'wrote a letter of complaint'

You may wish to rethink your suggestion about writing to the court asking for a note to be left for the judge's consideration etc. This is actually the same step that the individual took who has recently been landed with his 2nd cost order. Supposedly, his letter had been treated as an EAC2 complaint.

Thank you

I think that it's now clear to everyone that a letter for the judges consideration will not be taken as a complaint

No - As usual it is you who is misunderstanding.

We know that the debtor's letter COMPLIANING was taken as an EAC2

However, it was NOT repeat NOT a request for something to lay on file for the judges consideration

Surely even you can work out the difference?

No - As usual it is you who is misunderstanding.

 

We know that the debtor's letter COMPLIANING was taken as an EAC2

 

However, it was NOT repeat NOT a request for something to lay on file for the judges consideration

 

Surely even you can work out the difference?

When you write letter of complaint, You have no influence on how it will be received

If you are laying a complaint to the court about a bailiff and how they have done their job, Then you are questioning the bailiffs fitness to do the job

I really don't see how the court can treat a complaint letter in any other way than an EAC2 complaint

Seeing what has happened to EAC2 complainants in the past i think it is a dangerous game to suggest to someone that it is the right path to follow

Just my 2 cents

PS Is this thread just you talking to yourself ?

PS Is this thread just you talking to yourself ?

I think Cag have quite rightly dumped all his rubbish into one bin, here he can go unnoticed and be of little detriment to posters.

Makes sense lol

No - As usual it is you who is misunderstanding.

 

We know that the debtor's letter COMPLIANING was taken as an EAC2

 

However, it was NOT repeat NOT a request for something to lay on file for the judges consideration

 

Surely even you can work out the difference?

And the reason why this poster knew so much about this 'letter' that had been sent to the court was because he himself had been providing 'assistance' to the debtor (the one who has been landed with two costs orders....one for £4,000 and the order more recent cost order of £1,600).

Furthermore, this poster's 'assistance' had included him writing a personal letter to the Judge at Brighton County Court (on behalf of the debtor).

PS: The posts that have been dumped over here, are just a selection. The particular nasty and downright rude and abusive posts aimed at individual long time posters on this forum, were removed by moderators.

 

Furthermore, this poster's 'assistance' had included him writing a personal letter to the Judge at Brighton County Court (on behalf of the debtor).

That is a complete and utter lie - unless you have proof of such a nonsensical statement I suggest you retract that.

PS: The posts that have been dumped over here, are just a selection. The particular nasty and downright rude and abusive posts aimed at individual long time posters on this forum, were removed by moderators.

So when are you going to remove your vile posts from the blog run by you and Dodgeball?

That is a complete and utter lie - unless you have proof of such a nonsensical statement I suggest you retract that.

Apart from the fact that only a username has been provided (as opposed to the real name of the poster), I cannot see where you should be getting your knickers in such a twist. Also, what concern is it to you?

Just take a deep breath and count to ten. Your angry will likely subside. There's a good lad.

I don't run any blog. To quote your earlier post:

"unless you have proof of such a nonsensical statement I suggest you retract that."

Can you clarify Bailiff Advice as I can't see where that LGO decision states the direct payment should be given to the bailiff. It says the council should have informed the bailiff of the payment but here is no mention of needing to pass over all or any of the payment.

Wasn't there a case recently where a barrister for a bailiff company actually stated that splitting or forwarding direct payments had no legal standing, and the judge agreed?

That's very strange when you consider what the Magistrates Court Act 1980 section 14(2) says.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a statutory declaration shall be deemed to be duly served on the designated officer if it is delivered to him, or left at his office, or is sent in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his office.

Are the courts simply ignoring legislation these days?

So it seems that rules can over-ride an Act of Parliament? I don't see how that is lawful.

An Act may say that rules and regulations may provide for certain actions but if an Act provides a defined action then subservant rules and regulations cannot supercede that provision without the Act being amended.

An Act will usually provide for such fluidity by using the word 'may', which will allow any rules or regulations to add or remove options available to them.

As an example of an Act providing for certain actions, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 para 62 (2) says

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

At present, the regulations referred to only allow the recovery of costs from the proceeds; the regulations do not allow recovery from other methods. This can be amended by a SI should they wish to without needing to amend the parent Act.

The MCA s14 has had no amendments that disallows a SD being served by way of registered post. S14 clearly states that a SD shall be deemed served if sent by registered post. It doesn't say it may be deemed served, which would then allow any rules and regulations to be fluid.

I cannot understand under what power the MOJ or HMCTS can decide that they are free to turn something that legislation says shall be allowed into something that shall not be allowed.

