Jump to content

old bill

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by old bill

  1. I shall clarify, TT. Utilities appear to be using the High Court court route as a default option, rather than as a last resort. There have been cases where the utility compay will not engage with alleged debtors and ploughs on regardless. In one case, an EA working for an HCEO hoodwinked the police into believing he was allowed to put his foot in the door of a domestic property for a non-commercial debt and push against the door. The police have now found out othewise and are not happy bunnies.
  2. TT, I've just posted on another thread you have posted on about this. There are problems with rogue elements within the enforcement industry and professsional trolls causing disruption on the group you mention. The group should not be judged solely on what is posted, as what you are reading may not necessarily have been put there by a valid member of the group of member of the public seeking help.
  3. Thank you for drawing this to my attention, TT. However, I am finding there is abuse of the High Court enforcement process by utlities and it is not isolated cases either. Steps are being taken to identify the main and repeat offenders. If a debt is over £5,000, fair enough as the law requires the debt to be transferred to the HC for enforcement, but there are what appears to be an increasing number of cases of commercial creditors using the HC enforcement process for debts below £5,000 and, alarmingly, under £1,000. Where the enforcement process is being used as a form of punishment for being in debt, with the passage of time, this brings the process into disrepute. Utilities need to remember ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to them whether they want to beieve it or not and can be unforgiving if a court makes a Section 7 judgment or order against them. Also, it is known that EAs have set up false/bogus FB profiles, joined the social media site and posted misleading or distracting comments which then results in the "wrong" information you mention. This, sadly, is the reality. If the enforcement industry is that concerned their bottom line is being affected by intervention to curb malpractice, unlawful behaviour and, in a small number of cases, criminal behaviour, then the industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself and remove those who give the industry a bad name. As for EAs enforcing Writs, my understanding where the alleged debt is not against a business, the same rule applies that applies to WoCs, that is, peaceable entry only, not barge way in as can be witnessed on episodes of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Anyway". It has also come to attention that professional trolls have been at work on these particular pages. One member spotted a professional trolling business's posting style and knew the location of the firm's trading address. The posts this trolling business had made disappeared very rapidly once they realised they had been rumbled. However, it wasn't fast enough to initiate regulatory action. I would urge caution as to pointing the accusing finger at the social media site members where comments on its pages are concerned as not all of what is posted is put there by members. Some of the comments are the work of professional trolls and rogue elements within the enforcement industry.
  4. Spot-on, UB. That is more or less what the ICO told me when I spoke to them initially about the pensioner's case. There is more to the case than I am able to disclose and those issues have to be dealt with separately.
  5. Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:- 1. Do you have insider knowledge; and 2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error? The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.
  6. The LA had no lawful authority to pass the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company, stu007. In all fairness, the enforcement company advised me the pensioner's personal data was in a digital file with other persons' personal data. They have been helpful in this respect. It is likely they will need to revise their procedures to prevent a recurrence of this.
  7. To answer your question, TT, at the time of the assault, the pensioner was aged 69/70 years, which, according to retired counsel I have spoken to, is an aggravating factor.
  8. The ICO has informed me the matter of compensation is something that has to be pursued separately, TT. As to them fining the LA, I wil have to wait and see what transpires.
  9. Certainly. My experience of dealing with cases of malfeasant EAs is that referring the matter to the Complaints Manager at the enforcement company has resulted in the matter being resolved in most cases. Where LAs are concerned and council officers try to fob one off to the enforcement company, I have found involving local ward councillors and MPs can be useful. Although TCoG has clarified matters where civil enforcement is concerned, there are, sadly, EAs who seem to be under the impression it is "business as usual" and behave as if TCoG does not exist. The matter of the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, BN. As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation. The data protection breach appears to lie with the LA. Despite referring the case back to the CPS at district and regional levels, they will not have it that the EA should be prosecuted, even though the injuries the pensioner sustained amount to ABH. The LA's in-house data protection team has advised the sending of the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company is a breach of data protection, in the circumstances. The ICO have become involved because of what happened to the pensioner as a result. As to what you say, DB, I have my suspicions, but I await the outcome of the ICO's investigation before commenting further.
