Form 4 issues

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 issues

Thanks for that FP, that shows where then system is cream crackered

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Form 4 issues

Gravytrain. It most certainly is flawed, but probably more to court maladministration than through a flawed process. The rules are quite clear. A complaint is received at the court which granted the certificate which should then write to the bailiff and asks him to respond within 14 days. If the bailiff does not or the answer is unsatisfactory then a judge can then order that bailiff to attend court and explain to him why he should keep his certificate.

If the bailiff responds and the court is satisfied withe answer then the complaint is dismissed. The complaint may well be frivilous or vexatious but it is dealt quickly and quietly. So endeth such complaints which is what the bailiff companies allege they are trying to prevent. As nobody was required to attend court, where exactly is the costs issue in such a swift rebuttal?

However if the bailiff has not responded or the answer is unsatisfactory then it is clear that the complaint cannot be frivilous or vexatious and requires more examination. In short the judge already has his doubts about the bailiff. It is also important to add that this choice to recall the bailiff lies solely with the judge. The complainant has no say and is not asked to attend which is what may have happened in post 3. What is complicated about any of this and where are the costs? A short appearance before a judge could result in an attendance allowance but because this was triggered by a request from the judge then there may be case for the bailiff to receive a payment out of the public purse. Where is the logic in asking the complainant to pay when that person had no say in the decision to ask the bailiff to attend?

Where this goes wrong is too many courts receive a complaint and allocate a plaint number before advising anybody and then sets up a hearing. This can only happen because the court staff who are not legally qualified have taken the wrong course of action through their unfamiliarity with the rules.

Instead of being dealt with swiftly and quietly, a maelstrom of litigation is then ignorantly unleashed, hence the arrival of the possee and the exposure to costs. This should never happen, but it does so with alarming regularity.

If the rules were observed there could be no possibility of costs.

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 issues

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/bai...nd-courts-bill

The comments are most illuminating, perhaps the judiciary need to read up a bit more on real life bailiff shenanigans

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 issues

Have to agree FP, there needs to be a clear cut complaints system to address the bad apples, who are acting in a thorougly unprofessional manner, and even rersorting to fraud and misrepresentation, along with assault.

Re: Form 4 issues

Thank you for that explanation.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Form 4 issues

Let's bear in mind that this judgment was over two years ago and yet in reality nothing much has changed. So much so that hardly anybody knew that it existed and people still bring Form 4 complaints. The problem now is what it was back in the period 2009 - 2011 when I was involved in this case, which is that most people do not have a clear idea of what it is they wish to achieve when taking out a Form 4 complaint. There should be only one reason and that it is the bailiff is not a 'fit and proper person'. What it should not be about is seeking compensation or taking revenge.

In this case, I came on to the scene about one year after the complaints had been lodged and immediately advised all three that they should withdraw because what they all wanted was compensation for lost vehicles and lost income due to having their businesses interrupted. They only ever embarked on the Form 4 complaint because they did not know of any other way of achieving that objective. What they didn't know back then is that their objectives would have been better served by issuing proceedings against the local authorities concerned in the small claims court. When the judgment was announced all three knew by then that there was a better course of action which two of them have embarked upon. This case rattled on for 12 days in court and it drained them all.

Many people seem to think that a Form 4 complaint is simple and will take a few hours in court. What they don't expect is to be confronted by a possee of barristers, solicitors and company officials who are happy to have adjournments as it racks up costs. This expensive confrontation would never happen in the small claims court.

In reality there is very little to be gained by a Form 4 complaint where an upper limit of £10,000 is set to coincide with a lodged bond. What these bailiffs did wrong which in the main was to arrive without warrants, seize cars at an unearthly hour and charge excessive fees is an everyday occurence which can be equally be put down to what the bailiffs were trained to do by their employers. It is a thin line.

Whilst a monetary claim against the local authorities concerned is easily identifiable, a claim against the bailiffs for obeying orders is far more grey. The total amount of this claim would have exceeded £30,000 and the bonds combined would not have covered that figure. No real guarantee of success against the bailiffs but every chance for success against the local authorities who never even prepared any warrants. Can't blame a bailiff for not having a warrant which never existed, but which the local authorities and their employers would have assured them would be perfectly OK. Does that make the bailiffs unfit to hold certificate? Your call, but would you then pursue it at the risk of costs?

It is also a sobering thought that the insurance company which underwrites bailiff bonds has yet to pay any claim. The premium is a mere £210 for two years cover

[gravytrain]

Re: Form 4 issues

The whole form 4 process is fundamentally flawed in my view. The answer would have been to appoint an independent regulator as was proffered back in 2007, unfortunately no one wanted the job, or those who did weren't really independent.

Re: Form 4 issues

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/bai...nd-courts-bill

[gravytrain]

Re: Form 4 issues

Insulting a judge at any time and let alone before taking the trouble to read his judgment is the epitomy of 'disingenuous' and if this forum wishes to promote such behaviour then it will do so without Fair Parking. HHJ Cryan's concerns were littered through my notes and i am sure that he came to his conclusion with reluctance. However those that seek to critcise him personally should take into consideration that judge are servants to the law and sometimes make judgments which they may prefer to have avoided.

This is the impression i got from what i have read. Also i have been told that records of these "proceedings" are not normally taken/ kept in the same way as a county court claim for instance.

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 issues

Now now settle down you tinkers (no offence meant to travellers)we are where we are, and we should therefore advise a letter of complaint to be held on file at the bailiffs certificating court as per bluebottles advice may be the option.

Judge Cryan can arrest my sorry jive ass for contempt if he wishes, I need a holiday.

[gravytrain]

Re: Form 4 issues

Insulting a judge at any time and let alone before taking the trouble to read his judgment is the epitomy of 'disingenuous' and if this forum wishes to promote such behaviour then it will do so without Fair Parking. HHJ Cryan's concerns were littered through my notes and i am sure that he came to his conclusion with reluctance. However those that seek to critcise him personally should take into consideration that judge are servants to the law and sometimes make judgments which they may prefer to have avoided.

Those notes were the forerunner to a 78 paragraph submission that I presented to the court on 15th December 2010. It was most critical of Jonathon Salmon's points and strongly argued against costs. Two and half years later I would not change one word of that submission save for a minor point about the TEC.

I disagreed with HHJ Cryan's verdict and the whole cost culture on Form 4 complaints but that does not mean that this forum should lower itself to calling him a 'berk' with other less than complimentary additions. Such infantile language is not a 'mistake', it is offensive.

If this forum wishes to be taken seriously in future it should aim for higher standards

Yes, offensive , childish and ultimately self defeating, apparently it is this particular posters "sense of humour", yep, I don't get it either.

Re: Form 4 issues

Not on a public forum, they weren't. One I know would not want their name made public.

Then redact their names before posting it.

Re: Form 4 issues

Insulting a judge at any time and let alone before taking the trouble to read his judgment is the epitomy of 'disingenuous'

You are, once more, quite remarkably mistaken, as no sincerely held belief (however offensive you consider it to be) could ever be called "disingenuous". Try Googling that word, as it seems self-evident that you do not know what it means.

and if this forum wishes to promote such behaviour then it will do so without Fair Parking.

:drama:

Well, at least you've not threatened to shove beans up your nose or to eat worms.
We'd have to take threats like that very seriously indeed.

I disagreed with HHJ Cryan's verdict and the whole cost culture on Form 4 complaints but that does not mean that this forum should lower itself to calling him a 'berk'. Such infantile language is not a 'mistake', it is offensive.

As the term "berk" is actually rhyming slang for a particular part of a wench's anatomy, it is hardly "infantile".

However, as you seem to have suffered a serious fit of the vapours over it, I am more than willing to compromise.
I will substitute "booby" for "berk". Happy now?

If this forum wishes to be taken seriously in future it should aim for higher standards

You are channelling the spirit of Mary Whitehouse and I claim the News Chronicle Prize! msl:

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Form 4 issues

Not on a public forum, they weren't. One I know would not want their name made public.

Re: Form 4 issues

There is so much information on the thread concerning the Judgment and there can be no difficulty whatsoever in anyone obtaining a copy if they really wanted to.

So you'd have no difficulty providing a link, would you?

The people who were involved did not continue with the Form 4 complaints and therefore, the court did not have to decide whether either of the 2 bailiffs had done anything wrong. Naming any of the parties on public forums without their permission is very unfair indeed.

Fiddlesticks!

If a copy of the judgement exists, the names of the parties will already have been published unless the court decided otherwise.