Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

[Milo]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Sorry, Milo. It's just that the thought of HC completely fecking-up and having a judge lob a copy of Stone's at him was just too much of a temptation. Any idea of what the judge's view was of HC's behaviour in court?

I have no idea what the Judges view of him was. In fact it was only on Friday that I heard that this involved a bailiff from Marston Group. A transcript can take quite a few week but it should be worth waiting for.

I am very surprised to read on his site that he has been involved with ANOTHER Form 4 case that was also heard in Manchester last week. The one that is being talked about in the bailiff industry concerns a case that has concluded. He has stated that he is assisting someone with a Form 4 Complaint in Manchester that has been adjourned. Clearly therefore there must be two separate cases....one that has concluded and one that has been adjourned.

Also, as I have stated many times, a Form 4 Complaint concerns the actions of an individual bailiff and the purpose of the complaint is to ask the Judge to make a finding that the bailiff is not a "fit and proper person to hold a bailiff certificate". If the Judge were to make such a finding then the bailiff will not be able to return back to work and will not ever again be allowed to work as a bailiff. On his forum today he has confirmed that the case that he is assisting with that has been adjourned involved Marston Group selling a car that was for business use by the debtor and that apparently the bailiff has sworn at the debtors tenant.

As I have stated above, a Form 4 complaint concerns the serious wrongdoing of an individual bailiff. It is common knowledge that an individual bailiff would NOT sell a car that was for business use. The individual bailiff would have seized the vehicle and the decision on whether to sell it would NOT be made by the individual bailiff ..........it would be a decision made by the employer !!!!

As for swearing.......dreadful yes....but I would doubt if any Judge would ever remove a bailiffs certificate.

It is noteworthy that the site has not once displayed any evidence whatsoever of any success either in court or by agreement.

If there were any successful cases then all that is needed is to remove personal details and post a copy on the site.

Without any evidence being provided members of the public can only conclude that he is trying to deceive the public so as to ensure that the £99 fees keep flowing in.

[Milo]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

PS: Just to reiterate...I did not once mention that this case involved Marston Group. The case involves an INDIVIDUAL bailiff and it should not be relevant who the employer is. In fact, many bailiffs are self employed.

As to whether the bailiff works for Marston Group, it would seem that the forum concerned has confirmed this themselves.

I was not informed by the bailiff company of this case. It is being freely discussed within the enforcement industry.

[bluebottle]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

I have no idea what the Judges view of him was. In fact it was only on Friday that I heard that this involved a bailiff from Marston Group. A transcript can take quite a few week but it should be worth waiting for. Why doesn't it surprise me that a Marston bailiff was involved? Even HMCTS staff are getting p*ssed-off with their bailiffs' behaviour

I am very surprised to read on his site that he has been involved with ANOTHER Form 4 case that was also heard in Manchester last week. The one that is being talked about in the bailiff industry concerns a case that has concluded. He has stated that he is assisting someone with a Form 4 Complaint in Manchester that has been adjourned. Clearly therefore there must be two separate cases....one that has concluded and one that has been adjourned.

Also, as I have stated many times, a Form 4 Complaint concerns the actions of an individual bailiff and the purpose of the complaint is to ask the Judge to make a finding that the bailiff is not a "fit and proper person to hold a bailiff certificate". If the Judge were to make such a finding then the bailiff will not be able to return back to work and will not ever again be allowed to work as a bailiff. On his forum today he has confirmed that the case that he is assisting with that has been adjourned involved Marston Group selling a car that was for business use by the debtor and that apparently the bailiff has sworn at the debtors tenant. My understanding of Form 4 is that it is only appropriate where a bailiff's conduct is so serious that in brings into question a bailiff's fitness to act as a bailiff. A bailiff swearing at a debtor's tenant is a public order matter and nothing to do with Form 4, but Marston Group selling a car that was for business use I can believe. I dealt with a case on LB, a few months back, where one of their bailiffs seized a car a debtor used in connection with their employment in contravention of the conditions on an MC Distress Warrant. The bailiff went down to the police station waving one of Marstons' letterhead warrants in the air and succeeded in hoodwinking the police into believing he had done nothing wrong. After some arguing, Marstons returned the car and withdrew their demand for a £215 Attendance Fee.

As I have stated above, a Form 4 complaint concerns the serious wrongdoing of an individual bailiff. It is common knowledge that an individual bailiff would NOT sell a car that was for business use. The individual bailiff would have seized the vehicle and the decision on whether to sell it would NOT be made by the individual bailiff ..........it would be a decision made by the employer !!!! The bailiff is still liable as he/she would have acted without lawful authority and is at risk of arrest and prosecution for stealing the vehicle. There is also the risk of arrest and prosecution for being involved in the realisation, disposal or handling of stolen goods.

As for swearing.......dreadful yes....but I would doubt if any Judge would ever remove a bailiffs certificate. Agreed. Public order matter.

It is noteworthy that the site has not once displayed any evidence whatsoever of any success either in court or by agreement.

If there were any successful cases then all that is needed is to remove personal details and post a copy on the site.

Without any evidence being provided members of the public can only conclude that he is trying to deceive the public so as to ensure that the £99 fees keep flowing in.

@@@@

[Milo]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Good morning Bluebottle. I am interested in your following response ( in red). On what basis are you saying that the bailiff could he held responsible for the realisation of "stolen goods" or could have acted without "legal authority".


As I have stated above, a Form 4 complaint concerns the serious wrongdoing of an individual bailiff. It is common knowledge that an individual bailiffwould NOT sell a car that was for business use. The individual bailiff would have seized the vehicle and the decision on whether to sell it would NOT be made by the individual bailiff ..........it would be a decision made by the employer !!!! The bailiff is still liable as he/she would have acted without lawful authority and is at risk of arrest and prosecution for stealing the vehicle. There is also the risk of arrest and prosecution for being involved in the realisation, disposal or handling of stolen goods.

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

I think BB is speaking from a police black letter perspective, as in if something is unlawfully seized, it is effectively stolen, therefore all parties, including the individual bailiff and his company are all guilty of the offence of theft, all being complicit in the seizing and removal of the exempt vehicle, the intention being to permanently deprive, the intention is the key, as if they knew, and this knowledge is key, the vehicle was beyond their lawful reach but they still removed and sold, then the mens rea is present, and the offence complete on removal. Just my musings milo.

[charitynjw]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Doesn't 'intent' include recklessness? - ie they should have taken more time to find out the facts, but couldn't be bothered.

[bluebottle]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Good morning Bluebottle. I am interested in your following response ( in red). On what basis are you saying that the bailiff could he held responsible for the realisation of "stolen goods" or could have acted without "legal authority".


As I have stated above, a Form 4 complaint concerns the serious wrongdoing of an individual bailiff. It is common knowledge that an individual bailiffwould NOT sell a car that was for business use. The individual bailiff would have seized the vehicle and the decision on whether to sell it would NOT be made by the individual bailiff ..........it would be a decision made by the employer !!!! The bailiff is still liable as he/she would have acted without lawful authority and is at risk of arrest and prosecution for stealing the vehicle. There is also the risk of arrest and prosecution for being involved in the realisation, disposal or handling of stolen goods.

Quite frankly, Milo, I am somewhat surprised you have posted up what you have.

If a bailiff has seized and removed a vehicle without lawful authority or claimed he/she can seize and remove a vehicle when they know they cannot, since the intention of seizure and removal is to sell by public auction, you then have the essential elements for Theft or Fraud. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods is not committed at the time of the offence of Theft or Fraud, but when arrangements are made for it to be sold and/or when it is taken to the sale venue. The bailiff cannot be prosecuted for an offence of Handling Stolen Goods for the act of Theft or Fraud itself, but if the same bailiff is then involved in making arrangements for the sale, he/she is then involved in its disposal or realisation, which are elements of the offence of Handling Stolen Goods.

The offence of Handling Stolen Goods is committed by individuals, not bodies corporate, so even if the employer is a company, it is the managers who would face prosecution, not the company. However, Fraud can be committed by individuals and companies.

The sad fact is, Milo, bailiffs and bailiff companies are often so desperate for money, they will resort to what can only be described as criminal behaviour in their pursuit of it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Doesn't 'intent' include recklessness? - ie they should have taken more time to find out the facts, but couldn't be bothered.

Absolutely correct, Charity. It is an element of the offence of Fraud.

[bluebottle]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

I think BB is speaking from a police black letter perspective, as in if something is unlawfully seized, it is effectively stolen, therefore all parties, including the individual bailiff and his company are all guilty of the offence of theft, all being complicit in the seizing and removal of the exempt vehicle, the intention being to permanently deprive, the intention is the key, as if they knew, and this knowledge is key, the vehicle was beyond their lawful reach but they still removed and sold, then the mens rea is present, and the offence complete on removal. Just my musings milo.

Put very succinctly and in words even Milo can understand, BB.

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Put very succinctly and in words even Milo can understand, BB.

I think the issue of seizure and exempt goods, and its actual definition as theft if goods indeed are unlawfully taken and sold, makes any enforcement action taken, potentially criminal from it's inception, especially as the enforcers are willing to bend the rules and cross the line into apparent criminality without compunction, in the pursuit of fees. The problem is that it is seen as somehow acceptable as they are collecting "Public Debt" and the end justifies the means.

[bluebottle]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

I think the issue of seizure and exempt goods, and its actual definition as theft if goods indeed are unlawfully taken and sold, makes any enforcement action taken, potentially criminal from it's inception, especially as the enforcers are willing to bend the rules and cross the line into apparent criminality without compunction, in the pursuit of fees. The problem is that it is seen as somehow acceptable as they are collecting "Public Debt" and the end justifies the means.

Most public debt contracts appear to contain a provision that makes it clear Fraud and other criminal conduct is unacceptable and may result in action being taken where it is found to have taken place. HMCTS recently pulled an MC Distress Warrant in Milly029's case because of Collectica lying to them. I am waiting to see what happens as a result of this. I would not be surprised if all cases Collectica has dealt with on behalf of HMCTS are reviewed and, where it is found Collectica have acted not in accordance with the law, the police are called in.

[Guest]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Hi

I find this all fascinating, but am a little confused with the references to another forum, and HC ?

I think I understand the issues with the form 4 complaint procedure, can someone fill in the blanks for me please.

Andy

[bizzybob]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

andy58, the other site is run by one whose handle is Happy Contrails, who has also posted on various other sites with that name, also under Bartok, Fork-it amongst others, he holds a particular view on Form 4 that is not borne out in practice, to the detriment of a hapless debtor.

[Guest]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Many thanks bizzybob

Andi

[Milo]

Re: Form 4 Complaints and the dangers of taking "legal" advice

Quite frankly, Milo, I am somewhat surprised you have posted up what you have.

If a bailiff has seized and removed a vehicle without lawful authority or claimed he/she can seize and remove a vehicle when they know they cannot, since the intention of seizure and removal is to sell by public auction, you then have the essential elements for Theft or Fraud. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods is not committed at the time of the offence of Theft or Fraud, but when arrangements are made for it to be sold and/or when it is taken to the sale venue. The bailiff cannot be prosecuted for an offence of Handling Stolen Goods for the act of Theft or Fraud itself, but if the same bailiff is then involved in making arrangements for the sale, he/she is then involved in its disposal or realisation, which are elements of the offence of Handling Stolen Goods.

The offence of Handling Stolen Goods is committed by individuals, not bodies corporate, so even if the employer is a company, it is the managers who would face prosecution, not the company. However, Fraud can be committed by individuals and companies.

The sad fact is, Milo, bailiffs and bailiff companies are often so desperate for money, they will resort to what can only be described as criminal behaviour in their pursuit of it.

You have stated that if a bailiff removed a vehicle without "lawful authority" etc etc, that you have the "essential elements" for Theft of Fraud.

You then gone on to talk about "Handling Stolen Goods". Apart from what is being stated on the other forum I do NOT know the basis of this complaint but I am confused by your statement.

On what basis do you consider that any bailiff enforcing a Distress Warrant does not have "Lawful Authority" and furthermore, on what basis do you consider that the bailiff could be at risk or arrest or prosecution for "handling stolen goods".