Newlyns Plc and damming judgement from Romford county court !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[letsmakeamark]

March 12th 2011

Mark Atherton

 

 

 

Newlyn debt collection agency under fire

 

 

Devaki Bhatta (Simon Czapp/Solentnews.biz)

Local authorities are being urged to stop employing debt collectors working for Newlyn plc

A campaigner against aggressive bailiffs has called on local authorities to stop doing business with Newlyn plc, a debt collection agency, after one of its directors was branded a liar in court.

Ron Clark, of Fair Parking, a parking enforcement specialist, has written to the chief executives of six London boroughs urging them to cut their ties with Newlyn after a court case in which the judge severely censured David Smith, the company’s marketing director.

His initiative follows a recent exposure in Times Money of the sometimes questionable practices employed by Newlyn in pursuing alleged debtors. Times readers complained of Newlyn’s aggressive and intimidating approach, its refusal to listen to explanations and its practice of piling hefty charges on to the original debt, with scant evidence to justify such fees.

Since our first article, many more readers have come forward to tell us about shabby and intimidating treatment they have received at the hands of Newlyn, which last year almost trebled its pre-tax profits from £894,000 to £2.38 million, on turnover up from £7.5 million to £9.2 million.

Their complaints coincide with a move by the Ministry of Justice to provide greater protection against aggressive bailiffs. It has recently launched a 12-week consultation on ways to enforce the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007, which lays down the rules that bailiffs must follow. At the moment there is no one formally in charge of ensuring they follow these rules. At the same time the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is also consulting on an updated framework of guidance for all those involved in debt collection.

 

In the case, Romford County Court in September 2009, was provided with a character reference in the form of a statement signed by Mr Smith for David Morgan, who had worked as a bailiff for Newlyn and was attempting to renew his bailiff’s certificate.

 

His Honour Judge Platt decided that Mr Morgan was not a fit and proper person to hold a bailiff’s certificate and ordered his existing certificate to be declared null and void.

The judge went on to question the truthfulness of Mr Smith’s supporting statement for Mr Morgan that said: “We have not received any complaints concerning his working practices.” In fact files from Northampton County Court reveal that details of a complaint about Mr Morgan had been sent to Mr Smith in August 2007.

The judge said: “In the light of these letters there is a strong prima facie case that the statement made by Mr Smith in his reference dated 25th July was not just incorrect but deliberately false. That would appear to be a serious contempt of court and I direct that Her Majesty’s Court Service send a copy of this judgment and all relevant correspondence to Her Majesty’s Attorney-General to consider the institution of proceedings in the Divisional Court for contempt against Mr David Smith.”

Newlyn says that Mr Smith’s statement to Romford County Court was “merely an administrative error” and adds that the Attorney-General has taken no further action in the matter.

 

Mr Clark enclosed a copy of the Romford County Court judgment in his letters calling on London borough chief executives to cut their ties with Newlyn. He said: “This is a very serious matter and one to which we are drawing your attention, as your council employs Newlyn as bailiffs in the matter of parking enforcement. It cannot be right that any public body should be employing such a discredited person or company in the role of ‘law enforcement officers’.”

Mr Clark contacted the chief executives of Hackney, Havering, Islington, Newham, Hillingdon and Camden. He also contacted Harrow Council.

Islington and Camden say they are investigating the matter. Hillingdon and Newham both say they are still looking into it, while Hackney says it has consulted its legal services team and will await its advice. Havering says: “The council has a contract with Newlyn which runs until July and we are bound by our agreement until this date.” Harrow says: “We take any complaints extremely seriously.”

 

It is not only London boroughs that use Newlyn’s services. Sevenoaks District Council is one of more than 65 local authorities with which Newlyn has a contract. One man who would like to know why Sevenoaks still employs Newlyn is Gerry Meredith-Smith from Croydon. He and his wife were looking after their son Nick’s car last year after he lost his licence and was spending several months being treated in a clinic for serious health problems.

One day in June, as Mr Meredith-Smith and his wife left their house at 6am to drive to the airport for a holiday they found a notice on the windscreen of their son’s Mercedes. When they returned home a week later, they found that their other car had been moved and their son’s car had disappeared. They rang the number on the notice — Newlyn’s — to complain. The Meredith-Smiths say a bailiff working for Newlyn accused them of deliberately parking their car to impede access to their son’s vehicle and he was therefore entitled to come on to their property, move their car and remove their son’s car. (Newlyn later denied the bailiff had said this).Mr Meredith-Smith says: “The bailiff had taken the car to an auction house, where it was to be sold imminently — for payment of a parking fine originally worth less than £100.” The Meredith-Smiths add they persuaded Sevenoaks to cancel the parking fine on the grounds of their son’s ill-health. They also managed to stop the car being auctioned and the local authority asked Newlyn to release the car. Because they believed Newlyn had removed it unlawfully and because it could not be driven back home, with no tax, no MoT or insurance, they asked Newlyn to have the car returned to them. Newlyn refused, so they had to pay £250 for the auction house to have it delivered by tow truck.

 

Mr Meredith-Smith says: “Newlyn are apparently free to operate their business however they like and yet receive substantial custom from public bodies. It is a disgrace.”

 

Newlyn says: “We were instructed by two local authorities to recover four unpaid parking fines for Nick Meredith-Smith. Newlyn was not aware that Mr Meredith-Smith was receiving medical treatment when the bailiffs visited.The address for all correspondence was the parents’ address where the car was registered, so the father would have been well aware of the proceedings. Bailiffs have professional indemnity insurance which allows them to remove a vehicle to a place of secure storage.”

Another Times reader who has had an unhappy experience with Newlyn is Patrick Keenan.

Mr Keenan, of Thurrock, Essex, says: “In September 2010 I went on to the Newlyn website to pay for one parking ticket and found I had another outstanding penalty, again for the Tower Hamlets area. I protested to Tower Hamlets Council and to the courts, saying I knew nothing about this. Newlyn claimed it had visited my house on four separate occasions but there is always someone in at my house and we haven’t had any visits from Newlyn.

“In February this year Newlyn wrote to me saying they intended to clamp my vehicle if I did not pay a sum of £571. I have received no county court judgment, no letter suggesting a payment plan, no other letter from Newlyn, nothing. I have asked Newlyn how it came to this figure but have not had a proper reply.”

Newlyn says that Mr Keenan was provided with a breakdown of the fees on his parking debt and a copy of the warrant issued, and Newlyn has heard nothing further.

• To complain about debt collectors call the OFT on 0845 7224499 or e-mail [email protected]

 

Restitution may total hundreds of thousands

Sheila Harding, of Bailiff Advice Online, says: “By voiding Mr Morgan’s bailiff’s certificate the judge rendered null and void any actions Mr Morgan had taken as a bailiff between October 31, 2008, when the certificate had originally been granted, and September 29, 2009 when the court judgment was made.

“This means that any action taken by Mr Morgan in taking money from debtors in that time, or seizing any goods in lieu of debts, may well have been invalid. Anyone who had money or goods taken by Mr Morgan should consider making inquiries of the council for which he was working because it may well be that they can make a claim for restitution.”

This could mean that thousands of people who dealt with Mr Morgan may be due to receive restitution.

Newlyn says Mr Morgan also carried out non-bailiff tasks.

 

 

 

Case study

Devaki Bhatta returned to her car after a visit to her parents to find that it had been clamped by Newlyn, a debt collection agency, which says she had two unpaid parking tickets. She would have to pay £1,000 to get the car unclamped. Dr Bhatta, a manager in a biotech company, said: “I never received a parking ticket and was stranded in Harrow, 100 miles from home in Southampton.

“It took a month to persuade Harrow Council to order Newlyn to remove the clamp. Newlyn’s bailiff didn’t leave a notice of seizure of goods on my car, as he is supposed to, and seized my £6,000 car for a debt of £100 with no attempt to seize goods of lower value. I’ve started a petition against bailiff action at petitiononline.com/dbcc33/ petition.html” Newlyn says: “Dr Bhatta had received an initial penalty charge notice and Newlyn gave notice of intention to seize goods to Dr Bhatta on three occasions.”

 

What do you think ?

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=newlyn&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on

[letsmakeamark]

14/03/11

Edited March 14, 2011 by letsmakeamark

[tomtubby]

To forthcoming regulations regarding bailiffs will ONLY apply to bad practices by CERTIFICATED bailiffs.

 

This will NOT make any changes to how BAILIFF COMPANIES act........

[Fair-Parking]

Having retired from the Forum last July, I am making a rare exception to posting to just add that the article quoted was printed in 'The Times' last Saturday 12th March under the heading Plea to cut loose 'discredited' bailiffs. It has caused consternation not least to Newlyn and its legal advisers. Whether the local authorities concerned will actually act in the public interest is another matter. They've resisted all common sense and decency so far.

 

However this article was only the first. The Times is keen to carry a series of articles exposing the shameful and illegal behaviour of all those who would enforce against the public way beyond the powers given to them in statute.

 

The next article will expose how and why local authorities allow bailiff enforcement despite not one of these authorities ever printing a warrant of execution as they are required to under Civil Procedure Rule 75 (7) (3).

 

It should appear in 2- 3 weeks time.

[outlawla]

....The next article will expose how and why local authorities allow bailiff enforcement despite not one of these authorities ever printing a warrant of execution as they are required to under Civil Procedure Rule 75 (7) (3).

 

It should appear in 2- 3 weeks time.

 

Is this in anyway related to the following?

 

Summons documents appear not to originate from the Court, bearing no seal of the court or anything related to the court but an indecipherable doctored signature of the Clerk to the Justices with no printed name and obviously photocopied onto the summons.

 

The Magistrate’s Courts Act 1980 section 51 makes it clear that the summons is to be issued by the court. Similarly section 34(2) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 requires that a request is made to the court for the issue of a summons. Council’s issuing summonses on behalf of the Magistrates Courts are committing an offence under the Magistrate’s Courts Act and the Council Tax regulations.

 

Summons documents which are doctored to include the signature of the Clerk to the Justices commits another offence under Section 40(1)(d) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 in that it is unlawful harassment to send a document falsely represented to have some official character.

[rebel11]

I've changed the title from Watford to Romford County Court.

[letsmakeamark]

Come on newlyns register and then read this thread.

[brassnecked]

Is this in anyway related to the following?

 

Summons documents appear not to originate from the Court, bearing no seal of the court or anything related to the court but an indecipherable doctored signature of the Clerk to the Justices with no printed name and obviously photocopied onto the summons.

 

The Magistrate’s Courts Act 1980 section 51 makes it clear that the summons is to be issued by the court. Similarly section 34(2) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 requires that a request is made to the court for the issue of a summons. Council’s issuing summonses on behalf of the Magistrates Courts are committing an offence under the Magistrate’s Courts Act and the Council Tax regulations.

 

Summons documents which are doctored to include the signature of the Clerk to the Justices commits another offence under Section 40(1)(d) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 in that it is unlawful harassment to send a document falsely represented to have some official character.

 

Brunstrom got into trouble using photocopied signatures on speeding summonses, in North Wales I know this was in a criminal jurisdiction, but doing the same in a civil case as per the above is equally repugnant and illegal imho. The problem is will they take action against the offending bailiff company, going off past history that's a no then.

[dbcc33]

please show ur support for wanting to change the practices of unregulated bailiffs by signing the petition in the article....

http://www.petitiononline.com/dbcc33/petition.html

[letsmakeamark]

This thread needs to be kept at the top. Can it be made into a sticky ?

[Fair-Parking]

An update on this. Peter Felton Gerber, solicitor for Newlyn deemed it necessary to compose a letter condeming the original email which prompted the article in The Times.

 

In it he described the email as being 'defamatory' to his client David Smith. 'Defamatory' is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as an 'attack on a good reputation'. No consideration appeard to have been made that Smith had already destroyed his own reputation without anybody else's assistance - having volutarily lied to a court and then being heavily criticised in written judgment by Judge Platt for doing so.

 

This letter composed by a £390 an hour Grade 'A' solicitor, seems to imagine that its recipients would not be possess the intelligence to decide for themselves just how Smith's reputation came to lay in tatters.

 

The letter then went on to assume it was necessary to add that should any proceedings be taken against Smith by the Attorney General for contempt, 'they would be vigourously defended'.

 

One might have thought that had a Grade 'A' solicitor truly believed that his client had been wronged on such an crucial matter he have long ago implemented the far easier option to clear a besmirched name and reputation via an appeal against the judgment in the first place. Without that Smith's reputation remains besmirched until he and nobody else clears it.

 

Newlyn now have more problems following a judgment made on 17th March 2011 wherein an injunction was granted against TfL and Philips for not issuing and carrying valid warrants of execution. I have yet to come across any valid warrant in Newlyn's possession.

 

This injunction judgment will only gather strength in the future. See new Thread - Injunction - A New Beginning.

[letsmakeamark]

The whole system is corrupt. What can be done ?

[Fair-Parking]

See post 17 - Injunction A New Beginning for an update on this

[squares58]

Fair-Parking, can you provide the link to the next article which "will expose how and why local authorities allow bailiff enforcement despite not one of these authorities ever printing a warrant of execution as they are required to under Civil Procedure Rule 75 (7) (3)."

 

It is of particlar interest as I've complained to TEC and HMC&TS about who is issuing and maintaining these "warrants" and the fact that they are not warrants at all, simply notices.

Noone has been able to provdie me with a copy of the warrant authorising the bailiff to levy distress. The only documents "issued" by LA are in fact notices as they are addressed to the respondent rather than the bailiff.

As such, they can not be considered warrants at all under CPR75...