Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Newlyn impersonating a bailiff, supported by Ealing Police, forced to pay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5148 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Our company specialises in assisting the public with queries concerning a bailiff visit and we also get to hear of a large number of Form 4 Complaints being submitted and it is becoming very common indeed for the bailiff company to produce in evidence, copies of posts from Consumer Action Group.

 

From experience, I am aware that bailiffs, bailiff companies and local authorities view threads on CAG and Money Saving Expert daily. This is why I have ALWAYS said that it is VITAL to ensure that posters try not to put too much information in their posts that would lead the bailiff company to identify them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, is this legal :

 

"bailiff are claiming that the certficated bailiff aka dodgy car sales director came to my property, clamped my car, then legally went to off to another site - great multi-taskers these bailiffs are - then returned to mine to collect payment as you do while the police, clamper and myself waited for him"

 

i.e. is a bailiff able to wander off while police and others wait for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of complaining to the Office of Fair trading too - has anyone had any luck with the OFT?

 

The OFT doesn't deal with individual complaints. They collect complaints and then use them en masse to investigate the organisation you are complaining about.

 

There has been the odd thread on CAG about debt collecting agencies being reprimanded or having their Consumer Credit Licences revoked.

 

They do appear to have teeth so, yes, you should complain to them.

I've done so twice now and each time they have accepted the complaint and asked for my permission to use my complaint when they investigate the matter (with the banks in my case).

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reading the forums, counting the number of complaints, nearly every bailiff company should be investigated by the OFT! -in fact the industry as a whole is institutionally inhumane and solely out to defraud - it's time for change- i think a No10 petition, OFT complaint, LGO complaint, letter to MP and more. We should not have to deal with crap like this in life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent an polite email to the court asking why they allowed an extension to the original 14 days based on comments the bailiff wants to quote believed to be on the CAG site. I said that as the CAG forums are a members-only forum for consumers, why on earth did the court allow a bailiff to quote CAG - I said that any information on CAG may not even be available to the sols/bailiffs and they may be breaking the t&c's of the CAG forum. Has anyone heard of a bailiff stooping so slow? Actually, the forums are full of bailiffs stooping devilishly low.

Link to post
Share on other sites

appears the bailiff's solicitor asked for (and got) another month on top of the 14 days as they claim they need to get through large volumes of documentation on this consumer action group forum as they believed I had posted many posts and some of the claims on the site differ from my form 4 - but why a whole month - it should take 30 mins max to read the posts! i asked if i can complain about the extension as they are wasting time, they sent me another form 4...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just calculated that the bailiff undervalued my car by about 1200% - yes 1200% This is for the levied excessively complaint - can a bailiff only levy up to the value of the debt - i.e. should he have levied against a lawnmower instead? (NOT THAT I HAVE ONE, NOR A LAWN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If he is selling the car to another of his companies, that would make sense.

 

I wonder how much the tax office think his other company bought it for? In fact, it might be an interesting exercise for them, to collate all property seized as a 'bailiff' with all property bought by the other companies.

 

I think it is legal for a bailiff to sell stuff privately, but all I know on the subject was learned in the last 48 hours and I don't recall where I saw that.

 

You could make an argument for selling the stuff at a high price to your other companies to reduce their tax bill, or you could sell it low, so you have to pinch more of the victims stuff.

 

I'm thinking low. Yet I'm also thinking this does not sound like an honorable guy. Honorable people don't threaten to have other people's dogs killed. I'm therefore thinking there might be a [problem] somewhere.

 

Tax office look like a good bet to me. If he'll threaten to kill a dog, he is capable of anything.

 

Interesting your guy from the council chickened out. Any chance its the dodgy handshake brigade? Police + private contractor + local council all up to No Good would suggest its a possibility.

 

I think its audit time.

Edited by felicity2009
Link to post
Share on other sites

NEWLYN TOWED MY CAR AND THE BROKE THE CAR GLASS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND IN IT !!!!!

Read the email sent by my cousin below :

 

To whom it may concern,

 

I would like to know where or whom I should complain to about a recent visit from Newlyn Bailiffs sent by a local authority for outstanding parking fines on my cousins motor vehicle, a 2002 Toyota Celica.

