Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

thanks for the advise,how do we go around to submit a regulation 46 complain.The little girl must have been under duress,and was recovering from a R.T.A under the care of her G.P at the time ,poor thing does know about bailiff at that age.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

In order to submit a Regulation 46 complaint, you have to lay an information before the magistrates court that issued the original LO. Regulation 46 complaints should not be made routinely. They are only justifiable in cases where an LA is told by a debtor to restrain a bailiff it has engaged from levying in an irregular manner, that is, in breach of applicable legislation, and fails to do. It can also used to recover property that has been levied upon or seized in breach of the law.

In this case, the LA has removed levy fees, which the court would order them to remove in any case. I would point out to the LA that the Waiting Charge is not permitted under the relevant legislation and should be removed accordingly. Unless someone has suffered personal injury as a result of the bailiff's actions, I cannot honestly see very much justification for a Regulation 46 complaint.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

If they argue about the Waiting Fee ask them which Rule or Regulation allows them to charge this and remind them that Schedule 5 of the Regulations makes no refence to this at all.

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Great Advice...would a 9 year old ,be classed as vulnerable?

As the main focus on this is that the bailiff entry.

They say it was a peaceful enter,brushing pass a 9 year old ..to gain peaceful enter,under duress.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

The bailiff broke a cardinal rule in this case; he entered a property where there where minors not only aged 16 years and under, but minors aged under 12 years when no parent or other responsible adult was present WITHIN the property. He should not have entered. He also had to push past someone to gain entry. It is irrelevant whether the person is an adult or child. Where a bailiff obtains a levy after gaining forcible entry without lawful authority, the levy is invalid and potentially unlawful. The LA has clearly recognised this and removed the levy fees. If the bailiff and bailiff company insist it was a peaceable entry, invite them to produce evidence of case and statute law to confirm this. If they still insist they have done no wrong, invite them to go before a judge and have the matter formally adjudicated. I'll bet you they won't have the guts to take up the challenge because they know they will have to admit they did wrong. And they won't do that. Find out from the LA if they have or intend to submit a Form 5 complaint against the bailiff to the court that issued his certificate.

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

So will the La have to submit a Form 5 of complain against the bailiff or us?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

A Form 5 complaint is made against the bailiff. It's almost the same as a Form 4 complaint, but it is where the matter has been investigated and the bailiff found to be in the wrong. Only local authorities, etc., can submit Form 5 complaints. A member of the public can only submit a Form 4 complaint.

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Reply from the council in regards to my complaint all replies greatful

With regard to the 5 points of you have raised in your complaint (Stage 2)

1. I can advise that the certificated bailiff in attendance was Mr ******. His
certificate was issued at Worcester Court and as stated previously he is no longer
employed by ******* and as far as they know he is no longer a
certificated bailiff, as he left to start a new profession. I am further advised that the
other person in attendance was not a bailiff but a driver/porter, Mr *******
who is supplied via an agency. Although Mr ****** is not directly employed by
the bailiff company he still works at *********** on occasion via the agency
and therefore they have been able to speak to him. The bailiff compliance officer
has reviewed your complaint and looked at the case records with Mr ******* but
he cannot recall a visit that fits the description given by yourself and your husband.
The bailiff note taken at the time suggests that the visit was a routine visit and
therefore the bailiffs advise that Mr ****** would have only played a minor role
as goods were not removed at the time.

2. The bailiff company have advised that they are unable to comment any further
regarding the comments you make in respect of your circumstances at the time.
They advise that they received no complaints of this nature about Mr ***** and
given the information provided by Mr ****** it seems that Mr ***** did not feel
at the time that the circumstances required the Council’s intervention.

3. Unfortunately given the delay between the event and the complaint we are now
only able to rely on what the bailiff recorded at the time and that is that he gained
peaceful access into the property, levied distress and made a temporary
agreement. The bailiff company confirm that they are aware what constitutes legal
entry and what does not. They ensure that all the bailiffs they employ are given
significant training in this area to assist them in different situations. All bailiffs are
instructed not to gain access where the only person present is under 18 years old
and they think that the driver would have remembered the case if the bailiff had
broken this rule.

4.The bailiff company do not accept that any of the fees that have been charged are
illegal. You appear to suggest that by offering to reduce their fees there is an
admission they are wrong. The bailiff company dispute this and advise that they
agreed to credit your account after discussions with the Council on a commercial
basis to aid the matter to reach a conclusion. They advise that to put this simply
they were credited as the cost of time taken to discuss the matter outweighs the
amount of fees they gave up. In addition they advise that there is no specific fee
heading for waiting fee. However a vanabortive removal fee was incurred on 13
December 11 following a visit made with a view to removing goods. This charge
was incurred in accordance with Schedule 5, Head C Reasonable Costs and fees
incurred. This fee is determined by a combination of factors, the time the bailiff
spends resolving the account is one of them, but not solely for waiting or incurred
as a separate charge. Some people refer to time spent at the call as waiting time
as time may be allowed for payment of the debt to be raised.

5. The bailiffs advise they have reviewed the case and that there does not appear to
have been any claims at the time that the goods “seized” were items belonging to
children. If this had been the case the bailiffs would have reviewed the situation. I
am advised that when considering the other items for seizure the bailiffs would
have taken into consideration the “basic” domestic needs of the taxpayer at the
time of the seizure.
I am advised that you entered into a temporary agreement with the bailiffs on the
occasion of the visit and it was clearly stated on the paperwork that the arrangement was
temporary and how many payments were required under this arrangement. You were
also instructed to contact the bailiffs when the temporary arrangement was completed in
order to negotiate a further arrangement.
You telephoned the bailiffs payment team on 18 July 2012 to make a payment and you
were advised that the temporary arrangement had expired and that you needed to make
a further arrangement with the bailiff team. The payments team member attempted to
transfer you but you were either disconnected, or hung up, as the call transfer did not
succeed. However I note that you contacted the bailiffs 10 minutes later without
discussing your arrangement with the bailiff’s team.
The bailiffs have advised me that they have now investigated the matter as fully possible
and there is nothing further that they can add.
It would appear from the bailiff company’s investigation of the recorded facts and their
interview with Mr ******** there are clearly some differences between your recollections,
Mr ******** action and the records made by Mr ******* at the time. As I was not
present I am unable to determine which version is more accurate.
In your letter you refer to the Fraud Act 2006 and imply that the bailiff has committed a
criminal act and serious fraud and that there are grounds for a criminal investigation. If
you still believe this to be the case you are at liberty to contact the Police as you suggest.
The bailiffs have advised that they have investigated the matter as fully as possible and if
you report the matter to the Police they will gladly relay the above information and assist
them with their investigation. The Council will also co-operate with any investigation.
In light of this I believe that it is no longer appropriate for them to have dealings with you.
In any case I have asked that the liability orders be returned by the bailiffs in order for you
to have a further opportunity to pay the Council directly.

[swifty]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Question! if the Council believe the BS from the Bailiffs why are they prepared to let you pay the Council direct?
I smell a cover up

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Question! if the Council believe the BS from the Bailiffs why are they prepared to let you pay the Council direct?

Perhaps they are unwilling to be tried alongside the ba:censored:rd bailiffs?

I smell a cover up

Or simple self-preservation.

[swifty]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Well there's never going to be a chance in hell of em saying "after investigating the issues you raised we have found in your favour and admit we are jointly liable, as recompense you need not pay your CT EVER and here's a cheque for £64'000"

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

Certainly seems to prove their is another Council who haven't the foggiest and refer to their contractor for the BS answers.

[gravytrain]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

In your letter you refer to the Fraud Act 2006 and imply that the bailiff has committed a
criminal act and serious fraud and that there are grounds for a criminal investigation. If
you still believe this to be the case you are at liberty to contact the Police as you suggest.
The bailiffs have advised that they have investigated the matter as fully as possible and if
you report the matter to the Police they will gladly relay the above information and assist
them with their investigation. The Council will also co-operate with any investigation.
.

I have not read the whole thread , but find this interesting, has this been reported to the police and are they considering action ?

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

As this is now at stage 2 council cpmplain it will go to stage 3 for a senior puppet to invesitgate,the council will back there bailiff 100% as they are there agents so what will happen they deney everthing,ive send a letter to my local MP,the driver/porter is in trouble cos my 3 children remember him so il be getting statements from them and screw him aswell.....without the help of this site and membets it would have gone un noticed lets beat these bullys

[sanj]

Re: Bailiff pushes pass child to gain entry

What about the driver porter ? He had no right stepping foot inside my house pretending to b a bailiff.distress was even levied so why come in a van to remove goods then charge me.they still relying on suchule 5. For fee,waiting time etc jokers