Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

**bluebottle** · 8th May 2014, 21:58:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Hi and welcome to Legal Beagles. Comments in red text.

Originally posted by unhappy43 View Post

I was present and talking with a bailiff that visited my friends property for Council Tax debt
The Bailiff would not give the debtor any information showing how much they owed
A bailiff (now Enforcement Agent) must tell a debtor how much they owe.
After the bailiff had left , the debtor repeatedly requested a statement showing how much she owed from both the bailiff company and the council ( these requests were ignored for 8 days ).

On receipt of a statement showing that fees had been applied for a levy and attendance/van , the debtor requested a copy of the walking possession order that the bailiff claims he had. The Statement also showed that the bailiff had arranged repayments for more than the debt, illegal levy and visit fees by £98
Naughty. Very naughty.
After repeated requests to the Council and the bailiff company , the bailiff company sent the debtor an unsigned , falsified seizure notice for my car.
Levying on or seizing third-party goods - including attempts to do so - is a no-no. Saying they can levy on or seize, KNOWING goods are the property of a third party is disingenuous, at best, illegal at worst.
This arrived 20 days after the bailiffs visit ( the same day confirmation of ownership of my car was started with DVLA )
Must be completed at time of seizure.
I immediately sent both the council and the bailiff company an email stating that the car is mine , not the debtors.
Good.
I then sent a copy of the registration document , proving the car was mine ( The debtor has no licence , and does not drive)
Good.
Both I and the debtor proceeded with the councils complaint procedure , and requested that the council involve the police in the investigations. The council refused.
The council is not the victim. The debtor is. Even if the council was an indirect victim, that is, a victim as a consequence of an illegal act committed by the EA against the debtor, the prerogative to complain to the police would lie with the council.
At the end of the 2 complaint stages , the council director ignored all evidence provided to have to contradicting complaint outcomes ( to suit the council , where neither the bailiff or the council had done anything wrong). I proceeded to the police who refused to investigate it as it was a Civil Matter.
In order for the police to investigate, there needs to be evidence of a criminal act.
I then filed a form 4 complaint. The bailiff responded to the courts letter claiming that he knew he had made a mistake , and was sorry.
And he thinks that is enough?
He also stated that the debtor had been refunded for his actions , that he had returned the liability order to the council , and that he was to receive further training in the taking control of goods .
Did he produce evidence to substantiate these claims?
The judge replied saying that due to his response and the refund to the debtor , that they would not be putting the matter to a hearing.
Technically, the judge has acted correctly and within the law as he was guided by the evidence placed before him.
I then sent the judge proof showing that the debtor had not been refunded , that the council had withdrawn the liability order from the bailiff company , and that the bailiff was not a new bailiff.
Was this evidence available at the time the Form 4 complaint was submitted to the court? If it was, why was it not submitted with the Form 4?
The judge then ordered the bailiff to attend a hearing.
Not surprising given the judge realised the EA was taking the piss.
The bailiff hired a solicitor and submitted a statement of truth that was all lies.
And the solicitor proceeded to pervert the hearing into litigation?
He provided a photograph of my car on the debtors drive together with his statement in which he had claimed that he had never been back to the property. I proved that the photograph was taken when the bailiff had received his summon to court .
Was the EA under oath when he uttered those words?
The bailiffs solicitor then stated that the bailiff had been back to the debtors property to refresh his memory, and had taken the photograph then. His statement said he had never been back.

The bailiff company director submitted a Statement of Truth stating that the bailiff had given the false information to the courts form 4 ( the claiming of the debtor being refunded , and the returning of the liability order) because somebody in the bailiff companies office had told him that .
Which civil enforcement company is involved and what is the name of the company director who gave the Statement of Truth?
Amazing as it might seem with all the proof and the bailiffs lies , the court dismissed the claim, giving no reason.
Given what you have said, this does not surprise me.
I contacted HMCTS for an investigation into the dismissal. HMCTS refused to investigate and stated if I chose to take it further, it would be costly to me .