  10. As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason. The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.
  11. No Charge Certificate in existence. It never went through TEC. What sanctions can TEC/MoJ impose on an LA in such cases? Even the LA's in-house data protection team has told those responsible that a breach of data protection has occurred, but those in the department involved are in denial they have done anything wrong. Aside, a PCN can be registered nine times in all before TEC refuse further registration and enforcement.
  12. In this case, Dodgeball, there was no lawful authority given. Period. As for your cynicism, the ICO already has the evidence and it is awaiting allocation to a case officer.
  13. TEC didn't know about the matter until the pensioner and I enquired as to whether the LA had registered an alleged debt and sought authorisation to issue a warrant. TEC have done nothing wrong and are not at all at fault. It is the LA who are responsible and are now squealing like stuck pigs.
  14. The only response the pensioner has had from the LA is along the lines of "We do not condone violence, but tough titty." The LA has changed its story three times and cannot seem to get its story straight. They have even tried to blame the pensioner for the assault! The ICO is not impressed with the LA and has made it clear that, had it not been for the LA's improper disclosure, the incident would not have happened, TT.
  15. The LA is the data controller for data protection act purposes. It is the LA the ICO is investigating. However, at some point, the enforcement company will need to provide an explanation as to when they received the pensioner's personal details from the LA. I am also privy to information which is currently with the ICO which relates to the actions of the LA.
  16. Not quite like you portray it, DB. The LA shared personal data with a civil enforcement company and no record of any authority to do so held by TEC. The enforcement company then passed the pensioner's personal details to the EA who then attended the pensioner's address and behaved like a neanderthal. The enforcement company has confirmed the LA sent them the pensioner's personal data and when. The screenshot TEC sent to me clearly shows the LA had not registered any debt and there was no authority to issue a warrant either. Who are you saying should be stuck on the sheet for this, DB, the pensioner?
  17. The enforcement company is the EA's employer. The client is a local authority who sent the pensioner's personal details to the enforcement company without authorisation from TEC. The local authority seems to believe the LGO is a complaints fairy who will wave their magic wand and make the incident and the fallout from it go away. It won't. The LGO can do very little, if anything at all. It is the ICO who has the muscle and can inflict a Civil Monetary Penalty of up to £500,000 on those who breach data protection.
  18. Try TEC had not authorised any warrant and no debt registered with TEC. The EA's employer confirmed they received the pensioner's personal details in a digital file two months before. This is why the ICO is now involved.
  19. Because the incident involving the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, DB, I cannot comment any further. The case involving the pensioner went to the CPS who won't have it that they have let down the pensioner. They decided not to proceed against the EA because, according to CPS, the pensioner allegedly threw a plastic milk bottle full of rainwater over the EA. "Oh that's assault," the CPS claim. They can't seem to get it into their heads the EA should not have been there in the first place. The ICO, on the other hand, has been very helpful. A file is with them at the moment awaiting allocation to a case officer. I'll come back onto this thread and update when I have more details.
  20. As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor. I am currently dealing with a case where a pensioner was badly beaten by an enforcement agent who, it turned out, had no lawful authority to be at the pensioner's address and continued regardless when told by the pensioner he should not be at his address. The enforcement agent's client has been unable to come out with a credible explanation, changing its story three times and trying to blame the pensioner for what happened! The matter is currently with the ICO as it involves a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The case has also highlighted the training police receive in dealing with bailiff incidents is woefuly inadequate. I am compiling fact sheets for police officers, with corresponding fact sheets they can hand out to alleged debtors, as to how they stand and what they can do to address an enforcement agent turning up on their doorstep, out of the blue, demanding money and throwing their weight around. In the case I have highlighted, the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton have been very helpful and I would like to thank them, on this thread, for their assistance. More recently, this past week, in fact, an enforcement agent called at a residential property and an 11 year-old answered the door. Instead of following the rules and walking away, the bailiff assaulted the 11 year-old, knocking them flying, and proceeded to barge in and bully the child's mother, who has Lupus and was in the bathroom being violently sick. It is my understanding the police are dealing with the enforcement agent's assault on the 11 year-old.
  • Create New...