 

The vehicle was apparently photographed with two wheels on the curb on two occasions, parking fines where dispatched to my cousins previous address as he had not changed the V5 DVLA vehicle registration document advising the change of address ( he has taken out a log book loan with a broker and had not finished repaying so the V5 was not in his possession to send to the DVLA to advise this change).

 

On Saturday 4th April 2009, a Bailiff vehicle with Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras identified the Toyota as being a vehicle with outstanding parking fines.

 

The Bailiffs clamped the car around 6AM in the morning.

 

My cousin discovered the clamp around 11AM apon leaving his new address, two Bailiffs were standing by the vehicle, when asked why they had clamped the car they explained there was a Warrant Of Execution for two unpaid penalty charges, £155 for each PCN totalling £310 from Bromley Council, plus £690 Bailiffs charges, my cousin called me for help in settling this financial matter.

 

Apon my arrival my cousin advised me the Bailiffs had called a tow truck to take the car away as he could not come up with the money immediately,

 

From the Bailiffs I requested that they provide documentation showing the warrant they were executing and for them to show some identification. They took my cousin over to their van and opened a laptop computer and showed him two Warrant Of Execution documents, he requested a printout so the Bailiff went away for a period and came back with this, they also showed him their ID's.

 

I offerred to pay the £310 for the unpaid penalty charges on my credit card and this was promptly refused as they demanded £1000 or the car would be taken, I explained to them that I would not be willing to put that amount on my card and that taking the car would not be an option if they refused my offer of payment, their response was to call the Police on a pretext that there was about to be a breach of the peace. I recognized this as a intimidating tactic and suggested that they do call the Police as their charges were grossly exuberant and it appeared they were piggy backing the justice system to extort money for their own a personal gain or for others.

 

Two Police officers arrived promptly and later a tow truck, my cousins girlfriend sat in his Toyota vehicle while he ran around trying to contact the local authority to verify the unpaid penalty claims made by the two Bailiffs, as he had no previous knowledge of fines being levied against the vehicle. This took some time to get through to anyone so the Bailiffs started started knocking on his front door demanding that he come out.

 

After an hour of pleading for the Bailiff to accept my offer of £310 another Police Officer arrived (I am not sure why there was a need for three police officers as there was no raised voices or gestures being offered to the two Bailiffs). Two hours passed and a further two police officers arrived, now a total of five police officers. The Bailiffs still being unable to tow the vehicle as the young lady was still sat inside with the doors locked were no becoming angry and calling me an idiot as I was telling them their actions were unprofessional. The police officers were now fed up at being called to this dispute and getting deperate to go, telling us "the car now belong to the court as there was a Warrant of Executon", I told them respectively that they were wrong. In fact one said to my cousin, "can't you see that you have got five police officers here when that could be doing something more important", I asked the officer "why is there five of you here", he turned to me but could not provide an answer.

 

The Bailiff asked the tow truck driver for help in opening up the car door, he refused and said he was only there to tow the car and is not getting involved.

 

One of the Bailiffs (Mr Gideon Grundeling) then went to his van and came back with a car jack, he went away again and came back with a wheel brace and immediately started smashing at the drivers window, the first three blows echoed the street, the fourth blow shattered the drivers car door window showering the visibly shaken lady in shards of glass. The Bailiff entered the Toyota from the drivers side, reached over and opened the passengers door, one of the five police officers who stood by watching the Bailiffs unlawful actions approached the youg lady still sitting in the car and said she would be arrested for obstruction if she did not leave the vehicle, so she did.

 

The tow truck which had already lowered its spectacle lifts behind the wheels of the Toyota very quickly lifted the car and drove away, followed by the Bailiffs in their van and three police cars, leaving us with no notice that the car had been seized. The young lady was not cut by the flying glass luckily, but she was clearly shaken by the experience. The police who (apparently) have a duty of care to us citizens showed none, I hate to think what could have happened if the wheel brace flew out of his hand into the car.

 

I have since paid the outstanding fines directly to the local authority on behalf of my cousin, but I can't stomach paying extortion money, so unfortunately they still have the car and have since added charges for the tow truck and storage, they are now asking for £1400..........help.

 

OK SO THAT WAS THE EMAIL....

