hello - bailiff problems - philips

[bluebottle]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

I have had a lengthy conversation with Sheila Harding at Bailiff Advice Online recently about bailiff misconduct. The Form 4 route that has been used as a way of dealing with bailiff misconduct is something that needs to be approached as a very last resort. The reason for this is that, recently, two cases went before County Courts and the certificated bailiffs involved went in with barristers. Those complaining about the conduct of bailiffs were LIP and ended up with costs orders of £11,000 and £15,000, respectively, against them. The practice of certificated bailiffs taking barristers into court with them in response to Form 4 complaints is now becoming commonplace. In view of this, I would only recommend an OP to go down the Form 4 where they have a very strong case and, only, where they have legal representation.

Where it is clear that a certificated bailiff has committed a criminal offence, the police, by their own admission, are ill-equipped to deal with such cases. This is because they receive little or no training in bailiff law and what bailiffs can and cannot do. Their standard response is to tell complainants that it is a civil matter, which, invariably, it usually is up to the point the criminal law is breached. From that point forward, it is a criminal matter unless the bailiff backs away and withdraws all demands, threats and unauthorised fees. It is also being found that a number of bailiff companies, including Equita, are withdrawing unauthorised fees when challenged. Equita is currently the subject of an investigation by Northampton Trading Standards with regard to their fees and other matters.

With regard to the laying of an information, after the Information Form is completed, it is submitted to the Listings Office at the Magistrates Court, along with any supporting evidence, and is checked by the court's legal team. It is at this stage that any no-hope cases are weeded out and the complainant informed of this. If the case is strong, it is then listed to be heard before a District Judge or Deputy District Judge. At the hearing, the complainant has to take the oath and the DJ or DDJ will question them about why the Information is being laid and the evidence. If the DJ or DDJ is satisfied and only if they are satisfied that there are grounds in law for issuing a warrant for the arrest of the person named in the Information, the DJ or DDJ will sign the Information and the complainant then takes it to the court's Warrant Office where it is processed and the warrant emailed to the police for execution.

Once the person named on the warrant is arrested, the police then prepare and submit a case file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who make the final decision whether to pursue a prosecution, at public expense, against the person named on the warrant. It is not the complainant who makes that decision. Incidentally, an individual cannot undertake a private prosecution without the consent of the DPP and, in certain circumstances, the Attorney-General.

Having learned of the recent developments with regard to Form 4 complaints, I would be very loathe to recommend an OP go down that route unless there were compelling reasons and very strong evidence to justify it. A Form 4 complaint can result in a bailiff being banned from acting as a bailiff for life. It is a very serious step to take and, as stated above, can result in those complaining about a bailiff being landed with a substantial costs order.

Laying an information is also a serious step to take as the complainant is asking the court to deprive the defendant of their liberty. However, there are stops and checks to ensure that it is not abused or used as a means of revenge.

In the case of a bent bailiff, sending them a warning letter first, pointing out the offence(s) they are committing and giving them an opportunity to withdraw their claims, demands and unauthorised fees, is essential. If the bailiff then carries on regardless, they then compound the offence(s). Sometimes, arrest is the only way to put a stop to it and to this end it should only be used as a very last resort when all else as failed and a bailiff has ignored all requests to desist.

The only time a complainant would be ordered to pay costs is if it was found the evidence on an Information was fabricated or completely false.

The other alternative is to report the matter to Trading Standards. However, each Trading Standards department has its own policy and action (or inaction) varies from area to area.

[labman]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

The issue of Form 4 complaints being overused has been known for a long time. If you search back through my posts, you will find I mention this quite frequently. Indeed in John Kruse's books, one of the leading authorities on bailiffs in the country, published 2 - 3 years ago he talks about exactly this problem.