It implies that a civil servant has simply decided to make a change without thinking of the legislative position.

 

Is there a time limit for making a Section 14 Statutory Declaration:

 

An application for a Section 14 Statutory Declaration must be made within 21 days of you becoming aware of the court fine.

 

PS: And despite inaccurate internet advice, it is not 21 days from becoming aware that a Statutory Declaration is on option !!

This is slightly misleading. A statutory declaration can be made after the 21 days with an explanation of why it is outside of the timescale. Indeed, the Government provided a stat dec template which states in part 4;

Send or deliver the completed declaration to the court office for the magistrates' court where the trial took place. They must receive it not more than 21 days after you found out about the case. The court may extend that time limit, but if your declaration is late you must explain why in the box above.

This also clarifies that send the stat dec by post is allowed. The use of the word 'must' here raises questions - although the court says it 'must' be not more than 21 days, it has the option to ignore that 'must'.

Having had a quick read through the latest rules, I cannot see where it says the person serving the stat dec must be present. Indeed it outlines the procedures for when the person is either present or not present.

The Criminal Procedure Rules do not state that an appointment must be made, indeed they state the procedure for when the defendant is either present or absent. They also state that a stat dec can be served beyond the 21 day limit.

The defendant only needs to provide a plea if the original proceedings were under the SJP.

The defendant also only needs to provide a statement of means if they plead guilty. If they intend to plead guilty but request a hearing, or if they plead not guilty, then no statement of means is needed.

I've said many times which parts are wrong. Ok, once more to clarify the parts in post #1 that are incorrect.

1 - there is no requirement under the CrimPR to make an appointment to attend in person to serve a stat dec

2 - a stat dec can be served beyond the 21 day limit

3 - a plea is only required if the original proceedings were under the SJP

4 - a statement of means is not required if you indicate a guilty plea but request a court hearing not under the SJP, nor is it required if you plead not guilty

The Criminal Procedure Rules are perfectly clear in this and the assertions in post #1 are incorrect. It seems that the info in post #1 relies upon a letter from a court clerk as reproduced in post #2. It is incorrect information and needs to be challenged.

Yes, yes but we all know that what is written can be interpreted in different ways.

Then there is the point that the court can reject an application if it sees fit, and what is actually being said is that unless you attend and clarify your statement it will be.

It may be that the court will do this as a matter of course.

 

It is also true that BA has a vast provable experience in these matters and as far a giving advice is concerned, it is what works that counts.

 

Surely what is important is getting the right result for the debtor and not any point scoring exercise.

It's more important that correct info is given to the debtor. Telling them they MUST make an appointment to serve a stat dec and they MUST give a plea and they MUST provide a statement of means and they CANNOT serve a stat dec after 21 days is incorrect.

As I said, the CrimPR are not really open to interpretation as they are simply instructions. It would however be of benefit if you or anyone could indicate which part of the CrimPR could be interpreted to say an appointment must be made to serve a stat dec.

Then there is the point that the court can reject an application if it sees fit, and what is actually being said is that unless you attend and clarify your statement it will be.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that the court will simply dismiss a stat dec if you don't attend in person to serve it?

NO , please re read.

Ok.

Then there is the point that the court can reject an application if it sees fit.....

Yes, agreed. The court can reject any stat dec if it so wishes

..... and what is actually being said is that unless you attend and clarify your statement it will be.

It will be? That unless you attend it will be rejected? It's clear that's what you are claiming. If you've made a mistake please could you clarify.

I have now twice published a copy of a letter that is frequently being sent to debtors by courts around the country when they receive a Section 14 Statutory Declaration by Registered post.

Sadly this letter is not compliant with legislation or the CrimPR. That should be a matter of concern.

You seem to be more interested in picking up trivial mistakes, than perusing the issue. But no i did not make a mistake in this instance, i this is a specific individual response not a policy. In that case they will, not in all cases.

What you be saying then is that they may reject it, not that they will.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a huge beneficial interest on the defendant attending court in person for the statutory declaration.

 

The court will first deal with the Section 14 Statutory Declaration application and if accepted, the previous conviction will be voided.

 

Secondly, the court will then hear the case against him straight afterwards (therefore avoiding the need for the defendant to attend a second hearing).

 

Thirdly, the court will then set a new fine. In every case, this will be set at a significantly lower figure.

This is slightly incorrect. The court can only hear the case immediately if the original proceedings are under the SJP. Even if the proceedings are under the SJP the defendant can request a full hearing in front of 3 Magistrates.

Also, and obviously, the defendant may plead not guilty, so a hearing won't take place immediately.

There is no guarantee that the fine will be lower.