Dave

[bizzybob]

Re: Dave

Monkey drunk, everyone is entitled to procedural fairness, and unfortunately running the enforcement of fines for the profit of basilifffs is not the way to do it, as is seen on here and other forums bailiffs are out of control, look at the Marstons bailiff in the Blackpool magistrates case, who frogmarched a pensioner to a cashpoint, for an outstanding speedng fine He should have been done for manslaughter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ding-fine.html

There are other examples where they have misrepresented the power to force new occupants to pay the fines of a previous tenant, as in "Well the WARRANT is to this address so it has to be paid, and I can take your goods if I want as it is to the address."

No not all bailiffs are bad, but we are more likely to hear about the bad eggs on a forum such as this.

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

If they can afford to drink they can afford the fine.
One way of viewing the argument above is to say. Get drunk drive a car in that date in which case the car can be turned into a killing machine with an incapable driver and when caught and taken to court plead poverty and try to avoid a fine which they cannot pay because they are losing their job?
When the shite hits the blanket and fees are added to the fine try to blame everyone else and look at avoiding the fine and legitimate collection fees ?
They went to court got fined lost their job did not pay fine when further costs were added they paid fine and are now trying to avoid the fees imposed for collection AND its someone elses fault?

[Inca]

Re: Dave

Can I just ask the OP a couple of things please..
In response to Ploddertoms first question you state you WERE making payments..how much,to whom and why did you stop?
You also state you DID receive the Furthur Steps Notice,,why did you not act upon it?
As you appear to be at the sharp end of Bailiff actions how many visits have you had by them??

I don't believe BlueBottle is advocating ways to AVOID this debt. (that's not the LB way)..more like trying to buy the OP more time to pay the debt and the first obvious point to start at is 'was correct procedure followed'? That may not sit comfortably with some people,,especially given the drink/drive element,but it's an obvious starting point.
At the end of the day,,,,OP has a debt to pay..and if all the correct procedure has been followed,he has to find a way to pay it...and if any one on here can advise him how to sort it out then they will.
We are here to help,,,not to judge people on their mistakes however abhorrent we find them

Only my opinion of course

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

Inca Drunk drivers KILL we did not judge them as guilty a court did

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dave

If they can afford to drink they can afford the fine.

But would a drunkard's kidneys be considered saleable?

[bizzybob]

Re: Dave

But would a drunkard's kidneys be considered saleable?

Would a teetotaller want them or would they refuse the transplant?

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

Can I just ask the OP a couple of things please..
In response to Ploddertoms first question you state you WERE making payments..how much,to whom and why did you stop?
You also state you DID receive the Furthur Steps Notice,,why did you not act upon it?
As you appear to be at the sharp end of Bailiff actions how many visits have you had by them??

I don't believe BlueBottle is advocating ways to AVOID this debt. (that's not the LB way)..more like trying to buy the OP more time to pay the debt and the first obvious point to start at is 'was correct procedure followed'? That may not sit comfortably with some people,,especially given the drink/drive element,but it's an obvious starting point.
At the end of the day,,,,OP has a debt to pay..and if all the correct procedure has been followed,he has to find a way to pay it...and if any one on here can advise him how to sort it out then they will.
We are here to help,,,not to judge people on their mistakes however abhorrent we find them

Only my opinion of course

Well put, Inca.

[Monkey Drunk]

Re: Dave

Inebriated Primate,


Like everyone else, court staff are human and do make mistakes. And there have been cases that have come on the LB forum where Rule 52.8, Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 has not been followed. The other matter is that it is becoming evident that correct procedures are not being followed in the courtroom in some cases.

There may well be the odd case as you suggest but like a certain banned member of this forum who runs his own two bailiff help websites, you have a prospensity for immediately suggesting the Court is at fault. Read back through the threads you contribute to and you will see that elevating to the Area Enforcement Team at the outset is a common theme in your posts.

Turning to the other matters you raise, you appear to display a lack of understanding of the law, generally, sentencing guidelines and case law. During the Antecedents stage of a hearing, the Justices or DJ will examine the defendant's means and determine what penalty to impose. Unless the penalty is fixed by law, in which case the court has its hands tied legally, it has to follow sentencing guidelines as well as any means available before determining the appropriate sentence. The Judicial Review in R -v- South Western Magistrates (on the application of Purnell) confirmed that where a court has not examined a defendant's means, a fine cannot be imposed or enforced. As yet, this JR had not been superseded. In R -v- Hereford Magistrates Court ex parte Macrae (The Macrae Case), where a Magistrates Court Distress Warrant has been correctly-issued, that is, in accordance with the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011, it will not normally be recalled. However, I do know of cases where warrants have been recalled because of disingenuous behaviour by Capita/TVL and DVLA and civil enforcement companies under contract to HMCTS.

