A few of the London Borough Councils, though I am unsure if Tower Hamlets do the opposite of a Bounty scheme, they offer people who need rehousing homes in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Manchester, and some of those Essex seaside towns C5 & C4 are obsessed with filming in, that look more like Beirut, but even tougher, and messier. And if they refuse to move to the offered places, despite them being a very long way from their family and friends, and giving up a job, plenty of single parents working part time had to give up their jobs to move to places like Wolves, and of course the struggle of living well away from your social/support network of family and friends, but if they refuse, they are classed as "intentionally homeless"

It is all a "Speculative Invoicing" scheme, exactly the same as the infamous ACS:Law and it's pursuit of alleged movie downloaders using pirate sites. After RLP's total disaster in Court it seems highly unlikely that anyone would dare try it again, unless they believed the "Defendant" unlikely to Defend, or to get assistance from the likes of the CAB. These new people might well try it on, in the hope of the Defendant ignoring, and thus getting a default judgement, or just in the hope the Defendant gets no help. Many people don't know about the wide range of help the CAB provides, but will have seen that legal aid has been vastl cut, so may not think they can get any help to fight, or they may not have the access, skills etc to find somewhere like here to get help , so it's possible DWF might assess the people they are chasing and take a bet. The real security costs are caused by the "Professional" Shoplifters and are factored in to the stores costs as mentioned. The Speculative Invoicing is purely about trying to make a bit of easy profit from people who make a one off stupid mistake, but have never done it before, nor likely will again. RLP and DWF are no threat to the Professional Shoplifters, they see a night in the cells, community service, fines and in rare cases, Custodial Sentences as the normal risks of their chosen way of making a living, they don't care about getting Fines, and will be equally unimpressed by a County Court Judgement. The Professionals also tend to know the Law and their Rights, and would be able to avoid paying the CCJ for 6 years, including attempts by Enforcement Agents to collect, since Fines are part and parcel of their trade, they will be well versed in Bailiff's, the Bailiff's powers and their rights as a Debtor, and be able to avoid EA and HCEO Enforcement, with a bit of basic thinking and understanding of powers and rights.

Wonder if this is a case of you sharing a name with someone else who is the one actually wanted, but they have been wrongfully traced to your address. The Enforcement Agent doesn't sound like the brightest of sparks, his paperwork instructing him to make contact must say somewhere what its regarding, its entirely possible he has gotten you by mistake, esp if a person with the same name as you had recently moved, so he has done a Trace, but mistakenly gotten you.

Visit your local Court or a local Solicitors and get a notorised Statutory Declaration, listing the goods which are yours. the Court may do it for free, the Solicitor shouldn't charge more than £10

So Lowell are sitting outside my block of flats 24/7 spying on me for my £200 debt, and firing off EM waves hoping to torture my Cat? Well, don't worry!!! Me and Mr Tiddles are perfectly safe!!

It sounds like it actually WAS an EA, he was just serving papers, rather than collecting a debt.

Oh I doubt Tresspass would get anywhere. Even if he wasn't an EA, just jo bloggs of the street. Since the CPS say the EA was acting outwith his powers, then lost earnings, possibly assault, and making a false/vexatious claim to Police leading to wrongful arrest, and losing job etc is what I was thinking. The EA can't really argue that he thought he was acting within the law, or didnt know it actually was tresspass, because Ignorance of the law is no defence. Possibly a claim against the Police too, wrongful arrest etc.

Its more stupidity on the HR managers behalf. If they didnt pay it, agency staff wouldnt demand it. Would you honesty turn down £10,000 for 24 hours work? Here in mid wales, we have a GP out of Hours, based in the hospital, they get paid a couple grand a shift, and some of the Doctors are Polish and German, and live in Poland and Germany, they fly over, work 5 or 6 nights, for 2 grand a pop, then fly home and have a week or two off.

