According to a recently released decision, Sullivan was hired by a woman to repossess the items from her former business partner as repayment of a debt she claimed she was owed.
The business had failed and both the woman and her former business partner had lost their initial investments.
The woman had abandoned the business 12 months before contacting Sullivan, while her former business partner continued working in the business, selling remaining stock to pay the rent and other debts.
Sullivan gave the woman an authority to act form, which had been given to him by a finance company, and asked her to complete it, including what it was she wanted him to seize.
The document claimed the former business partner owed her $11,336, which included $9836 in furniture and stock and repossession charges of $1500.
Sullivan presented the former business partner with the form as justification for repossessing the goods.
The form stated Sullivan Recoveries Ltd was authorised to do so on behalf of a finance company.
False authority
Sullivan crossed out the name of the finance company when he was at the former business partner’s address, saying he didn’t want to delay the job or incur additional costs for his client.
The form contained a false contract number and contract date.
Apart from agreeing that Sullivan could take the furniture that the woman brought into the business, the former business partner didn’t acknowledge any debt.
In addition, there was no credit contract or other agreement authorising repossession, and no court order to enforce.
Sullivan didn’t have any documents to show that money was owed by the former partner.
The former partner said Sullivan was guilty of misconduct by attempting to carry out an unlawful repossession of goods from her business. Sullivan claimed he had the proper authority to act.
Sullivan acted unlawfully
According to the decision, Sullivan continues to say he was justified in taking action “as the debt was real and acknowledged” by the woman.
Sullivan told the authority he accepted he made procedural errors and used the wrong processes, but that was because he misunderstood the legal processes he should have followed.
Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority chairwoman Trish McConnell said Sullivan had acted unlawfully in attempting to use a false authority to act to attempt to repossess goods.
She found him guilty of misconduct and gross negligence.
Sullivan had held an individual licence in the class of repossession agent since 2019 and been working as a repossession agent for much longer than that, she said.
“He should know the documentation required and the processes that need to be followed before he is entitled to repossess goods.
“I do not accept Mr Sullivan’s submission that he only made a mistake as to process as he failed to understand the proper legal processes required.
“Even though Mr Sullivan may have genuinely believed his client was entitled to recover what she claimed to be her share in the business he had no basis for this belief other than what his client told him.”
Trish McConnell is the chair of the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority which oversees the security guard and private investigator industries.
Sullivan’s attempt to repossess goods without any lawful authority to do so was at the very least wilful or reckless, she said.
McConnell was not convinced the incident was a “one-off”, and that Sullivan had not made similar mistakes in the past.
He had been asked several times to explain the authorities and documentation required to lawfully undertake a repossession or collect debts and had responded that he was not a lawyer and could not or would not provide any further answer, she said.
“It is concerning that someone who has run a repossession business for as long as Mr Sullivan has such a poor knowledge of the documentation and processes required to lawfully conduct his business.”
A rap over the knuckles
Sullivan was formally reprimanded and fined $500.
Conditions were attached to his individual licence.
He was told to only accept work from registered financial providers and prohibited from working for private clients.
Sullivan was told to engage an experienced, licensed repossession agent who is a member of a reputable security association to review his business practices and provide him with training on the due diligence he should do when receiving instructions from clients and the documentation and processes required for lawfully carrying out repossessions.
Sullivan was ordered to file a letter or report from the licensed repossession agent confirming he had completed the necessary training within 12 months of the decision.
Sullivan told NZME he respected the decision.
Al Williams is an Open Justice reporter for the New Zealand Herald, based in Christchurch. He has worked in daily and community titles in New Zealand and overseas for the last 16 years. Most recently he was editor of the Hauraki-Coromandel Post, based in Whangamatā. He was previously deputy editor of the Cook Islands News.