I contacted my local MP providing the councils contradicting complaints outcomes (showing that the council was abusing the complaints process) and asked him to investigate the directors' corrupt investigations.
Depends on the answer to the questions about the company and director above.
He wrote to the council . The Chief Executive of the council denied everything , and stated that they had not received a complaint regarding the matter from the LGO. This was a lie. I sent the MP a copy of the LGO's letter requesting information and an account from the council for this matter. The letter had been received by the council weeks before the Chief Executive responded. More lie.
Sounds like the council is in denial. Which council is involved?
The LGO has now been stalling in sending me the outcome of its investigation , giving me dates , then missing them.
This may not necessarily be the fault of the LGO.
The Bailiff had committed a well known scam of claiming fees for a levy when no levy had been carried out . When he had been caught he falsified a seizure notice for a car outside the debtors property, regardless of owner.
On the face of this alone, there are a number of potential offences under the Criminal Law that come to mind.
The Council , Police , and Courts refuse to accept this goes on , and regard the bailiff as telling the truth and anybody who complains is a liar.
Generally speaking, much of the problem lies in poor preparation before submitting such complaints. My gut-feeling is that if complaints to the courts, when and where justified, are submitted with evidence that proves an EA is unfit to act as such and narrows down the likelihood of the EA escaping sanction on a technicality, fewer EAs would escape sanction. Also, steps need to be taken to curb the abuse of the legal process by EAs and civil enforcement companies.

**unhappy43** · 8th May 2014, 23:32:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Thanks Bluebottle ,
The answers to your questions are :
Regulation 45 Paragraph 5 of The Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regs states that the bailiff must leave a statement detailing all fees applied , and a copy of a levy whenever a bailiff visits .
The bailiff only gave the debtor his calling card which he wrote the agreement on (no total of debt )
The Council Tax owed was £631 .87 , by not giving the debtor any statement the bailiff arranged 6 monthly payments of £150 , totalling £900 . The total statement when finally received was for £807.87 inclusive of the illegal levy (£44) the attendance/van fees , and 2 visits that had been charged which had not taken place .

The council stated in its stage 1 complaint conclusion that the bailiff can seize any vehicle on a debtors drive if they believe that the vehicle is owned by the debtor ( without applying to DVLA as to the ownership confirmation) , and apply fees to the debtor .
The Council and the bailiffs stated that they only seek DVLA ownership confirmation when proceeding to remove the vehicle

This is in total disregard of The LGO ruling that puts the onus on the bailiff to check ownership before levying a vehicle

The bailiff acknowledges talking with me at the time he claims to have seized my car , but cannot explain how he could have seized my car without an immediate dispute , or my showing him the V5 document that was in the cars glove box less than 10 ft away .
The bailiff also moved his car so that I could drive the debtors daughter to school , and he watched me drive off
The debtor is a female and I am a male , so how could the bailiff reasonably assume that the car belonged to the debtor

The bailiff in his statement of truth to the court stated that he told me he was seizing my car , and claims he gave the seizure notice to the debtor ( this was all lies)
In the councils so-called stage 1 investigation , the bailiff claims that he may not have made it clear that he was seizing my car ( of course not , he did not tell me he was seizing my car , as it would have been disputed immediately) , and he said that he did not attempt to get a signature on the seizure notice .
I provided the court with The House of Commons bailiff regulations stating that a bailiff cannot seize a third parties goods as it would be an illegal levy
The Council replied that it was not illegal

The Police : I supplied copies of all emails , the levy for my car , the liability order in the debtors name , the repayment arrangement showing the bailiff was claiming more money than he was legally entitled too to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police
I then contacted them a week later , at which time they claimed not to have received the documents .
So I sent them again
I received no reply , so I contacted the police 101 telephone to report the bailiffs fraud attempt ( I also logged the actions with Action Fraud)
Several weeks later I put a complaint in against Sussex Police
They telephoned me and arranged a meeting at Chichester Police Station
When I attended no police officers were assigned to meet with me for this prearranged meeting
I had to wait an hour for 2 female officers to have a meeting with me
I showed them all the evidence , and they stated to me that it was a civil matter
I asked them to show me in any Law book where fraud is regarded as a civil matter , they couldn't
All acts of theft are regarded as criminal , which is why a shoplifter can be arrested and charged
They then stated that their superior would go through all the paperwork I had provided , and make a decision

This did not take place , the police contacted Chichester District Councils Chief Executive Diane Shepherd that same day
and then sent a me a letter saying that they would not pursue the matter as it was a civil matter , and not to contact them about the matter again .

