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

[hazza]

Notice to Segens/Newyln,

 

Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)

 

Section 78 (7) states:

 

Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.

 

But more importantly....

 

Perjury Act 1911 (c.6)

 

... he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.]

[hazza]

Without prejudice save as to costs

 

Dear Segens,

 

Please note that my hourly rate is £750.00.

 

This CAG post will be shown to the court for consideration of costs, which stands at several hundred thousand pounds, so far.

 

EOM

[High Court Enforcer]

That hourly rate sounds fair to me

[hazza]

Notice to Segens,

 

As you are aware, a hearing is to take place this coming Friday relating to a Form 4 Complaint against MD of Newlyn plc.

 

I received a bundle from yourselves yesterday, January 26th 2010, with further threats of claims for costs. It is clear you are more interested in costs than representing your client or preparing his file.

 

On reviewing these documents it would appear that you have provided copies of screen-shots for parking charge notices that have been cancelled and are not in anyway relevant to this complaint.

 

These show dates of May 2008 and beyond. This hearing concerns the PCN on 1st of March 2008. I am at a loss as to why you have included these.

 

Crucially, what appears to be missing are the screen-shots or detailed event log.

 

This was the PCN that I understand was being enforced by your client at the visit to my parents home on 1st March 2008.

 

I am at a loss to understand why you would have failed to provide copies of such an important document.

 

I also require a copy of the Walking Possession form I was forced to sign to relieve me of your clients presence at my family home.

 

I am also at a loss to understand why you have included correspondence neither addressed nor sent to me in this bundle.

 

Further, I am at a loss to understand why your firm sent yet another letter to my father. Leave us alone.

 

That said, can you please have your client to e-mail a true copy of the original screen shot to me today to cover the period from when the PCN was put onto your clients computer system until the present date.

 

Due to the extreme seriousness of this vital document, I am copying this letter to the District Judge.

 

Regards

 

Hazzinski

[hazza]

from a tt post, but this post is relevant here

 

I agree! The right to complain is very very important to us all.

It's the public that matters most here - not lords, barristers, solicitors or bailiffs.

I think inadequate computer systems between councils, bailiffs and hmcs complaints and the public is what is needed first of all. Doh, i meant adequate. The public needs confidence in this area I assure you that the people working in the industry today are pretty unlikely to produce the best solution for the public - it isn't the sia.

 

I would like to see an online, joined up complaints systems across various justice areas.

 

SIA will not do. Better joined up justice systems is key!

 

*** As for costs, i would like to say that in my complaint against Newlyns, Segens has sent over circa thirty demands for costs, starting from £3,000 now currently over £16,500. It is a shame that none of these 'drop your complaint demands or pay our costs' letters were addressed to me. Pricks!

If anyone wants to see a bailiff industry performance, I have been told that Segens has hired a barrister who is charging £4,000 for the day, I repeat £4,000 for the day this friday. PM me for details. So £16,500 for a form 4 complaint is what they keep rattling on about - but not the particulars of my complaint.

Funny how bailiffs ask punters to pay these costs - all they are concerned about is costs - not the discussion of the complaint. I'm sure if the solicitor had been ethical and presented me with an intelligent response to my complaint, things would have been resolved ages ago. BUT NO. I have had threats, accusations, ridicule, and a generally very dismissive attitude. If bailiffs lose out due to new legislation, they only have their solicitors - and themselves - to blame.

 

Mentioning costs before the complaint hearing should be illegal!

 

I am making a complaint to legal services about this but the council should pay for not addressing the complaint in the first place. Pass the buck culture! I would say that it would be fair if a complaint was upheld by a form 4, a full £10,000 should be given to the complainant. You see the effect that will have on the industry.... either it folds... or you have very honest truthful decent people who would never risk £10,000 for the satisfaction of making a defaulter/debtor pay up. The bailiff and enforcement industry needs new fresh thinkers.

Otherwise we will have another complaints process that favours them not us, the people who open the doors to these ids, and sometimes - as in my case - criminal bailiffs.

