Bailiff (HCEO) visit

[labman]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Hi Puff,

Please see post 64 and act on that first and foremost. The main thing is to get these people off your friend's back and the stuff in that post will do it. Apologies that we keep getting drawn into the rights or otherwise of the legislation. At some point you have to act, and I would strongly recommend that action.

Anything else can be dealt with later.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

kk ive pmed him to do it, and i'll tell him to keep checking this page.

i know i sound a bit thick (i am a bit) but i really didnt understand what it meant

[labman]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

It's always best to ask. There is more to do probably, but it's best to sort out the underlying problems first, then bite back as necessary.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Guidance to Police Forces
8.0 APPENDIX B – BAILIFF RULES: GAINING ENTRY TO PREMISES

8.1 The actions of a bailiff lawfully entering a premises and seizing and selling goods to cover monies owed by the debtor, including the bailiff’s fees, is called ‘levying distress’. The term ‘distress’ used on its own generally means the procedure for bailiffs just to ‘seize’ goods; this may not necessarily involve removing and selling the goods.

8.3 To gain peaceful entry, the bailiff can walk through an open door, open an unlocked door, climb through an open window, and even climb over a wall or fence, provided no damage is caused in so doing.

8.5 Reasonable Force may be used to gain entry in these circumstances only:

c. The officer is a High Court Enforcement Officer and the premises to be entered with force are separate non-domestic premises, which are not connected to the living accommodation, e.g. a workshop or barn. Or, the premises are a third party's house where goods have been taken to avoid seizure by a bailiff.



Is that sufficient? I doubt the police would print it as national guidance if it were untrue. If insufficient, it will have to wait till tomorrow!

Thanks for posting that up, Labman. This confirms my original and subsequent suspicions. Pre-emptive action against the High Court Haemorrhoid and the OC is now a must. If the Haemorrhoid and OC howl, tough. They're not above the law.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

The first thing, before anything else is done, has to be the N244 to stop the enforcement action.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

no word as yet.

[Malookoo]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Labman my apologies for the spelling error,please change E for A. I also realise form time to time my grammar also leaves something to be desired, perhaps you and others will bare with me now and in the future.

Regarding the original problem on this thread the advice to apply for a Stay is always excellent, and to clear any ambiguity I assume that means the Company applying for a Stay.

As for the rest I will try and tackle them in some sort of order.

a) HCEO can lawfully climb fences etc. and force entry into buildings,sheds etc as long as they are not attached to the dwelling.

b) To do this at premises that are not the debtors they must have a reasonable beleif that assets of the Company have been moved there to avoid seizure.

As they have not visited the Companys business premises how can they possibly have a reasonable beleif that assets have been moved to an Emloyees home?

c) The only reference I can find for being able to visit a ' Directors home' is that from ' The Sherriffs Office '
who I remind you is a private limited company promoting their Company. Also on this point I can not remeber anyone on this or other forums acclaiming bailiffs/HCEO's for being truthfull about their lawfull powers,charges etc. nor has anybody shown any statute or case law to back it up.

d) If for the sake of argument you accept that they have entered an employee of the companys premises/grounds lawfully ( which I don't ) then unless as I previously posted the Companys business is a garden centre, what reasonable beleif could the the HCEO have for seizing garden furniture, barbecue and lawnmower?

e) Considering all of this I am firmly with bluebottle, and considering the wifes state of mind following the burglary I would think there are other offences that could be considered.

f ) I am surprised that nobody has advised getting a breakdown of Marstons fees, I would think if form is anything to go by it would probably interesting to say the least.

Something to ponder

For many years I bred and showed dogs, one of my breeds had an hereditory problem which at the time myself and a few others thought with some test matings and discarding some breeding stock the problem could be eradicated. At a general meeting however a supposed expert in the field said we should aim to control the problem. He then went on for many years doing his research and building his reputation, breeders are still trying to control it. As for me Iam still in favour of eradication whether or not that stops people spending years researching, advising and enhancing their reputation.

Make of this what you will but please be assured no offence is intended to anybody

[labman]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Malookoo,

I have no idea where you are going with dog breeding at the end if you intend no offence, as the only reason for posting that would seem to be to suggest that someone is trying to boost their reputation on this thread.

I find it offensive if that is the case that you might suggest anybody on this site would do that.

Anyway, and I don't mean this in any offensive way, but I stand by any remarks I have made in this thread. I feel I have provided sufficient evidence. If I haven't then people can either choose to accept it or not, or alternatively go and research themselves only to find the information provided in this thread is absolutely correct.

Much of what you say has already been said, particularly regarding the levy which I said very early on was unlawful, and I think Ploddertom said it either just before or just after me. It has also been repeated, so I am not quite sure the point in raising it.

If the OP wishes to follow criminal proceedings they are welcome and free to do so obviously. We all have our differing opinions.

I don't intend engaging in any further discussion about this on this thread. I'd prefer to spend my time, along with others, helping Puffrose to help the OP. The well conducted argument has already diverted slightly from the thread, and most seem to have accepted that what has been said is accurate.

