More legal cases against bailiff companies lost in court after taking 'legal advice' from the internet !!

[Bailiff Advice]

Over the past 2-3 years I have reported on this forum about the risks that debtors face when taking 'legal advice' from the internet and in being encouraged by the relevant sites to issue proceedings against a bailiff company/and or a local authority. In order to warn debtors of the dangers involved I have provided details of the cases together with copies of the Judgments (when available).

 

I cannot stress the importance of this information given that debtors need to be fully aware that if a claim is instigated against either the company (either by way of an Interpleader, Injunction or Small Claims action) or against the individual bailiff (by way of an EAC2 Complaint) that the enforcement company will always ensure that they provide a solicitor (and many times a Barrister) to represent them at a hearing. So far, that have been no reported cases of a debtor winning a court action. Instead, there are many cases where significant cost order have been imposed against debtors.

 

Unfortunately, yesterday it was being reported that yet ANOTHER two legal legal cases had failed in court and in both cases, the individuals (a lady and a gentleman) had been encouraged to pursue hopeless legal cases by a highly unqualified individual with an utterly appalling history of court failures.

[Bailiff Advice]

I had briefly mentioned one of the cases on the forum in June but had not provided further details on here as I considered it unfair to do so given that the individual had decided (with shockingly poor advice from his 'advisor') to appeal the court decision. It was being reported on the website in question that the debtors application to appeal was being prepared by a Barrister. In fact, this was untrue and the same individual who had drafted the original legal claim was responsible for this latest application.

 

This application to appeal would have been very costly indeed to the debtor and yesterday, it was being reported that this further application has now also been rejected by the court. The debtor has been ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of over £4,300.

 

A second case (a young lady) has also been dismissed by the Court (thankfully before the hearing date) and she was very fortunate indeed in that the court did not make a cost order against her. In the court judgement the Judge was very critical of her failure to abide by the courts earlier ruling that she had to provide EVIDENCE (by no later than September 11th) to support her claim.

 

Of serious concern is that this lady had publicly posted full details about her dispute on a forum and the person who encouraged her to issue legal proceedings not only prepared her claim form (no doubt for a significant fee) but most importantly, he also publicly posted full details of the grounds for the claim on the forum. If this is not a serious abuse of the Data Protection Act I don't know what is.

 

Following her court failure, the forum in question has REMOVED the entire thread from public view. This a common feature with this same website and has happened many times before.

[unclebulgaria67]

Who is the source for this information ? The claimant who lost or someone from the enforcement company ? If the information came from the enforcement company involved, it would be nice if they provided more information i.e type of enforcement, what issues were subject to a court claim, the particulars of claim , what defence was issued and what the judgement said.

 

Otherwise it looks like the enforcement companies wanting to just get the message out, that people should think twice before taking them to court, as they will spend money on a legal team, you will lose and have to pay thousands in costs.

 

If people are going to issue court claims they should get qualified legal advice and not be tempted to use anyone that offers unqualified legal advice online. I suspect people have won court claims against enforcement companies, but they are unlikely to want to publicise that.

[mrdoublestandards]

I'd like to add to the discussion if I may by asking the user Bailiff Advice I direct question - What is this obsession you have with this "other" website which you never name? What is this website and what did it do to you to make you so passive aggressive that almost every other post by you makes a veiled reference or dig?

 

I thought this forum was about offering genuine advice to members of the public confronted by bailiffs, yet this whole discussion area seems to be controlled by user "Bailiff Advice" who everyone seems in awe of, but a quick Google search reveals some very troubling information about this individual, and by a user called "Dodgeball" who seems to only reply to stir up trouble or when Bailiff Advice needs someone to back up their opinion. Are they both the same person?

 

Can we have a discussion on this, or is it too controversial for an impartial discussion forum?

[Peterbard]

Who is the source for this information ? The claimant who lost or someone from the enforcement company ? If the information came from the enforcement company involved, it would be nice if they provided more information i.e type of enforcement, what issues were subject to a court claim, the particulars of claim , what defence was issued and what the judgement said.

 

Otherwise it looks like the enforcement companies wanting to just get the message out, that people should think twice before taking them to court, as they will spend money on a legal team, you will lose and have to pay thousands in costs.

 

If people are going to issue court claims they should get qualified legal advice and not be tempted to use anyone that offers unqualified legal advice online. I suspect people have won court claims against enforcement companies, but they are unlikely to want to publicise that.

 

Undoubtedly people have won cases against enforcment agents, but they must understand the legislation and what it is they are saying. An example is the resent case which opened the can of worms regarding HP exemption If you go into court with some half arced argument you read on the internet, you can make matters a whole lot worse for everyone.

 

This is why we need to know the details of failed cases(edit and successful ones), no matter how uncomfortable it may be for the people who are responsible for the flawed advice.

[Fair-Parking]

Writes just like previous 'Star Wars' wannabees.

 

I'm more interested in what is written than who compiled it.

[Bailiff Advice]

Who is the source for this information ? The claimant who lost or someone from the enforcement company ? If the information came from the enforcement company involved, it would be nice if they provided more information i.e type of enforcement, what issues were subject to a court claim, the particulars of claim , what defence was issued and what the judgement said.

 

Otherwise it looks like the enforcement companies wanting to just get the message out, that people should think twice before taking them to court, as they will spend money on a legal team, you will lose and have to pay thousands in costs.

 

If people are going to issue court claims they should get qualified legal advice and not be tempted to use anyone that offers unqualified legal advice online. I suspect people have won court claims against enforcement companies, but they are unlikely to want to publicise that.

 

In response to your post, I will first address the case of the failed 'appeal'.

 

On 22nd June I made a brief mention on this forum about this case and mentioned that a hearing had taken place and that the debtor had lost the case. As regulars on here will know, I will only provide information that I know to be 100% accurate and with this in mind, I approached Newlyn's Plc for further information (which was provided).

 

t would seem that the enforcement company (Newlyn Plc) were extremely concerned at the level of disinformation being published on the website in question and with thisin mind, the following day, I was contacted by their solicitor who informed me that his client (Newlyn Plc) had authorised him to provide me with a statement outlining the background to the case and the hearing in general. I am authorised by the solicitor to provide quotes from that statement on this forum. Before doing so, I will first provide a brief background to the court claim.

 

I should be able to get the information posted here this evening.

[Bailiff Advice]

Background information leading to the application for an Injunction:

 

I would like to stress that much of the following is from information published on the 'Lawyer's' website with additional information provided to me by Newlyn Plc.

 

Newlyns were enforcing none payment of 4 PCN’s (three for LB of Southwark and one for LB of Croydon)

 

The warrants had upon them the vehicle registration number of a car (a Mini). An enforcement agent located the vehicle by way of ANPR on 28th January 2015 and removed the vehicle to the pound shortly afterwards.

 

Newlyn’s were then contacted by a ‘third party’ (Mr N L ) who claimed that he had ‘supposedly’ purchased the car from the previous owner in September for a purchase price of £6,000.

 

Newlyn responded to MR N L to advise him that he needed to provide some evidence to prove that he had genuinely purchased the vehicle from the previous owner. Newlyns provided Mr N L with a list of items that they required which included proof as to when the payment of £6,000 had been made and a copy of his certificate of insurance covering the period from the date of purchase through to the date of seizure of the Mini.

 

Mr N L responded to advise Newlyn that the purchase had been an odd one in that he had an agreement with the previous owner (who he only knew by her first name of Carolyn) that payments could be deferred. He claimed that payment of the amount of £6,000 was by way of 3 monthly payments of £2,000 each starting in September. He could not provide any documentary evidence apart from a simple sale document. In regards to the insurance, he provided Newlyn’s with a copy of an insurance policy that was in place until 31st December (3 months after he had supposedly ‘purchased’ the car and one month before its seizure). Regrettably, it was found that this policy included MR N L as a ‘named driver’.

 

Newlyn’s were not satisfied that Mr M L had genuinly purchased the vehicle and accordingly, on 7th February they advised Mr M L that his claim to being the ‘third party’ was rejected by LB of Southwark.

 

It must be stressed that Mr N L claimed that he did not know the previous owner and the only information that he could provide to Newlyn was that her first name was Carolyn.

 

Further discussions were ongoing in relation to the vehicle and on 25th March, Newlyn were contacted by Mr N L’s lawyer, Jason B who stated that he was from a ‘law firm’ called xxxxx (being the name of his website). Jason B telephoned Newlyn’s call centre and informed them that he was a lawyer representing Mr N L and that he required the release of his client’s vehicle and that unless the vehicle was released that he (Jason) would be issuing an injunction against Newlyn and the local authority the following day. (Newlyn exhibited copies of Jason’s telephone conversations to the court and in them he was clearly heard to state on various occasions that he was a lawyer from a law firm.

 

The local authority did not grant the release of the car and the following day Jason B and Mr N L attended Croydon Court and issued an injunction.

 

Following the injunction, LB of Southwark made further enquiries about the parking tickets and it was found that before the warrants had been issued, each ticket had been the subject of ‘appeal’ and when rejected, had also been subject to further appeal to London Adjudicators (formerly PATAS). Of concern to the council was that the address given to the local authority (and to PATAS) on the appeal letters was that of Mr N L’s office address !!

 

An injunction has a two stage procedure being the initial application followed by the a trial where all parties will be required to attend. With this in mind, the initial application was made, and the court listed the case for trial on 9th June with a hearing time estimated for one hour.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hearing on 9th June 2015

 

For the hearing on 9th June Mr N L had the assistance of a public access Barrister who had been instructed by him just a day or so earlier (no doubt at a significant cost to him).

 

In the first instance, the Judge ruled that an injunction was the incorrect route (how many times have I said this) and that the claim should have been under CPR 85.

 

Next the Judge undertook ‘housekeeping’ tasks and informed the claimant that neither Jason’s fees of £1095 or his own ‘Litigant in Person’ fees of £720 would be entertained regardless of the outcome. In relation to Jason B's fees, the judge stated his fees would not be entertained as McKenzie friends fees cannot be recovered against a claimants opponent.

 

At this hearing Mr N L produced a further witness statement which included a number of additional documents which he had never produced before including very heavily redacted bank statements. He was told in clear and unambiguous terms that the judge was not prepared to accept redacted documents and that at he must file and serve un-redacted copies of the bank statement.

 

The Judge adjourned the hearing to a later date (22nd June) as the issues at stake could not be dealt with in just one hour and needed an estimated time of 3 hours.

[obiter dictum]

Myself not having a clue on baliff legislation

 

Why was the injunction rejected?? besides CPR 85 (Controlled Goods)

 

CPR is just court protocol in which a judge can overrule with "Judicial interpretation"

 

Just for my own knowledge base

[Peterbard]

Myself not having a clue on baliff legislation

 

Why was the injunction rejected?? besides CPR 85 (Controlled Goods)

 

CPR is just court protocol in which a judge can overrule with "Judicial interpretation"

 

Just for my own knowledge base

 

Because there is a statutory remedy in place injunctions are very much a last ditch remedy. CPR.s are statutory instruments made under the civil procedure act 1997.

[obiter dictum]

Thanks for the reply Dodgeball

 

Like i said, i have not a clue in this area and "Every little helps"

[Bailiff Advice]

Hearing on 22nd June 2014

 

At this hearing Mr N L was unrepresented and Jason B attended as a McKenzie. He was advised by the Judge that he could not address the court.

 

Under cross examination, Mr N L confirmed that in fact he had known the ‘previous owner’ for over 15 years and furthermore; that he had been driving her car for the past two years !!! His was also a named driver on the owners’ certificate of insurance. All of this was completely at odds with the Witness Statement (drafted for him by Jason B) which indicated that he did not know the identity of the ‘previous owner’ and that the only information that he had been able to find out about her was that her first name was ‘Carolyn’!!.

 

During my cross examination of the claimant Jason was attempting to pass him notes which the judge noticed (as did I) Jason was told that if he did not desist he would be removed from the court.

 

The judge made a number of very damning comments concerning the claimant's evidence. He described him as being evasive in his responses to cross-examination and found that even when presented with documentary evidence he sought to maintain a position which was clearly incorrect. In relation to his claim to having purchased the car from the previous owner the judge stated that any such sale had been a 'sham'.

 

During the hearing Jason B's conduct was addressed. The Judge noticed that during cross examination Jason B was attempting to pass notes to Mr N L. The judge noticed this and told Jason B that if he did not desist he would be removed from the court.

 

The Judge ordered Mr N L to pay LB of Southwark’s legal costs of £4,399.

 

Permission to appeal was refused.

[Bailiff Advice]

Events following the hearing on 22nd June 2015

 

After I had posted brief details of this case (on 22nd June), Jason B attempted to ridicule my post by stating on his website that he had not attended the hearing as a McKenzie Friend and that instead, he had attended with the applicant's Barrister who had asked him to attend the hearing to 'takes notes' for him. Following questions from other posters he admitted that a Barrister had not after all been in attendance because he had supposedly got lost in the court building !!

 

Due to the extraordinary level of misinformation being posted by him Newlyn Plc authorised their solicitor to provide a statement to me outlining the true facts of this claim. I have passed a copy of that statement to moderators on this forum and with their permission will post details later today.

 

On 23rd June, Jason B stated that he had spoken with his client and he had been advised by him that he was going to appeal the court ruling and that he was being assisted in his appeal by a Barrister. I am advised that since that time a Barrister has not contacted Newlyn (or LB of Southwark) to advise that he was on record as representing Mr N L).

 

An application to appeal was indeed submitted and was considered by the court a few days ago without a hearing. The application has been dismissed and the Judge makes reference to the shoddy application itself . I will provide a copy later today.

[Bailiff Advice]

I anyone has any questions, then please do ask. After all, this part of the forum is dedicated to 'discussions'.

[unclebulgaria67]

Pretty damning if the information is accurate. I would question why someone would go near a court, unless they had a clear cut argument to make.

 

We have seen a few cases reported on CAG where transfer of ownership has not been as straightforward as originally advised.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

We have seen a few cases reported on CAG where transfer of ownership has not been as straightforward as originally advised.

 

And that is the reason WHY cases like this should not be hidden from the public and sadly, it is cases like this that are the reason WHY genuine 'third party' claimants (of which there are many) are viewed so suspiciously by enforcement agents (and creditors) and are forced to provide so much documentary evidence.

 

I have little time for anyone trying to 'play the system' and far less less time for those assisting them for nothing more than a significant financial gain.

 

So far this 'debt avoidance' sham has cost this claimant approx £12,700.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is taken from the statement given to me by Newlyn Plc's solicitor on 23rd June 2015

 

 

Dear XX

 

I am extremely concerned at the level of disinformation which is being published on Jason Bennxxxx's website.

 

As you are aware, enforcement companies are generally now subject to very considerable control exercised by the local authority clients. It is nonsense to suggest that a bailiff company would take any steps whatsoever to jeopardise the commercial relationship with their local authority clients. I can assure you that any bailiff who "stepped out of line" has far more to fear from his employer than he does from the courts.

 

With regards to the case yesterday, and in order to make very clear what the situation is. You will of course be aware that my clients do not crave litigation, if they are wrong the claim is settled at a very early stage.

 

The Claimant confirmed that he had been using the car for the past two years as his very good friend had agreed to allow him to use it as his van had been stolen;

 

A member of the Claimant's company made representations to the local authority and when those representations failed took the matter to PATAS who also rejected the representations;

 

The Claimant has never provided a policy of insurance valid at the time that the vehicle was taken into control (28 January 2015) instead relying on a policy of insurance which ended on 31 December 2014 in the name of the registered keeper from whom he claims to have purchased the vehicle. He is a named driver on that policy;

 

The Claimant claims to have acquired the vehicle by three payments commencing September and concluding five days after the alleged date that he purchased. There is no documentation whatsoever to reflect the deferred consideration other than a simple contract printed from the Internet as a vehicle sale document;

 

The Claimant made an application through Newlyn's third party claims system and receive the standard response email setting out the five classes documents that would be required. His claim was rejected 7 February 2015.

