Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-suspension-court-b1793627.html Labour attacks Jeremy Corbyn for ‘wasting time and money’ after court defeat over suspension from party "Party to seek to recover legal costs from its former leader – in new deterioration in relationship"   Hopefully Carbuncle will now just *** off. Fat chance Perhaps the Labour party should just take a leaf from Corbyns own book and deselect him and force a by-election?
    • Piers aint that bad (recently amended opinion)  
    • It looks as if you have been completely ripped off. I'm sorry about that but frankly I don't think there is much you can do – and believe me, it is not often that I say that on this forum. I think it's fairly clear that there has been a deception here and although it won't help massively, I would suggest that you report the crime to the police. They will try to say that is a civil matter and you will have to stick to your guns and say that no there's been a deception, that this man is selling cars in an unroadworthy condition and probably he is committing tax fraud offences as well. I'm afraid that there doesn't even evidence that you have the correct name. It seems entirely possible that such a person simply doesn't exist. I don't see any point in beginning a legal action because if you don't even have the correct name for this dealer, then a judgement recorded against his credit file will make absently no difference at all and you will simply incur the costs of bringing the claim. I doubt very much whether he would bother to respond to a claim or to put in a defence. If he did put in a defence then if you wanted to move on to the hearing stage you would have to pay another fee and this would simply put you even more out of pocket – probably to the tune of about £250 or so – and as it seems very unlikely that you could ever enforce the judgement, you would never get any of this money back. I'm sure you feel very bad and very upset. The only other thing you should do is start going around the review sites and putting up negative reviews about this person and his business – and business names. At least it will put other people on guard and you never know, you might stumble across other people who know more about him and actually know who he is. If you do decide to inform the police then you should tell the police that he is trading under a false name. In terms of your car, I'm afraid that the only way I can suggest to cut your losses is to have the work done. It means that you are £1000 down on the deal – but at least you will have a driving car. However, before doing that I would have the car thoroughly checked over to make sure that there aren't any other defects which are about to materialise which might eventually make the car is simply not economical to repair. You said that there was an MOT certificate in the glove box. Is it a recent MOT certificate? Are you able to speak with the previous owner at all?  Cagger @Daniel Hanson who has also bought a vehicle from the same person may be able to help you in this respect. It seems that he has been lucky enough not to have any problem so far with the car that he bought. I think at the very least, the lessons to be drawn from this are: Don't purchase a used car – or any car from a dealer who is far away from you make sure you check the car yourself make sure that the dealer is well established and do some research on forums and review sites for negative reviews and positive reviews. However, be suspicious of positive reviews. Don't pay cash/bank transfer. You lose all control of your money. Insist on paying by credit card or debit card and if the dealer won't accept it then walk away. Ignore warranties. They are meaningless and they are simply a red herring intended to distract you from your statutory rights. However, as you are discovering, even your statutory rights are meaningless if you are unable to identify the dealer and if you are able to identify any assets belonging to the dealer against which you could enforce judgement. Please do let us know how this develops and if you are able to track anybody down. As I say, I think you should certainly inform the police – but it will be a hard job to get them to take notice because they will simply try to say that it's a civil matter and there is no evidence of a crime. You will have to push hard.
    • That is one mean spirited individual, looks like what a Dickensian female Workhouse Beadle would look like.
    • I'll reply more fully  later as I'm about to go out. But meantime who was this person who you allowed to drive your car? How did you know him? Was he insured to drive your car? If you are to defend the matter we need to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1741 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes definitely needs some clarifying.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...