The reason Form 4 complaints are to be used as a last resort is that it was always the intention this should be the case. As there was no chance of costs being awarded against the debtor, the system was abused, and some forums were advising their use for the smallest of things. Because of this abuse, things changed, and quite some time ago now, debtors started having costs awarded against them. As I say, if you look back some time ago in my posts, you will see me cautioning against exactly this. I have little doubt that Sheila would either have mentioned this to you in her chat with you, or assumed you already knew this as it is nothing new whatsoever. The stickies in the bailiff forum state Form 4's should only ever be a last resort.

My comment related to my concern not only about this specific post, but the wider picture in general, where people are being advised to pursue criminal routes which simply aren't realistic. Theoretically they are routes which should be able to be followed, but in reality there is no chance of them going anywhere.

In a perfect world, everyone on here would love to see every criminal act suitably sanctioned, but we don't live in a perfect world, and we all know that over-burdened police and courts have better things to do, and bigger fish to catch. This isn't right, of course it isn't, but it is reality.

Advising criminal routes where in the real world none exists is, in my opinion, misleading the OP, raising their hopes falsely and thus constitutes poor advice.

As far as bailiffs are concerned, there are other routes to follow, and these should exhausted first as I have little doubt Sheila would have advised. Your discussion was, i believe, in relation to one particular thread on here where a criminal route had been advised, and the result of the conversation was that a crimianl route should not be followed. The outcome of the chat was excellent, i did the final edit of the letter to be sent. As far as other areas are concerned, I think extreme caution should be exercised by everyone in advising criminal routes, where realistically no route exists.

This remains the case for this post in my opinion.

[Guest]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

HI

I think BB your reply confirms what Labman is saying. Labman, as he states is refering to the advice given on several threads some regarding HCEOs where costs most certainly would be an issues as stated.

I was talking to Phil Evens about the possibiiity of involving the police in an HCEO issue this was his response.

Even if the bailiffs have seized personal goods, I’m not sure it’s a police matter. (Moreover, even when something concerning bailiffs is a police matter, the police are little interested.) The correct avenue for redress is an interpleader, although the way some HCEOs react to interpleaders these days, there could be serious costs implications for the applicant.

I know this may not be of concerne to the OP on this thread but it does relate to the advice given (to take criminal action). the facts are that it is just not practical, as labman says at worst it could backfire and at best it just makes the plaintif look ridiculous.

Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

Firstly, I don't know who Phil Evens is. Without being familiar with the circumstances of the case you are referring to, I cannot really comment. In my experience, it is normal for an Information to be laid where are unusual circumstances, or the offence is particularly serious or the offender is refusing or resisting attempts at resolution.

In the case of Equita, there seems to be a culture, these days, of refunding unauthorised fees when challenged. Whether this is to do with the fact they are under investigation is another matter.

The main problem with the police - and I am getting fed up with saying this - is that they receive little if any training in bailiff law. Also, ACPO are behind the "It's a civil matter" mantra. It has also been found that ACPO have some questionable relationships with the civil enforcement industry that needs putting under the microscope of scrutiny.

I am currently dealing with a case - not on LB - the circumstances of which are very serious. It is likely the case will end up before the courts and those responsible could end up being put before a magistrates court.

With the Information route, it needs to be borne in mind that the way Criminal cases are administered is different to civil cases. This is why an Information is scrutinised by the court's legal team before it is allowed to go any further. If they are not satisfied there are grounds in law or there is insufficient evidence, it is not allowed to proceed any further. My view of civil courts is that they allow through far too many cases that are of dubious, little or no merit whatsoever. The civil court system is open to abuse and is abused.

[labman]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

I think many of us are aware of how the criminal justice system works to some extent. Many of us on here are, or have been, involved in such cases.

The point I am trying to make, and perhaps we should open this as a thread in itself, rather than divert from this thread, if it is a diversion, is in my opinion, there are people on the site at present who suggest criminal avenues where realistically either no such avenue exists (though it may in theory), or the criminal avenue could cost the OP dearly.

Usually, it is just a case of the advice being, in my opinion, totally misleading and unrealistic. I refer to the sort of thing where one reads it and thinks, "Great in theory, but..........." or phrases using words like cloud cuckoo land or flying pigs. As I say, this is my opinion, but I hold to it, especially with regard to bailiffs, though the comment stands generally across the forum.

The fact police officers receive little training in bailiff matters is a cause for concern. However, it does not alter the fact that they are likely to either say it is a civil matter, or actually back the bailiffs as we have seen several times. Theoretically one should be able to take action against those people, but in reality you will get nowhere 99.9% of the time.

Here, taking action through the magistrates' court before exhausting other avenues is, again in my opinion, unwise. You should look Phil up - he has some excellent responses to the Lader Report!

Getting back to my original post, I would still caution against following hastily given (IMO) advice to pursue criminal routes. I have yet to see any evidence of these working in practice, hence my scepticism. Once some case history starts to build up, then it could well change my mind - until then, I welcome the discussion, though am not sure the middle of someone's thread is the correct place for it.

[Guest]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

Hi BB
Phil EVvens is the ex Chair of the bailiff reform group and i believe the ex boss of Sheilla who you mentioned in your earlier post. He is generally regarded bas an authority on bailiff matters as he was also parliamrntry spokesman on the subject for some years.

Anyway, if the debate is going to be on the effectivenes of applying criminal law to bailiff miss chief i would welcome it.

Perhaps a sepperate thread?

Untill some kind of proof that this approach is effective or even appropriatee , in my opinion we should refrain from advising people to go down that particular path.

Personally i have been involed in baliff action on the front line for some years and found the police or criminal litigation in general to be useless.

I am reminded of the recent TV expose wher a particular bailiff was shown to be fraudulent, entering premises under false certification, being racially abvusive and many more criminal acts, all in front of millions of viewers.

I could be wrong but i do not recall one criminal charge being brought, we may wish to ask ourselves, in the light of such evidence if there is a reason for this.

We deal with people who live in the real world on here, what is required are real world suggestions.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

thanks - after reading the bailiffs sections quickly, i believe they have lied and stated that they can obtain entry using a lock smith, is this another lie? the funny thing is all my calls with them have been recorded

By whom were they recorded?

If you recorded them, you may be able to use the recordings as evidence.

If they allegedly recorded the calls, it's likely the recordings will not be produced should you ask for them.

[bluebottle]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

Hi BB
Phil EVvens is the ex Chair of the bailiff reform group and i believe the ex boss of Sheilla who you mentioned in your earlier post. He is generally regarded bas an authority on bailiff matters as he was also parliamrntry spokesman on the subject for some years.

Anyway, if the debate is going to be on the effectivenes of applying criminal law to bailiff miss chief i would welcome it.

Perhaps a sepperate thread?

Untill some kind of proof that this approach is effective or even appropriatee , in my opinion we should refrain from advising people to go down that particular path.

Personally i have been involed in baliff action on the front line for some years and found the police or criminal litigation in general to be useless.

I am reminded of the recent TV expose wher a particular bailiff was shown to be fraudulent, entering premises under false certification, being racially abvusive and many more criminal acts, all in front of millions of viewers.

I could be wrong but i do not recall one criminal charge being brought, we may wish to ask ourselves, in the light of such evidence if there is a reason for this.

We deal with people who live in the real world on here, what is required are real world suggestions.

Peter

I take it, Peter, you are referring to Mr Boast, formerly of Rossendales. His contract with Rossendales was cancelled when the evidence was shown to Rossendales' CEO. She didn't have much choice. In my experience, the CPS would take the view, in Mr Boast's case, that losing his job was justice done.

With regard to the comments you and Labman make, I would answer thus -

The problem the police officer on the beat has is that ACPO are cosying up to the civil enforcement industry and this needs to be subjected to scrutiny by a Parliamentary Select Committee. It is unhealthy and undermines the basic rights of the individual. Also, the police service has become more and more politicised over the last 15-20 years with private sector business consultants, who haven't got a clue why police forces operate in the way they do telling them how to do their jobs. These idiots need to be told to go spin. From my own experience, I can tell you that policing and politics do not mix. Rank and file police officers do not seem to be able to exercise their initiative, discretion or commonsense anymore. The other problem that exists is that, due, mainly, to ACPO's shenanigans with the civil enforcement industry, police officers on the beat do not receive the training to equip them with the necessary knowledge to determine where, in the case of a bailiff incident, where civil law ends and criminal law begins.

I will nail my colours to the mast and say that if the circumstances and the evidence warrants having a bent or corrupt certificated bailiff dealt with by a magistrates' court, I will recommend that route. As to it being realistic, I spent my police service making on the spot decisions as to whether or not to take a person into custody. A warning letter, pointing out the relevant offences and giving the certificated bailiff the opportunity to back away is a must. If the bailiff and his/her employers continue, regardless of the warning letter, then, if the circumstances and evidence warrant it, should the matter be pursued further. As stated in earlier posts, the complainant should not attempt the Information route on their own. It should always be done with the assistance of and under the advice of a legal professional, or a serving or retired law enforcement professional. If that's not being realistic, what is?

[Guest]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

Hi
I really o not want to hyjack this hread furhter with this, bu i do think that this should be resolved, perhaps elswhere.

I would jus like to say my view is, if someone has commited a criminal offence , you call the police, i think that criminal legislation is attempting to be used in the same way as civil legislation, and it just cant be.

No more in this from me on this thread.

Peter

[labman]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

I agree there. I take BB's point over the watering down not only of the police to use their initiative, but the same scenario in many areas of life nd business, a move many of us would agree is not for the better.

I would not agree necessarily that a serving or retired law enforcement professional is necessarily more qualified than non legal professionals or non serving or retired law enforcement professionals. Some of their knowledge is extremely poor - this would apply to legal professionals as well, many of whom have said to me they have been specialists for so long, they would rather a knowledgeable amateur deal with something.

Realistic advice needs to be exactly that, realistic. To my mind, that means if you follow the suggestion, the chances are you will be successful. If that involves, for example, getting a bailiff arrested for something fairly trivial (in the law's eyes), then to me that suggestion is not realistic as the chances of it happening are almost zero.

My point is really best summed up by the phrase, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

When I start to read on these forums of the successes of following these suggestions, then I will give them more credence. At present I have read not one.

I should also just point out that anyone taking it upon themselves to give one to one advice on issues relating to debts outside the public forum should do so properly, with the correct licences, insurances etc... in place for the protection of the person they are advising. Obviously advice given on open forum is entirely different.

I too will now stop as far as this goes on this thread, as the OP has said he will report back, and needs the opportunity to do that without further diversions.

[colicabcadam]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

wow - a lot of replies !

in terms of the recordings, i am an it manager, the calls were made from my workplace, which means they were recorded, i have full access to the recordings.

i have spoken with the court who have put the bailiffs on hold for 2 weeks while i discuss with them why i paid late, hopefully after this it will all just come to an end, i will mention that i made a simple calculation error and that there was no intention of leaving a £20 debt outstanding, they will be able to see that regular payments were made each month on time with no chasing letters, it also kind of speaks for its self, why pay £670 of a £690 debt and then walk away, i will also explain how the bailiffs are behaving.

after a little more reading, it seems that bailiffs claiming a magistrates fine can force entry, however, entry really does not bother me in the slightest, everything minus my bed, clothes etc belongs to my parents, but i do own 3 vehicles which are all in my personal name in terms of the DVLA registered keeper document, if they take a vehicle and the legal owner is not myself (a receipt can be provided from the original seller stating that payment was made by my father) is this sufficient enough to get them to leave it alone ? the receipts are from proper dealerships as opposed to random sellers, if this is still no good, can i move the ownership and registered keeper across to my LTD company ? surely this way they cannot take any of them then ? failing that, i'll just "sell them" to my friend? can the bailiffs even find out what vehicles are registered in my name or address ? or would they have to manually check each vehicle reg ?

if the bailiffs want to play games, i can too ! hopefully the court will just throw it out

[labman]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

I suspect it will all end when the court looks at things. With regards to the vehicles, they are supposed to check each one, but often don't. If you can prove you're not the legal owner, then yu should be fine.

