Vehicles on HP can be sold by bailiffs if there is a beneficial interest. Debtor ordered to pay costs of £3,400

[Peterbard]

I think there has been some movement on this, and to the benifit of the debtor. I would ignore uniformed comment and rhetoric though, and wait for the situation to be revealed on here.

[Haggerty]

If it's to the benefit of the debtor, what are we waiting for? Who has the update?

[unclebulgaria67]

Hopefully those who stay in touch with these cases will update the thread.

 

We do find that any news related to enforcement company successes in court seem to be communicated to social media much quicker that any debtor success against enforcement companies. These enforcement companies do seem to want to create social media buzz, to create fear amongst the public, when usually the court cases are about very specific circumstances and the legal position has not been made totally clear.

[Haggerty]

The cases that go against the debtor seem to get posted on here pretty sharpish, sometimes on the same day. I would've hoped the same benefit was given to cases that benefit the debtor.

 

Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal.

 

Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake.

 

This was incorrect.

 

 

Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold.

 

 

The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP.

 

 

This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

[Bailiff Advice]

Has there been any update on this case?

 

As a brand new 'visitor' to the forum, perhaps you would be kind enough to let us all know the outcome.

 

Hopefully those who stay in touch with these cases will update the thread.

 

We do find that any news related to enforcement company successes in court seem to be communicated to social media much quicker that any debtor success against enforcement companies. These enforcement companies do seem to want to create social media buzz, to create fear amongst the public, when usually the court cases are about very specific circumstances and the legal position has not been made totally clear.

 

The regulations were completely overhauled exactly 3 years ago and any previous case law relating to distress went with it.

 

Even John Kruse has written of the need for court rulings to be made in order to clarify the law. Despite social media posts about frequent court successes for debtors, the reality, is that nothing has ever been published as evidence...and this has been the case for many years.

 

Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

This was incorrect. Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold. The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP. This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

 

There has been no 'digging' so stop being quite so childish. It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr MH (the debtor) did not have 'clean hands' and for life of me, I cannot fathom out why he did not just pay his penalty charge notice as he should have done. I can only assume that he received 'advice' to the contrary.

[Peterbard]

Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

 

 

This was incorrect. Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold. The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP. This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

 

This is the kind of ill informed speculation i was hoping to avoid.

 

I think all comments should be treated with a huge pinch of salt unless proof is provided. As usual the looney forums will claim this is a cure for the flu, and the EA will say it is of no consequence, until evidence is provided it is pointless speculation. Personally I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

[Haggerty]

There has been no 'digging' so stop being quite so childish. It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr MH (the debtor) did not have 'clean hands' and for life of me, I cannot fathom out why he did not just pay his penalty charge notice as he should have done. I can only assume that he received 'advice' to the contrary.

 

What's the aggressive tone all about? Are you not pleased with this outcome?

 

It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

.

 

So why didn't you update the forum with the ruling?

 

This is the kind of ill informed speculation i was hoping to avoid.

 

I think all comments should be treated with a huge pinch of salt unless proof is provided. As usual the looney forums will claim this is a cure for the flu, and the EA will say it is of no consequence, until evidence is provided it is pointless speculation. Personally I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

Bailiff Advice has already confirmed it was 'common knowledge'. You need to ask her why she declined to update the forum with this favourable ruling. I can't fathom why.

 

and the EA will say it is of no consequence

 

As this was a High Court ruling, it is of great consequence.

[Peterbard]

As this was a High Court ruling, it is of great consequence.

 

It depends on what the judge said surely, if it was a decision which could be precedent setting and not just one which turned on its own evidence and so on.

 

As said it is pointless speculation unless some proof of what went on is provided. This will be provided in due course i am sure. So why not wait and see.

 

Sorry. just to add, of course you could always provide a transcript if you have one.

[Haggerty]

It depends on what the judge said surely, if it was a decision which could be precedent setting and not just one which turned on its own evidence and so on.

 

County Courts will now be bound by this decision.

 

Sorry. just to add, of course you could always provide a transcript if you have one.

 

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

[unclebulgaria67]

I wonder whether the usual source for these court cases that often favour EC's, will be so quick to provide emailed confirmation that he had lost a case and confirm what the precedent is exactly.

 

Looking back at the thread, i was always highly dubious of EC's taking finance company owned vehicles in pursuit of beneficial interest that might be owed to the debtor on sale of a vehicle. No EC's without a courts authorisation can force a finance company to sell a vehicle to release possible beneficial interest.

[Haggerty]

Indeed. When this case went against Mr MH in the County Court, Newlyn's (or their solicitor) ensured this was posted on here without delay. Now it has been reversed, leaving them with a big bill, there seems to be reluctance to update us all.

 

In fact the person who posted the earlier ruling stated that they had been given permission to provide the details. I can only assume permission was not given this time. Not that permission is needed anyway.

[colin11]

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

If the court case was yesterday, I really can't see how a transcript of the case would be available today

[Haggerty]

A little in-joke there. Bailiff Advice will understand.

[Peterbard]

Perhaps forget about the jokes and show some evidence and details.

[Haggerty]

Oh I'm sure Peter Felton has updated Bailiff Advice already, so I'm sure her word will suffice.

 

 

As Colin11 said, this ruling was only yesterday so paper evidence won't yet be available. Oh, and you've already acknowledged it on your blog.

[Bailiff Advice]

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

So for the first time, a debtor has actually won a case in court and for some very odd reason, there is a reluctance to share the judgment (which was being handed down yesterday).

 

There could be two reasons....the judgment may be very critical of the conduct of the debtor (with justification)......or there may be an application for appeal. There may even be a combination of both.

[Haggerty]

Not sure how any of that means an update couldn't be provided. A petulant declaration of "we'll appeal this" in the heat of the moment could quickly fade away.

 

It seems that you're implying you have been informed by Newlyn's or Mr Felton. If so, please do share. There would be no sub-judice as no appeal has yet been listed.

 

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

It seems the joke was lost on you, so lest we forget - [link removed-dx]

[Bailiff Advice]

I hope to soon be able to report two other judgments. One regarding a debtor who was ordered to pay £4,000 after a failed EAC2 complaint against an enforcement agent.

 

The second one has far reaching implications for all debtors who pay creditors direct (in order to avoid paying bailiff fees).

[Haggerty]

Why delay them?

 

Ooh should've added... are these County Court or High Court judgements?

[Peterbard]

This is really pointless.

 

We are arguing about something no one has yet seen.

 

We had all this with Murgatroyd and what did that turn out to be.

 

So lets see what it is we are talking about eh.

[dx100uk]

thread will now be closing until/unless confirmed evidence of this is provided to our admin email address.

 

 

dx

siteteam