Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 13:08

The defence was:

SKELETON ARGUMENT


The Defendant is accused of theft of a Motor vehicle under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Mr. Kirby and Ms. Greengrow (the Defendants) are not guilty of either offence;

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states;

B
  • asic definition of theft.

    (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

    (2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

    (3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section)


There is no case to answer because the property they are accused of dishonestly appropriating, is the property of GAS ADVANCE SERVICES LTD under a memorandum of articles, for which Mr. Kirby is a director and not that of VILLAGE CAR SALES.


Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2007 states;

  • Fraud by false representation

    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

    (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

    (b)intends, by making the representation—

    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

    (2)A representation is false if—

    (a)it is untrue or misleading, and

    (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

    (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

    (a)the person making the representation, or

    (b)any other person.

    (4)A representation may be express or implied.

    (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).


The defendant has no case to answer. The car is the property of GAS ADVANCED SERVICES LTD and not VILLAGE CAR SALES.

-------

This means, that in any event, regardless who the court believes, owns the vehicle, the enforcement agent could not have lawfully taken control of it, invalidating everything that follows.

You knew the car had not been sold, because it had a price sticker in the windscreen.

You must persuade the jury that you acted under the genuine belief the car was that of your company, and you had the right to take it.

Your V5 is not evidence of ownership.

You memorandum pre-dates the date Newlyn took it, it is admissible in proving it is the companys' goods.

If the jury finds you guilty, you can appeal but only on legal technicality (the CPS will have to prove you acted with criminal intent) and the dated company memorandum. I can provide you a solicitor for representation at an appeal.

-------
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 13:12

Sheila wrote:The bottom line is that they were both cleared. I have to question why the McKenzie considered that it was either right or proper to even publicise this case in the first place. The very first rule of a McKenzie friend is confidentiality and providing the defendants name, court and even court number on a social media site is simply beyond belief.
Who was the McKenzie friend?

The only one posting the defendants full names is you:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost4876888

Post #'3 and onwards.

Where is this social media site she talks about?
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Mar 2016 13:56

I'm sorry, but what is he wittering about? Does he not read what he writes?
chimp wrote: I am afraid you dont, until ownership is settled the trial cannot begin. Ownership disputes must be settled first in a civil court.
Do we have to tell him that this trial began without ownership being established? Is he actually saying the trial could not have taken place? My gast is well and truly flabbered.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 13:59

I can't believe this is the same peter.bard that commanded so much respect from early CAG.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Mar 2016 14:00

Fenella wrote:As always, and to ensure accuracy, I have never ever seen these documents before and cannot view them now as they are only available for members to read. Their contents will therefore have to remain a secret.
Dear God woman, stop lying. You were openly referencing the statements yesterday - how on earth could you have known about the dog and child without seeing these documents? That was never, never in the public domain. You are an insult to universal intelligence.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 19 Mar 2016 14:20

jasonDWB wrote:I can't believe this is the same peter.bard that commanded so much respect from early CAG.
I've been saying for a long time that he is a bluffer. He commanded respect because CAG is not all its cracked up to be. The majority are sheep who nod their heads in agreement to anything that sounds believable. It is only the last 12 or 18 months or so that people are beginning to wake up to what has been going on. People are not simply taking what Sheila & Peter say as Gospel and are now questioning them. The days are long gone when these two washed up old dinosaurs can simply bully their fellow posters into agreeing with them.

Peter has had a humiliating 12 months and his reputation is now in tatters. Look back to when he first thought he could bluff us, as "Andy 58" on LB. This time last year he came on claiming silly things like "legislation is easy to understand"-He wasn't even aware 12 months ago that legislation was open to interpretation. Even down to this week, he has completely failed to read and understand Schedule 12 when discussing the compliance stage. True to form, he has chosen to just ignore his utter nonsense on the subject and pretend that it was never mentioned.

The game is well & truly up for both of them. It is because of their stupidity, that they don't realise that the time to bow out is now, whilst they still have some semblance of respectability. Like all has beens, there is only one way this is going to end.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 19 Mar 2016 14:26

Pote Snitkin wrote:
Fenella wrote:As always, and to ensure accuracy, I have never ever seen these documents before and cannot view them now as they are only available for members to read. Their contents will therefore have to remain a secret.
Dear God woman, stop lying. You were openly referencing the statements yesterday - how on earth could you have known about the dog and child without seeing these documents? That was never, never in the public domain. You are an insult to universal intelligence.
I don't think that theres one single element of that statement that she's failed to repeat on the internet. It is not just a 3rd party mentioning a few aspects of the case to her-She has covered every intricate detail of the entire statement. When questioned on here about certain things, she came back with everything she missed off the first time around.

