To be really honest here, the questions that you are raising really ought to be raised with the County Court bailiff. As I have said before, all county courts have access to DVLA searched via a company contarcted by HMCTS by the name of SHERCAR LTD. This company have ONLINE access and the response to the enquiry will be given the same day. I am at a loss to understand why a search was only made by the court a short while ago.

Pressure needs to be put on the court.

As you can see from the answers given on here ( which I consider correct) the bailiffs appears to have different ideas.

I have already complained against the bailiff to the bailiff manager but with no result. It is why I ask for information in my posts to have enough kowledge to complain further to the Court manager.

I think that simply county court bailiffs contrary to HCEOs do not used to tow aways cars. Have you already heard of a county bailff towing away a car?

YES County Court bailiffs frequently takes cars !!

Distress only gives possession (into the custody of the law) not title. The goods are merely impounded.

High Court Enforcement Officers asks the claimant to sign an indemnity form so that if they cannot sell the car the claimant will be liable for cost of towing the car.

Have you think who will pay the county court bailiff the cost of the towing of the car if he cannot sell the car or cannot make enough money from the selling of the car to cover the costs.

We have to make the difference between the law as it stands and the law which is applied which is not always the same. For example unlawful eviction is a criminal offence City Council sometimes prosecute landlords but never the police. This is similar to the difference between the work done by High Court Enforcement Officers and County Court Bailiffs

The bailiff manager of my county court sent me an email where he says that he does not have the mean of clamping the debtor’s car let alone to tow it away

The reason the police do not prosecute in cases of Unlawful Eviction is that they do not have the necessary authority to do so.

All the police do in such cases, is report the landlord to the local housing authority (council) and it is then for that authority to pursue prosecutions against landlords. I have heard of a landlord, in Plymouth, who was recently fined £28,000 for letting properties in seriously unfit conditions and is now being lined up for an ASBO preventing him from letting properties.

Plymouth City Council have a history of using ASBOs to tackle businesses who put the public at risk. They did this to the CEO of South West Water who ignored orders to address the smell being emitted by a sewage treatment works that was effecting the lives and health of local residents.

When work was not done, the council warned the CEO of SWW of the ASBO. He, thinking they couldn't touch him, took legal advice, found out they could and work started very soon afterwards to address the smell issue. Up to that point in time, the road junction the works were located on were known, locally, as Poo Corner.

You make reference to prosecution about repairs not done for which effectively Police has no power to prosecute.

However prosecutions about unlawful eviction are made under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 for which the Police has the same power to prosecute landlords as the City Council.

However Police never prosecutes landlords for unlawful eviction because it does not want.

I think that you have mixed up prosecution for unlawful eviction with prosecution because landlords refuse to do repairs

No. I haven't mixed them up. In the case of the errant landlord, that is reference to a case that came up in an online newsletter and was posted as a point of interest to show the stand being taken by local authorities towards private-sector landlords. As to the prosecution of landlords who carry out unlawful evictions, check out Part III, Section 6, Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The power to prosecute is given to councils, not police forces.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43

You have a PM Oldbill

The Police does not need to be given the power to prosecute a criminal offence because it has always the right to prosecute all criminal offences. It is the City Council who does not have usually this power and it is why this act gives to it this power to prosecute so that City Councils can also prosecute landlords for unlawful eviction.

I would like to have also the opinions of the others members about this issue.

I was on the understanding that the police arrest and then pass it on to the CPS to see whether a prosecution is warranted or not. It is not up to the police to prosecute some one regardless of the offence.

When council decide to take landlords to court it is not a criminal offence but a civil one. It is done in a county court as it would be with all civil claims, councils have no more powers to prosecute some one as you or I.

Can you provide said act that gives this information please.

When I said police prosecutes I meant that it passes the file to the Crown Prosecution Service. But the problem is that police concerning illegal eviction does not pass the file to the CPS.

Some of the offences committed by landlords are prosecuted my Council in the civil courts but not all. Illegal eviction is a criminal offence and councils prosecute it in the Magistrates Courts. I find the following examples in the Internet which prove this

http://www.kettering.gov.uk/news/article/475/council_prosecutes_landlord_for_illegal_eviction

http://www.housingallocationsandhomelessness.com/blog/landlord-prosecuted-for-illegally-evicting-her-tenant/

The big problem is to convince the police to do its job and to pass the file about illegal eviction to the CPS. I have done my jury service and one case was very weak. I wonder what criteria the Police uses to decide to pass some files to the CPS and not others. This seems very arbitrary. The problems is to know what kind of appeal we can do against the police officer often a simple sergeant who refuses to pass a file about illegal eviction to the CPS

Having dealt with illegal evictions when I was a police officer, the police can act if the tenant has been assaulted by the landlord or their house-trained gorillas or the tenant's property has been damaged by the landlord or the gorillas. Other than that, the police will caution the landlord and their gorillas and inform them that they will be reported to the local housing authority, usually, the local authority, and then prepare a report and statements which are then passed to the local housing authority who then make a decision to prosecute. Legally, the hands of the police are tied where illegal evictions are concerned.

One instance of illegal eviction I recall vividly is of a group of anti-nuclear protesters who had set up camp on common land near an MoD establishment, in the 1980s. The local authority went to the High Court and, somehow, obtained an Eviction Order. When we, the police got involved, a Sheriff arrived with a small army of private security officers and started throwing his weight around with our operational commander, a Superintendent, a straight-talking Yorkshireman who took great delight in telling the Sheriff and private security officers exactly what he would do if things got out of hand. Things did get out of hand and we ended up arresting many of the private security officers for assault and use of excessive force. The Sheriff was furious and started shouting and bawling at our Superintendent, making all sorts of threats. Our Superintendent stood there, grinning at him and said, "Have you quite finished? Because if you don't shut the **** up, I'm going to nick you for a Breach of the Peace." With that, a local solicitor arrived with an order from the High Court annulling the Eviction Order. Being common land, the local authority had no authority over it and the protesters had every right to camp on it. It turned out that the local authority had mislead the High Court about the status of the common land. The Sheriff had a lot of explaining to do and so did the local authority involved.

Thanks for clearing that up

Thanks for clearing that up

You're welcome.

I made an application to the police for access to a crimereport in which I am the victim.

I received it.

This has taken four months instead of 40 days.

Moreover some parts of this crime report have been removed.  I would like to know if I can make an appeal.

I would like to know how to check that these parts have not been wrongly removed and that they do not relate to me nevertheless.

This crime report relates to event which took place between me, my landlord and my neighbours against which I already had an injunction before this crime was committed.

I would like to be sure that these parts have not been removed in an arbitrary way.

I made a complaint against police concerning the handling of the investigation and maybe these parts were removed only because they contain evidence in my favour

I would liketo know in which extent creditors can share between them information about their common debtors so that to be able to enforce their respective compensation order against their common debtors

I would like to know which chapter of the Data Protection Act 1998 deals with this issue

This would all go back to when you applied for the accounts. The application forms would have contained information about how data would be shared.

Information would be shared via the credit reference agencies and during the process of buying/selling debts.

If you have a particular issue with data that was shared which you think should not have been, you would need to make a complaint to the relevant companies Data Protection Officer and then the ICO if necessary. Unless it was private information (nothing relates to original application), then I would think that you would be wasting your time.

Totally agree with UB.

Furthermore Experian have with Arrow Global brought a computer program to the market to actively link all your debts. The idea being in the future to try and place all debts with one DCA.

For a debt buyer like Arrow this has its advantages as it will do for the DCA involved.

It went live in April and 15/20 organisations are signed up to use it already. It is still being developed but as time progresses more and more peoples debts are going to be lumped with less and less DCA's. That particular DCA will then have access to all data that is furnished about the debtor across all debts.

Anyone who thinks credit agencies arent part of the industry are mad. They even got us to all think our credit scores matter and to pay for the privledge of telling them where we are and when we are active. Everytime you access them your saying hey here I am come and get me.

Every time you sign up for credit you give them the go ahead to share that data. Check your T & C's. Its plainly there.

Everytime you access them your saying hey here I am come and get me.

Yea... no.

I explain the situation.

I am a creditor and I know another creditor of the same debtor.

I would like to know if the other creditor and me we can work together to enforce our compensation order. for example I would like to know if the other creditor and me we can legally share information about the debtor so that to enforce our respective compensation orders

I am not sure what information about the debtor you are looking to share and how you would use it. You would have to be careful, as it may not be just a DPA issue.

Also you would have to be careful about sharing information with other creditors, as they may decide to use the information you shared with them, to make sure they were paid first.

Might I suggest that you look to obtain a proper legal opinion, as you really need to look into the whole strategy of dealing with the situation. Perhaps you can look to use insolvency procedures.

I am thinking doing a legal agreement where we will do the enforcement proceedings together and share the proceeds. I have found the following in the Internet

"A collaborative approach, where risk and reward are shared appropriately among creditors, can minimise the erosion of the 'pot' through multiple legal costs and consequently increase returns in real terms"

The problem is to know if there is some exemption in the Data Protection Act which allow us to do this kind of agreement

You say other issues that those of the DPA. which are they ?

This isnt fotl stuff is it?

I am presuming that you are in some form of trade and someone who you deal with has not paid for goods/service. Someone you know is in the same position.

I was thinking that there must be laws relating to sharing of information which might be damaging to the debtors business or their personal reputation.

As for a creditors working together, I honestly don't know what options you have available to you. If you both have court judgements in your favour and have been unsuccessful in enforcing these, then I am not sure what court procedures are available for joint actions.

Is this related to criminal or civil matters. I have just looked up compensation order and this appears to relate to criminal matters ? If this is so, it is a matter you both need to take up with the court separately.