Newlyn Bailiffs

[seanamarts]

Ha they have just shot themselves in the foot. Show them the proof with regards to the vehicle and they will instruct the bailiff to cancel the levy fee. no levy fee no removal fee etc.

 

By the way when was the levy made, was this the same time as the 2nd visit or a later date.

 

I would pay the fee's to the council and tell them to pass it on to their agent.

 

Did you send a copy to the Ombudsman

[Tariq2009]

Ha they have just shot themselves in the foot. Show them the proof with regards to the vehicle and they will instruct the bailiff to cancel the levy fee. no levy fee no removal fee etc.

 

By the way when was the levy made, was this the same time as the 2nd visit or a later date.

 

I would pay the fee's to the council and tell them to pass it on to their agent.

 

Did you send a copy to the Ombudsman

 

Second visit was 9th oct levy was made on 12nov I have emailed the proof to the newlyn and council still can send the proof again

[Tariq2009]

Dear Mr xxxx,

 

Late this morning I received an email from Newlyn Plc to advise that, over the Christmas break, they received the results of a DVLA check on the vehicle mentioned on the Levy Notice. This showed that you are not the registered keeper.

 

Whilst it is not conclusive proof of ownership, it is sufficient for me to instruct the bailiff to remove the Levy Fee of £20, as I said would happen in my email to you yesterday.

 

As no other items were mentioned on the Levy Notice, the bailiff will also remove the Attendance Fee of £100.

 

This leaves a remaining balance of £42.50; I would recommend that you pay this immediately to settle the matter and avoid further fees being incurred.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

xxxx

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

 

Rubbish lie i am the registered keeper and the car is private hire and my source of income .Can i ask them to send me the proof of the DVLA checks .

 

Thanks

[Tariq2009]

My Response to Council

 

Dear Mr xxx

Can you please forward me the Email from Newlyn and the proof of DVLA checks they did on the car.i like to forward this information to LGO so that i can make sure that your acting agent have done the DVLA checks not just telling lies.

 

Regards

[seanamarts]

To be honest I would pay what they are asking, £42.50. Then carry on with the complaint. The know they are in the wrong and are back tracking hoping you wont take it any further.

 

But its a good result.

 

No further fee's can occur.

They cannot levy for their fee's only. Which is what they technically did on the 12th of November.

[lookinforinfo]

If the levy has been removed then how on earth can the "attendance to remove" not be removed at the same time?

[brassnecked]

yes the £42.50 is all they can charge, I would do as seanamarts suggests pay it and carry on with the complaint secure in the knowledge that they cannot get any more money, and would be on a sticky wicket if they then came round looking for fees only after the debt is discharged

[old bill]

It sounds to me that Newlyn have been monitoring this thread and have realised they are in the proverbial and have done this to dig themselves out of a bloody big hole. Pay the visit fees, but make sure you claim them back if they are found to be fraudulent or not chargeable.

 

Incidentally, it appears that a number of Trading Standards Departments view the practice of certificated bailiffs charging Attendance to Levy and Attendance to Remove fees on the same visit as "Upfront Fee Fraud". It might be worth mentioning this to bailiff companies that try this stunt. Better still, just report the buggers to Trading Standards and wait for the **** to hit the fan.

[brassnecked]

It sounds to me that Newlyn have been monitoring this thread and have realised they are in the proverbial and have done this to dig themselves out of a bloody big hole. Pay the visit fees, but make sure you claim them back if they are found to be fraudulent or not chargeable.

 

Incidentally, it appears that a number of Trading Standards Departments view the practice of certificated bailiffs charging Attendance to Levy and Attendance to Remove fees on the same visit as "Upfront Fee Fraud". It might be worth mentioning this to bailiff companies that try this stunt. Better still, just report the buggers to Trading Standards and wait for the **** to hit the fan.

Just needs a couple of high profile cases to hit the press where a bailiff firm hopefully a Crapquita council stitch up with Equita or ross 'n robbers gets done for just this very thing.

 

I would pay the fee to gain the moral high ground then reclaim when proved to be fraudulent.

[old bill]

I believe there is a Trading Standards Department investigating such a case. I'm waiting for further developments.

[Tariq2009]

Dear xxx

 

As requested, I have copied the email that I received from Newlyn today (see below).

 

I am afraid we cannot give you a copy of the DVLA check, as it includes a third party’s personal data (i.e. details of the registered keeper). I would be breaching the Data Protection Act if I were to release those details to you.

 

However, I can assure you that this is a regular routine check which is carried out in many hundreds of cases throughout the year.

 

I do not know if the LGO has the legal power to require a copy of the document, but if she has any doubts then she will take the necessary action to obtain it.

 

Yours sincerely

////////

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: newlynplc.co.uk

Sent: 04 January 2013 11:04

To: xxxxx (Recovery)

Subject: 4********

 

Hello xxx,

 

I tried calling back but was unable to leave a message on your answer phone.

 

I can confirm the DVLA results were returned in the post to Newlyn around the 28th December.

 

Kind regards,

 

Client Team Leader

[josephbloggs]

It is a breach of data protection for a bailiff to gain details of who a vehicles registered keeper is UNLESS it is for a pcn, bailiffs cant ask for those details for council tax so that email from newlyn or the council is a lie

[old bill]

It is a breach of data protection for a bailiff to gain details of who a vehicles registered keeper is UNLESS it is for a pcn, bailiffs cant ask for those details for council tax so that email from newlyn or the council is a lie

 

If I may add something, JB, if a certificated bailiff proposes to levy on or seize a motor vehicle, they would be expected to conduct checks so as to ascertain the ownership of the vehicle, not blindly levy on and seize it. Conducting a check with DVLA is the minimum checks a certificated bailiff would be expected to conduct in order to ascertain probable ownership of a motor vehicle. Failure to do so will result in the bailiff being landed with an invalid or, even, an illegal levy and seizure. It would also render the bailiff liable to prosecution under Section 1, Theft Act 1968 and Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 and the bailiff company and its management liable to prosecution under Section 12, Fraud Act 2006. A local authority would be liable to a Regulation 46 complaint under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) and/or civil litigation. In at least two cases, brainless bailiffs have seized motor vehicles illegally, sold them and then had to go and recover them, as well as pay compensation to the the victims of their dishonesty.

[brassnecked]

@ OB: "In at least two cases, brainless bailiffs have seized motor vehicles illegally, sold them and then had to go and recover them, as well as pay compensation to the the victims of their dishonesty."

 

Jacobs did this with a VW camper at a debtors address that was being restored for a third party, they had to trace the vehicle and return it after it had gone through several auction houses, and owners.

 

This was the thread on Volkszone forum, where jacobs were named and shamed:

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/archive/index.php?t-646595.html

 

This was the CAG thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263164-Car-taken-by-baliff-not-belonging-to-Debtor

 

Jacobs had to recover the camper and give it back to the owner, I think they ended up paying a fair whack for the by then restored camper.

[old bill]

@ OB: "In at least two cases, brainless bailiffs have seized motor vehicles illegally, sold them and then had to go and recover them, as well as pay compensation to the the victims of their dishonesty."

 

Jacobs did this with a VW camper at a debtors address that was being restored for a third party, they had to trace the vehicle and return it after it had gone through several auction houses, and owners.

 

This was the thread on Volkszone forum, where jacobs were named and shamed:

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/archive/index.php?t-646595.html

 

This was the CAG thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263164-Car-taken-by-baliff-not-belonging-to-Debtor

 

Jacobs had to recover the camper and give it back to the owner, I think they ended up paying a fair whack for the by then restored camper.

 

That's one of the cases. There was another case where an HCEO, I believe, seized a third-party vehicle without checking and when challenged, scuttled off to a Court Master who promptly told him to go swivel as regards protection against legal action for his bungling incompetence and dishonesty. I believe Court Masters at the RCoJ are getting wise to HCEOs seeking protection and are refusing protection more often.

[josephbloggs]

"Conducting a check with DVLA is the minimum checks a certificated bailiff would be expected to conduct in order to ascertain probable ownership of a motor vehicle"

 

Old bill again bailiff companies do not have use of the dvla database for the purposes For anything other than parking fines.

 

Even then they may only be told yes or no as to if the person who was the registered keeper on the day of the parking fine is still the keeper or not.

 

Any bailiff or company telling the council they have this at their disposal is lying.

You imagine if bailiffs had this info at their disposal for council tax there would be ten times as many threads on here

[old bill]

"Conducting a check with DVLA is the minimum checks a certificated bailiff would be expected to conduct in order to ascertain probable ownership of a motor vehicle"

 

Old bill again bailiff companies do not have use of the dvla database for the purposes For anything other than parking fines.

 

Even then they may only be told yes or no as to if the person who was the registered keeper on the day of the parking fine is still the keeper or not.

 

Any bailiff or company telling the council they have this at their disposal is lying.

You imagine if bailiffs had this info at their disposal for council tax there would be ten times as many threads on here

 

Can I respectfully ask the source of your information, please? A number of bailiff companies are BPA members and can seek information through that. Marstons are also known to go scuttling to DVLA for information.

[Tariq2009]

However, I can assure you that this is a regular routine check which is carried out in many hundreds of cases throughout the year.

 

////////

-----Original Message-----

From: newlynplc.co.uk

Sent: 04 January 2013 11:04

To: xxxxx (Recovery)

Subject: 4********

 

Hello xxx,

 

I tried calling back but was unable to leave a message on your answer phone.

 

I can confirm the DVLA results were returned in the post to Newlyn around the 28th December.

 

Kind regards,

 

Client Team Leader

 

According to the council if it is routine check then why DVLA check was not carried out before adding the Levy fees .

 

I think the DVLA check is FAKE as the car is not third party i am the owner of the car as i said it is private hire car and how do they know the registration of my car because i have provided the legal car document to the council and newlyn.

 

NEwlyn and council are making the story as i am not the registered keeper to get out of the wrong charges they charged me .

 

ALso the message council has copied from the newlyn is fake as the email from is only this ( From: newlynplc.co.uk ) its not Evan a email address.

 

I think it is time to ask the LGO to take over the case and also get the media involved.

 

Thanks

[old bill]

According to the council if it is routine check then why DVLA check was not carried out before adding the Levy fees .

 

I think the DVLA check is FAKE as the car is not third party i am the owner of the car as i said it is private hire car and how do they know the registration of my car because i have provided the legal car document to the council and newlyn.

 

NEwlyn and council are making the story as i am not the registered keeper to get out of the wrong charges they charged me .

 

ALso the message council has copied from the newlyn is fake as the email from is only this ( From: newlynplc.co.uk ) its not Evan a email address.

 

I think it is time to ask the LGO to take over the case and also get the media involved.

 

Thanks

 

If the police can be arsed, I would report it to them, too, as a crime complaint. There is evidence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation and, possibly, False Accounting, also.

[Tariq2009]

Hi called LGO and was told the investigator to the case will be allocated within next 4 weeks .

 

also emailed Council to provide me proof if they have done DVLA check to provide me with proof other wise will report police of Fraud by False Misrepresentation and, possibly, False Accounting, also.and the reply was

 

Dear Mr XXXX,

 

Your comments are noted, but I have already explained why we will not supply you with third party data.

 

I would suggest that you take legal advice before making further written accusations of fraud against Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

XXXXXX

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

 

car is on my name and how they saying its third party data its clear they did not do the check is there another way to find if they did the DVLA check .

[seanamarts]

Why dont you just tell them that the information they have received from bailiffs/DVLA is a complete lie. because you are the registered owner, so the details are yours and so they will not be in breach of data protection. Tell them to explain that one.

[old bill]

Hi called LGO and was told the investigator to the case will be allocated within next 4 weeks .

 

also emailed Council to provide me proof if they have done DVLA check to provide me with proof other wise will report police of Fraud by False Misrepresentation and, possibly, False Accounting, also.and the reply was

 

Dear Mr XXXX,

 

Your comments are noted, but I have already explained why we will not supply you with third party data.

 

I would suggest that you take legal advice before making further written accusations of fraud against Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

XXXXXX

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

 

car is on my name and how they saying its third party data its clear they did not do the check is there another way to find if they did the DVLA check .

 

Local authorities, as legal entities, are, indeed, strange creatures. Technically, they are public corporations. Trying to pin criminal charges on them can be a tad difficult, but there are exceptions, mainly, in the sphere of health and safety.

 

In your case, Fraud by False Misrepresentation and False Accounting can, in all probability, be pinned on the bailiffs, as they are the ones who have made the false misrepresentations and not made what appears to be a true and accurate account of charges that are lawfully due. Although the local council is vicariously-liable for these actions, this would be civil damages only. If a local government officer is shown to have behaved corruptly or have been involved in any alleged criminal act, then it is the local government officer who would be proceeded against, not the council, although it would be the council who would be liable for any civil damages.

 

From what you have received from the council your case, it seems to have rattled them somewhat. If you did not allege the council had committed Fraud, why are they alleging your are accusing the council? Think about it.

[Tariq2009]

reply from council below .now its going to be fun as council going to get me the information

 

Thank you xxxx,

 

I have asked Newlyn to provide me with further details and copies etc.

 

Regards

 

xxx

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxx

Sent: 09 January 2013 12:17

To: xxx (Recovery)

Subject: Re: Council Tax Reference xxx

 

vehicle skoda Octavia xxxxx black

thanks

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM, xxx (Recovery) wrote:

Dear xxxx,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please confirm the details of the vehicle to which you are referring – make, model, colour, registration number - so I can check that we are talking about the same one.

 

Yours sincerely

 

xxxx

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxx

Sent: 09 January 2013 06:38

To: xxx (Recovery)

Subject: Re: Council Tax Reference xxx

 

Dear xxx,

your suggestion is noted in return I would suggest that you also seek legal advice as I am the registered Keeper of the car ,and the car is on my name and you want be breaching data protection act as I am the owner .

 

another lie from your so agent Newlyn .looking forward to see the proof of DVLA check which I am sure Newlyn never did it they faking it so they can get away with the crime they committed .If you like I can send you again proof of car registered on my name not third party .thanks

 

Kind regards

xxxx

Edited January 9, 2013 by Tariq2009

[1Loretta]

They just never know when to stop and put their hands up do they? Huntingdon Council keep digging! I watch with interest

[Tariq2009]

very happy that LGO investigator has been allocated to the case