Whoever keeps supplying her with this stuff needs to be fully aware that Sheila is a gossiping mother hen. She cannot keep her big mouth shut, if there is a tiny snippet of info that she can drop, to make herself look like she's in the loop. The woman simply never knows when to stop.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 15:02

I have no idea why Peter Felton would need to discuss details about his own clients with the likes of Saturn Five.

I do wonder if Peter knows Sheila is bragging his emails around the internet.



From: Peter Felton
Sent: 23 June 2015 16:20
To: Phoenix Consulting
Subject: Dealing with bailiffs

Dear Sheila,

I am extremely concerned at the level of disinformation which is being published on Jason Bennison's website.

As you are aware, enforcement companies are generally now subject to very considerable control exercised by the local authority clients. It is nonsense to suggest that a bailiff company would take any steps whatsoever to jeopardise the commercial relationship with their local authority clients. I can assure you that any bailiff who "stepped out of line" has far more to fear from his employer than he does from the courts.

By way of clarification, I am not the subject of an SRA investigation to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have not been interviewed by the police or otherwise spoken to by the police for any form of assault against a debtor when I have lost the case. To the best of my recollection we have lost one case which was extremely case specific and in fact it was the local authority which lost.

With regards to the case yesterday, and in order to make very clear what the situation is. You will of course be aware that my clients do not crave litigation, if they are wrong the claim is settled at a very early stage.
  • · The Claimant confirmed that he had been using the car for the past two years as his very good friend had agreed to allow him to use it as his van had been stolen;

    · a member of the Claimant's company made representations to the local authority and when those representations failed took the matter to PATAS who also rejected the representations;

    · the Claimant has never provided a policy of insurance valid at the time that the vehicle was taken into control (28 January 2015) instead relying on a policy of insurance which ended on 31 December 2014 in the name of the registered keeper from whom he claims to have purchased the vehicle. He is a named driver on that policy;

    · the Claimant claims to have acquired the vehicle by three payments commencing September and concluding five days after the alleged date that he purchased. There is no documentation whatsoever to reflect the deferred consideration other than a simple contract printed from the Internet as a vehicle sale document;

    · the Claimant made an application through Newlyn's third party claims system and receive the standard response email setting out the five classes documents that would be required. His claim was rejected 7 February 2015.

    · On 25 March, Jason contacted Newlyn's call centre held himself out as being a lawyer, the proceedings were commenced by an application for an injunction the following day.

    · I was instructed to act on behalf of all defendants namely Newlyn, the local authority and the enforcement agent.

    · The Claimant was offered every opportunity to discontinue and to provide evidence.

    · The claim was only for £2060 being Jason's fees. That claim was rejected firstly because the judge took the view that you could not claim costs as part of your claim as they are always in the discretion of the court but went on to confirm that even if he was wrong, the claim must fail as McKenzie friends fees cannot be recovered against a claimant's opponent.

    · An initial hearing took place on 9 June, the district judge on that occasion considered that it was properly a CPR 85 claim. She considered that the hearing would take longer than the our allotted and therefore adjourned the hearing to a later date with a time estimate of three hours. That was yesterday. As the claimant's barrister indicated that the claimant was a man of straw it would be disproportionate to order him to make any payment court pursuant to CPR 85.

    · At the hearing which took place on 9 June the claimant produced a further witness statement which included a number of additional documents which he had never produced before including very heavily redacted bank statements. He was told in clear and unambiguous terms that the judge was not prepared to accept redacted documents and that he should file and serve an redacted copies. His response was only to take further documents to court yesterday morning.

    · At yesterday's hearing the claimant was not represented by counsel. Jason attended but was not allowed to present the case. Jason sat in the second row, and was taking notes. During my cross examination of the claimant Jason was attempting to pass him notes which the judge noticed (as did I) Jason was told that if he did not desist he would be removed from the court.

    · The judge made a number of very damning comments concerning the claimant's evidence. He described him as being evasive in his responses to cross-examination and found that even when presented with documentary evidence he sought to maintain a position which was clearly incorrect.

I have now received an email from the claimant informing me that he would be appealing. He claims to have received specialist advice from a barrister who has told him that his appeal stands a high prospect of success. With the greatest of respect to him, if a judge effectively finds that you have lied having had the benefit of direct oral testimony that your prospects of appeal are minimal.

