Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#1 Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 14:54

In June 2013 (nearly three years ago) Newlyn seized a car belonging to a company in connection with one of its directors traffic offences.

My client is both directors and the company itself.

The car was stored by Newlyn and put up for sale on eBay, where it came to the attention of the company. Two of its directors attended and recovered the car.

The police were called and charged both directors with theft of a motor vehicle, and fraud by false representation. The latter was dropped because no false representation was involved.

The car was held by the company at a secure location and could not be used by the company because police said the car is "stolen" and will be stopped if it was found.

Today at Luton Crown Court, before a jury of 12 guided by the judge. The charge theft was unsuccessful because the car was the property of the company accused of stealing it. My clients were awarded costs.

The client has instructed me to assign a solicitor to bring litigation proceedings against the council whom Newlyn acted for. They claim for the rental car from June 2013 until the date the police accept the car is not stolen. They also claim depreciation on the car because it is the property of a company.

Going by Newlyns charge of £48 a day to store a car as it had charged another of my clients, the bill is about £52,000. This will be a test of the actual cost of storing a car in a compound, as it appears Newlyn are using storage fees to make a profit or to receive a commission.



The noteworthy points are:

1. The judge intended to find the client guilty because he believed the car was lawfully taken in execution of a warrant, when it was not.

2. The judge was minded to disregard the fact a bailiff is unable to take goods not belonging to the debtor.

3. The judge intended to make a finding that a car unlawfully seized in execution, can lawfully pass title to a buyer if that buyer purchases it in good faith. The judge retracted this when it was pointed out to him that his finding would be used by anyone in their defence, that any person can indiscriminately steal property contrary to the Theft Act, and sell them on eBay and title would lawfully pass to the buyer.

4. When realising his opinion would result in an expensive appeal on technical grounds, he finally conceeded the car was the goods of the owner.

5. Newlyn placed a lot of resource in to the prosecutions side. There were no fewer than 9 witnesses for the prosecution including staff from Newlyn iself whom my client had never had contact with.



The large effort in the prosecution may have been a pre-emptive strike on the part of Newlyn to:
  • a) avoid an expensive civil claim and;

    b) stop a precedent being created that enables debtors to recover unlawfully executed goods from any person subsequently buying them in good faith.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Mar 2016 15:47

How can the judge intend to find someone guilty at a trial by jury? Do you mean the judge was trying to sway the jury?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#3 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 16:05

The judge has to guide the jury.

It was unanimous. They deliberated for just under 4 hours. On Monday the first day of the trial, it was dominated by Newlyn staff taking the witness stand. A lot of them . Then A1 Environmental Ltd gave evidence then the car dealer who bought the car gave evidence.

It was clear the car dealer was unaware he had bought a Newlyn knock off. He just wanted his money back but I don't think A1 Environmental Ltd is going to pay him wilingly.

This is the eBay account used. http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/baldrick333
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#4 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Mar 2016 16:50

The judge has to guide the jury on points of law but he cannot force a guilty verdict to be returned.

I assume this will now reinforce the position that only goods belonging to the debtor can be taken. Will this cover cars registered to a spouse. What about negating that HP debacle from last year?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#5 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 17:32

No, he cannot coerce a jury. That would result in an appeal on the grounds of impartiality. He knew he was being watched by a room full of eagle eyed lawyers, so he treaded very carefully.

A car owned by a spouse can still be taken because it can be inferred to be "jointly owned" goods by virtue of marriage. The spouse can still do an interpleader claim and the risk passes to the bailiff company in case the claim is held.

I turned a client down only today after being asked to interplead a spouse's car for the husbands 8 PCNs enforced by TASK who removed her car for his debts. The car was registered in his name and the court will infer "beneficial interest" under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12. It was an unusual case where I was powerless to do anything for the client. 8 PCN's no NTO and no NOE's and there is a fat chance I can persuade a court he did not receive 16 notices. However one of the 8 PCN's had not been warranted by the TEC so he might have redress for enforcement without power.

I will reclaim HP cars because the Reiss case was a result of a factual error of the court by saying a hirer has beneficial interest. That only passes on spousal transfer, and not between a hirer and hiree.