The Courts : The Court ( Northampton Combined Court) was sent all information regarding the bailiffs breach of Regulation 45 Paragraph 5 of The Council Tax Enforcement and Administration Regulations , the payment arrangement written by the bailiff on his calling card ( showing that he was claiming more than the total owed including the fees he had added) , the unsigned seizure notice for my car (showing an illegal levy), and the councils contradicting complaint outcomes that claimed the bailiff had seized my car on the 19 March 2013 in the debtors complaint conclusion , and in my complaint conclusion that I could not have been inconvenienced as I could have only known of the seizure against my vehicle from the 9th of April til the 12th when the seizure notice was removed ( I remind you that the bailiff claims he told me he was seizing my car during his visit on 19th of March ) , and the seizure notice is dated 19th of March

Her Honour Judge A W Hampton stated in her letter when she said that she was not going to proceed to a hearing because the bailiff had apologised and refunded the debtor , that she could not impose further punishment

Then when I sent proof that the bailiff had lied , she ordered him to a hearing

The Bailiff did not provide any evidence to the court , just his sworn Statement of Truth
The Bailiff company director provided a sworn Statement of Truth together with falsified letters that she stated had been delivered to the debtors address by hand , prior to the accused bailiffs visit

As I have stated above , the bailiff lied in his statement , and this was shown by his solicitors response
The Court already had copies of the actual letters supplied with her sworn statement , and I showed that the ones provided by the bailiff company director had been falsified .

Recorder Maw ( Northampton Combined Court ) dismissed the case giving no reason

The Bailiff Company was Rundles & Co Ltd
The Bailiff Mr Trevor Francis Barrett
The Council , Chichester District Council
Stage 1 Complaints Procedure ( Head of Finance) Ms C Christie
Stage 2 " " (Director ) Mr Paul Over
Chief Executive of CDC Ms Diane Shepherd
Local MP Mr Andrew Tyrie

**bluebottle** · 9th May 2014, 03:14:AM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Originally posted by unhappy43 View Post

Thanks Bluebottle ,
The answers to your questions are :
Regulation 45 Paragraph 5 of The Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regs states that the bailiff must leave a statement detailing all fees applied , and a copy of a levy whenever a bailiff visits .
Must also have a copy of the Liability Order also and serve on the debtor. This, however, is a breach of procedure.
The bailiff only gave the debtor his calling card which he wrote the agreement on (no total of debt ).
Not acceptable.
The Council Tax owed was £631 .87 , by not giving the debtor any statement the bailiff arranged 6 monthly payments of £150 , totalling £900 . The total statement when finally received was for £807.87 inclusive of the illegal levy (£44) the attendance/van fees , and 2 visits that had been charged which had not taken place
Subtracting the illegal levy, van fees and two non-existent visit fees, how much should the EA have LAWFULLY charged?
The council stated in its stage 1 complaint conclusion that the bailiff can seize any vehicle on a debtors drive if they believe that the vehicle is owned by the debtor ( without applying to DVLA as to the ownership confirmation) , and apply fees to the debtor . The Council and the bailiffs stated that they only seek DVLA ownership confirmation when proceeding to remove the vehicle.
Total crap. They clearly have not familiarised themselves with the new regulations which came into force on 6 April 2014. These require them to make checks as to ownership of vehicles.
This is in total disregard of The LGO ruling that puts the onus on the bailiff to check ownership before levying a vehicle

