Collectica Bailiff

[AJGUY]

A bailiff from Collectica has stated they are going to break into me and my partners home tomorrow at 1pm. My partner decided to get into some bother with the police (he is disabled) he did not tell me he had to go to court, the court issued him with a fine, the attachment from his DLA was turned down and it got transferred to Collectica. On Friday he got a letter through the door saying that a bailiff tried to visit but we weren't in so he is coming back on Monday the 9th at 1pm and he will have a locksmith come and open my door to take my stuff (I own nearly everything in the house). I have spoke to the courts and they state this is not true and he cannot do this, when I rang him to ask him what his intentions were he said that he was going to come at 1 and break in to my house when I question "break in" he stated he would use a locksmith. We are trying to get the case sent back to court but we are awaiting medical documents to prove he is disabled.


Can this bailiff break in?
Can I tell him to go away and if he doesn't can I call the police?
Is using a locksmith just like breaking an entry?
If he does break-in can the police arrest him for this?

Thank you for taking your time reading this

Also what are my right when it comes to sticking a camera out of my windows and recording him for "legal purposes" to make sure if he does play dirty I can latter prove this in court/to the police?

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

A bailiff from Collectica has stated they are going to break into me and my partners home tomorrow at 1pm. My partner decided to get into some bother with the police (he is disabled) he did not tell me he had to go to court, the court issued him with a fine, the attachment from his DLA was turned down and it got transferred to Collectica. On Friday he got a letter through the door saying that a bailiff tried to visit but we weren't in so he is coming back on Monday the 9th at 1pm and he will have a locksmith come and open my door to take my stuff (I own nearly everything in the house). I have spoke to the courts and they state this is not true and he cannot do this, when I rang him to ask him what his intentions were he said that he was going to come at 1 and break in to my house when I question "break in" he stated he would use a locksmith. We are trying to get the case sent back to court but we are awaiting medical documents to prove he is disabled.


Can this bailiff break in?
Can I tell him to go away and if he doesn't can I call the police?
Is using a locksmith just like breaking an entry?
If he does break-in can the police arrest him for this?

Thank you for taking your time reading this

Also what are my right when it comes to sticking a camera out of my windows and recording him for "legal purposes" to make sure if he does play dirty I can latter prove this in court/to the police?

Hello AJGUY and welcome to the forum.

Your partner's disability did not prevent him/her from getting into a spot of bother with the local Fuzz (By the way,what did your partner do?) which earned him a conviction followed by a fine, which must be paid.

Before any bailiff uses a locksmith to force entry (If it is a Magistrates Court Distress Warrant they can) the bailiff must make contact with the defendant, confirm residence and confirm that he/she is a willful "non payer" rather than a "can't payer".

If your partner is deemed a "non payer" the the bailiff must ask the Court permission to use a locksmith, which in most case is granted.

Even with permission granted the bailiff should still give the defendant the opportunity to pay, within a certain time scale, and if this is not forthcoming give the defendant the opportunity of allowing peaceful entry (thus saving the etra cost of the locksmith) to take an inventory of items which could be seized.

Removal of such items can not happen within the first 6 days of the "walking possession" to give time to the defendant to pay and/or provide proof that the item belongs to someone else.

Unfortunately all seizable items in a property are deemed to be the defendant's property unless it can be proven otherwise, by producing receipts/guarantees/bank/credit card statements for the item purchased in someone else's name.

If the right procedures have being followed the bailiff can not be arrested, in fact, the bailiff would ask for Police presence when they employ a locksmith to prevent a breach of the peace.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

One thing I would ask and that is why did the court refuse to make an Attachment of Benefits Order (ABO)? This matter needs to be referred to HMCTS at higher level.

[seduraed]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

A quick google search indicates that an attachment of bnefits can only be made against certain benefits.

• Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)
  
• Income Support (IS)
  
• Employment Support Allowance (ESA)
  
• Pension Credit Guaranteed Credit (PCGC)

[AJGUY]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

Quick update and edit.

Attachment to Benefits was meant to go on the IS however the DWP denied this as I was the main claimant (don't know if this is normal).

It was for Drunk & Disorderly (I don't think the police know the difference between someone disabled and merry!)


I called the Fines Department this morning and I got a very snotty woman who didn't seem bothered at all and basically told me that a Bailiff would still enter my property until the doctors provided a letter proving his disability (which can take days).

I then called the bailiff directly and tried to sort out a payment plan with him and he told me that he wanted the £495 before 1PM today or he will be entering the property with the intent to remove my partners goods, I then explained it would be a waste of time as everything "valuable" was mine and I could prove this. He shouted at me and called me a few names and then put the phone down.

At this point I was really annoyed so I called the fines department back with the intent of then calling my local MP afterwards. I spoke to a really helpful bloke who then spoke to his supervisor and has had the warrant suspended for 10 day's whilst they await for his medical information.

A solicitor I called last night called back and asked what was going on, after speaking to her she is going to start proceeding's to get the case sent back to court so he can have a FAIR hearing with someone to explain what's going on and ensure his health is at best interest.



So at this point thing's are looking up. However I am still concerned that this has been allowed to happen in the first place, I would hate to think how many other's are in his situation.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

As well as being an ex-copper, I also have a lot of experience of working with disabled persons. Can I ask what disability your partner has and if they were in court when this fine was imposed?

[AJGUY]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

He has severe ADHA and learning difficulties (hence when he kicks off it is uncontrollable). Yes he went to court but when I spoke to the courts (magistrates themselves not fines dept) they stated that no info about his disability's were sent over from the police.

I was actually there when he was arrested and the police were just not helpful at all, I tried to explain that he was disabled and I need just need a few minutes to calm him down and to step back from him as they were making things worse, what did they do... start cornering him telling him he would be arrested if he didn't "be quite". Infact one officer told me to go away right after I told her I was his registered carer.

I have only been living up north for 3 years now and the police here are so against the public!

[AJGUY]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

When you say if he was in court when the fine was imposed what do you mean??

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

He has severe ADHA and learning difficulties (hence when he kicks off it is uncontrollable). Yes he went to court but when I spoke to the courts (magistrates themselves not fines dept) they stated that no info about his disability's were sent over from the police. Then they should have adjourned the case. Whether they were a District or Deputy District Judge (sitting alone) or Justices of the Peace (sitting in twos or threes), they should know that if all the evidence - for and against - is not in the court, they should adjourn the case to enable such evidence to be placed before the court. The CPS have some explaining to do, especially if they and/or the police were provided with information about his condition.

I was actually there when he was arrested and the police were just not helpful at all, I tried to explain that he was disabled and I need just need a few minutes to calm him down and to step back from him as they were making things worse, what did they do... start cornering him telling him he would be arrested if he didn't "be quite". In fact one officer told me to go away right after I told her I was his registered carer. Without stating the obvious, the officers who attended handled the incident badly. If they were told what he had and that you were his registered carer, they should have listened to and be guided by you. The only exception to this rule would be if he was likely to harm or injure himself or others. If there was no likelihood of this, then the police officers' actions are indefensible. This needs to be the subject of a formal complaint to the Professional Standards Department of the police force concerned in the first instance.

I have only been living up north for 3 years now and the police here are so against the public!

I have noted that your partner was in court when the fine was imposed.

[AJGUY]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

Yes that's correct.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

The magistrates should have adjourned the case. Whether they were a District or Deputy District Judge (sitting alone) or Justices of the Peace (sitting in twos or threes), they should know that if all the evidence - for and against - is not in the court, they should adjourn the case to enable such evidence to be placed before the court. The CPS have some explaining to do, especially if they and/or the police were provided with information about your partner's condition.

Without stating the obvious, the officers who attended handled the incident badly. If they were told what your partner's condition entailed and that you were his registered carer, they should have listened to and be guided by you. The only exception to this rule would be if your partner was likely to harm or injure himself or others. If there was no likelihood of this, then the police officers' actions are indefensible. This needs to be made the subject of a formal complaint to the Professional Standards Department of the police force concerned in the first instance. In this respect, you should speak to the solicitor who is acting for your partner. However, they may feel the matter is too serious to be dealt with by the police force concerned and refer it or ask for it to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Let your solicitor advise you as to the best course of action in this respect.

It is refreshing and reassuring that the court has suspended the Distress Warrant for 10 days to enable your partner's medical records to be made available to the court. However, do keep a lookout as Collectica don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "No."

