Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

[unhappy43]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Dear Bluebottle ,
The MPs Parliamentary office sent a letter to Diane Shepherd Chief Executive of Chichester District Council
Diane Shepherd denied receiving a complaint from The LGO regarding this matter
The MPs Parliamentary office then sent me a letter showing that Ms Shepherd said that I should pursue the matter with the LGO , not the MP
The MPs office then sent me a letter saying that they would not get involved in the matter .

[Wombats]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

The MPs Parliamentary office then sent me a letter showing that Ms Shepherd said that I should pursue the matter with the LGO , not the MP
The MPs office then sent me a letter saying that they would not get involved in the matter .

One for the press! I'm sure Chichester residents would be delighted to hear their MP's approach to helping the constituents who elected them.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

One for the press! I'm sure Chichester residents would be delighted to hear their MP's approach to helping the constituents who elected them.

I would not disagree with that in any way, Wombats. Any MP who takes this attitude or allows their parliamentary office staff to take the same attitude should have a long hard think about their future as an MP. My suspicion is that once word gets around Chichester, the MP is going to be receiving some strongly-worded correspondence from his constituents.

Unhappy43,

Do you still have the correspondence from the LGO? If so, send copies to the MP. The actions of the CEO of CDC raises questions of accountability and conduct whilst holding public office.

[Wombats]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

It would be interesting to see given the subject matter. I lived very near Chichester for 7 years and it's a strange area (no disrespect to the OP)

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Unhappy

Please allow me to clarify a few points.

Firstly, I am no fan of either councils or EA's. I have experienced far worse than you have at the hands of these people. I am a big supporter of the LGO and do not share your opinion of her or her case workers and managers.

As I have said previously, nobody has suffered a loss in this case and the debtor has actually been compensated. No fraud has been committed and your accusations would not stand up in a court of law as they are all your word against the bailiffs. You have no evidence whatsoever that he deliberately tried to defraud you.

With regards levying on your car, as you are now aware, a bailiff may levy on anything he reasonably believes to be the debtors. With the car parked on the debtors drive, this would suffice. A DVLA check takes 48 hours to process. Do you think the bailiff should wait there for that time or do you think a car would still be there if he re-attended 48 hours later? You have to look at the bigger picture here.

What you have clearly overlooked, is the fact that in the eyes of the law, the V5 does not prove ownership, merely who is the registered keeper. This is especially prevalent in the enforcement sector. Case law also supports this line of thinking. Here is an extract from a judges determination in a Form 4 complaint that is quoted by many EA companies:

At paragraph 44 and 45 of Dr Martin’s determination of 10^th July 2012, she states that subject to the practicability of making a DVLA check, in every case, a bailiff should establish ownership through the DVLA before removing goods to sell. With respect, this is not a view I can agree with for the simple reason that a V5 does not deal with ownership in a legal sense, just the identity of the registered keeper. That is not to say that there is not good sense in getting as much information as possible to establish likely ownership before removing for sale but I doubt a V5 would really take that enquiry reliably, any further forward. As a matter of law, I cannot see any basis for saying that there is any duty on a bailiff to do a DVLA check before removing goods.

All of this may not be what you want to hear but as you are discovering, taking on these people is not a bed of roses. It will not get any easier either. My feeling is that you got off very lightly in your Form 4 complaint. Claimants are often ordered to pay costs in these matters if the claim fails. Have a read of the Sticky further up regarding Form 4's to see just how lucky you were. Sadly, failing to leave documentation after a levy is not enough for a judge to deprive a man of being able to go out and earn a living.

[unhappy43]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Dear Starving TaxPayer , So what you are stating is that although there is laws and regulations that clearly state that a third parties goods CANNOT be seized for anothers debt , the council and its contracted bailiffs do not have to comply with these laws and regulations , which is also supported by the court system supposedly set up to protect individuals from rogue bailiffs . The LGO who has no more power than being able to RECOMMEND certain actions to be taken by the councils to prevent their actions happening in the future , or possibly having a finding of maladministration .
I do not regard that I was lucky in not having to pay court costs for filing the form 4 . Her Honour Judge A W Hampton regarded that the bailiffs fitness to hold certification was called into question after the bailiff lied in his response to the form 4
The bailiff claimed that the debtor had been compensated for is actions , and that he had chosen to return the liability order to the council . I sent the court a copy of CDCs stage 1 complaint conclusion that proved the debtor had not been compensated for his actions and that CDC withdrew the liability order from the bailiff company.
For the hearing Amy Collins director of Rundle & Co Ltd supplied a statement of Truth saying that she would say in court that Rundle & co Ltds office had given the bailiff the wrong information that he had submitted in response to the form 4 , and that the bailiff should not be held responsible for a member of the office giving him the wrong information .
The Director also supplied copies of letters that had been altered and another bailiffs name inserted