The bailiff acknowledges talking with me at the time he claims to have seized my car , but cannot explain how he could have seized my car without an immediate dispute , or my showing him the V5 document that was in the cars glove box less than 10 ft away .
Because he's dug a hole for himself, dug too deep and cannot get out of it.
The bailiff also moved his car so that I could drive the debtors daughter to school , and he watched me drive off. The debtor is a female and I am a male , so how could the bailiff reasonably assume that the car belonged to the debtor.
Inconsistencies in statements, especially those that are easily disproved or shown to be false, tend to be noticed and get jumped on.
The bailiff in his statement of truth to the court stated that he told me he was seizing my car , and claims he gave the seizure notice to the debtor ( this was all lies)
How deep was the hole he dug for himself and CDC?
In the councils so-called stage 1 investigation , the bailiff claims that he may not have made it clear that he was seizing my car ( of course not , he did not tell me he was seizing my car , as it would have been disputed immediately) , and he said that he did not attempt to get a signature on the seizure notice .
The trouble is that you get council officers who can't seem to get it into their heads that backing a bailiff and misrepresenting facts or law is not only the height of stupidity, but illegal also.
I provided the court with The House of Commons bailiff regulations stating that a bailiff cannot seize a third parties goods as it would be an illegal levy.
Was this the new regulations that came into force on 6 April 2014?
The Council replied that it was not illegal
Either totally clueless or lying through their teeth. How reckless can a council be?
The Police : I supplied copies of all emails , the levy for my car , the liability order in the debtors name , the repayment arrangement showing the bailiff was claiming more money than he was legally entitled too to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police. I then contacted them a week later , at which time they claimed not to have received the documents . So I sent them again. I received no reply , so I contacted the police 101 telephone to report the bailiffs fraud attempt. I also logged the actions with Action Fraud. Several weeks later I put a complaint in against Sussex Police. They telephoned me and arranged a meeting at Chichester Police Station. When I attended no police officers were assigned to meet with me for this prearranged meeting. I had to wait an hour for 2 female officers to have a meeting with me. I showed them all the evidence , and they stated to me that it was a civil matter. I asked them to show me in any Law book where fraud is regarded as a civil matter. They couldn't.
Sussex Police has a history of serious failings and shortcomings where bailiffs are concerned. In 2011, they unlawfully arrested a householder who attempted to remove two bailiffs who had illegally forced entry to their home. At an appeal hearing at Hove Crown Court in December 2012, HHJ Brown, the most senior circuit judge on the South Eastern Criminal Circuit, upheld an appeal against conviction for assault against the householder and slammed both the CPS and Sussex Police for their actions. Sussex Police have also illegally handcuffed someone in order to facilitate illegal entry to their home by a bailiff. "It's a civil matter," is a common excuse amongst police forces to not deal with crimes. You should make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) if you have not already done so and bend the ear of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Sussex about the failings of Sussex Police. Failing this, get on to your MP and ask him to pursue the matter with Eric "Pie Eater" Pickles, who is responsible for local authorities and Mad Madam Mim May who has ultimate responsibility for policing as Home Secretary.
All acts of theft are regarded as criminal , which is why a shoplifter can be arrested and charged.
Theft is an offence in its own right (Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968 refer). Looking through your posts, there is evidence of potential offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, in respect of the Notice of Seizure. The EA's credibility as a witness is, I have to say, totally shredded, given what they have said and done and the inconsistencies in their evidence.
They then stated that their superior would go through all the paperwork I had provided , and make a decision.
Who was this "superior", their Inspector or the Station Superintendent? Police officers are not trained in the law as it applies to bailiffs.
This did not take place , the police contacted Chichester District Councils Chief Executive Diane Shepherd that same day...
Is this for real?
...and then sent a me a letter saying that they would not pursue the matter as it was a civil matter , and not to contact them about the matter again .
...except through the IPCC.
The Courts : The Court ( Northampton Combined Court) was sent all information regarding the bailiffs breach of Regulation 45 Paragraph 5 of The Council Tax Enforcement and Administration Regulations , the payment arrangement written by the bailiff on his calling card ( showing that he was claiming more than the total owed including the fees he had added) , the unsigned seizure notice for my car (showing an illegal levy), and the councils contradicting complaint outcomes that claimed the bailiff had seized my car on the 19 March 2013 in the debtors complaint conclusion , and in my complaint conclusion that I could not have been inconvenienced as I could have only known of the seizure against my vehicle from the 9th of April til the 12th when the seizure notice was removed ( I remind you that the bailiff claims he told me he was seizing my car during his visit on 19th of March ) , and the seizure notice is dated 19th of March
How come the paperwork was sent to Northampton? Normally, it is sent to the court that issued the EA's certificate.
Her Honour Judge A W Hampton stated in her letter when she said that she was not going to proceed to a hearing because the bailiff had apologised and refunded the debtor , that she could not impose further punishment.
This is correct.
Then when I sent proof that the bailiff had lied , she ordered him to a hearing.
Not surprising. However, it is surprising the EA's certificate was not suspended for his attempts at misleading the court.
The Bailiff did not provide any evidence to the court , just his sworn Statement of Truth.
The Statement of Truth is a certificate as to the veracity of what a person has said on an application, etc.. It is the civil equivalent of the certificate on Witness Statements in criminal cases.
The Bailiff company director provided a sworn Statement of Truth together with falsified letters that she stated had been delivered to the debtors address by hand , prior to the accused bailiffs visit.
Was this a certificate or an Affidavit? If it was sworn, this would suggest an Affidavit.
As I have stated above , the bailiff lied in his statement , and this was shown by his solicitors response.
Could you expand on this, please? If the solicitor looked as if they had messed themselves, it was probably because of the fact a legal professional can be struck-off for misleading a court. They can also be prosecuted. If the solicitor disassociated themselves with the statements of the EA and company director, all well and good. If they did not and continued to assert the statements were truthful, that needs pursuing with the relevant regulatory body.
The Court already had copies of the actual letters supplied with her sworn statement , and I showed that the ones provided by the bailiff company director had been falsified .

Recorder Maw ( Northampton Combined Court ) dismissed the case giving no reason
I am surprised this was heard at Northampton and not the court that issued the EA's certificate.
The Bailiff Company was Rundles & Co Ltd
The Bailiff Mr Trevor Francis Barrett
The Council , Chichester District Council
Stage 1 Complaints Procedure ( Head of Finance) Ms C Christie
Stage 2 " " (Director ) Mr Paul Over
Chief Executive of CDC Ms Diane Shepherd
Local MP Mr Andrew Tyrie

Responses in red text.

**unhappy43** · 9th May 2014, 12:42:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Thanks again Bluebottle
This matter started in March 2013 , and the court date was February 10th 2014
The new regulations had not come into force

The answers you have asked for are :
The debtor owed £631.87 inclusive of court fee , and all action should have been stopped when Rundles & Co Ltd received the letter from the debtor , clearly stating that she would like to make arrangements for repayment , when she was given a statement showing how much she owed ( Rundles acknowledge receipt of this letter 4 days before the bailiff visited)
The bailiff ( Mr Trevor Barrett) arranged repayments of £150 monthly for 6 months , Totalling £900
Mr Trevor Barrett only wrote £150 p/m , the start date 15/4 , and the bailiff ref No on his calling card
No statement , copy of a liability order or copy of a levy was left or shown to the debtor or I
The purpose for this was to tell the debtor that they owed more than they really did , and apply fees for work he had not carried out( Fraud ) , he even exceeded the amount inclusive of all the fees he added , which totalled £807.87
Then he denied arranging 6 monthly payments of £150
I supplied Chichester District Councils Head of Finance with a photocopy of the bailiffs calling card , showing £150 monthly payments , and no lesser amount stated , or total of amount owed

The House of Commons Bailiff Regulations that I supplied Chichester District Council , Northampton Combined Court , and The L.G.O with came into force March 2013

The Police :
The Polices own internal complaint department arranged the meeting , but then did not assign anybody to meet with me ( showing that they were not taking it seriously)
The female officers that took the meeting clearly knew nothing regarding Fraud , Law , or Rules and Regulations bailiffs
They stated " The Council would not employ crooked bailiffs "
The evidence was given to The Superintendent at Chichester Police Station
The I.P.C.C state that all complaints against a police force should first be taken up with the force with which you wish to complain
The Police and Crime Commissioner backed the police in its decision not to investigate stating that it is the polices choice as to whether to investigate due to the time and costs involved in an investigation .

The Bailiff Certificate Issuing Court was Northampton Combined Court , which is why the hearing was held there
Recorder Maw ignored all of my submitted evidence to dismiss the case
Evidence Supplied
Copies of all letters from Rundles & Co Ltd to the debtor
Copies of all emails ( sent to Rundles and Chichester District Council requesting a copy of a statement , and then requesting a copy of a walk in possession order ) This showed that the debtor was being repeatedly ignored
A Copy of the payment arrangement on the bailiffs calling card
A copy of the unsigned seizure notice
Copies of both stage 1 and 2 complaint conclusions by Chichester District Council , showing that the council had 2 contradicting conclusions
A signed statement of truth as to my account , and all of the documents provided being true
Proof that Mr Barrett had lied in his statements claiming the debtor had been refunded , and that he had returned the liability to the council
Proof that Mr Barrett had lied in his statement of truth when claiming that he had never been back to the debtors property since 19th of March 2013 , as he had provided a photograph of my car on the debtors drive taken in December 2013 attached to his statement of truth
The bailiffs solicitor confirmed Mr Barrett had been back to the debtors property , and had taken the photograph recently to refresh his memory of the address

