Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

A Form 4 complaint should be a simple and straightforward way of dealing with bad bailiffs but, in the 25 years since it was introduced in the Distress For Rent Rules 1988, it has been twisted by bailiffs and bailiff companies to the point where bailiffs are almost immune from any redress.

First of all, it was originally intended to be a paper complaint, whereby the bailiff was asked for his written response to the allegations and/or other evidence raised against him. On the basis of that, the complaint could have been dismissed, partly upheld or wholly upheld; if the complaint was partly or completely upheld, compensation or damages could be paid to the complainant from the bailiff's surety and/or the bailiff's certificate could be revoked.

By pretending that the purpose of a Form 4 complaint is only to get a bailiff's certificate revoked, bailiffs and bailiff companies have been able to insist on the matter being dealt with in the setting of a court hearing and, as they invariably turn up with a posse of lawyers, juniors and leading barristers, the judge will probably be more inclined to side with them than with the unrepresented litigant-in-person who made the complaint. The bailiff or bailiff company will always ask for costs when they win and, because they've been allowed to pack the court, those costs will probably run into thousands.

[bizzybob]

Re: Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

Sadly the very people who Form 4 is designed to discipline, have perverted it from it's intended purpose, into another win- win moneymaker for them.

[wales01man]

Re: Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

Justice for ALL? That's dead then

[bizzybob]

Re: Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

Justice for ALL? That's dead then

It only ever existed if you could afford it!

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by Equita for council tax arrears

Perhaps the only way to stop bailiffs from perverting Form 4 complaints is to amend the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 as follows -

1. Introduce a reversed onus, meaning that the onus of proof that the bailiff didn't break the rules/law lies wholly on the bailiff;
2. Amend the law to ensure that if an errant bailiff turns up with a small army of lawyers in toe and the complainant is LIP, the lawyers get booted out of the court and the bailiff has to represent themselves;
3. Amend the law so that bailiffs and bailiff companies cannot claim costs, i.e. if they want to bring a small army of lawyers with them, they pay the cost themselves.

Is the above unfair? No. It simply creates a fair and level playing field which would, I suspect, deter a bailiff or bailiff company from perverting a Form 4 complaint.

What has proven to be effective is a letter, accompanied by supporting evidence, to the Circuit or District Judge at the bailiff's certificating court. The judge can then discharge (cancel) a bailiff's certificate on the weight of that or hold it on file and take it into account when the bailiff's certificate falls due for renewal.