With kind regards.

Peter FELTON GERBER

Solicitor

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3112.0
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Mar 2016 15:29

Cannot be denied.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 16:04

dodge wrote:Arguments over Ownership of Property

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.
There was no need to any court to establish ownership.
  • 1. The law already established who owned the car.

    2. There was never any dispute as to who owned the car.
The prosecutions case was to prove the defendant had acted with dishonest intent when he collected the car.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4124
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 19 Mar 2016 16:20

Poor old UB, his head must be very sore from all that wall banging trying to get through to the CAG resident thicko.

unclebulgaria67
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 14:03

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

Post by unclebulgaria67 » 19 Mar 2016 16:40

Amy

It does not help, if people are rude. It is human nature to get stuck in an argument rut, if your opponent is being rude.

I get fed up of the game playing. At the end of the day, we are discussing the lifes of ordinary people and we must not forget that. If i were the subject matter, i don't think i would want to read all the unnecessary stuff. Not pointing the finger at anyone on any forum, but it would help if the heat was turned down and people stuck to facts.

At some point Jason and Sheila will declare peace. More chance of Jeremy Corbyn winning the next election by a landslide and declaring a socialist republic !

UB

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Mar 2016 16:51

UncleB - have you seen the latest comment from Dodge to you?
JUst thought i would copy this again for you read the first paragraph, you are not likely to understand the difference between civil and criminal law so we will have to agree to differ.
Lovely, isn't he. As usual, resorting to snide put-downs.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 16:52

Sheila won and gained the territory known as the CAG forum. The result was losing Marc Ganders position as a medIa commentator on consumer matters. That's not to mention Sheila having a part in his PR disaster with Marston.

She won over the LegalBeagles forum, and it's Web host switched the lights out.

Now we are here. She is now using Peter Felton's emails to discredit me.

I am.privy to knowledge that is about to backfire.

Who would you go with?
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 19 Mar 2016 17:07

Unlike the chimp, I do not claim to be an authority on every aspect of law. I also have no idea what was argued in this particular case. This comment from the chimp does bother me though:
edit meant to say that the prosecution here is not about ownership in any case it is about theft
Now call me old fashioned but even I worked out that charges brought under the Theft Act were about Theft. What is really puzzling me, is if there was no doubt or dispute over ownership, then there would have been no case for the defence. If the garage lawfully owned the Volvo, then the defendant would be guilty as charged. there is no scenario B in this case. It HAS to revolve around ownership.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 19 Mar 2016 17:11

jasonDWB wrote:Sheila won and gained the territory known as the CAG forum. The result was losing Marc Ganders position as a medIa commentator on consumer matters. That's not to mention Sheila having a part in his PR disaster with Marston.

She won over the LegalBeagles forum, and it's Web host switched the lights out.

Now we are here. She is now using Peter Felton's emails to discredit me.

I am.privy to knowledge that is about to backfire.

Who would you go with?
I don't think its about "going with" anyone. Most of the posters on CAG post for the right reasons, ie to help others. It is only the 2 ego manic dinosaurs who have selfish reasons for posting. Even WD posts for the correct reasons, despite letting herself down from time to time by getting involved with stuff that doesn't really concern her.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Mar 2016 17:25

Then UB is flogging a dead horse.

Nothing will persuade Sheila and Dodge to work on the side of the debtor.

I expect Sheila will continue to bring down those stupid enough to trust her. Gander, LB, etc.

Since she blabbed about Kari Anderson. It has not escaped me Chris Royle has not represented Marston again.

Sheila only takes risks at other people's expense. It was stupid of her to expose Peter Felton passing client information and posting it on the CAG board, which could well be contrary to maintaining client confidentiality.

That could explain her extraordinary labyrinth of disguises to hide her home address.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 19 Mar 2016 17:42

jasonDWB wrote:Then UB is flogging a dead horse.

Nothing will persuade Sheila and Dodge to work on the side of the debtor.
I don't think that he is trying to do that. His opinion (on this occasion) is not too dissimilar to the opinion held by most on here.

UB's post (last post of page #5) sums it up for me. There is no doubt in my mind that the debtor was trying it on whilst hiding behind a limited company. This is a legitimate loophole and if people are that bothered about it then they should lobby Parliament.

It must not be forgotten that bailiff companies all exploit loopholes to their benefit as well. Head H being the highest profile but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

My attitude is "some you win, some you loose" and the two dinosaurs should just let this one go. The defendant has been found not guilty in a court of law, by a jury. It is not foe Mrs Harding to conduct a second trial on CAG, calling them devious and guilty amongst other things. There are few more devious than Mrs Harding-She really needs to have a look at herself in the mirror.

