Bailiff enforcement:Debtor 'steals' vehicle from new owner after it had been sold by bailiff company.

[Bailiff Advice]

Yesterday, a most extraordinary report was given on a social media site regarding a hearing at Luton Crown Court that concluded yesterday with both defendants being cleared of theft and false representation.

 

The report itself (written by a McKenzie Friend) is utterly astonishing and frankly; resembles a poorly written fairy story.

 

As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yesterday), I will give accurate facts on the background to this case (which sadly, yet again demonstrates appalling bad behaviour by a debtor attempting to evade payment of a penalty charge notice).

[Peterbard]

Yes definitely needs some clarifying.

[Bailiff Advice]

Background:

 

In June 2013 (3 years ago) a bailiff from Newlyn Plc had seized a vehicle belonging to a 'company' in connection with an unpaid parking ticket owed by one of the company Directors. The vehicle in question was then taken to the auctioneers premises where it was eventually (on a date unknown) advertised for sale on ebay.

 

The purchaser of the vehicle was a used car company. Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, they advertised it for sale themsleves on their own website.

 

It would seem that the defendant (Mr Kirby) discovered that the vehicle was advertised and contacted the company via their website to arrange to 'view' the vehicle. He was provided with the address where the vehicle was located (which was in Hertfordshire). With his partner (Miss Greengrow) he attended the address and using the spare key (that he had retained) they stole the vehicle.

 

The new purchaser reported the theft to the police. The couple were arrested and charged with theft and false representation.

 

Following the theft of the car, Mr Kirby and Ms Greengrow have been in court nine times (five hearings being at Luton Crown Court).

 

Yesterday, they were both cleared of theft. Without a transcript or other written report there is no reliable evidence as to why the jury reached the decision that they did. According to the court, no costs were awarded.

 

Given the seriousness of this case, I naturally approached Newlyn's solicitor for clarification yesterday afternoon and he confirmed to me that the case had been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service and that Newlyn Plc were not called as a witness in these proceedings and did not attend the hearing.

[brassnecked]

Wonder if there was any irregularity with the seizure and sale? There has to be something lurking in the background surely?

[Peterbard]

So was the initial seizure lawful ?

 

From what you say it wasn't, because the car would have been owned by a company with a limited liability.

Is this correct ?

 

If so why was there not an interpleader action started at the time ?

 

 

edit sorry BN crossed postss

[Bailiff Advice]

Wonder if there was any irregularity with the seizure and sale? There has to be something lurking in the background surely?

 

BN, there certainly is a lot lurking in the background and in fact, it was only when the defendants name ( Mr R Kirkby) was given on the internet yesterday that I realised that I knew a great deal about this case because; in 2014 I published details on the forum regarding the fact that following the seizure of the vehicle, Mr Kirby issued a Form 4 Complaint.

 

It was a hopeless complaint. It was heard at Watford County Court and rejected by His Honour Judge Wilding. The Form 4 Complaint had been submitted by Mr R Kirby in the capacity of Director of a Limited Company (a Gas services company) and in dismissing the complaint, HHJ Wilding ordered Mr Kirby to personally pay £2,943 towards the enforcement agents legal costs !!

[Peterbard]

Background:

 

Given the seriousness of this case, I naturally approached Newlyn's solicitor for clarification yesterday afternoon and he confirmed to me that the case had been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service and that Newlyn Plc were not called as a witness in these proceedings and did not attend the hearing.

 

Now I am confused.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sounds like a complete c*ck up from the time the car was taken until these recent theft cases were heard. It would seem there was a dispute about ownership, but this was never resolved.

 

How can an enforcement company take a vehicle owned by a company and sell it when PCN's were owed by an employee of the company ? Is there any legislation or case law that allows enforcement companies to sell vehicles owned by a company, when the PCN's were owed by an employee of the business ? Does it matter that the employee was a director of the company ?

 

If we avoid the personal internet ping pong between the normal participants, then it might allow a discussion about the issues.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It was a hopeless complaint. It was heard at Watford County Court and rejected by His Honour Judge Wilding. The Form 4 Complaint had been submitted by Mr R Kirby in the capacity of Director of a Limited Company (a Gas services company) and in dismissing the complaint, HHJ Wilding ordered Mr Kirby to personally pay £2,943 towards the enforcement agents legal costs !!

 

Having read back to what was written about this case in 2014, Mr Kirkby stated that he had an unpaid penalty charge notice that was owed by him personally. He was also a Director of a Limited Company. He claimed that the vehicle that was seized was owned by 'the company' and as 'evidence' he provided a copy of the V5c. Unfortunately, the V5c exhibited was not in the name of the Limited Company. Instead, it was registered in the name only of the company (as a sole trader) and without the words LTD. He also stated that at the time of it's seizure, the vehicle was being used by his partner.

 

The relevant regulation in place in 2013 was the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993. Accordingly, it would have been for Mr Kirby to satisfy the enforcement company that the vehicle was for "his use personally in the course of his employment'. He would not have been able to do this given that the vehicle was being used by his partner.

[Peterbard]

UB

No idea what you are talking about, what ping pong is that, by saying this you are encouraging it so why dont you stick to the subject.

 

It seems to me that the original form 4 was dismissed. now this does not necessarily mean that the car was taken legally, it only means that the bailiff did not do anything which would cost him his license, however the scale of the costs does indicate that the judge may have found the application somewhat vexatious.

 

What i do find confusing is that no one from Newlyns was called to give evidence if there was a matter of an incorrect levy under consideration.

This makes me consider the theory that the reason the two defendants were found not guilty may have had nothing to do with the seizure.

[Peterbard]

Having read back to what was written about this case in 2014, Mr Kirkby stated that he had an unpaid penalty charge notice that was owed by him personally. He was also a Director of a Limited Company. He claimed that the vehicle that was seized was owned by 'the company' and as 'evidence' he provided a copy of the V5c. Unfortunately, the V5c exhibited was not in the name of the Limited Company. Instead, it was registered in the name only of the company (as a sole trader) and without the words LTD. He also stated that at the time of it's seizure, the vehicle was being used by his partner.

 

The relevant regulation in place in 2013 was the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993. Accordingly, it would have been for Mr Kirby to satisfy the enforcement company that the vehicle was for "his use personally in the course of his employment'. He would not have been able to do this given that the vehicle was being used by his partner.

 

This supports my previous point, so why were the to defendants found innocent if it was not because of an illegal seizure ?

[Leakie]

How can that be Dodgeball the whole case is about the car being stolen.

so may be the seizure was not lawful,

but the judge could see that the defendants were in the wrong also,

maybe the reasopn for the costs.

it is not always black and white, some times the truth is in the middle, and both parties were in the wrong.

EA's are known to twist the truth to get a result.

unfortunately there is no penalty if they do as the establishment tends to back them up too much.

 

I have no knowledge of the case , just my observations.

 

Leakie

[unclebulgaria67]

UB

No idea what you are talking about, what ping pong is that, by saying this you are encouraging it so why dont you stick to the subject.

 

 

Thread started on other site and then thread started here in response.

 

I have asked questions which BA has partly answered. The bit that is missing is what happened when ownership was challenged originally. Why was a car with disputed ownership sold, leading to directors of a company taking it back from the garage who bought it ?

 

As you appear to say, a court has found that a theft did not take place, because the seizure was invalid.

 

What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?

[Peterbard]

HI leakie

 

The case was about the previous owners being charged with stealing the vehicle,

In post nine there is some doubt raised as to the idea the car was improperly seized some time earlier.

 

Sorry dont know what you man about the black and white thing in this context.

[Peterbard]

Thread started on other site and then thread started here in response.

 

I have asked questions which BA has partly answered. The bit that is missing is what happened when ownership was challenged originally. Why was a car with disputed ownership sold, leading to directors of a company taking it back from the garage who bought it ?

 

As you appear to say, a court has found that a theft did not take place, because the seizure was invalid.

 

What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?

 

Which site is that, no dont tell me i am not interested. I am however interested in the issue under discussion, so why cant we just discuss that.

[Peterbard]

Thread started on other site and then thread started here in response.

 

I have asked questions which BA has partly answered. The bit that is missing is what happened when ownership was challenged originally. Why was a car with disputed ownership sold, leading to directors of a company taking it back from the garage who bought it ?

 

As you appear to say, a court has found that a theft did not take place, because the seizure was invalid.

 

What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?

 

Yes knowing this would be a huge help in understanding the true situation,

There are more ways of defeating a criminal action than the ones mentioned on here, intent and the criminal level of proof, beyond reasonable doubt for instance.

We do not know that the decision made in the crown court had anything to do with the previous bailiff action, the fact that no members of newlyns where called to give evidence would tend to support that it didn't, in my opinion.

[Bailiff Advice]

Which site is that, no dont tell me i am not interested. I am however interested in the issue under discussion, so why cant we just discuss that.

 

Yes, the subject is being discussed on the 'Pied Piper' site but and please ignore.

 

It is also being debated on TWO other social media sites and many questions are being raised there which I hope to be able to answer on here shortly.

[unclebulgaria67]

The claim elsewhere is that some from Newlyns did attend.

 

It would make sense to me that Newlyn did attend, because a defence Barrister is likely to call on those witnesses that were involved in taking the car, being that the seizure of the car is likely to be relevant in a theft case. Directors of a business taking back a car that they believe is still owned by the company would be a valid act, if the seizure and sale was not valid.

 

Guess work really. You can't always go by what is said in forums, but sometimes it might be true.

[Peterbard]

The claim elsewhere is that some from Newlyns did attend.

 

It would make sense to me that Newlyn did attend, because a defence Barrister is likely to call on those witnesses that were involved in taking the car, being that the seizure of the car is likely to be relevant in a theft case. Directors of a business taking back a car that they believe is still owned by the company would be a valid act, if the seizure and sale was not valid.

 

Guess work really. You can't always go by what is said in forums, but sometimes it might be true.

 

The defense barrister or th CPS is not going to call on the bailiff company if the reason the car was found not to be stolen had nothing to do with them.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thread started on other site and then thread started here in response.

 

I have asked questions which BA has partly answered. The bit that is missing is what happened when ownership was challenged originally. Why was a car with disputed ownership sold, leading to directors of a company taking it back from the garage who bought it ?

 

As you appear to say, a court has found that a theft did not take place, because the seizure was invalid.

 

What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?

 

Interesting question UB and I will attempt to answer it as best I can.

 

Firstly, I would like to explain that during the period of 2013/14, debtors were endlessly encouraged to file 'Form 4' Complaints against bailiffs and in many cases, were paying fees of £100 or more to have these court complaints 'drafted' for them. In all cases, debtors were told that courts would not impose a 'costs order' against the debtor if the complaint were to be rejected by the court. These people were seriously misled and in so many of the cases, significant cost orders were indeed imposed. In an attempt to try to warn debtors of the serious consequences of 'Form 4' Complaints, I frequently posted details on this and other forums. Mr Kirkby's Form 4 Complaint was one such complaint that I wrote about in 2014.

 

Whenever I published details on here or elsewhere, I was passionate about ensuring that accurate information was provided and with this in mind, I would always approach the enforcement agency to seek some background information.

 

Turning back to your questions (Why was a car with disputed ownership sold):

 

As stated earlier, Mr Kirby claimed in his Form 4 Complaint that the vehicle was owned by his 'company'. It transpired that the vehicle was registered in the name of a sole trading business (not the name of his Limited Company). He also confirmed that the vehicle was not for 'his use personally in the course of his employment' as it was used by his partner. The court rejected his Form 4 Complaint. He had the option to issue an Interpleader application. He did not do so.

 

May I just correct your above post. All that is known is that Mr Kirby and his partner; Ms Greengrow were cleared of theft. I did not state that the reason for this was because the seizure was invalid. There is no documentary evidence outlining the reason why they were cleared.

[unclebulgaria67]

The defense barrister or th CPS is not going to call on the bailiff company if the reason the car was found not to be stolen had nothing to do with them.

 

Newlyn seized a car that led to accusation of theft. Surely this is highly relevant ?

[Peterbard]

Yes as i said earlier there are many reasons a criminal prosecution can fail.

[unclebulgaria67]

If the theft was clear, the Jury would have been directed by the Judge that a guilty verdict be recorded. Obviously the theft was not clear, as the ownership issue was still live.

 

From what i read, civil actions are still ongoing between parties and therefore i am not sure we can know the true picture.

[Peterbard]

Newlyn seized a car that led to accusation of theft. Surely this is highly relevant ?

 

Please read the thread. The allegation of theft is against the former owners, when they took the car and for taking the car.

I didn't say anything about relevance. Newlyns may have taken the car totally legitimately, in fact BAs posts seems to indicate they did.

If this is true then there would be no need for them to attend the crown court.

[Peterbard]

The case was only decided yesterday, i doubt very much any civil action would have started just yet, i find it best not to believe everything I read on the forums.