Urgent advice required, please!

[labman]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Now there's a surprise - he didn't turn up!

Phone the MoJ to check the name of the bailiff.

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Managed to find out from MoJ that bailiff is registered. Got the issuing court details for the Form 4 and preparing documentation to send off to Council with first installment payment on Friday (as is pay-day).

Still no word from the bailiff since his visit last week. Not complaining as giving me time to sort things out..........

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

I have got some questions to ask about the way we were treated by the bailiff and where we stand from a legal point of view. OK to post here or is it worth moving over to the "Bailiff Issues" thread?

[labman]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Post here, and if site team want to move it, they'll post a link to the new thread. :tinysmile_grin_t:

[Guest]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

You can make a formal complaint against a certificated bailiff for the price of a 2nd class stamp.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=32516

Be factual, and have ducks in a row before returning the commplaint form.

[bluebottle]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

If this bailiff has been loading you with unauthorised fees, misrepresenting his authority and, generally, putting himself in breach of the law, I would inform the police and obtain an Incident Log Reference Number. If this individual puts in an appearance, call the police and ask them to attend.

Hoping that I have read the posts correctly, this bailiff seems to be a chancer who thinks he can get away with anything. Speaking from experience of dealing with bailiffs as a policeman, court bailiffs are angels and stick to the letter of the law, as well as treating those they deal with with dignity and respect. Certificated bailiffs are another matter. Listening to their protests as you throw one of them into the back of a police van for crossing the line is something to behold. Questioning the marital status of your parents when you were born is one of the least offensive remarks they make.

Don't let this bailiff bully you into submission. Follow the advice given in the posts in this page and stand up to him. Sooner or later, the powers that be are going to be faced with little choice but to clamp down on rogue bailiffs.

Best of luck, my friend.

[labman]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Speaking from experience of dealing with bailiffs as a policeman, court bailiffs are angels and stick to the letter of the law, as well as treating those they deal with with dignity and respect. Certificated bailiffs are another matter.

Totally agree with your recommendation to follow the advice, and it's reassuring to know of a policeman who understands they attend to stop a breach of the police - shame you retired! LOL

Sadly, in my experience of dealing with bailiffs as a person with an interest in them, MOST bailiffs, whether court or certificated, are lying, bullying cheats who wouldn't know the letter of the law if it walked up to them and kicked them in the teeth.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Is there anything we can do to help titch over the next 24 hours, as it seems that she is likely to be invaded by a bunch of thugs who intend to forcibly break into her home with no apparent lawful authority ?

All I can suggest is that she sends all other occupants away somewhere and barricades herself in, and dials 999 on her mobile if they break in. But that seems so drastic. Is there owt she can do NOW to stop this ?

Get a gun?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Remember, as a general rule if a bailiff opens his mouth, he is lying! They are terrible liars and should not be believed. They work on the premise that they can scare you into paying - don't let them win.

Some years ago, I made the (social) acquaintance of a certificated bailiff who, being white-haired, a bit portly and having a ruddy complexion, could give a passably convincing impression that he was suffering a heart attack!

He used that on numerous occasions to gain "peaceful entry" to people's dwellings; once inside, of course, he would miraculously recover.

I have no idea what happened to him, but I would like to believe that he tried that stunt once too often, suffered a real myocardiac infarction and perished as a result. :tinysmile_grin_t:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

It is a 24 hour bailiff removal notice. It clearly states on it that goods may be removed whether we are in at the property or not.

In both legal jargon and common parlance, there is a specific term used to describe such an assertion.

It is a lie.

See the judgement of the Appeal Court of two relevant cases - link - and bear in mind that whilst there were Walking Possession Agreements in place for those persons conducting distraint, the WPA in place for this immediate case is months old and as it may have been for another liability order, it may be inapplicable.

[Bill-K]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Get a gun?

I'm not sure that Bluebottle would approve - not publicly, anyway...
But privately, I reckon we'd all agree with you, CC. At least things don't seem to be quite so 'drastic' as they appeared at first.

And a belated welcome to Bluebottle, if I may. I mourn the replacement of the 'old-time coppers' with the heartless androids that seem to have our consent to policing us. It's a different world now, though, I guess - horses for courses, as they say.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

If this bailiff has been loading you with unauthorised fees, misrepresenting his authority and, generally, putting himself in breach of the law, I would inform the police and obtain an Incident Log Reference Number. If this individual puts in an appearance, call the police and ask them to attend.

Which they may or may not do; they may aver that it's "a civil matter" and hence not something with which they should become involved, rather like the way that wife-beating was once described as "a matrimonial dispute" and only to be investigated if the husband struck his wife with a rod, staff or cane thicker than the width of his thumb.

Some policemen have even sided with the bailiff against the householder.