User avatar
monkeynuts
Site Admin
Posts: 877
Joined: 07 Nov 2012 13:46
Location: Macclesfield

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

Post by monkeynuts » 19 Mar 2016 18:02

The best thing that can come out of this is the two INNOCENT guys Sheila named, to take her into court for slander - it may shut the old bat up.
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare!

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4124
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 19 Mar 2016 18:28

unclebulgaria67 wrote:I get fed up of the game playing.
Don't play it then.
unclebulgaria67 wrote:If i were the subject matter, i don't think i would want to read all the unnecessary stuff.
Well, you're not so don't worry about it.
unclebulgaria67 wrote:Not pointing the finger at anyone on any forum, but it would help if the heat was turned down and people stuck to facts.
Those splinters in your bum must be quite painful from all that fence sitting. We did not ask Sheila to run back to CAG faster than a branded horse after reading here about this case. Why don't you tell this to those two instead of coming here and trying to tell us how we should behave. That would be the CORRECT course of action.
unclebulgaria67 wrote:At some point Jason and Sheila will declare peace. More chance of Jeremy Corbyn winning the next election by a landslide and declaring a socialist republic !
Did that make sense in your head? Because it does not translate to type and I have no idea what that paragraph is supposed to mean.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 20 Mar 2016 00:17

Mark1960 wrote:
jasonDWB wrote:Sheila won and gained the territory known as the CAG forum. The result was losing Marc Ganders position as a medIa commentator on consumer matters. That's not to mention Sheila having a part in his PR disaster with Marston.

She won over the LegalBeagles forum, and it's Web host switched the lights out.

Now we are here. She is now using Peter Felton's emails to discredit me.

I am.privy to knowledge that is about to backfire.

Who would you go with?
I don't think its about "going with" anyone. Most of the posters on CAG post for the right reasons, ie to help others. It is only the 2 ego manic dinosaurs who have selfish reasons for posting. Even WD posts for the correct reasons, despite letting herself down from time to time by getting involved with stuff that doesn't really concern her.
Not forgetting she lets herself down from time to time by making the most basic errors possible.

From now on, I think that I'll be calling her Wonkey Oddy

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 20 Mar 2016 00:59

Right on cue, WO lands:
Gosh they must all be so proud of their Guru assisting such a low life. while showing no consideration to the real victim in all this........and he has the nerve to call bailiffs 's c u m'
Why is he a low life? Is it because he is black? I know what you Caggers think about black people-I've seen Peters vile racist outbursts before.

Is he a low life because he didn't want to pay a parking ticket? What about the "notomob"? Your mistress has her head up their arses but they encourage non payment of parking tickets.

I wouldn't class the garage owner a victim. he knew the score-He was picking up cheap motors that had been illegally taken from debtors-Even you mistress says roadside operations were illegal.

Are you a low life because you didn't pay your creditors?

The jury found these people not guilty-What gives you the right to call them low life?

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 20 Mar 2016 01:26

Oh dear

Wonkey Oddy appears to have deleted her post in record time. I guess we'll never know the answers to the questions after all. :lol:

I think I'm getting the hang of this "pin the tail" lark-It's fun isn't it? :twisted:

Hopefully, when WO recovers from the shock of being ousted, she will return and explain her reprehensible comments.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 20 Mar 2016 16:21

Someone in members called her Susan Oddy. A newsagent in Scots Gap with Clive.

I didn't know she was fascist. I know she spent the last 4 years of her life trolling me around the internet making libelous statements directed at me personally. That stopped when I found her living in kirkwhelpington.

Of course. I don't believe a word of it. When I tried to pin the tail, I got Clive It's too much coincidence he shares the surname with Susan.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 20 Mar 2016 17:15

Just trying to get my head round the relationship between A1 Enviromental and Newlyn.

Am I right in thinking that the company not only profit out of renting out storage space for these vehicles but also sell them? This surely has to be a massive conflict of interest if true. Whilst "storing" them, they can carry out a really good examination of them. This gives the company an advantage over other bidders who are presumably bidding blind?

In addition, the cosy relationship will enable storage time to drag out to the maximum time possible. This is where the real profit lies for both Newlyn and A1 because these costs will technically be incurred by the auctioneer, making them priority, ahead of the debt.

None of this sits comfortable with me.

It is noteworthy that the garage owner was happy to just write the car off, rather than risk damaging his insurance policy. He had of course made a substantial amount out of the storing of the vehicle.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 20 Mar 2016 18:55

I am privy to knowledge that Newlyns cosy relationship with A1 Environmental Ltd is about to come under intense scrutiny in a detailed assessment hearing in the High Court in London next month.

A1 Environmental Ltd has to explain how it's costs are made up because the court believes they are too high compared to genuine bona-fide auctions, and it is exclusively used be Newlyn as it's sole customer and Newlyn sole contractor.

Newlyn is under a belief the expenses of A1 Environmental Ltd escape a detailed assessment.

Judge Avent says there is no relationship between A1 Environmental Ltd and the debtor, so Newlyn must bear their costs proportionately to the sum on the warrant £202 and the purchase price paid by the buyer.

Looking at the judges directions, for the 3 day trial, the court is not happy with the commercial relationship between A1 Environmental Ltd and Newlyn PLC and their directors are also being examined by way of a standard disclosure.

Feltons Law is defending . It will be known as the "Johnson" case. At an earlier hearing, Peter applied for his costs of nearly £30k but the application was dismissed.

My client will ask for his costs as he is represented. I'm. Not sure if the NOA has been placed with the court yet.

An already noteworthy point is Felton Law's tirade of critisism of me personally. He went into several pages of a 27 page essay. I will be asking permission to publish it at the end of the proceedings.

This is the same Judge Avent in Culligan vs Marston. Marston lost because the court found that it charged Culligan £100 for using a wheel clamp on his car, and Marston was unable to explain how it paid disbursements of £100 to use a wheel clamp. The clamp and the lock were already owned by Marston and is unrecoverable because the equipment is re usable. Clamp fee = £0.

There may be an amendment to fees regulations setting a cap on disbursements paid to 3rd parties in connection with transporting and selling goods.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 20 Mar 2016 19:16

Either way, it is very hard to feel sympathy for Mr Pelosi. He is in a win, win situation. By his own admission, he is a one man enterprise. To receive all these motors from Newlyns must be a pretty large chunk of such a small business. I wonder if Mr Pelosi has any connection with any of the directors of Newly?

In this case alone, Mr Pelosi paid around £2500 for the vehicle, of which, he clawed about a £1000 back in expenses. Effectively, he got the motor for £1500 and then had it for sale at £4000.

Mr Pelosi is making an absolute killing out of peoples misfortune and misery. Often back then, the vehicles were seized unlawfully yet Sheila and her 2 lackeys want to paint this picture of poor Mr Pelosi the victim. The man must be printing money-I doubt he lost as much sleep over loosing the Volvo as Sheila appears to have.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 20 Mar 2016 19:31

I fully agree with you.

The relationship needs investigating.

I need to await the courts judgment in Johnson v LB Newham. It might offer a remedy to making a profit from the sale of executed goods.

Mr Pelosi says Village Car Sales will be seeking legal advice following Wednesdays verdict.

Mr Pelosi denies any relationship with Newlyn but admits regularly buying cars from A1 Environmental Ltd without documents, and putting them on his forecourt.

Mr Pelosi says A1 Environmental Ltd did not tell him legal proceedings in connection with the car were still in progress, and that he bought it from them through Ebay.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Mar 2016 10:24

The Johnson case will be investigating the charges made by A1 Enviromental Ltd.

Its accounts show the company is worthless: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06680397

Newlyn has a list of directors from a variety of backgrounds: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03770985

It would appear from A1 Environmental Ltd's documents that Newlyn is its only customer.

The High Court will be looking into whether its fees deducted from the sale of cars are proportionate to the debts recovered.

The court will decide on the balance of probability, whether the relationship is an abuse of process to pervert the operation of Paragraph 50 of Schedule 12 and regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Biggiesmalls
Posts: 4
Joined: 03 Jun 2016 09:46

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

Post by Biggiesmalls » 03 Jun 2016 13:45

Hi, is there any update on the Johnson case?

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

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

Post by Tuco » 03 Jun 2016 13:52

Who is this weapon Louis Sanders?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 03 Jun 2016 14:05

Director owner A1 Environnental Ltd.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

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

Post by Tuco » 03 Jun 2016 14:16

I guessed as much- So who is this Pelosi character then?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Jun 2016 14:25

The guy who bought it from A1 to sell on his own forecourt.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14798
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 03 Jun 2016 15:53

Last time I spoke to him, he said he was seeking advice from a solicitor about getting his money back from A1 Environmental for selling him a stolen car on ebay.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest