has his car or not is a matter of public interest and importance to that level, interesting.

 

We are thinking rationally over here, what you seem to believe however is borderline to be generous.

 

Don't know what you mean about insults sorry.

 

edit meant to say that the prosecution here is not about ownership in any case it is about theft.

 

The point is that any issues regarding ownership should be settled before a criminal case for theft is commenced if the court saw that this was an issue the case would be held until this civil mater was resolved, because the crown court operates under criminal procedure,

[unclebulgaria67]

No. I care about a Juries verdict being accepted and not to challenge how they came to it. They were the ones sat in the court for hours. Both sides had chance to make arguments, with the Judge ensuring the trial was held meeting the rules and the Jury had chance to reach a verdict.

 

The ownership of the car is down to the various people to argue about. IF Newlyn made a mistake ( arguable), then the council may have to deal with a claim. The garage owner may have a claim against the company they bought it from.

 

You know what i mean about insults. We are all human and i would be hurt. It is unnecessary, when i found you perfectly civilised and good natured. Wish those concerned would stop and try to argue about the facts as they are known, rather than personal stuff.

[Peterbard]

I see well that es where we differ i want to know why.

 

Oh you mean marks ravings, no he doesn't bother me he is a damaged puppy with as justifiable inferiority complex. No one of any import takes him seriously, that is probably what infuriates him so.

 

Now no more bringing that nonsense over here please,.

[Bailiff Advice]

As I said a few days ago, it is such a shame that the person who assisted these two individuals chose to publicise the case (which surely must be a serious Data Protection breach) because all that it has done, is to once again highlight debtors in a very poor light.

 

He clearly has forgotten his previous failures over the past year (such as):

 

 

'Larnyoh'

 

He attempted to avoid paying penalty charge notices by claiming that the vehicle that was seized by the bailiff 'belonged' to somebody else. He claimed that he did not know the identity of this person.

 

He was encouraged by this individual to issue court proceedings. It transpired in court that the 'previous owner' was a good friend of his and furthermore, that he was insured to drive the vehicle and had been doing so....for 2 years !!! The court considered that any claim that he was not the owner was a 'sham'. He lost the court case...and the car.

 

'Ori'

 

He had outstanding penalty charge notices and his vehicle was seized. He was encouraged to take legal action on the basis that his vehicle was supposedly 'exempt'. The court disagreed and the judgment has harmed thousands of other debtors as the judge ruled that vehicle subject to finance or hire purchase can be seized if there is a 'beneficial interest'. He was ordered to pay £3,200 legal costs to the enforcement company. The day after the court hearing, he contacted me and posted on this forum. He complained because the advice that he was given by the individual was that as the claim was a 'small claims' action he would not at risk of a cost order. The advice was inaccurate.

 

'Plumb27'

 

Was encouraged to issue legal proceedings and lost. Was ordered to pay £7,500 towards to enforcement agents legal costs.

 

'Kari'

 

She ought advice from two advisors (including me) and was advised that unless she could provide evidence that she had 'paid' a court fine that the vehicle would be sold. She visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and was advised that her vehicle was 'exempt' (as she owned a small restaurant) and that if the vehicle was to be sold, that she would be entitled to a new car and a significant claim for any losses incurred by her business.

 

Instead of paying the debt of approx £700, she allowed her vehicle to be sold. The vehicle was not 'exempt' because it was not even used by her. She did not even have a driving licence!! The vehicle was used by a staff member at the restaurant. She did win a 'partial' success in court proceedings in that the court awarded her a refund of storage fees. She lost her car (worth approx £6,000).

 

 

"Rudey'

 

He sought advice from other ‘advisors’ and was told in no uncertain terms that he had no chance at all of winning a court claim. With nobody else willing to assist him, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and he too was encouraged to issue legal proceedings. Naturally he lost and was ordered to pay over £7,000 in legal costs'. He has a charging order over his property to recover the costs.

 

'Unknown'

 

Details of a further case last year from the 'members area' was shared with me via email. The outcome is not known. Thankfully a second case was aborted as intervened by private message.