Sadly one cannot please everyone all the time. Maybe next time you'll agree with me hey?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Labman my apologies for the spelling error,please change E for A. I also realise form time to time my grammar also leaves something to be desired, perhaps you and others will bare with me now and in the future.

Regarding the original problem on this thread the advice to apply for a Stay is always excellent, and to clear any ambiguity I assume that means the Company applying for a Stay.

As for the rest I will try and tackle them in some sort of order.

a) HCEO can lawfully climb fences etc. and force entry into buildings,sheds etc as long as they are not attached to the dwelling.

b) To do this at premises that are not the debtors they must have a reasonable beleif that assets of the Company have been moved there to avoid seizure.

As they have not visited the Companys business premises how can they possibly have a reasonable beleif that assets have been moved to an Emloyees home?

c) The only reference I can find for being able to visit a ' Directors home' is that from ' The Sherriffs Office '
who I remind you is a private limited company promoting their Company. Also on this point I can not remeber anyone on this or other forums acclaiming bailiffs/HCEO's for being truthfull about their lawfull powers,charges etc. nor has anybody shown any statute or case law to back it up.

d) If for the sake of argument you accept that they have entered an employee of the companys premises/grounds lawfully ( which I don't ) then unless as I previously posted the Companys business is a garden centre, what reasonable beleif could the the HCEO have for seizing garden furniture, barbecue and lawnmower?

e) Considering all of this I am firmly with bluebottle, and considering the wifes state of mind following the burglary I would think there are other offences that could be considered.

f ) I am surprised that nobody has advised getting a breakdown of Marstons fees, I would think if form is anything to go by it would probably interesting to say the least.

Something to ponder

For many years I bred and showed dogs, one of my breeds had an hereditory problem which at the time myself and a few others thought with some test matings and discarding some breeding stock the problem could be eradicated. At a general meeting however a supposed expert in the field said we should aim to control the problem. He then went on for many years doing his research and building his reputation, breeders are still trying to control it. As for me Iam still in favour of eradication whether or not that stops people spending years researching, advising and enhancing their reputation.

Make of this what you will but please be assured no offence is intended to anybody

Hi

It ts a point of view, i cant help thinking that this situation must have arrison before.

I don.t proffess to know much about this subject, only what i have come accross in the last six or seven years of reading others reports on these forums.

Firstly i cannot remember seing any report of the police taking legal action againdt a HCEO, perhaps BB can help me out.

Because if there is no way that the police would persue this then the legal argument is acedemic.

Perhaps we could establish this first.

PS

Dog thing went way over my head.

Peter

[Mrs James]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

I'm a little confused with certain aspects of this thread. May I ask if Puffrose knows the OP personally?

I'm not having a go here, but am slightly concerned regarding information being made public without the OP's knowledge.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

i dont but I pmed the OP first.

I pmed the OP to begin with as he said his wife and kids were scared and it upset me, i was worried. Im hoping to help him and his family as ive been scared and hidden before, it rang a bell personally.

[Mrs James]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

i dont but I pmed the OP first.

I pmed the OP to begin with as he said his wife and kids were scared and it upset me, i was worried. Im hoping to help him and his family as ive been scared and hidden before, it rang a bell personally.

Ok, I can totally understand that you want to help, hun. But personally I'm not happy that something said in a PM has been posted without the OP's permission.

I don't agree with PM's anyway, I think for the OP's and your sake that everything is posted on the forum for all to see.

Really not having a go at you as I'm sure you mean well, just think you need to be careful.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

no offence taken at all hun im very hard to offend!

I normally wouldnt share a confidence at all, and i sat and debated in my head if i should, but it didnt sit right that the baillif was showing the personal details of the levy to complete strangers, and i was positive it was an offence to do so. Everything I have done, ive pmed the OP and told him.

I am only too pleased you are looking out for his interests too hun, honest i am. and i think hes now better armed to say ok A B C D and E happened, and this is allowed thats not. and once again, i thank you all for it. its empowering someone against the bullies.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

Peter,

HCEOs are required to act in accordance with the law, the same as everyone else. If they act in a way that is contrary to the law or ultra vires (outside the law), they have to answer for their actions to the courts and accept whatever penalty is meted out. Like I have said before, Certificated Bailiffs and HCEOs do not have a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. They break the law, they pay the price.

The police receive little, if any, formal training in what Certificated Bailiffs and HCEOs can and cannot do, hence their reluctance to act. If they are presented with an arrest warrant naming the Certificated Bailiff/HCEO, they don't have any choice as an arrest warrant is an order of the court to arrest the person named thereon and to bring that person before a court to answer to the charges listed on the warrant.

If there is pretty good evidence of criminal behaviour, I would be inclined to obtain an arrest warrant and hand it straight to the police.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff (HCEO) visit

It could provide an interesting dilemma for a policeman if there is an arrest warrant out for the HCEO, the police go to arrest him and he is carrying out his job, whereby they have a duty to help him according to the guidance. A somewhat invidious situation!

I wonder what they do then? Perhaps help him, then arrest him.