iSAYSO
FORMAL CLAIM AGAINST THE CROWN – Police Assistance in Disputed Vehicle Removals – Demand for Compensation
(What this is about is the police assistance in the stealing of two different lots of trucks, one was a civil matters that the police had no right to be involved in. The other was a straight out theft and damage of private property)
Again no proper court documents where produced as they didn’t exist.
TO: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Through Crown Law Office, for the attention of the Solicitor-General
FORMAL CLAIM AGAINST THE CROWN OF NEW ZEALAND
Crown Proceedings Act 1950 – demand for compensation and preservation of evidence
This is a formal civil claim against the Crown, not an administrative complaint or a request for legal advice.
The claim concerns reported assistance by New Zealand Police to persons acting for Blacklock Rose in disputed removals of commercial vehicles associated with Paradise Haulage Limited and Restore 360 Limited. No court involvement in authorising or supervising the vehicle removals is alleged. The claimants have not been provided with a court order or vehicle-specific documentation establishing the recovery authority asserted by those persons.
The first vehicle was reportedly removed and sold for approximately $25,000; a Police 105 report was made. The second was a 2011 Freightliner Argosy, registration NYQ957. NZTA/VTNZ records supplied to the claimants identify Restore 360 Limited as the registered person in September 2026. Police reportedly attended its removal, during which damage was reported. The vehicle was subsequently advertised for auction, and Restore 360 Limited is reported not to have been notified of its sale.
The claimants repeatedly sought proof of the legal basis for the removals, the Police officers’ actions and verification, and the subsequent disposals. The substantive questions remain unanswered on the material available to us. An Official Information Act request remains outstanding or inadequately addressed; Police correspondence reference IR-01-26-32417 and internal email circulation records require reconciliation. We require identification of who received warnings, what was checked, and what decisions were made.
The claimants allege that Police may have materially facilitated unlawful recoveries without adequate verification. They further raise for investigation the possibility of coordinated unlawful conduct involving persons acting for Blacklock Rose and any public officials who knowingly assisted them. These are allegations requiring evidence, not established criminal findings. We seek appropriate investigation and prosecutorial consideration if the evidence supports offences.
The claim is advanced under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, particularly sections 3, 6, 14 and 17, subject to applicable statutory limitations and proof of actionable conduct, causation and loss. Potential causes of action include wrongful interference with goods, conversion and negligence, to be particularised after disclosure. The claimants reserve any properly supported claim under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, having regard to Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA).
We demand full compensation for all losses legally attributable to Crown wrongdoing, including vehicle value, physical damage, loss of use, proven business interruption and consequential losses, interest and recoverable costs. The amount will be particularised following independent valuation and financial reconciliation. We request consideration of an interim payment where justified.
We require the Crown to preserve immediately all Police and NZTA records, including event logs, officer notes, dispatch records, recordings, original correspondence and metadata, recovery instructions, security and receivership documents obtained by Police, registration and road-user-charge audit trails, and auction and sale records. Please identify record custodians and any lawful disposal of relevant records.
The Attorney-General, through Crown Law, is requested to identify the appropriate Crown legal representative and respond to this claim substantively. Internal referral between agencies, without a reasoned legal response, is not an adequate resolution. If Crown Law contends that any matter requires another Crown office or defendant, please identify that entity, explain the legal basis and confirm who will respond.
We request acknowledgement within 24 hours of receipt, confirmation of evidence preservation and the responsible Crown representative within two working days, and a substantive preliminary position on liability and settlement within ten working days. These requested periods do not displace statutory time limits.
The claimants reserve the right to commence proceedings in the appropriate New Zealand court for damages, declaratory relief and other available remedies. Nothing in this notice waives any rights.
Please confirm receipt and advise whether Crown Law accepts this email as notice of claim. We recognise that emailing the general enquiries address does not itself constitute formal service of court documents.
Yours faithfully,
Tracy Lynch
Administrative assistance on instructions concerning the affected parties
In LandsAirWater Counsel
We Review the Crown Records Office
iSAYSO.net
Records: [email protected]