Form 4 Complaint against a Newlyn Bailiff

[brassnecked]

Whilst you could be right, and it makes sense that checks cannot always be done in real time, i proofed that the car was on HP at the scene, in front of the police who attended.

But,I also read that a fair time to allow for checks to be done, dvla/hpi is 14 days, i think 7 and half months is more than fair!

 

As for EA, liasing with the finance company in order to sell the car to pay off debts, subject to equity, i think that would be a breach of contract on the finance companies part, as it would take away the chance for the debtor to ultimately own the car, after making the final payment.

 

In my case, the bailiff company contacted the finance company, in June, 3 months after the car was taken, and the asked them to pay £3500 for storage and other costs, the finance company told them they are not resposible, and to return the car to me. Just for information.

 

 

There could well be a breach of contract if the Finance Company allows the seizure and sale, but in your case as they refused to pay the storage and told the bailiff to return the vehicle to you, I don't feel that would appply in your case, as the vehicle is /was their property, they would have a claim against the Council ultimately for the sale of their property in theory at least.

[Mercedes5]

tomtubby thanks for your help.

 

Even though i haven't read Judge Mains report yet, i agree with you, he must be confused, regarding the issue of HP, and a car bought on finance.

 

The LGO report i think is very clear, the law is quite clear in what goods can be taken. I do not have a doubt about this, however do you know of any time limits to raise the complaint?

 

I may well end up getting hit with costs, but this is something i need to put closure to, one way or another.

 

As for suing the council, i am in the process of thier complaints procedure, and await a final response. May well need a good solicitor, if you know any?

[Mercedes5]

There could well be a breach of contract if the Finance Company allows the seizure and sale, but in your case as they refused to pay the storage and told the bailiff to return the vehicle to you, I don't feel that would appply in your case, as the vehicle is /was their property, they would have a claim against the Council ultimately for the sale of their property in theory at least.

 

Well, they were aware that car had been seized, but did not agree to the sale of it or anything else, but didn't turn up the pressure on the EA until the HP agreement had defaulted, however the car was bought on HP and financed to my business, and without it, i would no doubt find it difficult to keep the payments up, which they should have been aware of, but at the inital contact stage they chose to take a back seat.

So maybe they also have some responsiblity to this mess? Any suggestions?

[tomtubby]

I fear that you MAY be out of time for making a complaint to the court about the bailiff and out of time also for bringing a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

[Mercedes5]

That's my worry too about making a complaint about the bailiff. I guess the worst that can happen is the Judge will dismiss on it being raised late, or he/she could allow it.

As for the LGO, i've been on the phone with them, and their time limit is usually 12 months from the time i became aware there was a problem, however the guy said they also can use their discretion and hear it, depending on the seriousness of the complaint, but not get involved until a have a final response from the council.

 

As for civil action against the council, i think i'm with time limits? And making a complaint to the LGO doesn't affect this, as far as i'm aware.

[tomtubby]

Any update on this thread.

[Mercedes5]

Hi tomtubby,

Complaint sent to the appropriate court.

Hopefully here something soon. Will update here, as it progresses.

[HCEOs]

Whilst it certainly sounds it from what you have put on here, I do hope your complaint is completely justified and that you can prove that.

 

Newlyn are well known for having very aggressive lawyers that will happily land you with costs of many thousands.

[Mercedes5]

I didn't reach the decision lightly.

 

Yes, i have all relevant documentation and more, to proof what i've said and what happened.

 

Hopefully it's enough!

[brassnecked]

I didn't reach the decision lightly.

 

Yes, i have all relevant documentation and more, to proof what i've said and what happened.

 

Hopefully it's enough![/quote

 

Good luck Just hope the evidence is enough to derail the expensive Barristers Newlyn will throw in, and their clients are exposed for the lying bullies they are..

[Mercedes5]

I didn't reach the decision lightly.

 

Yes, i have all relevant documentation and more, to proof what i've said and what happened.

 

Hopefully it's enough!

 

Good luck Just hope the evidence is enough to derail the expensive Barristers Newlyn will throw in, and their clients are exposed for the lying bullies they are.

 

Thanks brassnescked.......

 

I'll do my best and keep you guys posted as i hear anything.

 

Appriciate all your help and support.

Edited June 15, 2014 by citizenB
restored quote box

[tomtubby]

A point that I would like to make here is that Judge Mains's ruling concerned a bailiff by the name of Gary Sandy who at the time of the Form 4 complaint was working for Newlyn Plc (he now works for Task Enforcement). It is typically the case that a bailiff will stay at one particular company for just 3 years.

 

There are a lot of problems surrounding 'exemption' for vehicles and this was certainly the case before 6th April 2014 (when the new regulations took effect).

 

The position NOW is that goods cannot be 'taken into control' UNLESS they actually BELONG to the debtor......or his spouse. This last part is very important given that many people are unaware that bailiffs may indeed seize 'jointly owned goods' (which include vehicles).

 

To complicate matters even further there are now MANY different forms of 'Hire Purchase'. For example:

 

The word 'hire purchase' also relates to agreements where at the end of the agreement it allows for the car to be owned by the person in exchange for a 'balloon payment'.

 

The most important agreements are those under Contract Hire. Such agreements are clear RENTAL agreements and merely allow the motorist to RENT the vehicle for a specific term. When the agreement ends, the vehicle in simply returned. Under the new regulations an enforcement agent would not be able to take control of a vehicle under Contract Hire as it does NOT belong to the debtor.

[tomtubby]

.

 

Newlyn are well known for having very aggressive lawyers that will happily land you with costs of many thousands.

 

 

They most certainly do have such a 'reputation' (which they are probably proud about). It is hoped that such vast cost orders over the past few years will diminish under the new regulations which took effect on 6th April but this may possibly not be the case given that most debtors are unaware that a Complaint about an Enforcement Agent should only be made in very limited circumstances.

 

Under the new regulations the term 'Form 4' is redundant. The new regulations NOW provide that a debtor may have a cost order imposed against them in two specific circumstances. These are outlined under Rule 84.20 and are:

 

Where the complaint "discloses no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate";

 

Or where the complaint:

 

"amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.”

 

The most important word to remember in the new regulations when considering a complaint is FITNESS.

[unclebulgaria67]

TT

 

In what situations can property owned by a spouse be taken ? Can a bailff levy against a vehicle owned by a spouse for the court fine or PCN of their husband/wife ? For a vehicle, as far as I understand it, it would not be jointly owned property. It is a tad complicated.

[tomtubby]

I made an error !!!

 

Ooops...I have just read through Judge Main's ruling and in fact the bailiff (Gary Sandy) was NOT an employee of Newlyn Plc but was working instead for Phoenix Commercial. I think that both companies use the same solicitors firm.

[Mercedes5]

Hi TT,

 

Just for the record, it states that my agreement is a hire purchase agreement - non regulated. However, it's actually a PCP (personal contract purchase agreement) from Mercedes, on their Agility product terms and conditions.

 

It CLEARLY states, that the HIRE period is 36 months, with a GMEV (guranteed minimum end value/optional purchase payment) of £16050.....which is the baloon payment , if made then i would have owned the car. If NOT, you simply hand the car back and don't make any payment. As if you were just renting the car.

 

The hirer is also meant to be restricted to doing 8/10/12K miles per year (10k miles in my case), must service the car at Mercedes, and maintain it in good condition/repair. (Same as a contract hire agreement)

 

Is there anywhere i could see Judge Mains report?

[tomtubby]

How long did you have the car for before it was taken and roughly how much had you already paid under the Agreement ?

[Mercedes5]

Had the car 18 months exactly and paid a total of £9544.48. Leaving me a debt of £9378.48 after car was sold in December for £14500 exactly.

[tomtubby]

Surely the enforcement company would have had to pay a large percentage of the proceeds from the sale to the finance company?

[Mercedes5]

Enforcement company NEVER sold it.

Whilst they asked Mercedes for payments 1st for £6000 and then finally 3 months later, for £4500, they refused, and Mercedes, apparently threatened them with legal action if the car was not returned to them, as HP agreement was in default, and they proofed they were the rightful owners, and were not resonsible for any debts.

Ultimately, Mercedes's repossession company were told to liase with Newlyn, and negotiate the return of it. They paid £300 to release the car into their custody.

[lookinforinfo]

TT I think the Finance company recovered the car from the bailiffs for a few hundred pounds and it was the Finance Company that sold it.

 

Several questions arise from that.

1] did the Finance Company have the right to sell the car without a Court Order as over half the payments had been made

2] what has happened to the proceeds of the sale-has any been paid to the bailiffs

3] if the bailiffs only accepted a few hundred pounds from the Finance Company then that would not even cover the towing cost and storage fees for 7 months let alone the

PCN and bailiff fees prior to the seizure. If they are not pursuing Mercedes does that mean they have accepted that they were in the wrong?

[brassnecked]

It is possible that the Finance Co is in breach to OP and they may have a claim against them,

[Mercedes5]

TT I think the Finance company recovered the car from the bailiffs for a few hundred pounds and it was the Finance Company that sold it.

 

Several questions arise from that.

1] did the Finance Company have the right to sell the car without a Court Order as over half the payments had been made

2] what has happened to the proceeds of the sale-has any been paid to the bailiffs

3] if the bailiffs only accepted a few hundred pounds from the Finance Company then that would not even cover the towing cost and storage fees for 7 months let alone the

PCN and bailiff fees prior to the seizure. If they are not pursuing Mercedes does that mean they have accepted that they were in the wrong?

 

Hi, yes you are correct, Mercedes sold car via main stream auction.

 

1. It was a NON Regulated agreement, and the car was financed to my sole trading business, and a declaration has been signed by me to the effect that i aknowledge that i will not have the protection of the consumer credit act 1974, and therefore apparently a court order is not required.....Not to sure about that!

Anyone know??

 

2.Not a penny has been paid to the bailiffs, after car was sold. (prior to sale, Mercedes stated the settlement amount was £26,023.28 in December 2012) This is what they wanted in order to return the car to me.

3.Your right...The £300 paid by Merc's repossession company was not for ANY debts, but APPARENTLY for a new battery and diagnostics, as the car had been standing for so long, it would not start.

This is what they said in a recent email, however, it was probably some sort of cash in hand/backhander payment... between bailiff company and another repossession/enforcement company!!

[Mercedes5]

It is possible that the Finance Co is in breach to OP and they may have a claim against them,

 

Who are/is OP?

[lookinforinfo]

OP =original Poster=You