The Bailiff Company Directors altered letters to the debtor that I attached to the actual letters , and highlighted the changes
( The changes to the layout of the address , the removal of Rundles & Co Ltd from the bottom of the letters , and a bailiffs name Mr Gaynor inserted .)
All of the letters now had the same address layout and bailiff name inserted at the bottom , including letters for the 1st and 2nd visit that had not taken place , and the debtor had never received .

The bailiff and bailiff company director only submitted statements of truth that I showed were lies , no other evidence

Recorder Maw dismissed the hearing with no awards for costs being made , and no disciplinary action against the bailiff

The only plus was the bailiff and his company had to pay the costs of their solicitor

I have no criminal record , but have lost all faith in the british legal system and HMCTS

**bluebottle** · 9th May 2014, 15:32:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Originally posted by unhappy43 View Post

Thanks again Bluebottle
This matter started in March 2013 , and the court date was February 10th 2014
The new regulations had not come into force

The answers you have asked for are :

The debtor owed £631.87 inclusive of court fee , and all action should have been stopped when Rundles & Co Ltd received the letter from the debtor, clearly stating that she would like to make arrangements for repayment. When she was given a statement showing how much she owed - Rundles acknowledge receipt of this letter 4 days before the bailiff visited - the bailiff - Mr Trevor Barrett - arranged repayments of £150 monthly for 6 months , totalling £900. Mr Trevor Barrett only wrote £150 p/m , the start date 15/4 , and the bailiff ref No on his calling card. No statement , copy of a liability order or copy of a levy was left or shown to the debtor or I. The purpose for this was to induce the debtor to believe they owed more than they really did and attempt to apply fees for work he had not carried out. He even exceeded the amount inclusive of all the fees he added , which totalled £807.87.
It would appear the EA needs to buy new batteries for his calculator or invest in an abacus.
Then he denied arranging 6 monthly payments of £150.
The correct form of address for someone who does this is "Muppet".
I supplied Chichester District Councils Head of Finance with a photocopy of the bailiffs calling card , showing £150 monthly payments , and no lesser amount stated , or total of amount owed. The House of Commons Bailiff Regulations that I supplied Chichester District Council , Northampton Combined Court , and The L.G.O with came into force March 2013

Sussex Police :
The Police's own internal complaint department arranged the meeting , but then did not assign anybody to meet with me, showing that they were not taking it seriously. The female officers that took the meeting clearly knew nothing regarding Fraud , Law , or Rules and Regulations bailiffs. They stated " The Council would not employ crooked bailiffs "
Sounds like they need to get out more, go back to training school or switch to being PCSOs. Are you sure they were not PCSOs? I would expect PCSOs to come out with such uninformed drivel, but, then, some police officers aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer..
The evidence was given to The Superintendent at Chichester Police Station
The I.P.C.C state that all complaints against a police force should first be taken up with the force with which you wish to complain.
With minor complaints, this advice is correct. However, some complaints are not suitable for local or informal resolution and need to be referred to the IPCC, who have been pulled up about their lack of consistency in the past.
The Police and Crime Commissioner backed the police in its decision not to investigate stating that it is the polices choice as to whether to investigate due to the time and costs involved in an investigation. The PCC needs reporting to Madam Mim. That sort of comment is unacceptable and indefensible.
The Bailiff Certificate Issuing Court was Northampton Combined Court , which is why the hearing was held there. Recorder Maw ignored all of my submitted evidence to dismiss the case. Evidence Supplied. Copies of all letters from Rundles & Co Ltd to the debtor. Copies of all emails sent to Rundles and Chichester District Council requesting a copy of a statement , and then requesting a copy of a walking possession order. This showed that the debtor was being repeatedly ignored. A Copy of the payment arrangement on the bailiffs calling card. A copy of the unsigned seizure notice. Copies of both stage 1 and 2 complaint conclusions by Chichester District Council, showing that the council had 2 contradicting conclusions. A signed statement of truth as to my account , and all of the documents provided being true. Proof that Mr Barrett had lied in his statements claiming the debtor had been refunded and that he had returned the liability order to the council. Proof that Mr Barrett had lied in his statement of truth when claiming that he had never been back to the debtors property since 19th of March 2013 , as he had provided a photograph of my car on the debtors drive taken in December 2013 attached to his statement of truth. The bailiffs solicitor confirmed Mr Barrett had been back to the debtors property , and had taken the photograph recently to refresh his memory of the address.
The EA has, in my view, been unbelievably reckless in the extreme. Misleading a court is serious. He is very lucky, indeed, he is still a free man.
The Bailiff Company Directors altered letters to the debtor that I attached to the actual letters , and highlighted the changes. The changes to the layout of the address , the removal of Rundles & Co Ltd from the bottom of the letters and a bailiffs name Mr Gaynor inserted. All of the letters now had the same address layout and bailiff name inserted at the bottom , including letters for the 1st and 2nd visit that had not taken place , and the debtor had never received .
This needs reporting to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), especially if Rundles hold a Debt Collection Licence. What you have highlighted raises issues of fitness to hold a licence.
The bailiff and bailiff company director only submitted statements of truth that I showed were lies , no other evidence

