Another debtor found guilty under Section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 of interfering with controlled goods

[Bailiff Advice]

Yet again another debtor has been found guilty under section 68.1 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 for interfering with controlled goods and also for criminal damage.

 

Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

In this particular case, the brief background is that Croydon Council issued a penalty charge notice and the debt remained unpaid and was passed to their bailiff contractor; Confero Ltd to enforce. The enforcement officer attended the property and located the vehicle. A wheel clamp was applied and the relevant statutory notice posted through the door.

 

The owner of the vehicle forcibly removed the wheelclamp and drove away in the car. Later that same day he was arrested by the police and charged with the following:

 

Criminal damage (to the wheel clamp)

 

Theft of the motor vehicle.

 

Intentionally inferring with Controlled Goods without lawful excuse.

 

The vehicle was removed to the enforcement companies car pound. He was bailed and had a first hearing at court earlier this year (May).

 

The individual claimed that he had not received statutory notices from Croydon Council and accordingly filed an Out of Time witness statement. It is assumed that this had been rejected.

 

At Bromley Magistrates Court yesterday (5th October) he was cleared of the charge of theft of the motor vehicle but was found guilty of the other two charges (criminal damage to the wheelclamp) and interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse. He was fined a total of £1,598

[Bailiff Advice]

The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

[Coughdrop]

Why don't people just pay the fines? It's far easier and far cheaper.

[ploddertom]

The downside of this is that he has now ended up with a criminal conviction.

[Bailiff Advice]

The downside of this is that he has now ended up with a criminal conviction.

 

He has ended up with a lot more than a criminal conviction.

 

Firstly he has a substantial court fine.

 

He would have also paid a substantial fee to his McKenzie friend. Judging from other cases that the individual has been involved with, the fee could have been as much as £900.

 

He has been without the vehicle for 5 months.

[Bailiff Advice]

The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

 

The defendant's Mc Kenzie has claimed today that at the court hearing the Magistrate was satisfied that the defendant was the OWNER of the car. If so, then this raises more questions than it answers !!

 

If he is the owner then WHY would he have allowed his friend (who lives at the same address) to REGISTER the car is his name?

 

Why would they both be named drivers on the same insurance policy?

 

When the initial contravention occured, London Borough of Croydon would have approached DVLA for 'keeper' details. Naturally, DVLA would have responded to advise that the car was registered in the name of the 'friend' and accordingly, the Notice to Owner, the Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery would have been sent to the 'friend'....at the same address as the defendant. Now, if the friend had not been the driver at the time of the contravention, why did he not appeal the ticket to LB of Croydon? Most odd.

 

Given that all statutory notices would have been addressed to his 'friend' (as the registered keeper), why then did the defendant file an Out of Time witness statement? Surely the friend should have filed the OoT (after all, each of the statutory notices would have been in his name)?

[Coughdrop]

Was the issue of McKenzie friends being allowed to speak, or otherwise, ever resolved? I know there was a lengthy discussion about it some time ago.

 

It makes no sense to me having a McKenzie friend pretending to be a lawyer if that person is going to be in court and forbidden to speak. It would then be blatantly obvious the person was not a lawyer, surely?

 

I don't want to get involved, but I do like to try to get a clear picture.

[wonkeydonkey]

Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

I don't have the full details as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

[Coughdrop]

Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

I don't have the full details as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

 

Right, I think that gives me the clear picture I wanted.

 

I'll have to back out in that case, thank you.

[Bailiff Advice]

As I have stated many times, a County Court judge will very rarely allow a McKenzie Friend to address the court.

 

In the case of a criminal conviction, I would be staggered if an MK were allowed to address the Magistrates and even more shocked if the MK were permitted to 'cross examine' a police office !!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I on't have the full detdails as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

 

It is my understanding that he was not granted permission to address the court. A transcript will shortly confirm this.

[Peterbard]

It is also true that the MF would not be able to claim costs from the other side in any case. they can claim form their client only if they have permission from the court to act given before the proceedings commenced.

If I were the debtor here i would certainly not pay a penny to the MF, as from what I have seen there is no legal imperative to do so.

[mikeymack2002]

The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

 

 

Not odd in the slightest, I am the registered keeper of a vehicle but I am NOT the legal owner. Why would this be of concern as it is common practice with many finance deals and personal needs.

[mikeymack2002]

This is why the MF rules are being looked into in the near future and possibly new rules could be introduced later next year, I did post a link to this on a different thread...

[mikeymack2002]

Unable to edit my post so here is a link and PDF on MK http://www.legalservicesconsumerpanel.org.uk/publications/research_and_reports/documents/2014%2004%2017%20MKF_Final.pdf

[Bailiff Advice]

Not odd in the slightest, I am the registered keeper of a vehicle but I am NOT the legal owner. Why would this be of concern as it is common practice with many finance deals and personal needs.

 

It is absolutely common practice with finance deals and indeed with parents. For example, up until a couple of years ago I owned (and could provide clear evidence) that the cars that were being used by both my sons on an everyday basis had been purchased by me and that my sons were merely registered keepers. This is a very common situation indeed in many families. It is not so common with flatmates (or house sharers).

