Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#1 Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 13:22

In a matter which came via the Dealing with Bailiffs helpline and referred onto solicitors, HHJ Wulwik sitting at Court 52, Central London County Court, Thomas More Building, Strand, London, found that it was right that the debtor made an application to have his hire purchase car returned to him instead of being given to the finance company because the hirer had a right to immediate possession of it.

This resulted in a costs order of almost £5000 against Newlyn Plc.

An expensive mistake not returning the car to the hirer.


carclamped.png



A further hearing in September to decide the damages to be paid to the hirer.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6469
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Apr 2017 15:11

Is this the one from about 3 weeks ago?
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: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#3 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 15:38

It is.

The claimant will be coming here to tell us about it.

The proceedings aren't finished. The court will decide how much Newlyn will pay the hirer in damages for the loss of his vehicle and damage to the paintwork that was not there before it was lifted. Newlyn admitted recording the lifting of the car on video. If the damage is not there, or Newlyn is not forthcoming with the video, Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 does the rest. We have photographs of the clamped car taken just before it was lifted.

The car was removed by Newlyn after clamping it. The bailiff was given a copy of the lease by text message, and Newlyn Plc by email. They chose to ignore it and failed to return the vehicle until ordered by the court a few weeks ago.

Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car defending with barrister Mr Clements, said he is making a complaint about me to the Law Society. He is accusing me of impersonating a solicitor.

His policy of making ad-hominem attacks is not limited to claimants and applicants.

This is no relief for Reiss when his hire purchase BMW was clamped, but it's comforting to know that when Newlyn clamps a hire purchase car, it is an automatic and unannounced injunction application at court.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#4 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Justanotherperson » 27 Apr 2017 15:49

What was the cause of action? Interference with goods and/or conversion or something else?

Good news and definitely common sense by the judge, of course hirers have immediate possession to the car and it's generally worded that way in the contracts. Why would Newlyn want to return it to the finance company, only for them to return it back to the hirer - bit silly that isn't it?

Would be interested to know what arguments was used by the defence, don't suppose the argument of 'beneficial interest' was raised was it? If so, would like to know the judge's comments on that.

Any idea of Newlyn considering appealing this case?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#5 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 16:04

Justanotherperson wrote:
27 Apr 2017 15:49
What was the cause of action? Interference with goods and/or conversion or something else?
It was an application under paragraph 66(5) of Schedule 12 for an order under 66(5)(a) because the enforcement breached Paragraphs 10 of Schedule 12, and legal title cannot pass upon sale under paragraph 51 of Schedule 12.


Good news and definitely common sense by the judge, of course hirers have immediate possession to the car and it's generally worded that way in the contracts. Why would Newlyn want to return it to the finance company, only for them to return it back to the hirer - bit silly that isn't it?
It was a belief the lender would accept payment from the proceeds to finish the loan and convert the car's title to the debtor and therefore pass to the bailiff retrospectively.

That was attempted with an earlier HP case, but it failed because the bailiff knew the car was not the debtors when they took control of it. Paragraph 51(3) of Schedule 12.




Would be interested to know what arguments was used by the defence, don't suppose the argument of 'beneficial interest' was raised was it? If so, would like to know the judge's comments on that.
There is no beneficial interest with the debtor because it remained with the lender until the final payment is made. Beneficial interest means the hirer owns a share in the goods akin to having a mortgage on a property - where the mortgagee only holds a legal charge with the equity (the beneficial interest) owned by the mortagor.

I tested the beneficial interest theory with several solicitors before referring them. All were unanimous in their opinion the hirer does not attract beneficial interest until the final payment is made.

Any idea of Newlyn considering appealing this case?
It is unlikely. The cost will be exorbitant and the debate on beneficial interest in hire purchase has been beaten to death.

The focus of attack is at me personally for bringing bailiff related claims to solicitors. The solicitor for Newlyn made repeated attacks against me at court. He colluded with another person to publish case information sub judicially to a third party who then posted it on the internet and on her website, and makes attacks directed at me to unrepresented claimants at court. He told a third party I am having an affair with another woman and that became circulated by email to others.

For the sake of £60 parking ticket, £5000 is a lot of money to swallow. That does not include damages owing to the hirer, or the cost of Newlyn's own solicitor and barrister defending them.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#6 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Justanotherperson » 27 Apr 2017 16:26

Ah I see, so no claim on the small claims track then.

You don't have to explain to me about beneficial interest and hire purchase I already what it is and how it works and that any argument on it is groundless - so I'm on your side there. I was just curious if that argument was mentioned at all by the defence, particularly if the application related to taking control of 'goods of the debtor'.
It was a belief the lender would accept payment from the proceeds to finish the loan and convert the car's title to the debtor and therefore pass to the bailiff retrospectively.
But surely that wouldn't fly anyway since it would be a deliberate inducement to breach and/or causing loss by unlawful means.

If an application is made under that legislation do the normal costs rules apply? If so was there any reason why it was made under that rather than for example a small claims proceedings instead and ordering the return and damages thereof?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#7 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 17:16

Justanotherperson wrote:
27 Apr 2017 16:26


If an application is made under that legislation do the normal costs rules apply?
Yes.


If so was there any reason why it was made under that rather than for example a small claims

Small claims is about claiming a sum under £10,000.

He won't know his claim value until Mercedes returns his car following repairs. That is listed for a hearing in September once its gathered.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6469
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#8 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Apr 2017 17:25

jasonDWB wrote:
27 Apr 2017 15:38
Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car defending with barrister Mr Clements, said he is making a complaint about me to the Law Society. He is accusing me of impersonating a solicitor.
And we all know who is bandying that lie about all the time, silly woman. Just continues to show the unhealthy relationship between the two - a woman who claims to be on the side of the debtor colluding with an aggressive bailiff defender.

Just so we're clear, this isn't the case mentioned 3 weeks ago - same EA company, same judge, different case..... same result though. These cases must be costing Newlyn's close to 6 figures by now. Any more coming up? :twisted:
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: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#9 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 17:27

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Apr 2017 15:11
Is this the one from about 3 weeks ago?
Sorry, making a correction.

This is not the case from three weeks ago.

It's a different case, but it's the same bailiff company with the same solicitor and barrister but the client and the car is a different one.

There are more Newlyn/HP/clamping cases in due course, but I am not at liberty to discuss them.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 17:32

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Apr 2017 17:25
Any more coming up? :twisted:
There are others in the pipe. I am changing the helpline procedures for dealing with hire purchase clamping.

Previously, I would try and remedy the matter with the bailiff and Newlyn by telephone and give evidence of hire purchase.

From today, the procedure is changed. I give the client to solicitors to redress the action at court bringing an injunction without telling the bailiff. The bailiff only learns when the order is made and a hearing is listed to decide the costs.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#11 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 18:46

Somebody is smelling rather eggy.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Justanotherperson
Posts: 51
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 18:30

#12 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Justanotherperson » 27 Apr 2017 21:21

What a load of tosh, the area of law on HP is not complicated at all but very simple

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13096
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#13 Re: Newlyn Plc loses HP clamping case. Costs awarded to hirer almost £5000.

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2017 22:09

Hopefully, we have finally brought about change on the bailiff companies and their gung-ho attitude to drive-by clamping.

The milk has been soured.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply