• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

    This is my Experience on Thursday 9th April, a first brush with bailffs from Newlyns

    I’m newly divorced. My ex-wife retained the family home in East Sussex and the kids live there when home from university. I have moved into East London Last Thursday an Enforcement Agent working for Newlyns visited the family property. My son (20yrs) was the only one home. He was told by the burly, overbearing Man that he was an ‘Enforcement Agent’ and that that meant he was a ‘law enforcement officer’ of the court and that he had a ‘Warrant of Control’ that entitled him to enter the property and to seize assets to the value authorised by the ‘Warrant of Control’. My son was coerced into believing he had the right to enter the home and so let him in. It’s a bullying tactic and unfairly exercised on an impressionable 20 year old. The amount owed was £512 in respect to a £50 congestion charge penalty. Half of the charge was billed by the Enforcement Agent and is an excessive profit .

    The congestion charge penalty was a valid charge to me, but I had missed all the correspondence due to the break-up of our family and divorce.

    My son phoned me and sounded scared. The attitude of the man from Newlyns to my somewhat bewildered son was overbearing and unnecessary pugnacious aggression. It was the first time either of us had come across the terms of ‘Warrant of Control’ and ‘Enforcement Agent’ and we were both trying to quickly get up to speed with what was happening. I suggested calling the police, but the Man from Newlyns assured us both that the police would uphold the order of the court.

    He told me the Man was burly and was traipsing through the house checking-out our family belongings and my son felt absolutely defenceless.

    I asked to speak to the gentleman on the phone, who, before introducing himself, immediately told me he had come to seize assets.
    I asked him for his name and some form of identification to be shown my son. His name was Mr. Teague. He could not provide identification, but instead advised me to phone Brighton County Court to validate who he was. The number he gave me 01273 674421 was not answered on the six times that i tried calling it.

    He told me that he worked for Newlyns Plc. I have checked with Newlyns Plc and they could not corroborate him.

    I asked him for his legal authority to be shown to my son and he said a Warrant of Control had been issued, but he did not have it with him. He showed my son a poor photocopy of a warrant but my son could not identify either my name, address nor Mr Teague’s name as Enforcement Officer written on the copy.

    I told Mr. Teague, on the phone, that the assets at the house belonged to my wife following our divorce and that the penalty order was against me. I meant this to be a gesture to allay the threats to seize family assets. He told me that i needed to prove it there and then, to prevent him from seizing them - a rather unreasonable request since my son does not have access to our divorce papers.

    I asked him for some flexibility, that if i could corroborate his identification with the Brighton court number that he had given me, then i would pay the amount due by credit card. Mr. Teague became belligerent on this matter and telling me that if i couldn’t pay immediately then he would seize property from the house. He was combative and opinionated particularly concerning the law. He further suggested and then demanded that my son pay the fine. I insisted that i wanted to check his identity first.

    In the time that i was trying to phone Brighton council, my son told me that Mr Teague was making antagonistic calls to his manager which i believe were deliberately cantankerous for my son’s benefit to alarm him about which furniture they were going to take. My son was afraid by the thuggish indifference to the family home as he wandered around each room and unnerved by the size of the man. By the time i had managed tp phone them back after drawing a blank on his identification, my son had taken it upon himself to pay the outstanding sum of £512.

    We are law abiding citizens and i have brought my children up to respect the law and especially those that serve the community as a whole. This process has caught us out during my wife and my separation and divorce - not that it wasn’t important, but it has now cast a deep shadow over us all. The process that was executed last Thursday morning cannot be right - not least i should have been able to check Mr Teague’s ID and i should have been able to settle by my credit card without overbearing threats of violating our property.
    The case is compounded from a £50 penalty by costing £512 - half of which is pocketed by Mr Teague himself.
    Is this thuggery really the conduct of service that is approved by a civilised community, supervised by our legal system?

    Does anyone have any advice of how I can take my complaint further? If there is a complaints process i should like to raise it for the record.

  • #2
    Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

    Being "burly" is not an offence. It is wrong to discriminate on a persons size. Your son allowed the bailiff in. Unfortunately, this was a mistake and the blame, sadly rests with your son. The bailiff has done nothing wrong by entering the home on invite from your son. The fact that you are law abiding does not automatically make Mr Teague a thug and from what you've posted, he's done nothing wrong. Did you not set any forwarding address up for your post? is it just these letters that you haven't received or is it every letter from the time you have left the matrimonial home?