 

PS: Today, the individual is making details public of another case (LB of Newham) that he is involved in. But unnlike, the others, this case has not even be heard in court yet!! Details should NOT be made public.

 

But yet again, as in some of the cases above, this particular debtor is known to many advisors.

 

He initially sought my assistance after his vehicle had been seized. He then sought assistance from another advisor (FP). In desperation, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and court proceedings were instigated. I would assume that he has informed his MK that a short while ago, he sought assistance from a 'third' advisor !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

PS: Today, the individual is making details public of another case (LB of Newham) that he is involved in. But unnlike, the others, this case has not even be heard in court yet!! Details should NOT be made public.

 

But yet again, as in some of the cases above, this particular debtor is known to many advisors.

 

He initially sought my assistance after his vehicle had been seized. He then sought assistance from another advisor (FP). In desperation, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and court proceedings were instigated. I would assume that he has informed his MK that a short while ago, he sought assistance from a 'third' advisor !!!

 

The above debtors case is very well known to me and at least two other advisors (who I know very well).

 

Naturally as the case has not yet been heard in court, details cannot be given suffice to say that his vehicle was seized and sold six years ago (2010).

 

The person advising him has today posted that the court will be asked to decide whether there has been an abuse of Paragraph 50 of Schedule 12 and regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014..

 

Given that Schedule 12 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations only came into effect in April 2014 (and are therefore not applicable in this case) the individual has once again demonstrated his serious failure to either read or understand legislation and really should consider whether his aim to 'trouser a fee' (his words not mine) is harming debtors.

[Peterbard]

The case that forms the subject here does not cover them in glory anyway.

All that happened was the debtors were able to get out of a situation they should not have been in, and wouldn't if they had not listened to mistaken claims regarding their ownership of the vehicle.

 

In effect they escaped criminal sanction because they were able to demonstrate their own gullibility.

[unclebulgaria67]

Seems to me that there is urgent need for regulation being applied to internet advice sites that charge fees for services. Also if any are handling personal data they need to be registered with ICO and if they are handling fees for services that must be subject to consumer protection regulations.

 

I was listening to LBC last night and their consumer legal expert mentioned internet sites offering Ombudsman Services for a fee,which have nothing to do with any official Ombudsman.

[Peterbard]

There are. It just takes enough people to complain to the FCA and the ICO. A forum which I used to subscribed to had vastly restructure their forum because they were threatened by severe sanctions form the FCA for just that, and they had a qualified solicitor in tow.

 

What it really takes is people who are adversely affected to raise complaints and unfortunately many times they are either to embarrassed or have more pressing matters to attend to.

[Peterbard]

Just to avoid misunderstanding. regulations state that a vehicles registration document should be taken to indicate the owner of the vehicle unless the contrary is proven( in the case of enforcment action).

[Peterbard]

Not sure if his has anything to do with anything really but i have to admit that I was once fined for not having a road tax disc in my car.

 

It was 77 we had just got married and i was fresh out of uni.

 

We had just bought our house and money was tight. I had a mackinson label in my car window for about twelve months, does this now mean that i do not know anything about bailiff law i wonder.

[Bailiff Advice]

Not sure if his has anything to do with anything really but i have to admit that I was once fined for not having a road tax disc in my car.

 

Way off topic but you are not alone. I too have had similar:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459915-Late-car-tax-fine-Discussion&p=4861584&viewfull=1#post4861584

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459915-Late-car-tax-fine-Discussion&p=4862696&viewfull=1#post4862696

 

Time to get back 'on topic'

[neil_tp]

Just to avoid misunderstanding. regulations state that a vehicles registration document should be taken to indicate the owner of the vehicle unless the contrary is proven( in the case of enforcment action).

 

Can you state what regulation?

[Peterbard]

certainly I can.

[neil_tp]

The case that forms the subject here does not cover them in glory anyway.

All that happened was the debtors were able to get out of a situation they should not have been in, and wouldn't if they had not listened to mistaken claims regarding their ownership of the vehicle.

 

In effect they escaped criminal sanction because they were able to demonstrate their own gullibility.

 

I guess the Judge & the jury were wrong then?

[Peterbard]

Way off topic but you are not alone. I too have had similar:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459915-Late-car-tax-fine-Discussion&p=4861584&viewfull=1#post4861584

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459915-Late-car-tax-fine-Discussion&p=4862696&viewfull=1#post4862696

 

Time to get back 'on topic'

 

Yes , lets no idea why some keep bringing the subject up TBH. :_

[Bailiff Advice]

Just to avoid misunderstanding. regulations state that a vehicles registration document should be taken to indicate the owner of the vehicle unless the contrary is proven( in the case of enforcment action).

 

In fact, the legal position is that unless the contrary can be proved otherwise, the registered keeper (whose name appears on the V5C) is assumed to be the owner.

 

The important words here are "unless the contrary can be proved". This means that where doubt arises, it will be for a court to 'prove' (that the registered keeper is not the owner).

[Peterbard]

In fact, the legal position is that unless the contrary can be proved otherwise, the registered keeper (whose name appears on the V5C) is assumed to be the owner.

 

The important words here are "unless the contrary can be proved". This means that where doubt arises, it will be for a court to 'prove' (that the registered keeper is not the owner).

 

I seem to remember there wa a thread on the subject somewhere, this is also stated in several of the traffic offence enforcement enactments I believe.

[Bailiff Advice]

I seem to remember there was a thread on the subject somewhere, this is also stated in several of the traffic offence enforcement enactments I believe.

 

It is such an important subject and one that causes an incredible amount of confusion. I need to look back at my recent posts on this subject and in particular, to see whether to not I had updated the information in light of a recent decision from the Court of Appeal. I will not have time either today or tomorrow but hope to have some free time over the Easter hols. Given the importance, I may well start a new thread (Is the V5c proof of ownership?).

[Michael Browne]

Given the importance, I may well start a new thread (Is the V5c proof of ownership?).

 

Not quite sure why it needs a new thread.

 

Every V5C has a big blue banner across the top which says:

 

"THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.

It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle"

 

Think that's pretty clear.

[Andyorch]

Off topic posts unapproved.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Peterbard]

Not quite sure why it needs a new thread.

 

Every V5C has a big blue banner across the top which says:

 

"THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.

It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle"

 

Think that's pretty clear.

 

No body is saying it is proof of ownership, just that the car will be considered as belonging to the person, unless proof is made to the contrary. If it was proof positive there would be no need of any other evidence. In any case it is proof enough for the EA to seize it, which is the real point.

[Fair-Parking]

With regard to the 'unknown' mentioned in BA post of 21st March, I understand that a person on another forum which I have not visited for two years has stated that his 'client' has never contacted me.

 

My problem is that I keep having flashbacks of 20 emails in 2011 (finally deleted earlier this month), LB Newham, a Mercedes, a personalised registration number,phone calls and a visit to Bow County Court in May 2011 to assist two gentlemen - one being the owner and other stating that used to be the owner.

 

I withdrew from this case in July of that year due to incompatibility with the claimant and have never been involved since.

 

Now either my memory is wholly disjointed or somebody else's is. I did send the person now involved an email that stated that if he didn't mention me in forums, I wouldn't respond. Seems that such a simple message was also forgotten

 

The only thing that surprises me about this case is not the apparent difference in memories, but that it still rumbles on after six years.

 

Even if the car still exists, where exactly is this case leading to?

[Bailiff Advice]

With regard to the 'unknown' mentioned in BA post of 21st March, I understand that a person on another forum which I have not visited for two years has stated that his 'client' has never contacted me.

 

I see that I made an error in my post here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461565-Bailiff-enforcement-Debtor-steals-vehicle-from-new-owner-after-it-had-been-sold-by-enforcement-company.&p=4878498&viewfull=1#post4878498

 

I had stated this:

 

He

initially sought my assistance

after his vehicle had been seized. He then sought assistance from another advisor (FP). In desperation, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and court proceedings were instigated. I would assume that he has informed his MK that a short while ago, he sought assistance from a 'third' advisor !!!

 

If fact he (TJ) contacted you first and then sought my assistance and advice in 2013.

 

In 2015, he sought further advice from a 'third' source (a specialist road traffic source).

[Bailiff Advice]

As I said a few days ago, it is such a shame that the person who assisted these two individuals chose to publicise the case (which surely must be a serious Data Protection breach) because all that it has done, is to once again highlight debtors in a very poor light.

 

He clearly has forgotten his previous failures over the past year (such as):

 

 

'Larnyoh'

 

He attempted to avoid paying penalty charge notices by claiming that the vehicle that was seized by the bailiff 'belonged' to somebody else. He claimed that he did not know the identity of this person.

 

He was encouraged by this individual to issue court proceedings. It transpired in court that the 'previous owner' was a good friend of his and furthermore, that he was insured to drive the vehicle and had been doing so....for 2 years !!! The court considered that any claim that he was not the owner was a 'sham'. He lost the court case...and the car.

 

'Ori'

 

He had outstanding penalty charge notices and his vehicle was seized. He was encouraged to take legal action on the basis that his vehicle was supposedly 'exempt'. The court disagreed and the judgment has harmed thousands of other debtors as the judge ruled that vehicle subject to finance or hire purchase can be seized if there is a 'beneficial interest'. He was ordered to pay £3,200 legal costs to the enforcement company. The day after the court hearing, he contacted me and posted on this forum. He complained because the advice that he was given by the individual was that as the claim was a 'small claims' action he would not at risk of a cost order. The advice was inaccurate.

 

'Plumb27'

 

Was encouraged to issue legal proceedings and lost. Was ordered to pay £7,500 towards to enforcement agents legal costs.

 

'Kari'

 

She ought advice from two advisors (including me) and was advised that unless she could provide evidence that she had 'paid' a court fine that the vehicle would be sold. She visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and was advised that her vehicle was 'exempt' (as she owned a small restaurant) and that if the vehicle was to be sold, that she would be entitled to a new car and a significant claim for any losses incurred by her business.

 

Instead of paying the debt of approx £700, she allowed her vehicle to be sold. The vehicle was not 'exempt' because it was not even used by her. She did not even have a driving licence!! The vehicle was used by a staff member at the restaurant. She did win a 'partial' success in court proceedings in that the court awarded her a refund of storage fees. She lost her car (worth approx £6,000).

 

 

"Rudey'

 

He sought advice from other ‘advisors’ and was told in no uncertain terms that he had no chance at all of winning a court claim. With nobody else willing to assist him, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and he too was encouraged to issue legal proceedings. Naturally he lost and was ordered to pay over £7,000 in legal costs'. He has a charging order over his property to recover the costs.

 

'Unknown'

 

Details of a further case last year from the 'members area' was shared with me via email. The outcome is not known. Thankfully a second case was aborted as intervened by private message.

 

PS: Today, the individual is making details public of another case (LB of Newham) that he is involved in. But unnlike, the others, this case has not even be heard in court yet!! Details should NOT be made public.

 

But yet again, as in some of the cases above, this particular debtor is known to many advisors.

 

He initially sought my assistance after his vehicle had been seized. He then sought assistance from another advisor (FP). In desperation, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and court proceedings were instigated. I would assume that he has informed his MK that a short while ago, he sought assistance from a 'third' advisor !!!

 

In the final paragraph above I referred to a forthcoming legal case (referred to as 'Unknown) that this utterly shameless McKenzie Friend had been associated with. The case was listed for a three day hearing and concluded shortly before midday today.

 

Predictably, the individual (Mr Johnston) lost his case against London Borough of Newham (and Newlyn Plc) and has been ordered to pay substantial legal costs.

 

Given that the McKenzie (The Guru) has been heavily instrumental in leading this entire litigation (he drafted the initial 'pre litigation' letters to LB of Newham and Newlyn Plc approx 4 years ago) it is pleasing to hear that the court today ensured that his real name features on the court judgment.

 

This case deserves it's own thread tomorrow and I will naturally provide an accurate account.

[mightymouse1976]

Am I right in thinking this owner of "last chance saloon" is making substantial monies from all these cases going to court knowing they are likely to fail?