Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

They use organisatins like Crapita, to attempt to abdicate accountability to a private company for a government function, along with using quangos to give plausible deniability, and Common Purpose to undermine democratic accountability, most decisions and policies that fly in the face of common sense tend to have their inception brought in or promoted by a Common purpose graduate (aka brainwashed useful idiot) .taught to "Lead Beyond Authority", or ultra vires if you like, or more properly illegally.

Q: What do you get when you bring Common Purpose into the MET?
A: An innocent dead Brazilian, the officer in charge of that debacle being Common Purpose trained

There is an answer to that, BB, which is a play on said officer's surname.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

650 individuals would never agree anything. Heck 2 or 3 of us struggle on here!

Too much Brian Gerrish watching or David Icke! It will never happen.

It's exactly that sort of attitude that is letting the likes of Capita et all get away with it. Oh and you will find that Brian Gerrish actually has the hard evidence to corroborate what he says. Sorry to take a shot at the flying pigs, LM, but until it's made more difficult for vested interests to manipulate policy and the law, nothing will change and the corruption will continue.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

Just a point and I know I enter this thread rather late but there is no facility in bailiff law for them to force entry whilst the occupant is not there under the act they mention.

The ability to force entry and distraint is only when in pursuit of the offender( it is criminal legislation), and therefore cannot be made without the person being on site, the letter is wrong in this also.

Not only that, Andy, they have to seek authority from a nominated officer at the court that issued the DW and justify forced entry. The nominated officer is not to grant authority unless satisfied there are grounds for forcing entry, hence why so few forced entries were authorised during 2011, around 10/11, I believe. The name of the nominated officer has to be written on the DW. However, there is nothing to stop a bent bailiff writing the nominated officer's name on the DW and forcing entry without authority.

[labman]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

there is nothing to stop a bent bailiff writing the nominated officer's name on the DW and forcing entry without authority.

Except for losing his job, thus his livelihood, so he'll lose his home, not be able to feed his family, children and pets and they will all starve to death because the 650 elected MP's can't agree on a way of handling the situation!

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

Except for losing his job, thus his livelihood, so he'll lose his home, not be able to feed his family, children and pets and they will all starve to death because the 650 elected MP's can't agree on a way of handling the situation!

What do you think concensus is? That's what used to happen before political parties were invented. If a bent bailiff is caught breaking the law, my view of that is much the same as when I was a policeman - They should think about the consequences before acting like a tit.

[bizzybob]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

What do you think concensus is? That's what used to happen before political parties were invented. If a bent bailiff is caught breaking the law, my view of that is much the same as when I was a policeman - They should think about the consequences before acting like a tit.

They should but they are so used to being top dog they are cruisin for a bruisin, as for Cressida, well.......

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

They should but they are so used to being top dog they are cruisin for a bruisin, as for Cressida, well.......

Dick by name, dick by nature.

[bizzybob]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

Dick by name, dick by nature.

She thought she had one, well it is her name, so put - head after itand you are almost there!

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

I would never be surprised to see Cressida Dick fired, BB. Whether she would be put on trial for Misconduct in Public Office is another matter altogether.

[Guest]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

Not only that, Andy, they have to seek authority from a nominated officer at the court that issued the DW and justify forced entry. The nominated officer is not to grant authority unless satisfied there are grounds for forcing entry, hence why so few forced entries were authorised during 2011, around 10/11, I believe. The name of the nominated officer has to be written on the DW. However, there is nothing to stop a bent bailiff writing the nominated officer's name on the DW and forcing entry without authority.

I understand that this is a procedural matter though isn't it, I do not think that there is any legislation that says a bailiff in possession of a warrant must do this, the warrant is his authority as far as the law is concerned(as far as I know), I would imagine that this fact would colour the nature of the sanction incurred by none compliance, which again I would imagine would be quite small.

Interesting idea about the restructure of the system of government, I think that we must live in the system we have unfortunately.
The queen does have the power to dissolve parliament it is true, however there must be a parliamentary vote of no confidence of fifty odd percent against fist, and even then the system does not change, it is just replaced with another of basically the same, with different faces.
The queen cannot dissolve the parliamentary system, that would mean devolving our system of government by about 300 years, not something that could be done overnight, and to be honest going back to a system of feudal overlords or law by common consent is not my idea of a utopia.

[labman]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

I understand that this is a procedural matter though isn't it, I do not think that there is any legislation that says a bailiff in possession of a warrant must do this, the warrant is his authority as far as the law is concerned(as far as I know), I would imagine that this fact would colour the nature of the sanction incurred by none compliance, which again I would imagine would be quite small.

I think if they forged permission they would certainly be in deep water. As you say, permission is there with a genuine warrant. Good practice dictates going back to the court.

Interesting idea about the restructure of the system of government, I think that we must live in the system we have unfortunately.
The queen does have the power to dissolve parliament it is true, however there must be a parliamentary vote of no confidence of fifty odd percent against fist, and even then the system does not change, it is just replaced with another of basically the same, with different faces.
The queen cannot dissolve the parliamentary system, that would mean devolving our system of government by about 300 years, not something that could be done overnight, and to be honest going back to a system of feudal overlords and law by common consent is not my idea of a utopia.

I would be a serf without doubt!

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

I understand that this is a procedural matter though isn't it, I do not think that there is any legislation that says a bailiff in possession of a warrant must do this, the warrant is his authority as far as the law is concerned(as far as I know), I would imagine that this fact would colour the nature of the sanction incurred by none compliance, which again I would imagine would be quite small.

HMCTS expects contracted bailiff companies to seek authority from a nominated officer at the court that issued the DW and the nominated officer is required to consider the request and not grant it unless there is good reason for authorising forced entry. The name of the nominated officer also has to be written on the DW. This was disclosed by an HMCTS Senior Enforcement Manager. The sanctions that await a certificated bailiff who forces entry with authority, dependant on the circumstances, include discharge (cancellation) of their certificate. Prosecution would be reserved for really serious instances, e.g. involving a serious assault on a debtor. Contracted bailiff companies are required to indemnify HMCTS against all and any litigation arising out of their bungling or thug bailiffs. Collectica recently had a DW pulled for telling porkies to HMCTS about a debtor. I doubt whether they will get their fees for that particular case. The ultimate sanction HMCTS has available to it is to rescind a contracted bailiff company's contract. Although HMCTS has yet to do this, unless they know what is going on, they cannot take action. It is, therefore, important that HMCTS are notified of all transgressions by contracted bailiffs and bailiff companies. One thing I will say is that I have noted that HMCTS court staff, around the country, let out a sigh, followed by, "Oh. Them" whenever Marstons name is mentioned. There certain appears to be disquiet amongst court staff about this company's practices and the conduct of its bailiffs.

Interesting idea about the restructure of the system of government, I think that we must live in the system we have unfortunately.
The queen does have the power to dissolve parliament it is true, however there must be a parliamentary vote of no confidence of fifty odd percent against fist, and even then the system does not change, it is just replaced with another of basically the same, with different faces.
The queen cannot dissolve the parliamentary system, that would mean devolving our system of government by about 300 years, not something that could be done overnight, and to be honest going back to a system of feudal overlords or law by common consent is not my idea of a utopia.
I doubt you will see a return to the system of feudal overlords, which this country once had, as it is this that is still hanging about and is causing a lot of the problems we are encountering today. The politicians are coming up with desperate policies to prop up a system that is dying on its feet. As a system of government, it is unsustainable and it will collapse. The writing is on the wall for political parties and they know it. We have come through what is known as the Age of Pisces, during which people looked to a patriarchal state to look after and make decisions for them. Unfortunately, it gave rise to despots and dictators. We are now in the Age of Aquarius during which mankind will evolve to take responsibility for its own actions and, yes, existing systems of government will change and new ones will evolve. People have not had the fire in their bellies to bring about change until now and, whether we like it or not, change will come. Trying to cling on to what has gone before is futile because mankind goes through cyclic changes every so often. The old order breaks down and a new one takes its place. It may sound utopian, but change is coming whether we - mankind - like it or not and by accepting change, rather than fighting against it, the transition will be less traumatic and disruptive when it does finally come.

@@@@

[labman]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

"Contracted bailiff companies are required to indemnify HMCTS against all and any litigation arising out of their bungling or thug bailiffs."

That sounds great on paper, but in reality how often does this litigation take place? This is the issue we see over and over of the theoretical and the real. The reality is what should be put down here, as theory is just that.

[mike22861]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

In respect of the break in letter which was delivered as first correspondence ,what is a good course of action I mean here I have a printed threat letter that breaks most of the guidelines. There must be some body I can complain to. And help with the legal wording would be good

[labman]

Re: Collectica Threat to attend with Locksmith no previous correspondance

In respect of the break in letter which was delivered as first correspondence ,what is a good course of action I mean here I have a printed threat letter that breaks most of the guidelines. There must be some body I can complain to. And help with the legal wording would be good

You could complain to CIVEA, the body for complaints about bailffs, BUT (prepare to be frustrated) run by bailiffs!

There's also the Local Government Ombudsman - possibly your best route.

There's Collectica's own complaints procedure which they might expect you to follow as a matter of course.

Finally there's the Senior Courts Enforcement Officer who's details we can give you if we know which court it was.

You are not, as far as I know, restricted to any one of these, so could pursue them all. Realistically I fear all you will get is "Sorry they shouldn't have sent it." Frustratingly it is quite hard to get successful complaint results as this would be seen as comparatively minor.