Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

[bluebottle]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

I think it's easier to ask them for a list anyway, but have the list I've linked for if anyone needs it in the meantime. That's what in my own incompetent way I was trying to say!

Noted. I'm going to make sure it's as up-to-date as possible. What has prompted me to do this is a case involving Equita and a single mum who is an LB member and involved unpaid PCNs. The Equita bailiff tried to extort £322 in illegal fees from her by use of threats. When she served Equita with a Breakdown of Fees request, the £322 in illegal fees suddenly disappeared. Apparently, Equita have form for this and is one of the reasons they are being investigated by Northampton Trading Standards Department. But what made me hoot with laughter is when the LB member complained to the local authority involved, a council officer tried to kid her, in an email, that bailiff fees were not regulated and there was no set in existence. Off went PDF copies of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003 to the LB member who has since forwarded them to the CEO of the local authority involved. A response is awaited with interest. The threats that were being made against the LB member were, in my experience, serious enough to warrant reporting the matter to the police. However, the matter is now being pursued with Equita, OFT, Trading Standards and the MoJ*.

I note what you're saying about linking the list, once it's compiled, and that is a sound and excellent idea as LB members can then reference it quickly.

* Refers to certificated bailiff only.

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

I always find it a handy tactic to get incompetent council staff to condone illegal activity, then hit the CEO with it alongside the fact his/her council is vicariously liable. It deos somewhat put their backs to the walls.

[Guest]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

HI

I would be interested to see how a complaint about bailiffs to the OFT would work.
I have made a number of complaints to the e-address given and the direct number.
Usually they require, or come up with a section of the CCA that has been breached which will enable them to revoke or restrict the license.

Which section/s would relate to miss applied fees and charges or other bailiff misdeeds. Obviously fitness to hold a license, but what grounds in the terms of the CCA exactly i wonder.

D

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

That's a good question. I won't pretend to be half as familiar with the CCA as some others on here, but I'll certainly have a read later and see if I can come up with anything. Fitness for the licence is the one that as you say stands out.

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

I think any complaint would need to revolve around information in the following link:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/...ebt-collection

Page 8 of the Debt Collection Guidelines make interesting, and anything which breaches the DPA will 'seriously call into question fitness to hold a licence.' (Page 44 I think!)

[bluebottle]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

I think any complaint would need to revolve around information in the following link:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/...ebt-collection

Page 8 of the Debt Collection Guidelines make interesting, and anything which breaches the DPA will 'seriously call into question fitness to hold a licence.' (Page 44 I think!)

You are correct in what you say, Labman. The OFT did mention their Debt Collection Guidelines to me when I was speaking to them. All CCA Licence Holders are required to abide by the Guidelines and any breach is taken into account in deciding whether to refuse, renew or revoke a CCA Licence.

With certificated bailiffs now perverting Form 4 complaint hearings into litigation and landing complainants with Costs Orders in excess of £10,000, any alternative complaints procedure that doesn't put the complainant at financial risk is worthy of further investigation and, where found to be appropriate, pursued.

Thank you for posting up the link.

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Can I reiterate that point BB. I came across a website today which implied legal costs had never been awarded. This is untrue and dangerous advice. Form 4 Complaints should be a last resort in a serious complaint.

[bluebottle]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Apparently, there have been Form 4 complaint hearings where costs of £10,000 and £15,000 respectively have been awarded against complainants due to bailiffs going into court with a barrister in tow and perverting the hearing into litigation, instead of an examination of their fitness to hold a bailiff's certificate.

Like I said in my previous post, if there is an alternative complaints procedure to Form 4 that holds a certificated bailiff to account, but does not carry the financial risk for the complainant, then that alternative complaints procedure should be investigated further.

To reinforce what you say, myself and another user on CAG are assisting another CAG user to seek justice against a bailiff company whose bailiffs besieged the CAG user's home for six hours. When myself and the CAG user I am working with scrutinised the Form 4 complaint the other CAG user proposed to submit, the advice was not to pursue as what had been included in the complaint was capable of being perverted into litigation by the bailiff concerned.

Like you say, Form 4 is the very last resort. This echoes advice I have received from Bailiff Advice Online.

[Guest]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Brings up an interesting dilemma. Do bailiffs have to abide by OFT debt collection guidelines. There are many things that are not permitted under OFT guidelines that are under Bailiff law.

OFT guidelines are designed to be used by DCAs who have no legal rights to insist on payment only to request it, bailiffs backed up by a warrant or liability order have the legal right to insist.

D

[Guest]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

You are correct in what you say, Labman. The OFT did mention their Debt Collection Guidelines to me when I was speaking to them. All CCA Licence Holders are required to abide by the Guidelines and any breach is taken into account in deciding whether to refuse, renew or revoke a CCA Licence.

With certificated bailiffs now perverting Form 4 complaint hearings into litigation and landing complainants with Costs Orders in excess of £10,000, any alternative complaints procedure that doesn't put the complainant at financial risk is worthy of further investigation and, where found to be appropriate, pursued.

Thank you for posting up the link.

Yes many on thee forums are to gung-ho about form 4 complaints. Interesting comment about complaint being perverted into litigation, i am unfamiliar with the procedure but can the judge award costs against the debtor at the complaint hearing or does the bailiff have to take separate action for costs and damages?

D

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

TBH davyb I'm unsure, I'm on my way out now, but I've a quotation in one of my John Kruse books about this which I'll post up word for word on my return.

[Guest]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Yes chunks of the guidance would be inappropriate IMO, off the top of my head all the stuff about accounts in dispute for instance, you cant have judgment in dispute(contempt) and ask for collection to be suspended as you would with a pre-judgment debt.

D

[labman]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

This is taken from one of John Kruse's books.

"Readers must heed a significant wanring about 'from 4' complaints against bailiffs. It appears that this remedy may have been overused - and used in inappropriate cases - in recent years and bailiffs have responded by trying to recover their legal costs in cases in which the complainant fails.

This has been facilitated by courts, which do not always follow the procedure laid down in the 1988 Rules. Complaints are increasingly treated by courts as normal cases going to trial in front of a circuit judge. Because of this, the losing party will normally be found liable for the other side's legal costs, and these can easily run into thousands of pounds.

For this reason, the advice only to use this procedure in cases of grave abuse by a bailiff must be re-iterated."

I would recommend any posters reading this thread, and considering a complaint about a bailiff, to post up details of their issue and what they intend doing so they can seek some other opinions on it before doing anything. Depending on what is being complained about very much dictates the process you follow, there is no one size fits all to this issue.

[bluebottle]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Yes many on thee forums are to gung-ho about form 4 complaints. Interesting comment about complaint being perverted into litigation, i am unfamiliar with the procedure but can the judge award costs against the debtor at the complaint hearing or does the bailiff have to take separate action for costs and damages?

D

The reality, Davy, is that certificated bailiffs are going into court with a barrister in tow who then proceeds to pervert a Form 4 hearing, whose sole purpose is to examine a bailiff's fitness to hold a Bailiff Certificate, into litigation, resulting in the complainant being landed with a Costs Order for £10,000 +. The Costs Order would be made at the hearing or, sometimes, at a separate hearing that is linked to the original hearing. The bailiff would have to take separate action to enforce the Costs Order.

The majority of debtors cannot afford legal representation by a barrister and, therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is another method of dealing with bailiff misconduct, but without the financial risks associated with a Form 4 hearing. Illegal fees that have already been paid can be recovered by way of the Small Claims Court procedures under CPR. Here, costs are capped. Provided the debtor who has been defrauded has the evidence to show the bailiff has obtained fees they were not entitled to charge, whether because the law does not allow them to be charged or for work not carried out, the bailiff runs the risk of losing their Bailiff Certificate and Bond if a CCJ is entered against their name as a person is not permitted to act as a Certificated Bailiff if they have a CCJ against their name. In the case of a Bailiff Company, a CCJ against the company would put them out of business as they would not be permitted to carry out enforcement work with a CCJ against them.

Some Bailiff Companies hold CCA Licences to enable them to collect certain types of debts falling under the CCA. An investigation by the OFT, who regulate CCA-Licensed businesses, including CCA-Licensed Bailiff Companies, concentrates on the fitness of the licence-holder to hold a CCA Licence. If the investigation raises serious questions about a licence-holder's fitness to hold a licence, the OFT have the power to revoke or refuse renewal of the licence. This can seriously compromise a company's viability, especially if that company relies on work provided by the licence for its income. In very serious cases, steps can be taken to close the company down as well as revoke or refuse renewal of of a CCA Licence.

At present, where individual Certificated Bailiffs are concerned, referral to the Ministry of Justice's Bailiff Department for investigation and action is less risky than a Form 4 hearing.

[Guest]

Re: Complaints About Bailiffs and Bailiff Companies

Sorry Labman did it already:tinysmile_hmm_t2:.


I wanted to bring this point out, some have only recently realized that the form 4 is for use, only if you are certain you have an iron clad case.

Part 8 of the 1998 rules were introduced to enable easy access to a complaints procedure, in reality, as one commentator alluded, " like the door to the Ritz" it is open to all , but you wouldn't go in there unless you had a lot of cash you could afford to loose.

A little harsh perhaps but it gets the point over.

D