 

What possible explanation could be given for a vehicle owner (in this case the defendant) to register his vehicle in the name of his flatmate?

[Bailiff Advice]

He has ended up with a lot more than a criminal conviction.

 

Firstly he has a substantial court fine.

 

He would have also paid a substantial fee to his McKenzie friend. Judging from other cases that the individual has been involved with, the fee could have been as much as £900.

 

He has been without the vehicle for 5 months.

 

I dont tend to make errors very often but when I do, I will quickly admit that I was wrong and make the necessary correction.

 

I stated above that the Mc Kenzie friend (The Guru) would have likely charged the defendant as much as £900. In fact he has confirmed that he charges about £2,500 each time that he acts as a McKenzie Friend.

 

 

Costs go undefended...

[unclebulgaria67]

Silly world we live in really !

 

If someone wrote a book 30 years ago about some of the issues we see, it would have been seen as a load of nonsense.

 

Perhaps if government tackled root causes, then we might not have this situation.

 

Not sure the new legislation has made enforcement any easier. As always, new legislation often leads to other issues.

[caledfwlch]

Car's are, when new/newish very expensive items, they involve spending large amounts of money to run, ie Insurance, tax etc, so represent a hefty investment, Losing your car can mean losing your job, in a lot of circumstances, and of course, we are seeing third party goods being seized wrongfully, and that mistake either genuine, or through negligence/arrogance by an EA can cause an innocent person to thus lose their job, or become homebound, esp with the rise in fines, parking tickets and so on, so what don't understand is why Car Ownership, as in the actual person who in a legal definition of ownerships actually owns the vehicle is such a murky and in fact near impossible (at least when an EA is after money, anyones money) issue to prove.

 

Registered Keeper of a Car is not Proof of Ownership, nor is Insurance, though EA's are claiming either as justification for seizing, and I would think the Insurance claim is on very, very dodgy ground - Mr B drives lorries for Eddie Stobart, thus, Mr B is insured to drive an Eddie Stobart Lorry, that does not mean the EA can seize Eddie Stobart's lorry for Mr B's personal debt, just because the insurance is in his name..

 

So why is there not a way of registering actual ownership? Surely it would be the work of seconds to add a field into the DVLA systems stating the name of the Owner, seperate to who is insured, registered keeper etc, and stick a little bit of blurb on any passing bit of legislation making it a legal requirement to inform the DVLA who the actual owner is? It isn't rocket science.

[Bailiff Advice]

Excellent post caledfwch (as usual).

 

In fact where there is a problem (and hence the requirment to provide supporting EVIDENCE) is that the actual statutory regulations provide that the REGISTERED KEEPER is ASSUMED to be the OWNER of the vehicle....unless the contary is PROVED.

[Peterbard]

Car's are, when new/newish very expensive items, they involve spending large amounts of money to run, ie Insurance, tax etc, so represent a hefty investment, Losing your car can mean losing your job, in a lot of circumstances, and of course, we are seeing third party goods being seized wrongfully, and that mistake either genuine, or through negligence/arrogance by an EA can cause an innocent person to thus lose their job, or become homebound, esp with the rise in fines, parking tickets and so on, so what don't understand is why Car Ownership, as in the actual person who in a legal definition of ownerships actually owns the vehicle is such a murky and in fact near impossible (at least when an EA is after money, anyones money) issue to prove.

 

Registered Keeper of a Car is not Proof of Ownership, nor is Insurance, though EA's are claiming either as justification for seizing, and I would think the Insurance claim is on very, very dodgy ground - Mr B drives lorries for Eddie Stobart, thus, Mr B is insured to drive an Eddie Stobart Lorry, that does not mean the EA can seize Eddie Stobart's lorry for Mr B's personal debt, just because the insurance is in his name..

 

So why is there not a way of registering actual ownership? Surely it would be the work of seconds to add a field into the DVLA systems stating the name of the Owner, seperate to who is insured, registered keeper etc, and stick a little bit of blurb on any passing bit of legislation making it a legal requirement to inform the DVLA who the actual owner is? It isn't rocket science.

 

Yes indeed, however. As you say the purchase of a car is a hefty investment for most of us. Such an investment would normally be mentioned in some kind of reciept I would have thought, or a sale receipt would be available form the seller, which could be obtained and presented to the EA during the compliance or enforcement stage.

[mikeymack2002]

Proof of purchase is again not proof of ownership, as parents we often buy a car for their children or other goods and then who owns them bearing in mind a quote like "we bought you a car" or "we bought a car for you to use" what would you believe is right if you was the EA? The old saying possession is 9/10 of the law comes to mind...

[Peterbard]

Proof of purchase is again not proof of ownership, as parents we often buy a car for their children or other goods and then who owns them bearing in mind a quote like "we bought you a car" or "we bought a car for you to use" what would you believe is right if you was the EA? The old saying possession is 9/10 of the law comes to mind...

 

So you're saying that proceedings against the father in your scenario could be prevented by his saying that he had previously gifted the car to his son, without any documented evidence of transfer of title. Yes good luck with that.

[mikeymack2002]

You didn't read it properly yet again I give up

[Peterbard]

I give up

 

Excellent news