Newlyns threatening bailiff action at my lease company

ari_545

Was at Leeds hospital last year and managed to amass approximately 60 PCN's. Had been advised by staff to ignore these as they tend not to pursue. However as the car is on lease, the lease company would forward letters regarding the outstanding 'invoices', believe these are NTK letters which unfortunately have mostly been binned.

Till now the invoices have been ignored, till recently after receiving an alarming phonecall from the finance company, who were quite worried about these fines. They claims that Newlyns (a*holes according to the forums) have issued bailiffs to start taking their office equipment, as they are the registered owners of the car. Now they are getting quite worked up and worried saying that they will pay, and charge the OP accordingly despite given strict instructions not to do so.

A lawyer friend spoke to her, as no court letters or anything were received to say it was being escalated to bailiffs. The finance company said that its a training issue and they can look into why the correspondence wasn't forwarded. Now a string of letters all dated from the exact same date from Newlyn asking for £60 a pop, original letters were from UKCPS. But no court orders issuing bailiffs, or any mention of these 'fines' being escalated to court.

Now the question is where to go from here? From my knowledge of these forums, these firms are illegitimate and have no legal standing. But as quite a few parking tickets have been received, I think their pursuing to get a big payday. It's probably worth mentioning that the car was parked in a staff car park, without a parking permit. I believe it's too late for a POPLA (these parking conventions happened almost 6 months ago) but how to avoid paying these thugs in jackets? The hospital used UKCPS to manage its car parks, on the correspondence it states to contact Newlyn not the trust.

Sorry went on a bit hope someone can help, paying 6k out according to a lawyer friend isn't exactly a viable solution, nor is discussing a settlement agreement with theses thugs.

esmerobbo

Newlyn use this scare tactic in these although they are a bailiff company and do bailiff work, in this matter they are probably acting as debt collectors. They word their letters in a way that you believe they are acting as bailiffs.
However UKCPS are an underhand company and they may well have issued a claim against the lease company, they should have simply informed UKCPS of your details, rather then just forward the letters to you.
You need to find out if newlyn are simply acting as debt collectors or if they have a warrant for enforcement against the lease company.

My guess would be Newlyn are doing the usual and threatening action they cant, but I would also guess with 60 plus invoices this is not going to go away.

You could try asking the lease company to write to UKCPS informing them that these invoices are your responsibility, but the lease company have gone about this the wrong way and left themselves open to involvement, and UKCPS will take advantage of that.

HO87

Bear in mind that whilst the lease company have appear to have failed to name the OP it wouldn't be the first time that a PPC has failed to pick up on that and continue to pursue the company. Besides all of that, in order to be able to make use of the provisions for keeper liability UKCPS will have had to have complied with POFA in respect of every single PCN. How would we collectively rate the chances of that?

@OP you say that you now have a string of letters all dated on the same day claiming £60. Where did these come from? Are you able to find out exactly what the lease company have received - I appreciate that this is not a small task?

Herbie21

You will see in the private parking section that some members have spent a considerable amount of time trying to get the public to be aware of the way in which the law changed in October 2012 under PoFA.

Sadly, ignoring these "tickets" ( for want of a better words) could well lead to the PRIVATE PARKING COMPANY ( and NOT Newlyn) taking legal action by way of a small claims writ.

As to whether you are too late for POPLA, it is best to post your query in the private parking section as they are the experts.

Where I am an expert is in being able to advise you that unless Judgement has been secured, Newlyn cannot "seize" goods and if this is being done then this is VERY SERIOUS indeed and an immediate formal complaint needs to the sent to the Head of Data Sharing at DVLA and others as well.

Let me make the point VERY CLEAR, the parking company may sue you to recovery their charge. If you ignore the summons then Judgment will be entered by default. If this were to happen then the private parking company will need to apply for a warrant and this will then be passed to a COUNTY COURT bailiff to enforce. There is an option to have the judgment passed to a High Court Enforcement Officer but this is very rare indeed.

My worry however is that you say that you have 60 parking notices.

Has you received any summonses?

Has judgment been entered against you?

HO87

And Herbie makes a a good point that I missed earlier. Even if UKCPS/Newlyn had obtained judgment then that would be being enforced by the County Court Bailiff NOT by Newlyn who are only certificated bailiffs and can, in the context of parking tickets, only pursue those issued by a Council. From that point of view we can be certain that judgment is unlikely to have been entered.

With this in mind (that court action has yet to be taken) - and it will be a substantial task - there is nothing to stop the OP instructing the lease company to name him as the driver. UKCPS would then be obliged to issue a Notice to Driver in relation to each and every single PCN (POFA requires that a NtK/NtD can only relate to a single parking event) then appealing each and every one (using an identically worded appeal - GPEOL etc), getting a POPLA code for each and then appealing each one to POPLA. That might cause UKCPS and perhaps POPLA to go into melt down but it is nevertheless the clearest course of action here to prevent the OP picking up what is likely to be a substantial bill - even he tries to negotiate it.

@ari_545 you have a PM.

cally_222

If the lease company haven't told the PPC who the driver was
and if it hasn't made it to a court hearing yet

Then the lease company names the driver to the PPC discharging their responsibility, the clock restarts and the op makes 60 identical gpeol POPLA appeals (costing the PPC £27 a time)??

Now that would be some sort of a record.

HO87

cally_222 wrote: »

If the lease company haven't told the PPC who the driver was
and if it hasn't made it to a court hearing yet

Then the lease company names the driver to the PPC discharging their responsibility, the clock restarts and the op makes 60 identical gpeol POPLA appeals (costing the PPC £27 a time)??

Now that would be some sort of a record.

I agree, a lot of if's there but let's see what comes from the OP

Coupon-mad

cally_222 wrote: »

If the lease company haven't told the PPC who the driver was
and if it hasn't made it to a court hearing yet

Then the lease company names the driver to the PPC discharging their responsibility, the clock restarts and the op makes 60 identical gpeol POPLA appeals (costing the PPC £27 a time)??

Now that would be some sort of a record.

Yes but the clock is 'rewound' ONLY if they were postal PCNs - because otherwise the driver has seen a windscreen PCN each time and has already blown their chance at appeal early on. This could be OK for the driver as UKCPS often use self-ticketing where the first anyone (in this case ONLY the lease co.) knows of it is a postal PCN I think.

We need to know if 'the driver' ever saw any windscreen tickets - perhaps ari_545 could send me a pm to tell me privately (best kept off forum).

But the lease firm has surely got to name the driver anyway as they can't be dragged to court over this...and it sounds like the PPC are shaping up for it so the driver had better be named without any more procrastination by the clueless Lease co.

hoohoo

Hold tight before naming the driver.

Is this a hire purchase?

(ii)is not a hire-purchase agreement within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

If so, then the 'hire' section of POFA 2012 does not apply.

The lease company are the registered keeper, but not the keeper according to POFA 2012. Therefore no valid notice to keeper has been supplied, and POFA 2012 does not apply.

If the lease company be persuaded to reply to the operator stating that they were not the keeper for the purposes of POFA 2012, and the operator should therefore only contact the driver from now on, which they are under no obligation to name, then this would be good.

The lease company can also state that if they are contacted again they will report them to the BPA and the DVLA.

edit
If they *are* a hire company, [STRIKE]they discharge their liability by naming the *hirer*, who is not the same as the driver. This then restarts the clock, because the hirer cannot be assumed to have seen any windscreen notices, only the driver can[/STRIKE]

...things get more complicated. I have just re-read POFA 2012, para 13.

I think 13(b) applies; the 'keeper' (who is not the hire company) has not been given a notice to keeper, and so the hire company are not liable, and neither is hte 'keeper'

ari_545

Hi coupan-mad i tried messaging you but your inbox is full and it wont let me send the message

ari_545

esmerobbo wrote: »

You need to find out if newlyn are simply acting as debt collectors or if they have a warrant for enforcement against the lease company.

When asked for all correspondence to be sforwarded they were no court summons, or any mention of things being escalated. Just tickets from Newlyn stating they are now acting on behalf of the trust. That they have received the tickets etc.

Yes the car is on a hire purchase plan, does that mean that they've not followed the correct procedure? It is difficult for me as I am going off what is told to me via a telephone call from a panicky finance manager. What papers does Newlyn need to have by law, in order for them to remove office material, to recover costs? Like I stated no court summons from the correspondence that was forwarded.