The ownership of the car in todays Luton case was never in dispute. The CPS witness statements accepted the company owned the car and the V5 and insurance documents confirmed this. The interesting but is yet to come. How is Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car going to defeat the claim, especially as it is going to be handled by a London law firm at £650 an hour senior litigation practitioner. Sending endless essays and correspondence alone will rack up a huge bill to be divvied up at the end of it all.

I expect lawyers at CIVEA will now be looking over today's Luton case to consider the ramifications on selling cars on ebay and having debtors recover them from their new owners after bailiffs taking control of them in unlawful circumstances.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#6 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 16 Mar 2016 18:20

I really struggle with these type of cases-There are so many unanswered questions.

Why didn't the company just launch an interpleader? Why wait for the car to be sold before taking the law into your own hands?

How did the directors locate the vehicle? An Ebay advert rarely gives an address

Had the car actually been sold to a 3rd party? If so, it again begs the question, how was it located?

If a vehicle is taken into the custody of the law, simply "stealing" it back is not an option and is indeed classed as theft.

There is a lot more going on here than we are aware of at this moment.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#7 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 20:50

Mark1960 wrote:I really struggle with these type of cases-There are so many unanswered questions.

Why didn't the company just launch an interpleader? Why wait for the car to be sold before taking the law into your own hands?
This was June 2013. Before Part 85 came into existence. It was a different rule back then.

I only got the client after his barrister tried to persuade him to plead guilty. My client then fired his barrister, then approached me and I got him off using a DWB inhouse solicitor in return for bounty.
Mark1960 wrote:How did the directors locate the vehicle? An Ebay advert rarely gives an address
It was found on ebay, and the advertisement gave a contact number, he then turned up asking to see the car, and using his own keys, collected the car. Police were called and arrested him. There is a question the police failed to ascertain the car was actually stolen, rather than accepting without evidence such as a logbook, service history or investigate became A1 Enviromental Ltd came into possession of it.

Mark1960 wrote: Had the car actually been sold to a 3rd party? If so, it again begs the question, how was it located?
1. Newlyn seized it - unlawfully
2. Parked it at A1 Environmental Ltd, who put it on ebay.
3. A car dealer called "Village Motor Sales" in Herts bought it, and he then put it on ebay.
4. Car found on ebay account of Village Motor Sales, client collected it using the key.

Mark1960 wrote: If a vehicle is taken into the custody of the law, simply "stealing" it back is not an option and is indeed classed as theft.
The car can only be in the custody of the law if it is the debtors car under lawful execution. It was beyond doubt the car was not the debtors car. Therefore, everything that followed was invalid.
Mark1960 wrote:There is a lot more going on here than we are aware of at this moment.
The case is called R vs Kirby and Greengrow at Luton Crown Court. Greengrow was the other director who went to collect the car from Village Motor Sales. Both acquitted.

I have the charge sheet and witness but I can only put it in members.

There is more, but I cannot discuss it in public forum.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#8 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 16 Mar 2016 21:29

This was June 2013. Before Part 85 came into existence. It was a different rule back then.
Yes, I noticed the date. Interpleader would still have been the correct way to go about this though. I wonder whether this will have an impact on the amount of damages awarded?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#9 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 22:18

Unlikely.

He did make an interpleader claim (I think it was an interpleader) but he lost.

I think that was down to not being represented and having his claim professionally prepared.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#10 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 11:06

I Still would keep your feet on the ground regarding costs.

I Believe that a bailiff was lawfully entitled to remove the vehicle, if he had reasonable belief that it belonged to the debtor. As he was the registered keeper and the vehicle details were on the PCN, this is enough.

Newlyn would have given the debtor the opportunity to show that the vehicle was company owned. This would have been fairly straightforward, without the need to go on to selling the vehicle. I have had company vehicles in the past and all financial transactions were written in the company accounts, along with other records, such as company assets and claims for depreciation.

If an interpleader was lost, this is all the more reason to claim theft because a court had determined that the vehicle was in the custody of the law.

This was a criminal procedure, not a claim. Costs are not automatic and a lot is going to depend on what happened after removal and what steps the debtor took to recover the vehicle.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#11 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 11:41

He wasn't the registered keeper. The company was.

The company interpleaded but it lost. I have a feeling it might have been a Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car "sham sale" one.

I was only instructed to use whatever means to get a not guilty verdict.

I delivered. He was given costs after the jury cleared him. Court service paid his statutory travel allowances there and then. 9 round trips to court since 2013.

The criminal case is all finished now. He will instruct later for damages.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#12 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Mar 2016 11:47

Still no comment from Fenella.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#13 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 17 Mar 2016 13:31

She will be researching like crazy and then she'll start a NEW THREAD about how Jason has lied and none of this ever happened. Her post will contain a lot of "worryingling..." and "fanciful..." and "sadly..." and "for clarity..." and maybe the odd "rouge" bailiff chucked in for good measure.

She will of course, not have read this thread yet since she only does so during her weekly "Sunday visit".

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#14 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 14:11

You Forgot that there would probably be a couple of "naturally's" thrown in as well.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#15 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 14:19

The Chimp will probably read the thread and think that Jason has a new girlfriend called Lynn (Newlyn).

He will then Google the "Theft Act" and start quoting it as if it is stored in his memory.

His final comment will obviously be a reference to FMOTL, although in this particular case, he may well refer to the defendants as"free directors of the land"

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#16 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 14:43

Mark1960 wrote:You Forgot that there would probably be a couple of "naturally's" thrown in as well.
PS. there might be some of her trademark PS'es at the end of each post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#17 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 14:46

Mark1960 wrote:The Chimp will probably read the thread and think that Jason has a new girlfriend called Lynn (Newlyn).
Last time it was called Sarah. She Googled for every Sarah on the planet.

The last time I had a girlfriend called Sarah was in 1985. I'll ask if she had any facebook friends requests from CAB advisers.



Mark1960 wrote: His final comment will obviously be a reference to FMOTL, although in this particular case, he may well refer to the defendants as"free directors of the land"
He could be right. A FMOTL is a term given to anyone who brings a successful claim against bailiffs or a bank or similar.

That makes my client a FMOTL.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#18 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Mar 2016 15:18

Don't forget about her references to a 'highly unqualified individual'. Ffs - how does someone become highly unqualified?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#19 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 17 Mar 2016 15:38

"Highly unqualified"? Jesus, that is up there with "on block" and "rouge bailiffs".

They can mock all they like about people picking up their grammatical and spelling errors, but if someone does not know that writing "highly unqualified" does not even make sense, then there is little hope for them and it is little wonder they are continually misunderstood.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#20 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 15:40

I expect she will be onto PF. if the client decides to litigate then it's likely PF will be representing.

If he starts going on about using the Internet for advice, we have a surprise package to bring out. Sheila's CRO file. The Internet source PF used in Larnyoh.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#21 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 17:34

All bailiff companies rely on the old faithful "he got his advice off the internet", not just PF. All bailiffs are trained to think that anyone who challenges them, simply got incorrect advice off the internet. Do you remember that numbskull from Jacobs a few months ago? He had, had it brainwashed into his mind that any advice from the internet is incorrect.

Sheila is forever stating threads about "shocking" advice on the internet. Its the image that bailiff companies want to put out. So what if someone took advice from the internet? Is there a crime against this? What isn't supplied by the internet these days? (keep it clean folks)

Part of any action in court, must be to be prepared to counter these claims that "the claimant took advice from the internet"

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#22 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by outlawipcc » 17 Mar 2016 18:10

Pote Snitkin wrote:Don't forget about her references to a 'highly unqualified individual'. Ffs - how does someone become highly unqualified?
It must work on the Benjamin Button principle (the Curious Case of). You'd have to have been born with a PhD, MA, MBA, BS, MS, etc., etc. and throughout your life gradually stripped or them, leaving you highly unqualified.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#23 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 18:21

:lol:

Great spot Pote-God knows how I missed this the first time around. Its in the first thread I clicked on:
In the two months since writing this thread, the advice being given to unsuspecting debtors by this highly unqualified individual remains unchanged.
I wonder whether telling an unsuspecting debtor that his partner is jointly liable for his debt, places Sheila in the "highly unqualified" bracket? or whether somehow, she is exempt from her own scale of standards? What is certain is that she is not so quick to correct her own shocking advice, as she is to correct other peoples.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#24 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 18:27

Amy wrote:"Highly unqualified"? Jesus, that is up there with "on block" and "rouge bailiffs".

They can mock all they like about people picking up their grammatical and spelling errors, but if someone does not know that writing "highly unqualified" does not even make sense, then there is little hope for them and it is little wonder they are continually misunderstood.
One of the highlights of the net is the stupidity of this pair of washed up old fools. They can mock all they want, just so long as they don't stop posting. Peter reminds me so much of Del boy & Sheila reminds me of Mrs Bucket from "keeping up appearances" A comedy duo made in Heaven that comes along just once in a lifetime. Here is Sheila when she discovered she was wrong about joint liability:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGknK7w_6A

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#25 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 18:49

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd, We're off!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 yeserday), 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).

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#26 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 18:52

She's so passionate about providing accurate information, that she STILL hasn't corrected her own inaccurate information regarding joint liability. Nor has she corrected the schoolboy drivel & interpretation of legislation posted by the chimp regarding the compliance stage.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#27 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 19:01

Accurate information she says?

The first cock up is suggesting I was a McKenzie friend!

Where is wonkeydonkey and her record player?

Sheila wasn't even there. To everyone's surprise. Neither was I. I was kept in the loop with up to the minute information and even prepared the cross examination question sheets during the break. I did it all sitting at my desk.

In this day and age, I can manage all my cases remotely and have solicitors do the work.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#28 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 19:11

Mrs Bucket in all her scummy glory:
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.
There was no theft of the vehicle Sheila-That could be considered slanderous. The case was heard and a jury found the defendant not guilty of the offence.

User avatar
monkeynuts
Site Admin
Posts: 624
Joined: 07 Nov 2012 13:46
Location: Macclesfield

#29 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by monkeynuts » 17 Mar 2016 19:13

Shiela 'Jackanory' Harding.....

I need a good read before bed so she best hurry up and deliver
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare!

User avatar
monkeynuts
Site Admin
Posts: 624
Joined: 07 Nov 2012 13:46
Location: Macclesfield

#30 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by monkeynuts » 17 Mar 2016 19:16

Mark1960 wrote:There was no theft of the vehicle Sheila-That could be considered slanderous. The case was heard and a jury found the defendant not guilty of the offence.
Bang on point there Mark.

And obviously as theres no transcript Sheila it must all be lies lies lies!!!
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare!

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#31 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 19:17

Here we go-The first "naturally" on the thread :lol:
Given the seriousness of this case, I naturally approached Newlyn's solicitor

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#32 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 19:35

A transcript of the jury's deliberating. Now that is a new one.

All I had to do was get them off and I get my reward.

I expect sheila will have choice words about the damages claim for taking a car not belonging to the debtor. PF Will no doubt play his Sham Sale card but I can't see that standing any scrutiny given the evidence used in the crown court.

Newlyn has a detailed assessment to defeat. £48 a day storage. That'll be interesting to see how that gets defeated for the enforcement of a £202 debt.

The question now. Why would PF give information to Sheila? She will post it and I use in a Newlyn case.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#33 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 19:35

monkeynuts wrote:
Mark1960 wrote:There was no theft of the vehicle Sheila-That could be considered slanderous. The case was heard and a jury found the defendant not guilty of the offence.
Bang on point there Mark.

And obviously as theres no transcript Sheila it must all be lies lies lies!!!
I find it quite ironic that she expects everybody to give her the benefit of the doubt in her own circumstances , yet in this case, where it is accepted that the defendant was found NOT GUILTY, she still claims that a theft occurred.

For me, it just shows the wicked and hypocritical mind set of the woman.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#34 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 19:58

Peter makes it to the LACEF conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLD5D8WgIxI

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#35 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 22:43

Mrs Bucket appears to be getting confused here;
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
Actually Hyacinth, Mr Kirby would not have been required to satisfy the enforcement agency that the vehicle was for his use personally. He would only need to do that if he was a sole trader. As a limited company, his partner could have had use of the vehicle 24/7 and Newlyns would still not have been legally permitted to touch it.

Imagine if I obtained employment with Phoenix Consulting and used a company car belonging to you?. Imagine if then, I got a ticket and didn't pay. How would you & Tony feel if your car was taken & sold for my debt? Have you any idea how stupid you make yourself look at times?

No doubt this will be another misleading error that you are not "passionate" about correcting?

Post Reply