The following story appeared on SCOOP this morning.

It would seem that the debtor; Christopher Elliott had an unpaid court fine and a bailiff attended his property late last year with two police officers. The debtor paid by cash and was heard to comment that he considered that the bailiff had acted 'unlawfully' and that he (the bailiff) would 'lose his job'.

The news article states that after the bailiff left the property, Mr Elliott chased the bailiff in his car and 'shunted' the bailiff's vehicle causing damage of £250.

There is further detail in the link below. Judge Peter Kelson yesterday jailed the debtor for a period of 9 months.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11426193.Bailiff_rage_driver_jailed_for_nine_months_for_dangerous_pursuit/

Not great on several fronts.

Stupid, stupid man

I am surprised that enforcement agents have not been seriously injured or killed, given that they are visiting some people who refuse to pay and some people who may suffer from mental health issues. I just hope that they get paid enough to take into account the risk they encounter and their employers do not pressure them into dubious practices in order to collect money due.

No wonder many wear stab vests and have video cameras on them. Also many now seem to have the Police in attendence for outstanding court fines.

 

Also many now seem to have the Police in attendance for outstanding court fines.

Your above comment is correct and there are important reasons for this. The new regulations have made significant changes and in total, took a period of nearly 13 years of debates (the most intense period being 2009/8 when Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement BILL (as it was then called) was going through the Lords.

The new regulation include all debt types and with magistrate court FINES, specific provision is provided under SCHEDULE 13 of TCE 2007 to include such fines in with the same enforcement procedure as all other debt types (council tax, parking charge notices, child support arrears etc) and accordingly, the same fee scale now applies (£75 Compliance fee and £235 Enforcement stage fee).

There continues to be a group of internet sites (in the main with connections with the Freeman on the Land movement) that attempt to mislead debtors that fees cannot be charged (despite the regulations making specific provision). Such sites also mislead debtors with nonsense about 'fake warrants'. Their 'justification' being that the amount of a 'true' warrant has just the amount of the court FINE and not the 'amount due' (which includes the legally due enforcement fees). The same sites are failing the debtor because the new regulations specifically provide that a warrant will NOT be deemed invalid if there is ANY defect in the warrant.

Lastly, websites continue to peddle out nonsense about NOROIRA and 'trespass'. Again, the new regulations are specific in that an enforcement agent will NOT be deemed a trespasser.

Because of the continuing poor advice that debtors are being given they are under the impression that enforcement of criminal court fines should be free and this mindset is leading to police having to be in attendance.

Sorry to say, but the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 does NOT include parking enforcement. Bailiff companies would have us believe differently, but then they would have us believe that their self employed bounty hunters are 'enforcement officers' and that incorrect evalution of status is too readily requoted on forums.

The chap deserves punishment, but a 9 month custodial sentence is well extreme and over the top unless they have managed to prove it was attempted serious GBH etc

I bet the judge just wanted to "make an example" making an example is not justice its revenge and has no place in a democracy with a free court system.esp as the result is one criminal is treated differently to another for an identical offence but in a different court, the reason tarrifs were brought in.

Sorry to say, but the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 does NOT include parking enforcement. Bailiff companies would have us believe differently, but then they would have us believe that their self employed bounty hunters are 'enforcement officers' and that incorrect evalution of status is too readily requoted on forums.

I have little doubt that courts are toughening up regarding assaults on bailiffs ( and removal of wheel clamps) and this will be demonstrated in a further case that I will be posting about later this evening.

I have little doubt that courts are toughening up regarding assaults on bailiffs ( and removal of wheel clamps) and this will be demonstrated in a further case that I will be posting about later this evening.

I wonder if you'd get a two-for-one if you removed a wheel clamp, and then assaulted the bailiff with it

I wonder if you'd get a two-for-one if you removed a wheel clamp, and then assaulted the bailiff with it

I would have got two for one if I had clouted the Jacobs bailiff and his companion when he tried to seize my car for a third party debt. I would willingly do time for that cretin, especially as he drove his car at me at high speed and swerved away from hitting my car at the l;ast minute. Wish i had chucked a brick at his car as he sped off.

But in the ordinary way bailiffs should not be attacked, any more than they should assault a debtor, although there are bailiffs with form for doing that, then claiming the debtor assaulted them viz R v Tucker 2013 COA

The chap deserves punishment, but a 9 month custodial sentence is well extreme and over the top unless they have managed to prove it was attempted serious GBH etc

 

I bet the judge just wanted to "make an example" making an example is not justice its revenge and has no place in a democracy with a free court system.esp as the result is one criminal is treated differently to another for an identical offence but in a different court, the reason tarrifs were brought in.

If someone drives past you and blocks the road and runs at you kicking your car, then continues to follow you deliberatly swerving trying to ram you off the road, they are surely guilty of the offences of "Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving" or attempt of the offence at the very least.

Bailiff or not is irrelevant if someone has done that they deserve whatever is coming to them. Most magistrate fines are issued instead of a prison sentance in the first place as well lets not forget. According to wikipedia there is a max term of 2 years imprisonment.

Now bare in mind the bailiff will of had the police with him for a reason, possibly because the defendant has a previous criminal past, or may of made threats previously to the company or bailiff.

If anything he has got off lightly with 9 months, and lets be honest he isnt going serve that long, the sentancing is a joke.

The chap deserves punishment, but a 9 month custodial sentence is well extreme and over the top unless they have managed to prove it was attempted serious GBH etc

 

I bet the judge just wanted to "make an example" making an example is not justice its revenge and has no place in a democracy with a free court system.esp as the result is one criminal is treated differently to another for an identical offence but in a different court, the reason tarrifs were brought in.

Kicking the side of a vehicle as it drives past, then instead of leaving it at that getting into another vehicle and chasing it through streets pulling parallel to the bailiff vehicle and shunting sideways into it,forcing a female in another vehicle to brake sharply to avoid collision.

I think he was lucky with just 9 months,recklessly driving on a public highway and putting numerous lives at risk with his actions,and very lucky the vehicle he shunted stayed on the road and no pedestrians were hurt.

Kicking the side of a vehicle as it drives past, then instead of leaving it at that getting into another vehicle and chasing it through streets pulling parallel to the bailiff vehicle and shunting sideways into it,forcing a female in another vehicle to brake sharply to avoid collision.

I think he was lucky with just 9 months,recklessly driving on a public highway and putting numerous lives at risk with his actions,and very lucky the vehicle he shunted stayed on the road and no pedestrians were hurt.

No that is definitely not a proportionate response, he is lucky he didn't kill anyone especially an innocent who got in the way. Nine months is lenient in all the circumstances.

The Judge obviously believed that the person concerned had intent to cause the bailiff bodily harm as a minimum and the consequences could have been mortal. I would think that 9 months is actually reasonable and it is not because the victim was a bailiff.

As I said earlier, at some point EA's are going to suffer assaults that are life threatening. If some EA's are going around being agressive or not following the correct rules, they will be putting themselves and colleagues in danger. I am sure that the managers of the EA companies must warn them that unethical behaviour creates risk.

I tend to agree with the comments regarding this article on the whole, which so far suggest that the aggrieved party should not have pursued the bailiff, whom we all know relies on state protection to succeed in profiting from the public.

The point being, if the state allows these opportunists to terrorise people in hardship, it is not entirely their fault (the bailiffs) that they take advantage and profit from robbing them given the government has licensed it.

However, I assume Mr. Elliott would have had more respect from the public had he gone after the two police officers (inappropriately taxpayer funded) accompanying the opportunists. One better though would have been if he had gone after the authority nearer the source of the rot , Judge Peter Kelson. The taxpayer is forced to remunerate these people with excessive public funds, i.e., their six figure salaries. The press – had it swayed public opinion this way, as opposed following the traditional route (which lets face it) the state would wish – the easily manipulated public would be presented a more honest portrayal of what the real situation was.

Just to remind anyone taken in by "official" events reported in the article; they should remember the convicted party will have likely – in order to lessen his sentence – agreed to the statements reported by plod.

The new regulations are the latest stage of the Coalition and its war against the poor. It is time Communities joined up to resist.

An ideal template would be (was it Hackney?) In the Poll Tax days when it effectively became impossible for bailiffs to enforce in the borough who ended up refusing to even enter. As the Community as one effectively waged a non violent insurrection against the bailiffs.

Violence against the person like some anarchists did is out of order except when defending against an attacker. But it would not keep me up at night if anarchists or someone waged war against the unoccupied vehicles of bailiff firms and judicial officials who only "speak bailiff"

We take far too much quietly in this country, if the French had tried to bring in something like taking control of goods then parts of paris and other cities would likely have burned in riots. In France like any other western nation the governments are terrified of the people, not the other way round, but in France unlike others that governmental fear comes with the knowledge that the Public WILL fight for their rights and thus you have a decent brake against governmental excess and tyranny.

 

Violence against the person like some anarchists did is out of order except when defending against an attacker. But it would not keep me up at night if anarchists or someone waged war against the unoccupied vehicles of bailiff firms and judicial officials who only "speak bailiff".

I am shocked at your statement,and i always thought better of you.

Why would you advocate the damage of property no matter whose it is.

Mostly just ranting here but at the same time, your a fellow Cymro by your I'd, are you aware as to why Wales has bilingual roadsigns and a welsh language tv channel (even if only 10 people watch it lol )

I would also point out the trust fund for the Victims of Aberfan which the British Government stole and refused to give to the victims as some bigwigs were making a very nice living running it - there is also a reason why that fund was eventually given to victims and families....

I am shocked at your statement,and i always thought better of you.

 

Why would you advocate the damage of property no matter whose it is.

Mostly just ranting here but at the same time, your a fellow Cymro by your I'd, are you aware as to why Wales has bilingual roadsigns and a welsh language tv channel (even if only 10 people watch it lol )

 

I would also point out the trust fund for the Victims of Aberfan which the British Government stole and refused to give to the victims as some bigwigs were making a very nice living running it - there is also a reason why that fund was eventually given to victims and families....

I am fully aware of Welsh history,it still does not make it right to condone acts of violence.There is a peaceful route to all solutions,Gandhi showed this to great effect,the moment you resort to violence or advocate violence to achieve your aims then you are no better than the persons you are against.

On this forum we are quick to jump all over bailiffs who step out of line and rightly so,but you cannot take the moral high ground when you encourage others to acts of violence,or agree that violent acts may be acceptable, think about it.

Would it be ok to clamp a bailiffs vehicle? That's non violent, and given enough time, I reckon you could clamp all four wheels and chain it to a lamp post

Nope. That wouldnt be a good idea at all.

Nope. That wouldnt be a good idea at all.

The bailiff would cut off the clamps. and phone da dutti babylon

Mostly just an angry rant like I say, this is my ideal template for non violent (to people or property) Civil Resistance :

Use the interwebs to collate the reg and descriptions of known EA vehicles, a section naming known EA's operating without being certified for ctax etc.

When an EA enters an area, behave like hackney - make noise to alert residents and follow and film the EA to ensure they behave lawfully and to advice debtors of their rights, inc getting to doorways first to check if unlocked and enter to lock and inform resident.

To coordinate major events on ctax LO Court days, flood the courts with people defending claims and cause expensive backlogs. All legal ways to hurt the profitability available to an EA and Creditor.

Shelter nowadays have Officers who go to courts when HA's book the court for mass reposession orders to advise tenants, let's do the same for other matters esp bulk issues.

I am fully aware of Welsh history,it still does not make it right to condone acts of violence.There is a peaceful route to all solutions,Gandhi showed this to great effect,the moment you resort to violence or advocate violence to achieve your aims then you are no better than the persons you are against.

 

On this forum we are quick to jump all over bailiffs who step out of line and rightly so,but you cannot take the moral high ground when you encourage others to acts of violence,or agree that violent acts may be acceptable, think about it.

flood the courts

Mostly just an angry rant like I say, this is my ideal template for non violent (to people or property) Civil Resistance :

 

Use the interwebs to collate the reg and descriptions of known EA vehicles, a section naming known EA's operating without being certified for ctax etc.

 

When an EA enters an area, behave like hackney - make noise to alert residents and follow and film the EA to ensure they behave lawfully and to advice debtors of their rights, inc getting to doorways first to check if unlocked and enter to lock and inform resident.

 

To coordinate major events on ctax LO Court days, flood the courts with people defending claims and cause expensive backlogs. All legal ways to hurt the profitability available to an EA and Creditor.

 

Shelter nowadays have Officers who go to courts when HA's book the court for mass reposession orders to advise tenants, let's do the same for other matters esp bulk issues.

Text book CAG activist then huh?!

I personally would welcome a camera following me so that the gen pop could see what bailiffs have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I've seen the crap that the general poster on here has to deal with but they are only a small minority of cases amongst the masses of visits each day from the 700+ certificated bailiffs in the UK.

Luckily for me, only a minor percentage of people I try and collect from are adamant they want to play the game.

Those that refuse to show their hand now invariably incur the costs of the ultimate sanction.

Locksmith.