The bailiff company supplied the LGO with a letter stating that Rundle & Co Ltd do not keep copies of the letters that they send out or their bailiff hand delivers , so they retyped the letters which had changes from the originals ( There was no statement attached to the retyped letters when they were submitted to the court attached to Amy Collins statement of truth stating that these were not the originals and had been typed at a later date )
The LGO investigator thinks its O.K when it clearly misled the court
The LGO investigator also decided to ignore the councils stage 2 complaint conclusion by Director Paul Over in which it was ignored that the bailiff stated that he seized my car 19/03/13 (despite that date written on the seizure notice) , ignored the councils interview with the bailiff that stated that he told me he was seizing my car that date and acknowledge my pesence during his visit to the debtor . He also stated the same in his statement of truth to the court . Despite all the proof the director of CDC claims I could not have known about the seizure of my car until 09/04/13 . In the debtors stage 2 complaint conclusion CDCs director stated that my car was seized 19/03/13 .
For the director to have the conclusion that I could not have been aware of the seizure notice for my vehicle until 09/04/13 , this would prove that the bailiff did not levy my car 19/03/13 but had added charges for the levy and attendance/van without a levy taking place . It also shows that the bailiff falsified a seizure notice for my car , at a late date after the debtor had requested a copy of the levy they had charged her for .

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

If a legal professional has mislead a court or attempted to mislead a court, this is a very serious matter indeed.

[unhappy43]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

I have just gone through the bailiff solicitors response to the court supplied by The LGO with the authority of Rundles .
The solicitor stated that Mr Barrett did not notify me of the seizure of my car , he did also not notify the debtor of the seizure of my car .
The baiiffs signed statement of truth that states Mr Barrett will say to the court
Mr -------- asked me to move my car so that he could drive the debtors daughter to school ,As I had formally levied I did so and he drove off with the child .

In all the councils interviews with Mr Barrett , he has claimed that he told me he was seizing my car , and gave the seizure notice to the debtor

The solicitor has also claimed that Rundles and Co Ltd are a paperless office , and do not keep records of letters . If needed they can generate a copy that may not be exact , i.e different address layout , and names inserted . These can be altered to the original at a later date .
Ms Amy Collins submitted these new letters with different address layout , and bailiffs name on the bottom which weren't on the original to court . She did not declare that these were inaccurate copies that can be changed when she submitted them with her statement of truth signed that all information she had provided being the truth .

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

I'm saying that a bailiff may levy upon goods that he "reasonably believes" belong to the debtor. The real issue comes when a car belonging to a third party is actually removed. I've just shown you case law that shows clearly that a DVLA check does not prove ownership. There was also procedure in place for third parties whose goods were levied upon-This indicates that Parliament were aware that the scenario may arise from time to time.

The LGO's decision may not be binding but I'll wager your friend has received or will receive the £100. What does that tell you?

You have no evidence that the bailiff lied on the Form 4 and it is very likely that he was indeed acting on the word given by his company. Why would he know if a debt had been returned or a debtor compensated?

You are actu8ally very likely correct-There has been dishonesty in this case from start to finish. I've experienced the same thing numerous times myself. The bailiff company always come out with lame excuses the it was a mistake or an error or an oversight etc. Its all a load of crap but unfortunately, in the absence of evidence, there is nothing you can do about it.

The issue of your car being levied upon will be blown out of the water immediately. This leaves you with a few issues that will be passed off as "errors". The only real concrete thing you can prove is that you weren't left paperwork.

Going back to the LGO, although the decision wasn't binding, any subsequent investigation will take great heed of its findings.

Like I said previously, this isn't what you want to read, but I'm a realist. There is no point giving you any hope that you are going to get anywhere with this. If you're happy to continue to try then that's your choice.

[Milo]

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Excellent advice ST. There is really nothing further that can be added.