Recorder Maw dismissed the hearing with no awards for costs being made and no disciplinary action against the bailiff. The only plus was the bailiff and his company had to pay the costs of their solicitor.
Which is probably Recorder Maw's way of saying to Rundles, "If you and your bailiff want to come into this court and try to pull the wool over my eyes, you can pay for the privilege." Notwithstanding, this incident and the evidence you put before the court is likely to resurface when the EA applies to renew his certificate when it becomes due for renewal. He may find it is a hurdle he has to overcome and may find it difficult to surmount, meaning the court may refuse to renew his certificate. Ways and Means Act. If you can't get the bugger one way, you can always get them another way.
I have no criminal record , but have lost all faith in the british legal system and HMCTS

Responses in red text.

**unhappy43** · 22nd June 2014, 06:58:AM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Hi Bluebottle and All
The Latest development in this matter is that Mr Trevor Francis Barretts certificate was renewed by Northampton Combined Court after his hearing , allowing him to continue to scam people .

The L.G.O has sent a decision for the complaint , With which the bailiff that had supposedly made the first and second visits did not have any Satnav proof that he had been to the debtors property ( requested by the LGO ) , he claims that all the addresses that he supposedly visited on both the first and second so called visit dates , nobody was home .

The LGO has also decided that there has been no maladministration by Chichester District Council , despite Ms C Christie stating that bailiffs can seize any vehicle outside a debtors premises , without making checks to DVLA as to the ownership , if the bailiff believes it belongs to a member of the household .

This clearly ignores the law and allows bailiffs ( now enforcements officers ) to seize third party vehicles .

The LGO has decided to ignore its own ruling stating that Prima Facie does not apply to vehicles , and putting the onus on a bailiff to check ownership of a vehicle before seizing it .

The LGO has also decided to ignore that Mr Paul Over Director of CDC had 2 contradicting complaint outcomes to the stage 2 complaints procedure .
The LGO has chosen to ignore the fact that for the conclusion that Mr Over had for my complaint shows that he was fully aware that Mr Barrett did not levy my car on the date on the seizure notice 19/03/13
Mr Over stated in his stage 2 complaint conclusion that I could have only been aware of the seizure of my car 09/04/13 until the 12/04/13
In all the so called investigations by the council , Mr Barrett claims to have seized my car in my presence ( saying that he told me he was seizing my car ) 19/03/13 , as I was present and talking with him ( with the debtor ).

In the debtors stage 2 complaint conclusion ( also carried out by Mr Over ) The conclusion was that Mr Barrett attended the debtors property on the 19th of March 2013 , levied on a car on the drive , gave all the required documents ( inclusive of a seizure notice ) , and as such there was no wrong doings by Rundles or Chichester District Council .

However The LGO has asked the Council to pay the debtor £100 compensation .