    The good news is that you can swear a statutory declaration, stating that you received no correspondence prior to the visit, due to your divorce. A notice of enforcement is required to be given to the debtor at his usual address. This was not given, so the fee of £235 (a perfectly legitimate fee btw) should not have been charged. You can now ask for this to be refunded.

    The vast majority of debtors are law abiding citizens. You were lucky-Think about the 100's, if not 1000's of people who cannot get their hands on £512 at the blink of an eye.

    You can lodge a complaint against Teague. His actions were not correct, given the circumstances. The threat to seize goods was particularly harsh ( and probably just a threat with no real intent). I doubt whether Teague will have any come back from a complaint although he was wrong to threaten seizure in your absence, given that the goods were not yours. You may get more satisfaction by getting the £235 refunded which will hopefully mean that Teague doesn't get his commission from the visit.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

      Originally posted by L.Bizzy View Post
      Being "burly" is not an offence. It is wrong to discriminate on a persons size. Your son allowed the bailiff in. Unfortunately, this was a mistake and the blame, sadly rests with your son. The bailiff has done nothing wrong by entering the home on invite from your son. The fact that you are law abiding does not automatically make Mr Teague a thug and from what you've posted, he's done nothing wrong. Did you not set any forwarding address up for your post? is it just these letters that you haven't received or is it every letter from the time you have left the matrimonial home?

      The good news is that you can swear a statutory declaration, stating that you received no correspondence prior to the visit, due to your divorce. A notice of enforcement is required to be given to the debtor at his usual address. This was not given, so the fee of £235 (a perfectly legitimate fee btw) should not have been charged. You can now ask for this to be refunded.

      The vast majority of debtors are law abiding citizens. You were lucky-Think about the 100's, if not 1000's of people who cannot get their hands on £512 at the blink of an eye.

      You can lodge a complaint against Teague. His actions were not correct, given the circumstances. The threat to seize goods was particularly harsh ( and probably just a threat with no real intent). I doubt whether Teague will have any come back from a complaint although he was wrong to threaten seizure in your absence, given that the goods were not yours. You may get more satisfaction by getting the £235 refunded which will hopefully mean that Teague doesn't get his commission from the visit.
      Is this not a clear example of a bailiff exceeding his lawful authority ? Perhaps a complaint should be made to the Brighton County Court that licenses Teague.

      Perhaps the Police should have been called since Teague's behaviour was akin to robbery if he had attempted to remove goods.

      Perhaps those more knowlegable with Bailiffs and the law could comment.aw:

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

        No it is anything but a clear example.

        You have only the word of the debtor-A very clearly aggrieved debtor at that. A complaint can be made but it will not achieve anything as it is one persons word against anothers. The so called "more knowledgeable" people go to great lengths to dissuade people to make complaints to the courts regarding bailiffs in any case. I'm sure there will be a sticky on here about the subject.

        Perhaps the police should have been called? I agree. Unfortunately, they weren't. Talk of "robbery" and "fraud" is usually a quickfire way to get an argument laughed at very quickly so perhaps it would be better to refrain from using such stupid descriptions?

        The bailiff entered the property under invite. It is not his fault that the 20 year old did not know the law or his rights.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

          Originally posted by L.Bizzy View Post
          No it is anything but a clear example.

          You have only the word of the debtor-A very clearly aggrieved debtor at that. A complaint can be made but it will not achieve anything as it is one persons word against anothers. The so called "more knowledgeable" people go to great lengths to dissuade people to make complaints to the courts regarding bailiffs in any case. I'm sure there will be a sticky on here about the subject.

          Perhaps the police should have been called? I agree. Unfortunately, they weren't. Talk of "robbery" and "fraud" is usually a quickfire way to get an argument laughed at very quickly so perhaps it would be better to refrain from using such stupid descriptions?

          The bailiff entered the property under invite. It is not his fault that the 20 year old did not know the law or his rights.
          But did he not exploit the 20 year old not knowing his rights or law.

          How many 20 year old's would.


          You failed to answer the question if the bailiff had attempted to remove goods if it would have been robbery. Perhaps if the local paper or even a National had been called then Teague's behaviour might have been very different.

          But being a "burly bailiff" I'm not sure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

            L.Bizzy, Thank you for this helpful advice. I did not receive the enforcement notices. My ex-wife has been forwarding my post and i think she's been generally good about it. I will need to research who to make the claim against, bearing in mind Mr. Teague himself left no paperwork other than a bill with a breakdown of charges? Would it be TFL?
            Just to sound off - I am afraid that i disagree strongly that the references to Mr Teague being burly are particularly pertinent in the context of the aggressive manner that he took with my son; insisting on a right of entry; inspecting family possessions for immediate removal. It's an intrusive violation of family space made possible only through sinister threats and bullying authority. I haven't had any dealings with Newlyns prior to this, but what i have read online since, appears to set a pattern of behaviour. My gut instinct is in line with your educated conclusion that he had no rights to remove anything and my son blew his Ibiza money on getting Dad out of jail (to his mind). I'll go through the motions of making a complaint which may become relevant when the pile of such complaints is as big as the elephant in the room. I'm not a crusader on these matters, it just sticks in the craw.

            I am also fairly sure that Teague should not have had any authority to access the premises nor take any money without showing ID and a legal power of the warrant of control. In my view, he obtained the money from my son through sheer intimidation. Seizing property without justifying surely cannot be an acceptable legal recourse? Anyway i suspect that you are correct and this won't get very far, but i'll file it for the record.

            These are not people i would ever want to meet again and i remain uncomfortable that we have community/legal system that subcontract debt collecting work to them.
            However, your advice is good - to concentrate on the money i may appeal for. A small victory would be a salve to the experience. Thank you for your balanced advice.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

              [QUOTE=L.Bizzy;536526]No it is anything but a clear example.

              You have only the word of the debtor-A very clearly aggrieved debtor at that. A complaint can be made but it will not achieve anything as it is one persons word against anothers. The so called "more knowledgeable" people go to great lengths to dissuade people to make complaints to the courts regarding bailiffs in any case. I'm sure there will be a sticky on here about the subject.

              Perhaps the police should have been called? I agree. Unfortunately, they weren't. Talk of "robbery" and "fraud" is usually a quickfire way to get an argument laughed at very quickly so perhaps it would be better to refrain from using such stupid descriptions?


              One clearly aggrieved debtor hardly sands out; but two start to become habitual; more clearly aggrieved debtors with similar stories become a cynical cabal and once the masses or the presses form a similar judgement pretty soon the law is an ass. This aggrieved debtor will register his complaint about thuggery against the proletariat. - steer clear & no mention of theft or fraud though. It's a stand for civil decency

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

                Said Bailiff appears correctly Certificated through Brighton County Court & employed by Newlyn. Whilst what he may have down seems immoral he was only carrying out his job. Now the debt is paid will make it very hard to get any recompense.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

                  Once told that you no longer lived there, Teague should have concentrated on satisfying himself of this, not to have inspected family possessions. As you weren't in, a "controlled goods agreement" was not an option in any case.

                  You did not receive a notice of enforcement, as prescribed in legislation because notice was not given at the place where you usually live. In addition, a recent court case has determined that if notice was not received, then no enforcement fees may be charged

                  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/8/made

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

                    Problem?
                    He got the money and we can expect he did nothing wrong the son who we can presume is at university is not stupid and should not have paid but he did without it seems any torture or arm twisting.

                    The fault lies with the fact the £50 charge should have been paid I think there are enough signs in London about the charge and where it applies.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

                      I can't see any reasonable hope of getting money back, but Teague may well have breached DPA by discussing with third party, sadly Data commissioner may well sit on hands if a complaint of breach of Data Protection is submitted

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Newlyns - Racketeering working Inside the law?

                        1 - the bailiff made a false declaration saying he was a law enforcement officer.

                        2 - the bailiff failed to show ID.

                        3 - a CGA should have been made as there was a dispute to ownership. The son could have signed the agreement.

                        4 - there has been no breakdown of the amount demanded.

                        A stat dec needs to be done immediately to recover the £235, then you need to see what the other £152 is comprised of.

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X