Copy of His Honour Judge Cryan's Judgment regarding Costs in Form 4 Complaints.

On 16th April I started a new "Sticky" regarding the problems that can be encountered when making a Form 4 complaint.

In that post I also mentioned the serious matter of costs and I referred to a leading test case that was heard before His Honour Judge Cryan sitting at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC. For ease of reference I provided important extracts of his Judgment dated 25th January 2011.

A copy of the full judgment (which includes a case reference) can be read by way of the following link:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43427[/ATTACH]

Copy of His Honour Judge Bray's Judgment regarding Costs in a Form 4 Complaint

In the link below I am providing a copy of the Judgment from His Honour Judge Bray sitting at Northampton CC on 23rd February 2010 where he ordered the person making the Form 4 complaint to pay costs of £5,000 to the bailiff.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43428[/ATTACH]

Copy of His Honour Judge Welchman's Judgment regarding Costs in a Form 4 Complaint

In the link below I am providing a copy of the Judgment from His Honour Judge Welchman sitting at Wandsworth CC on 29th November 2012 and where he ordered the person making the Form 4 complaint to pay costs of £1,655 to the bailiff

Copy of Deputy District Judge Allen's Judgment regarding Costs of a Detailed Assessment

In the link below I am providing a copy of the Judgment from Deputy District Judge Allen sitting at Croydon County Court on 16th November 2011.

In this particular case, a complaint had been made to the court in relation to the fees charged by a bailiff employed by Collect Services.

The case was initially heard in June 2011 before HHJ Blunsdon who ordered that the disputed fees be the subject of Detailed Assessment.

The Detailed Assessment of the fees was heard before Deputy District Judge at the hearing in November 2011 and she ordered that the fees recoverable by the bailiff should be £32.90 for a visit/levy and an "attending to remove" fee of £104.50.

As you will see from her Judgment, she ordered the complainant to pay the costs of the Detailed Assessment of £1,200 and that this sum had to be paid to the bailiff within 2 weeks of the Judgment.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43431[/ATTACH]

These Judges should be strung up in public. It certainly proves that making a form 4 complaint is useless. Perhaps entrapping a bailiff in to a criminal offence is the better option, let's face it, that shouldn't be too difficult, I believe in giving them enough rope is where they can come unstuck. Initially, play and act stupid with them, when they think you aren't that clued up is when they take advantage. It's funny that establishment carries the same pattern thoughout what ever it controls.

The same in house protection could be said for LA controlled children home paedophille cover ups, planning permission back handers and a whole host of other things councils involve themselves in. My views may seem extreme but unfortunately, this country has always been good at one thing - corruption. The corruption may not be as blatant as in some south american countries, here it is all conducted in the dark corridors of power. At least with south american countries it's in your face and you know the deal. UK Legalise must be the most misleading, corrupt languages spoke on this planet

I agree. The real criminals are in charge of the justice system, bailiffs are just playing at it. The MoJ is primarily run to extort whatever money it can from the unsuspecting public.

I agree. The real criminals are in charge of the justice system, bailiffs are just playing at it. The MoJ is primarily run to extort whatever money it can from the unsuspecting public.

Have to agree outlawla MOJ = Maximum Obstruction To Justice, as CPS = Criminals Protection Society. otherwise why would marstons bailiffs be allowed to get away with assaults on debtors and innocent third parties, and judges allow Form 4 to be litigation instead of an inquiry into fitness?

Personally, I am not at all happy with posting details but as I have stated on the thread regarding Form 4 Complaints, a particular person on a small forum is constantly claiming that costs have NEVER been awarded and he further claims that he has "sold" over 1,400 Form 4 Packs. Given that there are only 1,516 certificated bailiffs in England & Wales this is clearly utter nonsense. However, in order that the public know the real position regarding costs it was felt that these Judgments should be made public. There are many others and I will attempt to obtain permission from the parties to publish them on the forum.

The Ministry of Justice have let the public down very badly indeed and they should have addressed this serious matter long ago.

In a few days time I will be providing details of a very serious case where an "Interim Costs Order of £10,000 has been ordered to be paid. The balance of the costs of approx £19,000 are subject to detailed assessment of the costs. The case was heard in court last week.

Given that cost orders are imposed it should ALWAYS be the case that Form 4 complaints should ONLY ever be made in cases where the complaint about the bailiff is so very serious that consideration should be taken for the Judge to remove the certificate from the bailiff.

