Police training in bailiff law

[CleverClogs]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

What about tasering the bailiff or delaying summoning a dog handler?

Or the admonition to behave in a professional manner when a door is slammed in the bailiff's face and, above all, not to be seen to wet themselves from excessive laughter?

I reckon your version should be officially adopted. msl:

[bizzybob]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

Or the admonition to behave in a professional manner when a door is slammed in the bailiff's face and, above all, not to be seen to wet themselves from excessive laughter?

I reckon your version should be officially adopted. msl:

Agreed, subject to the police officer having the power to drag the bailiff from the door, with extreme violence if they are trying to break the door chain chain, and gain access to a vulnerable persons house. If the bailiff is marstons, and the house is not the debtors, then the police officer can taser the bailiff without further notice, and take them straight to the police office and hold for as long as is permitted for questioning.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

For the record this is what was said to Shaun Sawyer, the Chief constable of Devon & Cornwall Constabulary. Only the identifications from the letter have been removed.

'In response to your letter dated 13^th November 2012 addressed to Geoffrey Cox MP, I have been asked to write to you by the above following an appalling incident which occurred at their house on 28^th August 2012 and which was enacted by a bailiff acting on behalf of the Torridge District Council through its agents Proserve. The incident was fuelled by a belief that a Mr who was not involved, allegedly had an outstanding parking ticket in his name. That doesn’t give Proserve the right to take unlawful action against other parties in respect of the alleged contravention.

The people who suffered were Mrs, a pensioner, and her daughter both of whom are entirely innocent of any alleged contraventions and which they knew nothing about. That incontrovertible fact did not protect this pair from subjected to a harassing and quite excessive ordeal which fell well short of the requirements of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which a Chief Constable would know is an Act complete with criminal sanctions for those who harass others for payment by unlawful and intimidating methods.

Mrs daughter was defrauded out of £482 for an allegation that was nothing to do with her. The fact that she happened to be in the house when the bailiff barged in is more reason for police understanding and protection rather than less, or in this case none at all. This is not what decriminalised parking was set up for.

Both Proserve and the bailiff have long and undistinguished records in their quest for money from any party they feel they can bully or defraud. Proserve was severely criticised by Mr Justice Owen at the Royal Courts of Justice on 18th July for being actively involved in ‘a reign of terror’ whilst ordinary folk from North Devon have reported four instances of M bullying people in the past twelve months. They could all be wrong, but the judge’s comments should serve as a warning. I was actively involved enough in M’s illegal BidefordArtGallery raid of November 2011 (no warrant, wrong address etc) to know that not only did M acquit herself very badly that night but so did the police on that occasion.

M didn’t even ascertain whether Mr was at home before unlawfully barging in against the wishes of the owner. Neither the police nor M seemed to have any respect for the instructions that are clearly laid out on page 7 the Ministry Of Justice’s website (bailiff section). This rule (not guide) unequivocally states ‘Bailiffs can only enter the defendant’s home if they are allowed in by the person there’. In this case Mrs wasn’t even a defendant but an innocent bystander for whom felt had no rights at all. In fact the reverse was true. How the police overlooked this is of great public concern. It would appear that in Devon, the epitome of rural England, pensioners are no longer safe in their homes even when the police are alerted to heavy handed and aggressively forceful intruders who have no legal right to be there.

In this case M had formulated ‘Plan B’ if Mr wasn’t at home - if she could not get the money from the named respondent, then she would target whosoever was available regardless of whether or not they were legally responsible. What on earth was going through the minds of the police to allow this insane act to be played out in front of them and without the slightest proof that M had any authority?

Your letter to Geoffrey Cox MP doesn’t assist you at all; indeed it is more notable for what it doesn’t say. Nowhere in this letter can I detect the merest concern for the wellbeing of Mrs or the traumatic effect this outrageous incident had on them. Your quotes from the Devon and Cornwall police guidance on bailiffs are so selective that they allude to a reversal of the helpful spirit of meaningful assistance contained within the guide. What Mrs and her daughter experienced was an unacceptably low standard of service to the public via tepid police reaction to people being intimidated and defrauded in their own homes aggressive intruders.

You have quoted paragraph 4.1 from the guide as if this alone is sufficient to cover for what was the complete failure by police officers to check the legitimacy of the legal documentation carried by M during the time they were in attendance. There appears to be a case to answer for a Chief Constable of all people supporting a delusional assumption that not only can a private citizen can enter another’s house in pursuit of an alleged civil debt, but also that the police can assist this intruder in the forceful payment of any demanded amount, if only by ensuring that the citizen is left in no doubt that the forceful bailiff’s presence will be supported and tolerated. What on earth was going through your mind when you composed this letter?

As the country’s leading authority on parking enforcement via bailiffs (and if you wish to dispute that then please introduce me to any person you feel can match my knowledge on the subject), let me assist you on various laws and statutes the police are bound to uphold and a few intricacies from you own county police guide.

First the attempted collection of any alleged civil debt is a civil matter and as such Section 6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 actively dissuades police attendance in such matters by removing the police obligations in this area formally defined under Sections 85 (4) and 86 of the County Court Acts 1984. What on earth does Devon and Cornwall police think that ‘decriminalised’ means in relation to parking enforcement as defined by Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (later Traffic Management act 2004)?

Only when M started acting unlawfully was their any need for attending officers and they should have been far more concerned with her behavior and her perceived right to be another’s house. If those attending felt that her behavior was lawful they should have immediately withdrawn from this civil matter, if not then action should have been taken against M Those actions are clearly laid out in the very Devon and Cornwall police that you quoted from.

I appreciate that it was M who called for the police and in this respect I should draw your attention to the fact that M is one of the more shrewd bailiffs who often claim ‘assault’ whenever they attend private property. This huge woman seems to be very unlucky when faced with people far smaller than her, indeed on one occasion she claimed that her assailant had caused her a ‘slipped disc’, but that didn’t prevent this remarkably unlucky and brave women from defying all the intense pain that accompanies such a distressful condition and being back on the street just two days later.

Some people might suggest that M cries wolf at the slightest threat to her intemperate behavior and that she calls the police not out of concern for her safety but for assistance to intimidate others. Others might unjustly feel that she consistently fools the police into believing that her chronically unlawful behavior can be given credence and authority if she constantly persuades the police that she is the ‘victim’ of her own distasteful behavior.

However with the exception of asking that police to give a little more thought to calls from private bailiffs whose company has been publicly criticized by an outraged High Court judge and who seek assistance in their quest to unlawfully extract money from people who have never committed a crime (even if the decriminalised ticket was valid), this letter is not about M and her rash behavior, it is about the police response on the night and your letter of 21^st November 2012.

Though you have quoted paragraph 4.1 as some sort of defence mechanism, your reading of this part of the Devon & Cornwall police guide leaves much to be desired. You quote ‘the authority on which the bailiff has or seeks to enter premises, including any relevant documentation which gives the bailiff power to enter the premises’. Whilst private bailiffs do have very limited rights to enter commercial premises, they have no right at all to enter private houses and certainly not for alleged outstanding parking tickets. It isn’t for me to prove that, it is for you to seek a statute that allows this before embarking on this paragraph as some sort of excuse to condone the bailiff’s behavior. Maybe I can help you save time here – no such statute exists.

May I draw your attention to other sections of paragraphs 4 and 5 which the attending officers failed to establish and which M also failed to satisfy…

4.3 ‘If a bailiff or court officer is unable to provide evidence of identity, status, authority or power, and is causing a breach of the peace or committing an offence, the police constable should prevent the bailiff from entering the premises, or if already on the premises, should remove the bailiff/court officer at once’.

Whilst M had a letter with her she did not have any warrant of execution. Nor did she on any of the other three other occasions and yet after the court case relating to the November 2011 art gallery raid she can have no excuse whatsoever for failing to arrive with the one document she would have known gave her unimpeachable authority to enforce. It would appear that you as a Chief Constable have failed to provide your officers with a template warrant of execution for them to consult in such circumstances. I enclose a template warrant for you to include in future guides.

With M having failed to produce a warrant, the second part of 4.3 should have been observed and she should have been removed from the house by the officers having failed to satisfy them as to her authority to be there. That is the purpose of a warrant – a document which allows an authorised officer to act in a manner which without the warrant would otherwise be an illegal act - such as extracting £482.

Further even if M had brought a warrant with her it would have been in the name of and she should have been removed from the house of another in any event. I’m sorry but you need to explain in great detail why you feel that your officers should have allowed an innocent party to be subject to a warrant which never existed and had it done so, it would have been in somebody else’s name. There is no statute in parking enforcement that allows a person to enter the house of another in these circumstances.

4.5 ‘Constables should be aware of their duty to keep the peace. If there is a sufficiently real and imminent threat of a breach of the peace, the constable should be very careful when determining who is acting unlawfully, then act accordingly by arresting the prime culprit of the potential breach, or using his/her discretion to diffuse the situation. It is vital to remain impartial to determine whose conduct is unlawful’.

If only this had happened. Instead your officer’s allowed M to remain against the wishes of those who should not have been party to this and to then add £25 for every 15 minutes that she was there. What on earth possessed your officers to assume that this intimidatory act had any lawful validity at all? – and why did you not comment on something you must know appeared to be extremely suspicious at the very least?

What law do feel allowed her to audaciously perform this act of fraudulent smoke and mirrors right in front of your officers? There is absolutely no statute in parking that allows this blatant fraud. It’s little wonder that M felt that she could hoodwink such unimaginative officers into believing that she had been assaulted in order to place herself in the exact position she needed to in to complete her deceit. She must have felt that she could treat them with as much contempt as she treated Mrs and her daughter – and sadly she appears to have been right.

5.4 ‘However, should the bailiff be acting unreasonably or unlawfully whilst gaining entry, whilst inside the premises, or so to provoke the debtor, then that will be considered unlawful on their part’.

Daughter was provoked in to paying an extra £100 for the false time element claimed by M and knowing that she taking money from a party who never owed it was deliberate fraud under Sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

For your benefit Section 2 - Fraud by false representation reads

1)A person is in breach of this section if he –

a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
b)intends by making the representation –
i)to make a gain for himself or another
ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss

M knew that she never had a warrant.

2)A representation is false is

a)it is untrue or misleading
b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

M invented an imaginary timescale of £25 for every 15 minutes that she was there in order to maximise her fraud. (time after the 9pm deadline which CIVEA’s National Enforcement Standards states that she should not have been there)

Section 3 – Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he –

a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose
b)intends by failing to disclose that information –
i)to make a gain for himself or another
ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss

M then continued with the fraud by allowing to believe that she should pay. I am not aware that M ever advised Ms that she need not pay.

5.5 ‘Police constables should also be aware that in very rare cases a bailiff's persistent and frequent actions or demands for payment may constitute harassment under Sec. 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970’.

As the senior officer in the Devon & Cornwall constabulary it was your duty to ensure that your officers were aware of this as it was happening before their very eyes.

5.6 ‘If other elements exist, such as a bailiff threatening or using violence to gain entry, or assault or criminal damage by either party, then other powers of arrest should be used’.


The other elements that existed were harassment under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and fraud by virtue of violations under Sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 and as such M should be arrested and questioned in order to explain her behaviour on that night and on other previous enforcements.

For their part the Devon and Cornwall police should be far more attentive to unlawful bullying, intimidation. fraud and unlawful behaviour of bailiffs. They should be far more attentive to exaggerated claims by bailiffs made in order to manipulate the police on to their side in order to assist in these unlawful acts and far more attentive to the laws relating parking enforcement by bailiffs. The police also need to be far more attentive to the cries for help from law abiding citizens who believe in police integrity and that because of that life long belief that they can trust in the police to protect them when they are quietly minding their own business in their own homes before bullying intruders arrive to interfere with that peace.

It is not for such citizens to prove their innocence or grin and bear such distastefully unlawful behaviour; it is for the intruder to prove their rights to be there. This clearly never happened in this case which some may feel you have casually dismissed in an attempt to placate the sitting MP.

You should also be aware that when the police side with bullies who think that they are pseudo police and join in an act against innocent citizens, it is the integrity of the police which suffers by virtue of the loss of public trust.

Your comments are awaited.



For the record this letter was never answered. My summary is that in writing to the local MP Sawyer the Chief Constable was writing to defend himself and his force with no attention being paid to the ordeal that the people went through on that night, thus I am not surprised that he failed to answer, because that duty would only ever be carried out by somebody who had concern for those he is pledged to protect.

His failure to act speak volumes for his own shortcomings and does not reflect well on the police generally. Its little wonder that people lose respect for them. You can have as many guides or amendments to guides as you like but if those who are bound by them ignore them, they are worthless.

The reign of terror continues with the approval of the Chief Constable

[bizzybob]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

@ Fair Parking above

Absolutely appalling, this should be copied to ALL MP's so they are in no doubt who the criminals are.

That is a serious indictment of the busted ass system we have. I consider that education of officers should be the concern of the newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioners, the sad sorry failure of the police and the Chief constable's apparent ignoring the issue is sufficient for them to fall on their sword IMHO

[CleverClogs]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

For the record this is what was said to Shaun Sawyer, the Chief constable of Devon & Cornwall Constabulary. Only the identifications from the letter have been removed.

Copies of the original letter should be sent to the MP, to the Home Office, to the new Police Commissar and to HM Inspector of Constabulary.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Police training in bailiff law

the Chief constable's apparent ignoring the issue is sufficient for them to fall on their sword IMHO

I would normally draw the line at seppuku but, in this instance, one need not worry unduly.

That Chief Woodentop plainly has no sense of honour.