The LGO has also chosen to ignore that the registration number for my car and the seizure notice was not scanned onto bailiff records at the time of the so called seizure . The Council has also stated to The LGO that the first date they saw the seizure notice was 07/04/13

I am aware that The LGOs impartiality has been called into question before , now I know they are not impartial at all
The tax payers money used to pay for The LGO should be saved and The LGO dissolved

Regards

**bluebottle** · 22nd June 2014, 09:09:AM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

I think you may need to speak to your MP about this with a view to pursuing this with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). If it is evident that the LGO is "not fit for purpose" and funded by the taxpayer, then they need to be subject to scrutiny by the PHSO.

**unhappy43** · 22nd June 2014, 09:14:AM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

I have contacted my local MP Mr Andrew Tyrie and his office , they have been as much use as a chocolate teapot , and will not do anything

**bluebottle** · 22nd June 2014, 09:30:AM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Was this his parliamentary office or constituency office?

**unhappy43** · 22nd June 2014, 16:28:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

It was his Parliamentary office

**bluebottle** · 22nd June 2014, 17:27:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

What was their response? Does it indicate total ignorance of bailiff matters?

**Guest** · 22nd June 2014, 20:42:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Unhappy

Just a point regarding the seizure of 3rd parties goods. The LGO does advocate the use of DVLA checks but of course these are not instantaneous. There is no law that states DVLA checks should be carried out before levying. A bailiff is entitled to levy upon a vehicle that he reasonably believes to be the debtors. Indeed, there is case law to support this.

If the debtor did not receive an inventory of seized goods or details of fees charged after each visit, this is a breach but will not be regarded as severe enough to invalidate any subsequent actions.

I appreciate you are still very angry regarding this matter but the LGO will have looked at the overall situation. The debtor is not out of pocket, the 3rd party didn't have goods removed and there appears to have been no loss suffered by anyone. Despite this, the LGO has still recommended the debtor receives £100 compensation. In my experience compensation is certainly not the norm in LGO findings.

I might be missing something here but there doesn't appear to have been any loss or distress suffered by anyone, it is more down to errors on Rundles part.

**unhappy43** · 22nd June 2014, 22:11:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Dear Starving Taxpayer , You state that there has been no loss to anybody . If myself or the debtor had not challenged the bailiff company , there would have been . This was a purposeful attempt of the bailiff and bailiff company to charge fees that they were never entitled to , for personal gain by the bailiff and his company (fraud).
Your comments seem to support the act of fraud or attempted fraud , and I wonder if you would feel the same way if your local council allowed its bailiffs to threaten to steal your property/ car for somebody elses debt .
You also seem to be advocating the councils abuse of its complaints system to not investigate fairly , and fix an outcome to suit itself , without being held accountable for its actions .
The Councils pursue matters of fraud committed against it , but will not pursue , and will actively attempt to deter any investigations of fraud committed by it or its contractors ( one law for them , and another for ordinary people )
Despite overwhelming evidence of the bailiffs purposeful attempts of fraud ( including trying to charge the debtor more than the debt owed inclusive of illegal fees for a levy and removal costs for a vehicle that they did not own ) the bailiff has been allowed to continue to operate in the same manner .
The LGO must adhere to its own rulings , or why should the councils . This would make the The LGO pointless and a complete waste of money . Ombudsman are supposed to investigate fairly without bias , and come to a conclusion based on the evidence provided . If they do not do this ,what is the point of an ombudsman , other than to be a total waste of the money provided for that office to work .

**unhappy43** · 22nd June 2014, 22:24:PM

Re: Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

A further point for you Starving Taxpayer . The bailiff acknowledges that he moved his car so that I could take the debtors daughter to school , and watched me drive off ( without the debtor in the car ). I am a male and the debtor is a female . How could the bailiff reasonably assume the vehicle to be owned by the debtor ?

You also state that DVLA confirmation does not need to be made prior to , or even at the time a seizure notice is issued
The Council stated that no DVLA confirmation is needed until they proceed to remove the vehicle , so the bailiff can levy any vehicle that he claims may belong to a debtor , charge fees for a levy and the recovery of a vehicle tat the debtor may not own , and even demand immediate payment inclusive of fees for the levy an removal of somebody elses goods .

The Law is clear . No Levys can be made on a third parties goods
Regulation is clear . The bailiff has to take reasonable precaution against levying on a third parties good
Reasonable precaution . Establishing ownership ( with a vehicle it is easy , DVLA confirmation )

Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Bailiff Scam allowed by Council , Police and Courts

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?