It obviously suits MOJ to prevent bailiff complaints being addressed, floodgates and undermining of confidence in enforcement by the public being the excuse to let the bailiffs keep on bullying, It's public money they are collecting you know, will be the line they spin when a bailiff finally kills a hapless debtor or third party.

Publishing these is a service to us us all and to the public at large. You are to be commended for this. Bacon was correct; knowledge is power.

Lamma,

Thank you for your kind words, they are very much appreciated.

The research tomtubby has put in on this thread is second to none, and the information priceless beyond measure, all i can say is thank You the effort is much appreciated

As readers to this thread will clearly see from the attachments, I have provided details of Costs Orders in relation to complaints concerning a bailiff working for Newlyn Plc, another in relation to a bailiff working for Collect Services and with the final complaint, the employer is not know as the bailiff's name no longer appears on the HMCS Bailiff Register. I would assume that he not applied to renew his certificate.

It would seem clear that other websites are ONCE AGAIN looking at misleading viewers on his forum as they have stated tonight that I have provided details of 2 Costs Orders in relation to MARSTON GROUP !!!! This is NOT TRUE.

Why are those sites continuing to deceive the public !!!!

It has taken him several hours to work on a reply after reading your posts and even then he gets it wrong.....he is deluded to only believing what he wants to believe and sod the consequences or the people he 'sells' out.

When I receive a copy of the order from the hearing of last week at Southampton County Court I will be able to provide details on the forum.

As mentioned above, an "Interim" costs order in favour of the bailiffs has been made for £10,000 and the balance of the costs of approx £19,000 is to be subject to detailed assessment by the court.

This morning I have been provided with details of the parties and they are as follows:

The complainants were Mr & Mrs Dragon

One complaint related to a bailiff by the name of Mr Marshall and the other was Mr Fanshawe.

The bailiffs were employed by: Empire Enforcement.

The court did not revoke either of the bailiffs certificates.

This is now beyond a joke as there is therefore little let or hindrance to a bailiffs misdemeanours for an impoverished debtor.

I'm not advocating a witch hunt but is there any way we can find what started the Complainants out on this course of action in the first place?

I disagree. There is a clear message that it is wise not to challenge the Bailiff's fitness to hold a certificate. So do not challenge it ! Use other remedies.

Copy of Deputy District Judge Allen's Judgment regarding Costs of a Detailed Assessment

 

In the link below I am providing a copy of the Judgment from Deputy District Judge Allen sitting at Croydon County Court on 16th November 2011.

 

In this particular case, a complaint had been made to the court in relation to the fees charged by a bailiff employed by Collect Services.

 

The case was initially heard in June 2011 before HHJ Blunsdon who ordered that the disputed fees be the subject of Detailed Assessment.

 

The Detailed Assessment of the fees was heard before Deputy District Judge at the hearing in November 2011 and she ordered that the fees recoverable by the bailiff should be £32.90 for a visit/levy and an "attending to remove" fee of £104.50.

 

 

 

As you will see from her Judgment, she ordered the complainant to pay the costs of the Detailed Assessment of £1,200 and that this sum had to be paid to the bailiff within 2 weeks of the Judgment.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43431[/ATTACH]

Sadly, on another forum (well known to CAG) the co owner has "claimed" that Croydon County Court have confirmed to him ( Happy Contrails) today that the order is a "fake".

Not surprisingly he has failed to exhibit a copy of the correspondence from the Court !!

As stated in my original post this case related to a Form 4 complaint that was originally heard in June 2011 before HHJ Blunsdon who ordered that the disputed fees should be the subject of Detailed Assessment.

This was a very sensible decision indeed by HHJ Blunsdon as otherwise, the complainant would have had to pay a court fee of £300 to seek "Detailed Assessment".

The forum to which I am referring "claim" to have sold approx 1,400 "Form 4" packs (which is patently utter nonsense given that there are only just over 1,500 certificated bailiffs registered by all courts in England & Wales).

Clearly, that forum will go to the most extreme lengths to try to ensure that viewers to their site do not get to know of any cases where Judges have ordered costs to be payable in FAVOUR of the bailiff.

Undoubtedly, this could impact on their revenue.

To deceive the public in such a way is dreadful.

TT

Personally I think you should ignore the other site and don't even mention them on CAG, unless someone from their site posts a spoof thread again on CAG. If they are happy with the information and service they provide, then they can answer for themselves if their clients have any issues down the line. Just post up the information on CAG that is useful to viewers here and if they want to comment on their site, then let them. As I commented the other day, at some point someone will come on a TV consumer programme who had followed advice obtained online from specialist bailiff advice sites and the owner of the site will have to account for themselves.

Unclebulgaria67

Thank you for your above post. What I find very worrying indeed is the way in which that person almost daily "boasts" of yet "another" case of a bailiff company "caving in" and apparently paying sums of £500, £1,500 or other such invented sums to settle Form 4 Complaints so as to avoid the case progressing to court.

Never once has he provided any evidence whatsoever. It is frankly fairy tales and yet, when I have provided evidence by way of Judgments on this site that same person will attempt to hide the judgment from viewers sight by saying that Croydon County Court have informed him that the judgment is a "fake". On this serious allegation, I have decided to allow the Ministry of Justice to take this matter further.

You may know that the person concerned used to post on here and was banned MANY TIMES. He would frequently invent new user names to post again and this "game" even continued until only a few days ago. After being banned as "Happy Contrails" he used another name of "Fork-It" and in doing so, responded to a post from OUTLAWLA regarding his own Form 4 complaint in 2010 !!!

You may care to take note his advice regarding Form 4 complaints. His post is here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275148-Judge-J.-F.-Appleton-Distress-for-Rent-Rules-1988-(Form-4-complaint)-Determination

As you will see, his own advice is: Form 4's don't work. They never have. !!!!

On a separate subject, following the recent judgment in court regarding the Removal of Implied Right of Access notices and where the claimant lost a claim for trespass and was ordered to pay the bailiff costs, I will be starting a new thread regarding the frankly ridiculous Freeman of the Land movement. It will be a most interesting article indeed and in relation to the other forum you will be interested to read about the links that the forum has to the Freeman on the Land movement....in particular with their site admin......Monkey Nuts should I say:

Monkey of the family (or of the clan): Nuts

Authorised Agent and Representative for MONKEYNUTS

No assured value, NO liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.

WITHOUT RECOURSE-NON-ASSUMPSIT

Note: The above has been copied word for word from the well know Freeman on the Land supported forum: Get Out Of Debt Free.

The Freeman on the Land "double or split person concept" has been ridiculed in the recent landmark Judgment (Meads v Meads) which stated that:

"This duality argument is both a strange and confusing concept which uses an artificial and fictitious division of the person in an attempt to support an otherwise absurd argument"

and that:

"Whatever it is, it is without merit, it detracts from the court proceedings and it is total and utter nonsense"

TT

The problem is that much on the internet is unregulated. All you can do is post up the information that you believe to be correct and let the public decide who to believe. As I said before, sometimes you just have to wait for appropriate justice to catch up with those who are providing advice and selling some form of service in a debateable way.

TT

 

The problem is that much on the internet is unregulated. All you can do is post up the information that you believe to be correct and let the public decide who to believe. As I said before, sometimes you just have to wait for appropriate justice to catch up with those who are providing advice and selling some form of service in a debateable way.

Unclebulgaria67

Very well put. I have always made sure that what I write can be supported by evidence. I will never rely upon "hearsay".

With financial problems but most particular, bailiff enforcement, all members of the public really need to be very wary indeed of taking advice from sites on the internet that have some "association" with Freeman on the Land theories.

As I have stated there appears be such an "association" with the site run by Happy Contrails. The "advice" given on the site is given almost exclusively by either Happy Contrails, Monkey Nuts or; to a much lesser degree, the original owner of the site "Amy" ( who I believe had at one time been a poster here on CAG).

In my above post, I have provided details of a post that was made by "Monkey Nuts" on a well know Freeman on the Land supported website called Get out of Debt Free.

It is very easy to "identify" websites associated with Freeman on the Land as typically, the "guru's" ( or more commonly those who "peddle" the information) will claim that displaying a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice at the boundary to a property will magically stop a bailiff from visiting the property....WRONG !!!

The more serious Freeman on the Land supporters will also adopt a "legal person or strawman" identity. More details of which can be read under the heading of: Legal Person or Strawman under the following link:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

A simple outline of the Freeman of the Land movement can be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Does anyone know anything about a Form 4 complaint that was heard last week in a court in the Midland???

Rumour has it that it had all the hallmarks of the template Form 4 “pack” that is being sold to unsuspecting debtors on “another” forum. Apparently word has it that the Form 4 hearing went really badly wrong for the person making the complaint.

WD