 

That said, what is the state of justice if £4000 is demanded for a barrister that claims to "be a deadly advocate who adopts such a pleasant approach that before you know it he has beguiled the judge and crucified you"

 

Crucifxion has no place in a court of law - and it's pretty darn childish to claim such a thing - especially on a public profile. Crucifixion eh.... i say perjury! So there.

[Fair-Parking]

Hazza - Who exactly are Segens representing, the bailiff or the bailiff company? By that I mean, has the bailiff instructed them or was it his employers who instructed them and who has been sent the bill?

 

Questions that need to be raised in court.

 

The bailiff company is not part of the complaint, so if they chose to invite themselves to the party then that's their problem. They still don't have an invitation from the court and are almost certainly acting on their own initiative and without the court's permission.

 

That's no basis to claim any costs.

[hazza]

In a word.... Criminals

 

I suppose the answer to your question is both.

The bailiff is the owner/manager of the company - so both.

 

Thanks FP - much appreciated for your comments.

Edited January 27, 2010 by hazza

[Fair-Parking]

Sorry - a bit puzzled here.

 

Is the bailiff a sole trader? Or is he a shareholder in a limited company? If so then the company is a separate legal entity and any bill to them is NOT to the bailiff in person.

 

You must ask the question in court so that the judge can decide the validity of the costs claim.

[tomtubby]

HAZZA

Thank you for your PM. So as not to be accused of providing important information " off the forum" I will provide info here.

 

I have not really had time to read through this entire thread but there are a few points that need to be made.

 

CERTIFICATION.

 

In the first instance, as I have said on MANY occasions, it is not right to rely upon the HMCS on-line bailiff register as this is not entirely accurate. This is mainly due to the Courts failing to keep HMCS updated with new certificates and renewals. A lot of errors were put right over the Christmas period and from a search today I can confirm that the Director to whom this complaint is being made has renewed his certificated (at a different court). This is nothing wrong in this.

 

BAILIFF COSTS.

 

I am unsure on what grounds you have made your Form 4 complaint, but to my mind if the amount requested of over £1,000 related to just one PCN I personally consider that this charge was excessive. In particular, as the vehicle was not removed. In addition, if your complaint is regarding the level of fees, then you will need to provide a copy of the Judgment between Anthony Culligan v Marston Group to the Court. I will send a copy of this Judgment to you.

 

In this Judgment, District Judge Avent makes the point very clear that a bailiff cannot charge a fee to clamp a car etc.

 

It is probably too late now, but you should have contacted the local authority to make a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the agreed fee scale between them and Newlyn Plc. We have recent responses from around 130 local authorities and I will check for you this morning whether we have one from this local authority. Many Contracts specify a capped fee for "attending to remove".

 

UNCERTIFICATED BAILIFF.

 

If as you say the person who clamped your car was uncertificated, then of course this is VERY SERIOUS. In particular for PCN recovery because section 78.7 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 states as follows:

 

"Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass"

 

HOWEVER...bailiff's do require to be trained and this is not possible unless they visit premises with a certificated bailiff. In this, they will be "shadowing" a bailiff. This is perfectly legal BUT of course the uncertificated bailiff CANNOT take payment and he is not permitted to "distrain on goods". This would refer to applying a clamp.

 

Much has been said in your posts that the "uncertificated" bailiff arrived on his own and that the Director came to your parents home around an hour or so later. IF this was the case, then this of course is VERY SERIOUS. BUT......you need to ensure that you have proof that this person applied a clamp and nobody else was with him.

 

You will need to carefully read the screen shot of the account relating to this one PCN for the day in question and in any event the Screen Shot is a vital document if you are seeking to complain at the level of fees being applied.

 

The Screen Shot will show whether this visit was a 1st, 2nd or 3rd such visit and will also show the names of previous bailiff who would have attended. If it was the case that this same bailiff had made any previous visits and he was uncertificated...then all fees associated with those visits would have to be REMOVED !!! I am not accusing the company of using an uncertificated baiiff for any previous visits, but merely using this as an example of the importance of having the Screen Shot.