I'm perfectly aware of how the system works and while your description of the process clearly shows you have a thorough understanding as well, nothing you've written deviates from the direction of my previous post. We know that the OP attended court, we know that the OP was questioned about his employment. We also know that the OP questioned whether deductions "could" be taken from the benefit he was likely to claim in the future as a result of being found guilty. It is therefore perfectly sensible to assume that the Magistrate(s) have indeed followed procedure (especially considering the seriousness of the offence) and set the fine accordingly. Questioning these basic facts when the OP has been upfront simply supports my suggestion that your advice follows a common theme of procedural blame being at fault from the outset.......

With regard to the comments you make in Paragraph 5 of your post, I have heard certificated bailiffs spout that sort of diatribe. And it shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation affecting HMCTS. They were supplied with a crap IT system that has been condemned as "Not Fit for Purpose" by the High Court, Justices of the Peace who are better-named Injustices of the Peace due to their incompetence, a Sentencing Advisory Panel that is made up mostly of businesspersons who haven't a clue about social issues and, quite frankly, give the distinct impression they don't want to know, made worse by disingenuous politicians and agitators who seem hell-bent on causing as much disruption as possible from within government agencies and departments.

I find your "diatribe" comment quite ironic and completely irrelevant.

As for your comment regarding HMCTS Area Enforcement Teams, in my experience, the people who staff these teams are very helpful. In a case I had dealings with last year, an Area Enforcement Team pulled a warrant after a contracted bailiff company lied to the debtor and HMCTS and put the health of the debtor's partner at risk. There have also been cases where contracted bailiff companies have ignored vulnerability issues. If all magistrates courts sang from the same hymn sheet, which does not appear to be happening at present, it would not be necessary to refer cases to Area Enforcement Teams. The other problem is certificated bailiffs who misrepresent their powers, examples of which there have been many over the past seven days.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples worthy of elevation to the AET but this case is not one of them. Please don't waste taxpayers money with your agenda.


==============

Monkey drunk, everyone is entitled to procedural fairness, and unfortunately running the enforcement of fines for the profit of basilifffs is not the way to do it, as is seen on here and other forums bailiffs are out of control, look at the Marstons bailiff in the Blackpool magistrates case, who frogmarched a pensioner to a cashpoint, for an outstanding speedng fine He should have been done for manslaughter.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ding-fine.html


There are other examples where they have misrepresented the power to force new occupants to pay the fines of a previous tenant, as in "Well the WARRANT is to this address so it has to be paid, and I can take your goods if I want as it is to the address."

No not all bailiffs are bad, but we are more likely to hear about the bad eggs on a forum such as this.

Everyone is entitled to procedural fairness but the method of fines enforcement is not the issue here. While you're entitled to your opinion that collecting fines shouldn't profit people who risk their safety on a daily basis to collect fines from those (who warrants are issued against), willfully avoid payments, I ask you private message me with an alternative method of collection that doesn't cost the taxpayer money or start a new thread specifically outlining your suggestions.

As for the very sad case you mention, it wasn't as black and white as you suggest. While it's true the bailiff in question offered the debtor a lift to the cash machine, it was the debtor's OWN SON who gave the bailiff his frail father's new address in full knowledge of what he was there for. I was quite surprised at the time when the son decided to go public with his damnation of the bailiff when he himself undoubtedly played a major part in his father's demise. Either way, it was a very sad tale and one which the son of the deceased and the bailiff in question must live with for the rest of their lives.


The other examples you mention are a disgrace and I hope as much as the next bailiff that those who clearly flout the law in such ways are weeded out and dismissed as soon as their law breaking becomes apparent.


==============

I don't believe BlueBottle is advocating ways to AVOID this debt. (that's not the LB way)..more like trying to buy the OP more time to pay the debt and the first obvious point to start at is 'was correct procedure followed'? That may not sit comfortably with some people,,especially given the drink/drive element,but it's an obvious starting point.
At the end of the day,,,,OP has a debt to pay..and if all the correct procedure has been followed,he has to find a way to pay it...and if any one on here can advise him how to sort it out then they will.
We are here to help,,,not to judge people on their mistakes however abhorrent we find them


Only my opinion of course

I don't believe bluebottle is trying to help people AVOID their FINES (not debt) either. He does though actively try to help people AVOID the consequences of AVOIDING paying their fines in the "majority" of threads I see him him contribute in. His stance on enforcement in general is the strangest I've come across from an ex officer of the law............


May I also point out that while some maybe here to help, Legalbeagles was set up to help, support and DEBATE many areas of day to day life. If contributors wish to judge posters on their actions or failure to act, they are quite entitled to do so in the spirit of this forum and open debate. I'm pretty sure your position might change from help to debate if one of the sex offenders, wife beaters and thieves/burglars I try to collect from, posted here for help (no diatribe intended).

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dave

May I also point out that while some maybe here to help, Legalbeagles was set up to help, support and DEBATE many areas of day to day life.

That is something you should ask of Amethyst and/or Celestine.

If contributors wish to judge posters on their actions or failure to act, they are quite entitled to do so in the spirit of this forum and open debate.

You seem to have the mistaken belief that this is a public service.

If so, you would be quite wrong.

This is a private service to which the public may be admitted and even allowed to contribute.

I'm pretty sure your position might change from help to debate if one of the sex offenders, wife beaters and thieves/burglars I try to collect from, posted here for help (no diatribe intended).

You are John Boast and I claim the News Chronicle prize! :grin:

[bizzybob]

Re: Dave

We are here to advise on the facts presented, Dave admits he was wrong, in what he did and he was lucky it didn't end with a more serious outcome, he wants to pay but circumstances made it difficult, now Shylock Sharkstons want their pound of flesh plus extras. What do we do MD be judgmental and say as you are an offender firk off we cannot help you? If a criminal conviction is the lowest common denominator, for deciding to help we would have to refuse to help the 15 year old babysitter stitched up on the doorstep of the house she is babysitting in by a TVL grasping goon, and somehow HMCS have sent the bailiffs after her.

As an aside, someone is dragged back into say Primark, Boots or another who uses RLP accused of shopcrasting like Alex and his malenky droogs, the pensioner is confused for it was the stereotypical little old lady dragged back in has her bag searched in a back room by the goons BEFORE police attend the receipt is found at the bottom, and security have logged her name and address. They let her go with no apology, and a few weeks later has a FINE (unenforceable invoice) from RLP for the cost of investigating the crime would you advocate she pays them or complains to police about the assault by security, as they like bailiffs hide behind law to terrorise and bully. Many not all Private bailiffs are just like those security goons, only difference is they can hide behind the law as they break it.

[Inca]

Re: Dave

Monkeydrunk
We are NOT here to judge anyone on their acts because their acts are none of our business. We have freedom of choice wether to participate on threads..I ,personally,do not get involved in threads I cannot contribute to because of my lack of knowledge/interest.
I believe Bluebottle is correct in challenging procedures,,and if all correct procedures have been followed,he would be the first to say 'Sorry OP,,you have no options but to pay'

So........back to OP
When did you start to make payments?
To whom did you make payments?
Why did you cease making payments?
When did you receive Furthur Steps Notice?
Why did you not act upon it?
( Ploddertom asked some of these questions,,I don't think they have been answered?)

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

Is this another thread turning into one with personal attacks on other posters?

I may like some others disagree with some opinions but I stop at going on the attack citing posts on other threads and sites Bluebottle does at times suggest some court staff are at fault and suggests the debtor elevates a complaint up the chain of command ,well that's everyones right.

I would never condone a convicted criminal facing a legally imposed punishment given after a court case ,what I object to together with others is the process of using outside contractors to collect fines SOME of whom as we read tend to ignore the basic rules.
Clamping a strangers car should be outlawed NOW and any rogue bailiff reined in and subjected to review by an independent body.

my views on punishment are mine other posters have theirs as much as the football teams we may follow is there REALLY a need to continually argue a point with another poster say it once move on carrying on with the debate that is separate from the thread detracts from the subject discussed.

Amethyst and Celestine normally allow things to remain on the forum and sometimes remove posts that get to personal that IMO is one of the best things about the forum .

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

There may well be the odd case as you suggest but like a certain banned member of this forum who runs his own two bailiff help websites, you have a prospensity for immediately suggesting the Court is at fault. Read back through the threads you contribute to and you will see that elevating to the Area Enforcement Team at the outset is a common theme in your posts.



I'm perfectly aware of how the system works and while your description of the process clearly shows you have a thorough understanding as well, nothing you've written deviates from the direction of my previous post. We know that the OP attended court, we know that the OP was questioned about his employment. We also know that the OP questioned whether deductions "could" be taken from the benefit he was likely to claim in the future as a result of being found guilty. It is therefore perfectly sensible to assume that the Magistrate(s) have indeed followed procedure (especially considering the seriousness of the offence) and set the fine accordingly. Questioning these basic facts when the OP has been upfront simply supports my suggestion that your advice follows a common theme of procedural blame being at fault from the outset.......



