Newlyns threatening bailiff action at my lease company

HO87

hi ari

We're obviously about at the same time of day.

Newlyn cannot, I repeat, cannot remove property from the finance company unless the tickets - or some of the them - were originally issued by a council and a warrant has been issued through the TEC Northampton. Based on what you have said so far there is no reason to think that any of these PCN's came from a council.

As I explained in my post #5 above Newlyn are certificated bailiffs and cannot pursue a county court debt. The only bailiff that could act in respect of such a debt is a county court bailiff. Newlyn's are not county court bailiffs and never will be. They are a private debt collection/enforcement company and are not direct employees of the county court.

Have they made any mention of being High Court Enforcement Officers enforcing a High Court warrant? I suggest that you speak to the HP company and find out exactly where things stand - with some detail so we can guide you. At the moment this is a little like playing battleships - no offence meant - I appreciate you're unsure as to what is happening too.

The potential amount of money sloshing around in this case may mean that Newlyn have sneaked one it, as they say. That said whether they have bought the debt or not the fact remains that the original debt had to be enforceable and that will mean that ultimately UKCPS would have to prove its case and the procedure it followed before this can go anywhere. It sounds as though the company have not exactly helped themselves here.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I doubt very much they are acting in any capacity other then as debt collectors so you need to stop thinking of anything being taken

Stroma

I'm looking at this and thinking that at the moment the OP is not liable to this at all as he hasn't been named by the lease company. So until he has received the notice to driver after the RK has named them, they cannot do anything.

Or am I missing something here?

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

I'm looking at this and thinking that at the moment the OP is not liable to this at all as he hasn't been named by the lease company. So until he has received the notice to driver after the RK has named them, they cannot do anything.

Or am I missing something here?

Not missing anything but if I were the OP I would not want the lease co. connected to my employer, suddenly getting court papers because of my actions. Dodgy ground, even if it's a previous employer...word gets round about such things.

So I say the OP must get the Lease co to name the driver straight away in writing, with his postal address too (there are templates in other threads about rewinding the clock, easily found by searching the forum for the word 'rewind').

He/she should email the Lease co this weekend and say he will take 'responsibility for appealing' these 'tickets' if they follow the procedure the BVRLA recommends (which they seem to have missed) which is to send the name and address of the driver to remove any liability that could potentially be aimed at them. If they do not then he/she should reiterate that under POFA2012 I am not liable as I have never seen these tickets and you have failed to name me as driver.

Nevertheless, he or she would be on a sticky wicket if the Lease co. do get court papers, as this is his employment situation, something will hit the fan even though he's not liable until named.

The OP's position is best if there were no windscreen PCNs at all, as (providing he pushes the lease co to swiftly send a letter discharging their potential liability under POFA 2012) he/she can then sit back and wait for the NTD letters and make sure he gets our help to appeal EVERY ONE and then win them all at POPLA.

Sorry my pm box ids full at the moment as I have been getting too many pm's just lazily shouting for help, from people whose case is covered by the sticky threads. Maybe the OP could tell HO87 or kirkbyinfurnesslad whether there were any windscreen PCNs at all, as I am not now in a position to clear my inbox this week...believe me there's a lot on my plate this month, sorry.

Herbie21

Ari,

Are you able to ascertain what exactly Newlyn have stated in their letters. You don't have to provide a copy on here but the wording from the letter is vitally important. Also, Newlyn have two seperate companies. One is their 'bailiff' company and the other their debt collecting one. I would hope that they have NOT written to you using a letterhead from the bailiff company!!!

HO87

Ok I now know that the original PCN's were windscreen jobs (i.e. NtD's per s.7 POFA - or, more importantly, purportedly so). This means that NtK's in respect of each and every one of the PCN's must have been delivered (i.e. served) on the hire company - as registered keeper - not earlier than Day 29 nor later than Day 56 of the NtD and, of course, both sets of documents must have conformed fully with POFA for UKCPS to be able to pursue the keeper (setting aside, for the moment, the issue that hoohoo raises).

Although not directly relevant, I am frankly staggered that a finance company (I presume that is what they are given that they appear to have a HP agreement with the OP) has found itself in this position. At the moment, strictly, the issue lies with the HP/finance company but given that UKCPS have allowed this number of PCN's to amass without taking any apparent steps to mitigate their loss is equally as dumbfounding.

Unless and until we secure additional details this is not going to be a case that is easily or quickly unravelled. By the same token I suspect that this is also a case that is going to have to be dealt with off-forum as much as I understand how this leaves people in the dark.

ari_545

Thanks for all the responses guy, much appreciated, sorry been away.

The PCN were definitely not issued by the council or police, they are all by UKCPS. Further information from the finance company has been requested, but as it is a weekend a response wont be received till tomorrow earliest. The OP has asked for verification on what grounds they present themselves, and claim to be able to remove items from the office. Just for clarification purposes, you state they are certificated bailiffs, what does that actually mean what can they pursue? As they're not pursuing high court orders as their not certificated for that, but in there bailiffs respect. What can they do within the arms of the law that the certificates gives them?

Secondly the lease is a private one, not connected to a previous employer. Only connection with the employer is UKCPS. The OP is slightly reluctant for the lease company to release the OP's details, as the OP is not at the registered address most of the time anyway. Plus the OP live with their parents, the OP does not want them to be hounded by these bafoons. Unless absolutely necessary.

Stroma

I'm sorry but you are identifying yourself on here and this is being watched by Peter Haswell the manager of that company , I suggest you remove the last part above post as it is does not do you any favours

The_Slithy_Tove

ari_545 wrote: »

I am slightly reluctant for the lease company to release my details, as I am not at the registered address most of the time anyway. Plus I live with my parents, I dont want them to be hounded by these bafoons.?

Why should they be hounded? Do they read your mail? I would hope not. If you think anyone is going to come round and knock on the door asking for money, then think again. That simply isn't going to happen.

ari_545 wrote: »

Say a 'friend' had an empty/vacant property, would it be 'advisable' to have the NTK's forwarded to that address, so the imbeciles can bang the door of an empty house. Even though the registered address for lease is different?

A foolish idea, as above.


Your aim is to draws their fire away from the lease company, where things could get messy. Then you can cause UKCPS considerable expense by taking multiple appeals to POPLA.

Bantex_2

60 tickets seems a little beyond careless. How did that happen?