 

I had personally suggested long ago that you make a Subject Access Request for copies of the Screen Shots of all accounts and if the screen shot for this particular PCN has not been provided then you MUST make the District Judge aware of this and provide a copy of any correspondence that you have to support your initial request.

 

YOUR VEHICLE BEING EXEMPT.

 

PS: On the matter of whether your car was exempt from seizure, I am sorry, but from what I have read on this thread, it would appear that the vehicle could indeed be removed.

 

When making a Form 4 Complaint, the Judge will consider the Complaint made and consider also the response from the Bailiff. In MANY cases that I know of, the Judge will dismiss the complaint and that will be the end of the matter.

 

In your case, the Judge on considering the complaint and reply from the Director ..has seen fit to summons the Director to court . This in itself, is crucial.

 

So as not to confuse the matter any further, I will post back later concerning the matter of costs and a Form 4 Complaint etc.

Edited January 28, 2010 by tomtubby

[hazza]

bless you tt!

[hazza]

Warning to all!

 

CAG user FATTYFELTON may be from NEWLYN bailiffs and may well be the solicitor in my case

 

He has been camped on my post here for a few days now!

 

I have no idea why any Cag user would not say hello to other cag users - esepcailly after registering - Fatty.... please do present yourself for what you really are, and do feel free to make comments - or are you prevented from doing so?

 

You have an good opportunity to really represent the bailiff industry!!!!

 

Try it - please give as many cag users advice on issues using your great? wisdom - if you get flamed, i won't take promise i won't part!

[tomtubby]

HAZZA

 

Good luck for the morning ......

[RaeUK]

Just passing by to offer my best wishes and good luck for tomorrow.

Rae.

[seanamarts]

oh yes good luck be sure to tell us when you get back .. fingers and toes crossed

[spamheed]

any news on this one?

[ploddertom]

As at whatever time this is posted your friend doth still sitteth.

 

PT

[hazza]

Last name Ever, first name Greatest...

 

My complaint was not upheld. This is now criminal matter for police. I have evidence that he lied in court - thus committing perjury.

 

I do not agree that anyone else should be party to formal legal proceedings as I had experienced - it is truly uncivil.

 

A Form 4 complaint which makes no clear mention of "you will be forced into formal legal proceedings and will face a barrage of insults and lies by the defendant and face costs that could totally destroy your life" should not be allowed.

 

I had stated that if I knew the Form 4 hearing was so litigious, I would not have bothered with it. CAG and CAG users helped, HMCS info is insufficient.

 

But please understand that I did not provide ANY evidence to support my complaint at the Form4 hearing.

I will however provide to police. I effectively, just turned up with the bundle provided by the bailiff.

 

I lost on one matter due to six words placed on this CAG post which the barrister manipulated in a most dishonorable and deceitful way.

 

The bailiff had completely changed his story from his original statement.

 

He said that the information and timings on screenshots was incorrect, by hours!!!!!

 

The barrister was the most the most deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled person I have ever met.

 

I think I may have crucified his confidence.

 

After losing on quite a few issues, he started smarting and it was obvious he had a personal grudge, so much that he was prepared to lie.

 

I had raised about 15-20 points against the the bailiff regarding all areas of his alleged statement of events.

 

The solicitor who at one point had so much fire in his belly i thought he could make the national ignition factory redundant.... did not show up.

 

I do not feel anyone who has experienced bad bailiffs can expect justice from a Form 4 hearing as seen yesterday.

 

This is as proceedings kinda starts off as

 

"Welcome complainer. Understand that this is my bailiff. I gave him a certificate. I trusted him. Please try to explain why I should not trust this bailiff that I personally certificated. Please understand that by submitting this form 4 you are effectively challenging my ability to identify the trustful and trustworthy. You will now be placed in a position of legal complexity and challenge of the lowest order. Prepare to be insulted. Prove to me that this bailiff I approved is not trustworthy thus proving that my ability to identify the trustworthy is perhaps... questionable"

 

given that the judge has a prior - perhaps long term - relationship with the bailiff and that a bad bailiff could imply bad judgement by a judge is why the complainant will face an onslaught

 

i felt this was somwhat unfair - I was the outsider, but still the victi9m of bad bailiffing

 

The end result was that my complaint was not upheld, the bailiff was awarded £750 costs.

 

I believe this has cost the bailiff £15,000... todate.

 

They should have just repaid the grand they stole.

 

The court obviously needs people to complain to ensure quality in its services.

 

I believe there was another bailiff company's barrister present taking pages and pages of notes on their behalf. Concerned for sure.

 

I have lots more to say, and will.

 

Key point was the 999 records showed that the Newlyn Bailiff impersonator had replied "Firstname, Court Bailiff" when asked his name proves that Newlyn is prepared to impersonate court bailiffs to secure payment.

 

Ultimately, I felt the judge was too lenient towards the bailiff - there was much 'history' that i was not party to that affected the result.

[hazza]

hello fattyfelton

[hazza]

"The barrister was the most the most deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled person I have ever met."

 

Okay, I must admit this statement is an exaggeration - the bailiff impersonator tops this, followed by the newlyn director, followed by the solicitor - still yet to meet, followed by the barrister

 

i cannot believe these people make a living from this pit of life

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi Hazza

I know it will be quite a task but... those following your thread from page one would possibly benefit from you giving a full appraisal of what happened yesterday eg your complaint, your defence, their reply to that defence and what you felt you were missing to get a result and have your complaint upheld. It will make good history for referal when another cagger finds themselves seeking help in a similar situation in the future?

wd

[hazza]

First!

 

I think I need to say a special thank ***all*** that have posted on this and other bailiff industry/problem related posts, except of course the plonkers who we have had to filter out... but i suppose they did make me want to pursue this more

 

It is clear this WHOLE area of justice needs much improvement.

 

WonkeyDonkey - luv that name - I have lots more to say, and will!

 

Having slept about 6 hours in the last 72 and traveled hundreds of miles and having heard that horrible B word so so so many times... I am going to take a rest this weekend - it really is too much having spent a whole day in court being fired upon on both sides.

 

The once honorable profession of bailiffing is being undermined by so much blantant dishonesty it is affecting the lives of everyday indivduals.

 

Bailiffs, socks up please, you are destroying your industry and our faith in the people that hire/certificate/need you.

[hazza]

One thing tho.... i felt it was a funny moment in the case....

 

I was questioning the bailiff's knowledge of rare sports cars - as he had mistook my car for something else.

 

He said that he had improved his knowledge considerably since the 1st March.

 

The judge then interrupted, and said this questioning was not relevant.

 

She then decided to answer the question herself and proved she was more knowledgeable than the bailiff.

 

Bless, Judge talking history of sports cars after saying it was irrelevant - it was relevant, sports cars make good talking in court.

[wonkeydonkey]

I know how you feel having been there done that and just waiting for the ink to dry on the t-shirt, you should indeed take the weekend to the pub, and I prescribe 2 stiff shots of your favorite tipple be taken at regular intervals throughout the entire weekend.:lol::lol:

[hazza]

Thanx wonkinski, no beer in hand.... yet

 

I find drinking alcohol and reading CAG are a tad dangerous!

 

What i think CAG really needs to build up is a wiki to summarise all the key posts and points to enable faster location of key points - and a state of the problem summary - with removal of the rants dribble and irrelevant entries to make CAG usability better. I read fast but i have to read too much!

[wonkeydonkey]

That is spot on, it can take ages to search out all the relevent points and summaries and caggers who come in half way through and give advice without going back and reading the OP results in old ground being gone over and the same questions being asked by multiple caggers. This doesn't really help the poster to move forward as swiftly as they could,

WD