I find your "diatribe" comment quite ironic and completely irrelevant.



I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples worthy of elevation to the AET but this case is not one of them. Please don't waste taxpayers money with your agenda.


==============





Everyone is entitled to procedural fairness but the method of fines enforcement is not the issue here. While you're entitled to your opinion that collecting fines shouldn't profit people who risk their safety on a daily basis to collect fines from those (who warrants are issued against), willfully avoid payments, I ask you private message me with an alternative method of collection that doesn't cost the taxpayer money or start a new thread specifically outlining your suggestions.

As for the very sad case you mention, it wasn't as black and white as you suggest. While it's true the bailiff in question offered the debtor a lift to the cash machine, it was the debtor's OWN SON who gave the bailiff his frail father's new address in full knowledge of what he was there for. I was quite surprised at the time when the son decided to go public with his damnation of the bailiff when he himself undoubtedly played a major part in his father's demise. Either way, it was a very sad tale and one which the son of the deceased and the bailiff in question must live with for the rest of their lives.


The other examples you mention are a disgrace and I hope as much as the next bailiff that those who clearly flout the law in such ways are weeded out and dismissed as soon as their law breaking becomes apparent.


==============





I don't believe bluebottle is trying to help people AVOID their FINES (not debt) either. He does though actively try to help people AVOID the consequences of AVOIDING paying their fines in the "majority" of threads I see him him contribute in. His stance on enforcement in general is the strangest I've come across from an ex officer of the law............


May I also point out that while some maybe here to help, Legalbeagles was set up to help, support and DEBATE many areas of day to day life. If contributors wish to judge posters on their actions or failure to act, they are quite entitled to do so in the spirit of this forum and open debate. I'm pretty sure your position might change from help to debate if one of the sex offenders, wife beaters and thieves/burglars I try to collect from, posted here for help (no diatribe intended).

It would appear you are not familiar with the way in which the courts work or their procedures. There have been cases where errors - some of them serious - have occurred and innocent people have been assaulted by bailiffs and had their possessions taken when there have been no grounds in law for doing so. The other issues that arise are where a person has been fined a ridiculously-high amount, were not in court when the fine was imposed because of corrupt private companies running public services either not telling them or fabricating cases (Yes, it does happen and there are people currently doing time for it.) and/or their means were not examined. The simple fact is, if a defendant's means have not been examined, a fine cannot be imposed or enforced (R -v- South Western Magistrates [on the application of Purnell]).

It is better to rule out any procedural irregularities at court level before progressing a matter up through the levels within HMCTS Criminal Enforcement. For your information, it was HMCTS themselves who explained the escalation process to me and the criteria for escalation.

As for your comments about escalating cases to Area Enforcement Team level, if it wasn't for certificated bailiffs under contract to HMCTS misrepresenting their powers, trying to garner fees over and above that allowed by the contracts with HMCTS by engineering situations to force entry, assaulting debtors and making threats they have no right in law to make, it wouldn't be necessary to escalate matters to Area Enforcement Team level. In fact, on a a number of occasions, Area Enforcement Teams have uncovered mistakes by court staff, prevented entirely innocent people from having their possessions unlawfully seized and protected some very vulnerable people. The court staff can only do so much and, in some cases, have to refer matters up. That, unfortunately, is due to Civil Service procedures and rules.

If the truth be told, court staff are voicing disquiet and concern over the behaviour of private-sector civil enforcement companies collecting unpaid court fines. The decision to contract them was political and had nothing whatsoever to do with saving the taxpayer money.

The late Lord Denning condemned the use of bailiffs and branded them a 12th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. He advocated the use of Attachment of Benefits Orders and Attachment of Earnings Orders which are easier and cheaper to administer. Community Payback and Restorative Justice are other means of justice which have their advantages and benefits. Those who commit serious Indictable Offences and Schedule 1 Offences are more likely to receive custodial sentences due to the risk they represent to the community.

The civil enforcement industry is its own worst enemy and is likely to be the architect of its own demise. It either gets to grips with the corruption and fraud that pervades within the industry and removes those who resort to questionable behaviour to achieve their objectives or it becomes a pariah, as if it was not already, and is closed down by Parliament.

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

I think we can expect very little change in the way some Bailiffs and their masters operate in the

near future

LB only hi lights a few cases of bad behaviour and rule/law breaking if all the instances could be collated and evidence put together we may see a change .

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dave

if all the instances could be collated and evidence put together we may see a change .

:flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: :flypig: