marston bailiff

[ohntgn]

Re: marston bailiff

quick update.

plod came round last night to take a statement off my daughter, i had rung them and told them that the bailiff had pushed my daughter out the way to gain entry.
anyway, he took the statement and advised amy that chances are nothing would happen, because the bailiff would claim reasonable force. daughter said ok but she still wanted it to be reported, plod left again then returned and asked to see the bailiff card, showed him, he asked if he could take it, i said no he could have a copy. so did him a copy and off he went again. came back again and said the card is a warrant and so there was no point in amy continuing with her complaint and would she sign his notebook.
i said to amy its up to her what she does, amy said again to the plod, what happens if i sign your book, plod said it just means we wont persue it but the report would be kept for any future reference. amy signed.

oh one other thing, plod said it was amys word against the bailiffs, and that any of our witness testimony was not worth it because we would be seen as biased as we are all related.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

The plod in your case, is looking at the case from a CPS lawyers perspective. He is asking himself the question:

If he were the prosecuting lawyer, what are the chances of convincing a jury and getting a safe conviction?

A couple of years ago, I was able to get a complainants (I think she may have been a CAG poster) bailiff charged and I prepared as much evidence as I could, and succeeded in getting the case into court. The defendant bailiff’s solicitor opted to transfer the case up to the Crown court because they felt it was a better forum to present their defence. That is a defendants right.

The trial was only a day long. The jury deliberated for longer than the trial itself and the Judge recalled the Jury who were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The judge said he would accept a majority of 10 to 2

The jury retired once again, and continued to deliberate while we went back for more caffeine in advocate's room. The jury eventually returned and the jury foreman handed the judge a note, a piece of paper handwritten with the words - when does a push, or a shove become an assault.

This is a case where the complainant debtor had lots of medical evidence, broken bone, x-rays, ambulance crew statements and doctors reports. It was the police who were, initially, institutionally adverse to the idea a bailiff could do wrong. Both officers were reported to the IPCC for failure to identify a medical emergency. The ambulance was actually called by a neighbour who had intervened!

The recorder judge very carefully and clearly addressed the jury with this recommendation: - If you think this is a push or a shove, then this is not what the prosecution is alleging, so you must acquit the defendant. The judge continued - If you think the defendant pushed the complainant, and then you must find the defendant, not guilty.

The jury retired and later found the defendant not guilty on a majority of 10 to 2.

When a police officer objectively looks as an assault case, regardless if it involves bailiffs, he has to consider the real prospects of whether the CPS would be willing to take on the case, and win a safe conviction.

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

Plod needs to go back to training school. I've never heard such a load of tosh - and I'm a retired policeman. A certificated bailiff is only permitted to gain peaceable entry to a property. This means they must not need to push past anyone. The bailiff used force and, in doing so, invalidated her legal protection and any levy or seizure. The plod's claim of reasonable force is total rubbish.

Certificated bailiffs do not carry a warrant card as do police officers. They carry a certificate issued by a county court. This is only valid when used in conjunction with either a warrant issued by a county court or a liability order/traffic warrant issued by a local authority.Ootherwise, they have no more power than you or I.

A police officer carries a warrant card. This is because the office of Constable is a Crown office and a police officer is a Crown Servant, not a public servant. In order to execute the duties of their office, police officers carry their warrant card which is their authority to act.

I'm going to send you a PM as I need to ask you some more detailed questions about this incident. it is known that certificated bailiffs trawl these forums.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

replied...

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

Plod needs to go back to training school. I've never heard such a load of tosh - and I'm a retired policeman. A certificated bailiff is only permitted to gain peaceable entry to a property. This means they must not need to push past anyone. The bailiff used force and, in doing so, invalidated her legal protection and any levy or seizure. The plod's claim of reasonable force is total rubbish.

Certificated bailiffs do not carry a warrant card as do police officers. They carry a certificate issued by a county court. This is only valid when used in conjunction with either a warrant issued by a county court or a liability order/traffic warrant issued by a local authority.Ootherwise, they have no more power than you or I.

A police officer carries a warrant card. This is because the office of Constable is a Crown office and a police officer is a Crown Servant, not a public servant. In order to execute the duties of their office, police officers carry their warrant card which is their authority to act.

I'm going to send you a PM as I need to ask you some more detailed questions about this incident. it is known that certificated bailiffs trawl these forums.

Have to agree there is no such thing as reasonable force when trying to gain entry.

D

[ohntgn]

Re: marston bailiff

my main concern as always is for others. my daughter is ok, she was very shaken and scared but otherwise ok, i am furious with the way these bailiffs can act. my concern is that with these increased powers it will only be a matter of time before we the citizens no longer have rights or safety in our own homes. i dread to think of what it must be like to have these bailiffs visiting for the old or the infirm and single mothers and other such defenseless citizens. and the worst thing is they are getting away with it everyday.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

my main concern as always is for others. my daughter is ok, she was very shaken and scared but otherwise ok, i am furious with the way these bailiffs can act. my concern is that with these increased powers it will only be a matter of time before we the citizens no longer have rights or safety in our own homes. i dread to think of what it must be like to have these bailiffs visiting for the old or the infirm and single mothers and other such defenseless citizens. and the worst thing is they are getting away with it everyday.

Fortunately the new rules (should they be implemented) will not effect the bailiffs right of entry(unless you have commercial premises) the sections of the TCE bill that permit the use of force will not be enacted.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

my main concern as always is for others. my daughter is ok, she was very shaken and scared but otherwise ok, i am furious with the way these bailiffs can act. my concern is that with these increased powers it will only be a matter of time before we the citizens no longer have rights or safety in our own homes. i dread to think of what it must be like to have these bailiffs visiting for the old or the infirm and single mothers and other such defenseless citizens. and the worst thing is they are getting away with it everyday.

Those you refer to, namely, the elderly, infirm, single parents, etc., are classed as vulnerable and bailiffs are supposed to refer the matter back to the original creditor for direction and not continue with enforcement. The reality is that certificated bailiffs tend to ignore this and blunder on regardless. And as HMCTS and the local authorities who hire these Rent-A-Thug outfits find, it is they, not the bailiffs and bailiff companies, who are liable for any civil damages at God knows what cost to the taxpayer.

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

Have to agree there is no such thing as reasonable force when trying to gain entry.

D

Reasonable force, in my experience and the eyes of the law, normally applies to defending oneself or one's property, not some scumbag certificated bailiff acting totally contrary to the conditions of a warrant. The absence of police when the bailiff turned up indicates "peaceable entry only". A copy of the warrant should confirm this. The fact that the bailiff forced the door and pushed past the OP's daughter puts the bailiff and Marstons in an awkward position. I have spoken to the OFT this afternoon and obtained Marstons CCA Licence Number for the OP. What the bailiff did is in breach of OFT Debt Collection Guidelines 3.13 (d) & (e). It is probably sufficient to give the OFT cause to question Marstons' fitness to hold a CCA Licence. Trading Standards won't be too impressed either.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

I will be interested to see how the bailiff firms react to complaints of breaching OFT guidelines. Many of these are in direct opposition to accepted bailiffs law.

The guidelines in general are designed for the pre judgment debt collections on consumer credit accounts.

D

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

Take this one for instance

"i. pressurising debtors to pay more than they can reasonably afford32 without experiencing undue difficulty33 or to pay within an unreasonably short period."

Wouldn't it be nice if this applied to bailiffs.

D

[labman]

Re: marston bailiff

I agree. You are right BB that if they hold a CCL they should abide by the OFT guidelines, but they are not normally associated with this type of debt. I know many of the bailiff companies were somewhat anicked when they realised they should hold a CCL, but then everything has gone quiet. It would be very interesting to see how the OFT respond - Trading Standards often conduct the investigations for complaints made to the OFT.

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

I agree. You are right BB that if they hold a CCL they should abide by the OFT guidelines, but they are not normally associated with this type of debt. I know many of the bailiff companies were somewhat anicked when they realised they should hold a CCL, but then everything has gone quiet. It would be very interesting to see how the OFT respond - Trading Standards often conduct the investigations for complaints made to the OFT.

The OFT were pretty definite that CCA-licensed bailiff companies are subject to OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and the OFT use the Guidelines to decide fitness to hold a CCA licence or whether a licence should be revoked, or renewal refused or conditions attached.

OFT Credit Licensing are responsible for issuing CCA Licences and determining fitness of licence-holders. Trading Standards deal with individual complaints against licence-holders, investigate them and then forward their findings to OFT Credit Fitness Team to determine whether a licence should be revoked or whatever. TSOs also have statutory powers they can use and, working in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, deal with those who shaft or try to shaft consumers.

When making a complaint against a CCA Licence-Holder, whether a business, bailiff company or DCA, a complaint should be made to OFT Credit Fitness Team AND Trading Standards.

Actually, Labman, you have given me an idea for writing a paper on this. Thank you.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

Perhaps i am looking at the wrong guide, OFT664?

It says for the collection of consumer credit debts on the front.
Repeated mention of the contractual provisions and the CCA statute barred debts etc, inappropriate for bailiffs i would have thought.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

Perhaps i am looking at the wrong guide, OFT664?

It says for the collection of consumer credit debts on the front.
Repeated mention of the contractual provisions and the CCA statute barred debts etc, inappropriate for bailiffs i would have thought.

D

If they collect consumer credit debt in addition to the normal types of debts bailiffs collect, they have to have a CCA Debt Collection Licence. Some bailiff companies have debt collection departments/divisions that deal with consumer credit debt collection, e.g. Equita, Marstons. I'm currently researching which bailiff companies hold CCA Licences and which ones do not.