 

The car is under finance with logbook loans. Logbook loans contacted me saying that the bailiffs had been in touch with them and that they invoiced them around £300 to release the car. I told them not to get involved. So i spoke to the bailiffs like a day later and then quoted me £802.93 for the release. They still havn't said anything about the repair of my vehicle yet.

 

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP!!!!

Edited by kenze
missed out some stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me ill how bailiffs are supported by police and just how low newlyn goes. In any vehicle hostage situation, video footage is key as the police and bailiffs will stick together. I thought that being in a car meant it could not be moved - not at all sure tho. Best to complain to police/ipcc about officers - and the fact that five turned up - did you feel intimidated? Best to complain to court that certificated the biff, form 4 I'm shocked - but i know for sure that newlyn should not be in business anymore

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police basically added to their numbers threatening to arrest my girl for obstruction.Then the bailiff yanked out his wheel brace and broke the glass the whole street came out enraged and in protest. I wonder how comes the loans company gave me such a low figure and when i confronted them about it i'm being told tripple that.

 

I sent a formal complaint to the courts. Don't know what to do about the vehicle...leave it or pay a leg and an arm to recovery it while this bailiff continues to mess people's lives up.

Edited by kenze
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered making a request under the Freedom Of Information Act, for the notes made by the police officers on the day, any emails made by officers in connection with this incident, and for copies of transcripts of any guidance made by officers in the Control Room ( if any recordings exist, which I'll bet they do).

 

They have 20 working days to reply with the info, or explain in writing why they cannot comply with your request.

 

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

*** The director of Newlyn has been summoned to appear before the county court to explain why his certificate should not be revoked *** I believe the court have seen through Newlyn's blatant lies - they even squirmed that he was honorable as he had over 20 years bailiff experience and that I was lying. I am preparing even more evidence for the court and am considering representation by a solicitor.... Is it worth going in person to this hearing? Thank you to everyone that has helped so far, on the final legs now.... but still no guarantee that the court will revoke - unless you guys know better! Written to Harrow Council again demanding that Newlyn's contract be terminated as they are acting outside the law in Harrow's name and are lying to save their bacon. Any advice for me at this stage anyone???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm glad that Justice is taking course. I've made a complaint to Croydon about a newlyn bailiff too. Heads shall roll !!

 

Here's my case where they smashed the window to get my girlfriend out of the car then towed a vehicle against the law.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/195037-newlyn-smashed-up-car.html

 

Good luck...i wish i could contribute my case to that hearing .

 

Kenze

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i know you are narked - but seldom have i seen so much misinformation and old wives tales on one thread before

 

its like watching a lynching mob

 

where to start?

 

The warrant was for a parking fine - the bailiff does NOT have to be certified to act on this warrant - he only needs to be in possesion of a copy of the warrant and his company id card

 

a policeman does not have to know the bailiff laws although it helps - his sole reason for attendence is to prevent a breach of the peace- more often but not always because the debtor is threatening the bailiff

 

introducing the dog as you put it could be construed in fact as using a dangerous weapon

 

the statement that the bailiff "ran off" with you card to his van might be true or more likely embelishment - however there is no law to say that if you gave it to him he could not go to his van to process it without you present- its up to you to insist on accompanying him with the card

 

it is not your perogative to claim for damage to someone elses property

 

the registered keeper is responsible for fines and the bailiff is fully entitled to seize the car if you are the registered keeper- its tough but the owner cannot prevent this (hire companies being excepted)

 

to claim that a vehicle is a work vehicle it would have clearly to be fitted out for work such as a plumber electrician taxi etc

 

i KNOW that you are upset but i really do feel you have gone off at half cock and some of the posters are acting like a baying crowd at a dog fight in trying to spur you on

 

sorry if my post goes against the grain of the other posters- just trying to stop you making a complete tit of yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always good to have some well-grounded facts. If you are going to argue these kinds of things on the fly one day with opposition barristers, its easier to do when you are on firm footing. Still someone's perception is someone's perception, and sorting out someone's perception from opinion or fact is never easy.

 

I'm inclined to think he flew to the van with the credit card. But in court I would just say 'he went really quickly'. Its different styles for different venues.

 

You'd be a good person to test an argument on, to see if it is Judge Proof :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...