As it is Collectica who are involved, I am somewhat concerned. Their bailiffs are known for bullying defendants and their families/partners who have health/disability issues and the company is known for being economical with the truth. In one case, they got caught telling porkies to H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service who were far from happy bunnies with them.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

I was actually there when he was arrested and the police were just not helpful at all, I tried to explain that he was disabled and I need just need a few minutes to calm him down and to step back from him as they were making things worse, what did they do... start cornering him telling him he would be arrested if he didn't "be quite". In fact one officer told me to go away right after I told her I was his registered carer.

Be grateful that the woodentops were not armed.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

Be grateful that the woodentops were not armed.

I couldn't agree with you more, Cloggy. The case of a police officer, in Plymouth, who fired a Taser at a man who was soaked in either petrol or light fuel, thereby setting him alight and causing fatal burns, is still ongoing. I do know that other police forces are watching this case closely as it may mean guidelines for use of Tasers have to be revised or Tasers are withdrawn from use altogether.

[AJGUY]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

The magistrates should have adjourned the case. Whether they were a District or Deputy District Judge (sitting alone) or Justices of the Peace (sitting in twos or threes), they should know that if all the evidence - for and against - is not in the court, they should adjourn the case to enable such evidence to be placed before the court. The CPS have some explaining to do, especially if they and/or the police were provided with information about your partner's condition.

Without stating the obvious, the officers who attended handled the incident badly. If they were told what your partner's condition entailed and that you were his registered carer, they should have listened to and be guided by you. The only exception to this rule would be if your partner was likely to harm or injure himself or others. If there was no likelihood of this, then the police officers' actions are indefensible. This needs to be made the subject of a formal complaint to the Professional Standards Department of the police force concerned in the first instance. In this respect, you should speak to the solicitor who is acting for your partner. However, they may feel the matter is too serious to be dealt with by the police force concerned and refer it or ask for it to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Let your solicitor advise you as to the best course of action in this respect.

It is refreshing and reassuring that the court has suspended the Distress Warrant for 10 days to enable your partner's medical records to be made available to the court. However, do keep a lookout as Collectica don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "No."

As it is Collectica who are involved, I am somewhat concerned. Their bailiffs are known for bullying defendants and their families/partners who have health/disability issues and the company is known for being economical with the truth. In one case, they got caught telling porkies to H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service who were far from happy bunnies with them.

Thank you so much! It is lovely to hear that at least from another (ex or not) police officer that the situation was handled badly. Do you think we would have a good solid case when going back to court? As you can expect my partner is going to be unsettled having to go back there but I hope the pro's out way the con's. I have just actually got off the phone with his solicitor and she is not going to pursue it directly however if we need any assistance in court she will happy to be there. What do you personally think; Professional Standards Department or the IPCC?

May I ask, what should of happened in the police station? He never got to see anyone like a solicitor and when I tried to find what police station he was in (the police have an awful habit of taking people far away from they live) I just got a load of data protection crap for several hours until finally I found that he was some 10 miles away, I wasn't allowed to talk to him directly put I managed to get the message through to tell him that a taxi would be waiting outside.

[bluebottle]

Re: Collectica Bailiff

When a person is arrested, a piece of legislation called the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) kicks in from the moment the arrest takes place until the moment the person is released, either back into the community or H.M. Prison Service. The police are required to comply with this Act.

Any person who is arrested and taken to a police station is entitled to -

a. have someone informed of their whereabouts unless there are exceptional circumstances that mean this is not advisable and which has to be authorised by a police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above; and
b. have access to a solicitor, either at their own expense or public expense (Duty Solicitor).

The Data Protection crap spouted by the police sounds more like a smokescreen to me. As your partner has learning difficulties, an Appropriate Adult should have been with him if he was interviewed.

Also, your partner should have been informed of his rights, both verbally and in writing, at the police station. If this was not done, someone is going to be in for the high jump.

From what you have said, it sounds to me that the statutory codes of practice under PACE have not been complied with by the police. Which police force is involved, please?

I would speak to your partner and find out what happened at the police station before pursuing this any further. Depending on what he says, this will determine whether the matter should be referred to Professional Standards or the IPCC.