Technically they can force entry. However this is exceedingly rare, and they won't over a debt of this size. I'd see what the court do, then post up and let us know.

[colicabcadam]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

please see my draft e-mail to the court and give your opinions.......

I am writing to you concerning the above account, in order to have my case / payments looked into.

In either June or August 2011 I received a fine for what I believed was £670 (although it was actually £690) for a driving offence. It was agreed with the court that the fine would be paid off monthly. The following payments were made…..

£50 05 Aug
£100 26 Aug
£100 27 Sep
£100 26 Oct
£100 25 Nov
£100 22 Dec
£120 26 Jan

You can see from the above that I paid an extra £20 on the last payment to finish the debt off more quickly, for some reason I assumed the outstanding amount owed for the last payment was £120.

It seems that I miscalculated in this regard and, after looking at the paperwork I can confirm that the fine was actually £690. However, this did not come to my attention until I received a letter from the court on 12/04/2012 (opened 13/04/2012, my parents can confirm the letter was delivered 12/04/2012) which was dated 15/03/2012, which clearly indicates that that the letter took 30 postal days to be delivered, which could be either down to the Royal Mail or possibly the court’s administration team. Either way, as soon as the reminder was opened by myself I made a payment online for the £20, you will be able to see this on your system. I received no other letters or warnings from the court. With the information I have supplied and your payment system, you can clearly see that I have done nothing other than try to pay the debt off as quickly as possible and my payments were very punctual, as soon as I got paid each month I made it a priority to pay my fine.

It seems that the £20 debt was passed onto a bailiff, as I received a letter from Philips Bailiffs on 18/04/2012 (dated 05/04/2012) stating I owed £105. I can understand why this happened and I would assume that most of this was generated via an automated process.

I contacted Philips and explained to them what had happened. However, much to my dismay they showed very little interest in understanding my account of events and demanded that I paid the £105. Obviously the only money they were entitled too was £85 which I said I would pay once I had it in writing. The next letter I received from them was for the same debt amount, which was incorrect as a payment of £20 had already been paid to the court. I believe I received this letter on 20/04/2012 (dated 16/04/1012).

On 24/04/2012 I called them to explain that the letter they had sent me was incorrect and I asked them for the outstanding balance of my account. They explained the £20 had been deducted, however my balance was now £300. They further stated that a bailiff had attended my property on 23/04/2012, which I know was complete fabrication as I was absent from work sick on the Monday with a severe problem with my wisdom tooth therefore I did not venture outside. My mother can verify this as she was also at home, there was no attendance by a bailiff, no letter was left and no one knocked on the door. The only items received on that day were local election voting cards and a pizza menu, I therefore feel absolutory horrified that such false acquisitions can be made. I stated on the phone that no one attended my property and I was told to complain to head office.

I hope that with the explanations and clarifications detailed above, the account can be closed and the bailiffs can be called off as I really feel this is going way too far for a £20 outstanding debt that was paid off immediately after it came to my attention. If you choose to allow your bailiffs to pursue their charges I would like to know how they can get away with making false claims that they have attended properties when they have not and how I can testify against them as I honestly believe a letter to their head office will simply be ignored.

I have sought legal advice on this matter and am prepared to take this matter further if I do not receive a positive response to my communication.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Regards
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
btw - thanks !

[colicabcadam]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

hi all, the court has closed my account with the bailiffs, they can no longer pursue the debt, many thanks

[labman]

Re: hello - bailiff problems - philips

Excellent - I thought they would! Another excellent bailiff result for LB - I'm really pleased for you.