I have read reports elsewhere of a certain certificated bailiff who, to protect the guilty and to make it less likely that the oaf could sue this site for defamation, here goes by the sobriquet of "Mr Gruesome". Those reports told the tale of him seeking to seize a debtor's motor-car which had been parked on the debtor's drive. To impede him until the matter could be resolved peacefully, the debtor's partner locked herself inside the car and ignored all of the bailiff's entreaties and/or threats to leave. There was at least one policeman in attendance, presumably to prevent a breach of the peace, but he did precisely nothing to stop Mr Gruesome from taking matters at least one step too far.

Getting frustrated with the impasse, Mr Gruesome took an implement - possibly a wheel brace - from the boot of his own car and started to bang it on a side window of the debtor's car until the window shattered, showering the occupant with bits of broken glass. He then reached inside and forcibly dragged the shocked and horrified woman from the car.

I repeat - the policeman who was present did precisely nothing to stop this.

Hoping that I have read the posts correctly, this bailiff seems to be a chancer who thinks he can get away with anything. Speaking from experience of dealing with bailiffs as a policeman, court bailiffs are angels and stick to the letter of the law, as well as treating those they deal with with dignity and respect. Certificated bailiffs are another matter. Listening to their protests as you throw one of them into the back of a police van for crossing the line is something to behold. Questioning the marital status of your parents when you were born is one of the least offensive remarks they make.

That is hardly difficult to imagine and, of course, such colourful expressions could lead to an appropriate charge for a summary offence.

One might wonder if questioning the parentage of the arresting officer was meant as a sort of appeal for camaraderie from someone whose own legitimacy was rather doubtful.

Sooner or later, the powers that be are going to be faced with little choice but to clamp down on rogue bailiffs.

Do you really think so?

If you do, then you clearly have not read the disgraceful and draconian provisions in Part 3 of the Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007 (link) which, for neither a good nor a paltry reason, would have vastly increased the ability of an 'enforcement agent' to act as a jack-booted bully boy and, by and large, as a law unto himself. No commencement order for this section has yet been presented to Parliament and I devoutly pray that it never will, yet the statute still stands despite various politicians declaring that they will never use it.

Schedule 12 (link) makes such a pig's breakfast of the law that one must surely question the sanity of its authors. For example, at paragraph 14, it would give an 'enforcement agent' the right to use 'reasonable force' - without warrant - to enter any property where he 'reasonably believes' the debtor resides or carries on a trade or business.

Concisely, 'new' Labour took a bad law and sought to make it immeasurably worse.

Best of luck, my friend.

He'll probably need it.

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

There are a few facts of his case that have troubled me and just looking more for advice and to clarify things up.

First things first, the bailiff refused to negotiate an agreement to repay this debt, even though I made it perfectly clear that if owed the amount in question (I will cover this one in a moment), I was more than willing to pay what I owed. He made it perfectly clear to myself and my partner that his intention was only to remove goods.

Can he do this? I thought that bailiffs were to make all possible efforts in arranging terms in which the debt is to be cleared. I am not a "won't pay" client - there were other circumstances happening as well that had to be taken into consideration...........

The alleged amount owed was in question at the time, and indeed, we were awaiting evidence from the council to the amount owed, from what period and what payments had actually been received when the bailiff served the 24 hour removal notice. The head office were well aware of the situation, as it was them that told us to get in touch with the council and request the charge year information. The proof of the amount owed from the council was not gained until after the serving of the notice.

Would this alleged amount have been in default during this period? If so, would the bailiff have acted legally by serving a 24 hour removal notice whilst the amount claimed was in question?

Jacobs issued a letter in December 2011 stating that payment arrangements for the sum owed had not been maintained and therefore, the arrangement had been revolked and full payment was due. However, we were under the impression that all amounts owed to Jacobs/ Council had been paid in full. This instigated the requirement from us to prove the amount in question. Whilst discussing the case with the advisor at head office, they let it slip that there was no record on their system of an arrangement having being put in place for the amount in question. Yet we are still being "prosecuted" for this for the bailiff who has refused an arrangement, demanded payment in full and threatened us with removal of our goods.

Is there no defense for this under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999)? It became apparent that the agreement we did actually have in place with Jacob's was for an amount under a totally different reference number and not that for the amount in question. Sorry if confusing, but this is how we are at present - confused over the whole thing!! Jacob's have not made things entirely clear over the course of their involvment......

When the Walking Possession was signed (with the same bailiff) for the amount in question, we were left with no copies of paperwork.

Surely this is a minimum requirement?

Finally, when I stated to the bailiff that I would have to seek legal advice from a solicitor on this matter, he informed me that I could do what I like, but it would not stop him from removing goods and carrying out his duties.

Was he correct in this and did he have the right to say that?

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Oh yes. Incidently, this is only the second visit with regards this debt made by the bailiff. Don't know if that makes a difference with anything?

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

The more I go over the paperwork and what has expired, the more angry I'm getting towards Jacobs and their bailiff and want someone to answer for the stress and inconvenience caused to my family and myself by a clearly mishandled case by the bailiff service.

Considering dropping BBC's Watchdog a line, tell them my story and see if they want to investigate it, but just think it will make things worse.............