 

On 25 March, Jason contacted Newlyn's call centre held himself out as being a lawyer, the proceedings were commenced by an application for an injunction the following day.

 

· I was instructed to act on behalf of all defendants namely Newlyn, the local authority and the enforcement agent.

 

·

The Claimant was offered every opportunity to discontinue and to provide evidence

.

 

The claim was only for £2060 being Jason's fees. That claim was rejected firstly because the judge took the view that you could not claim costs as part of your claim as they are always in the discretion of the court but went on to confirm that even if he was wrong, the claim must fail as McKenzie friends fees cannot be recovered against a claimant's opponent.

 

An initial hearing took place on 9 June, the district judge on that occasion considered that it was properly a CPR 85 claim. She considered that the hearing would take longer than the our allotted and therefore adjourned the hearing to a later date with a time estimate of three hours. That was yesterday. As the claimant's barrister indicated that the claimant was a man of straw it would be disproportionate to order him to make any payment court pursuant to CPR 85.

 

At the hearing which took place on 9 June the claimant produced a further witness statement which included a number of additional documents which he had never produced before including very heavily redacted bank statements. He was told in clear and unambiguous terms that the judge was not prepared to accept redacted documents and that he should file and serve (un) redacted copies. His response was only to take further documents to court yesterday morning.

 

At yesterday's hearing the claimant was not represented by counsel. Jason attended but was not allowed to present the case. Jason sat in the second row, and was taking notes. During my cross examination of the claimant Jason was attempting to pass him notes which the judge noticed (as did I) Jason was told that if he did not desist he would be removed from the court.

 

The judge made a number of very damning comments concerning the claimant's evidence. He described him as being evasive in his responses to cross-examination and found that even when presented with documentary evidence he sought to maintain a position which was clearly incorrect.

 

I have now received an email from the claimant informing me that he would be appealing. He claims to have received specialist advice from a barrister who has told him that his appeal stands a high prospect of success. With the greatest of respect to him, if a judge effectively finds that you have lied having had the benefit of direct oral testimony that your prospects of appeal are minimal.

 

 

With kind regards.

 

 

Peter FELTON GERBER

[Peterbard]

 

So far this 'debt avoidance' sham has cost this claimant approx £12,700.

 

Why so much, I thought the award was for four grand ?

[ploddertom]

This appears to be not the first this person has been involved with and indeed wonder how much he has cost others with his "advice".

[Peterbard]

This appears to be not the first this person has been involved with and indeed wonder how much he has cost others with his "advice".

 

Yes I m afraid it is the tip of a very large iceberg.

[Fair-Parking]

Whilst not wishing to impinge on the facts of the case described here, and as he has kindly put his name to a letter, this would be the same fair minded Peter Felton Gerber whom the Local Government Ombudsman's office described only last year as 'an aggressive solicitor fueling aggressive bailiffs'.

 

We can all believe him then.

[Peterbard]

Whilst not wishing to impinge on the facts of the case described here, and as he has kindly put his name to a letter, this would be the same fair minded Peter Felton Gerber whom the Local Government Ombudsman's office described only last year as 'an aggressive solicitor fueling aggressive bailiffs'.

 

We can all believe him then.

 

Is there a link to this comment ?

All the same there is a big difference between being an aggressive advocate, which to be honest any claimant would want, and being a liar.

[ploddertom]

[quote=Dodgeball;4796781

 

]Yes I m afraid it is the tip of a very large iceberg.

 

 

And like an iceberg only 10% is visible & the rest hidden. I would also venture to say the rest of the "advisors" are just as culpable seeing as they fail to restrain or rein back the actions of individual concerned.

[Peterbard]

And like an iceberg only 10% is visible & the rest hidden. I would also venture to say the rest of the "advisors" are just as culpable seeing as they fail to restrain or rein back the actions of individual concerned.

 

Yes indeed and as can be seen currently, when presented with factual reports all they can do is resort to personal abuse which has absolutely no purpose, other than being a desperate attempt to intimidate and divert interest from the facts being presented.