Newlyn PLC - Disaster for Innocent Public

[Very_Angry]

Dear All,

 

In the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, it is suggested that once a warrant is issued against the debtor for a parking offence, then the vehicle cannot be sold or disposed of prior to levy or removal, until the debt is cleared. This of course leaves innocent people like Ethel and Albert two pensioners, having purchased a vehicle from London with outstanding parking tickets in a terrible and disgusting position.

 

Along comes a bailiff with ANPR and removes the vehicle. The bailiff then states that the vehicle is subject to outstanding parking tickets, they will not return the vehicle until all the tickets are paid in full including costs of removal, and as such under the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, they do not have clear title, and they are ordered to seek the return of £7500 for their car from the person who they purchased it from, in this case Mr Jones, who in turn sticks two fingers up to Ethel and Albert.

 

How can it be that innocent people who purchase vehicles with outstanding parking tickets are being subjected to this kind if trauma, it is a terrible [problem], and I cannot imagine that parliament had intended for the bailiffs to interpret the law in the manner they have done. The names used in this story are of course not their real names, but the innocent people concerned are real, and are worried about losing further sums with Newlyn PLC pursing these kinds of dirty tactics. Newlyn PLC have invited the pensioners to take legal action, but are warned that if they dare they will defend it viciously, as they take legal action against them seriously.

[sgtbush]

New legislation came into effect.

Taking control of goods act 2014.

 

The issue here is the elderly couple do not have clear title to the vehicle, therefore cannot prove its their car.

They could go to court, with proof, like bank statements showing the money trail and the courts will consider it.

[brassnecked]

Technicially Newlyn have done no wrong, but it is a problem for sure and an innocent purchaser picks up the tab.

[josephbloggs]

A national register for tickets, checkable by registrations should be considered - something that shows up when doing a finance check.

Also

A legal payment method for selling vehicles where the money is forced to go to a national government holding account and any outstanding tickets are paid before funds given to the seller. This would also stop people from doing cash sales from their driveways without telling the tax man about the profit.

[Andyorch]

Thread moved to Discussions forum.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[E Munch]

This seems to be talking about the binding effect of an enforcement ower in accordance with section 5 of Schedule 12 to the TCE Act 2007. If so then there should be no problem.

The wording is pasted below and you will note that there is provision in sub-paragraph 2 to protect genuinely innocent purchasers of bound goods so long as they did not know about the binding. If Ethel and Albert are as innocent and ignorant of the binding as you suggest you have the wording to assist them and hopefully you can dial down the anger and angst.

 

 

Effect of property in goods being bound

 

 

5(1) An assignment or transfer of any interest of the debtor's in goods while the property in them is bound for the purposes of an enforcement power—.

 

(a)is subject to that power, and.

(b)does not affect the operation of this Schedule in relation to the goods, except as provided by paragraph 61 (application to assignee or transferee).

 

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prejudice the title to any of the debtor's goods that a person acquires—

(a) in good faith,

(b)for valuable consideration, and

© without notice.

 

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), a thing is to be treated as done in good faith if it is in fact done honestly (whether it is done negligently or not).

 

(4) In sub-paragraph (2)© “notice” means—

(a) where the property in the goods is bound by a writ or warrant, notice that the writ or warrant, or any other writ or warrant by virtue of which the goods of the debtor might be seized or otherwise taken control of, had been received by the person who was under a duty to endorse it and that goods remained bound under it;

(b) where the property in the goods is bound by notice under paragraph 7(1), notice that that notice had been given and that goods remained bound under it.

 

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)(a) “endorse” in relation to a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, means endorse under that section.

[Will Goodfellow]

Section 4 is relevant as well:

 

"Binding property in the debtor's goods

 

4(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.

 

(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

 

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

 

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given."

 

If the car was sold after 2, 3 or 4 happened, Ehtel and Albert's recourse is to sue Mr Jones. If it was sold beforehand, the car is theirs.

[E Munch]

Section 4 just explains at what point in time the binding of the debtor's goods starts.

 

I think you are missing the point of 5(2) which means even after the goods become bound an innocent purchaser can acuire good title notwithstanding the binding provided the purchase is (a) in good faith, (b)for valuable consideration, and © without notice.

 

So even after one of the trigger points menioned in section 4 they can fight off (at least in legal terms) the EA's claim to the vehicle.