They are not really the same situation. The Consultant was asked to be there for a shift, and he was there, it is not his fault that in the end there was no work to do, they required someone there, and paid for the necessity of having someone there, in case "work" did come in. If anyone has behaved wrongfully, it is the HR Department for paying such huge fees to agency staff. If you read the article he was paid to be on call, and that is what he was, so he has not behaved unlawfully or dishonestly. I have had well paid jobs, and some shifts had absolutely nothing to do, should I have asked my employer not to pay me for those shifts? I worked nights for Leeds Council's Emergency Phone Line, dealing with tenants whos boiler had broken down out of hours, liaising with Police/Emergency Services and Highways when there were traffic accicdents, or major incidents. I worked a 12 hour day shift one Xmas Day, and the same on Boxing Day and was on triple pay (£33 an hour!) there were about 8 phone calls between the whole 24 hours I was on call, was I dishonest? I was paid to be there, and I was there, it wasnt our fault hardly any work came in. The Benefits Fraudster was actively and knowingly committing Fraud, not just once, but continually for 8 years!!! Absolutely right he was prosecuted.

They are limited in what Fees they can charge, they cant keep coming round and adding £50 or £100 or whatever. The Most I think he can charge you, no matter how many visits he makes is around £400, or just below, and he has very likely already added the maximum fees. The problem with "negotiating" a payment with him, is he will try and insist that you allow him into your home to "Take Control of Goods" but doing so opens you up to the risk of even more fees, for a start, for signing the Control Agreement you will add more fees to the debt, and if you miss a payment, or are unable to make the full amount of a particular installment, they will send a letter stating they are coming to remove the goods under control, and will add on Van fees and so on. (And unless you have assets that would make over £1000 at least, even in auction where things go for pennies, your goods being auctioned wont reduce your debt, but actually increase it potentially much higher.) Some companies are "experts" in mislaying payments or fiddling the dates they claim the payment was actually received in order to add the extra fees. And if you sign a Control Agreement, and fall behind/miss a payment, then he could go to Court, and request a Warrant to force entry to take seize and remove the goods. Unless there are enough assets on his agreement to cover the debt and all fees, it is reasonably unlikely it would be granted, but its best not to take the risk, especially with the pot luck of Magistrates, some are complete violations of integrity, and loathe debtors. You need to negotiate from a position of strength, ie, do not allow him peaceful entry to take control. Whilst this is ongoing, DO NOT at any point leave the doors to your home unlocked, even if you are at home - he will legally be able to walk in and take control of goods. And as you can imagine, unless you have itemised receipts and so on, it would be extremely difficult to prove what goods are actually your wifes, and what are yours, and some Magistrates would back a Bailiff taking stuff that was clearly yours, by claiming as your wife she owns 50% of the item. It is best to keep him out. Some are known to make unlawful entry if you answer the door to them, they will put their foot in the door, and push in, it's not allowed, but the Courts often tend to back the Bailiff version of events, the same way they always back the Police, unless you have filmed footage as proof. You are best speaking through a window, or if he arrives, exit through the back door (lock the door behind you) and walk round to the front to speak to him. And if you can, with your phone, always film your conversations, as it provides an unarguable record of what is going on - he may well himself be carrying a video camera on his chest, or shoulder, but getting a copy of the footage is another story entirely! The best thing to do at this stage is to follow the earlier advice, get documentary evidence, a GP or consultant's letter detailing your wife's current health problems, and the fact she has had major surgery, send it recorded delivery to Excel, and get your wife classed as Vulnerable by them, which would stop doorstep visits, as mentioned they must by law have a special vulnerable debtors department now. If due to being in recovery at the moment your wife is in no state to deal with the Enforcement Agent or Excel, then it might be an idea to print out a letter signed by her, where she gives you full authority to deal with the matter on her behalf. I would also send a copy of the evidence of her vulnerability, the request to treat her as vulnerable and the authority for you to deal with the matter on her behalf to the Council the Parking Ticket is from, maybe even copy in your local Councillor and MP as a "heads up" so if Excel try and steam forward refusing to accept her as vulnerable (given the type of surgery they should accept her, but as you are learning these companies arent exactly ethical) then the right people already have the evidence, and you can get them to intervene on your behalf.

I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start tendering out the Position of "Magistrate" to private companies, wouldn't be hard, just make providing Outsourced Magistrates Services part of the Contractual Obligation for the new privatised Fines collection and administration service. What I would like to know is, if before the CCC Defendants were not "paying for the use of the Court" Then what exactly were the "Court Costs" that get added to a conviction's compensation order? It seems now you get: Court Costs - for running the court followed by Criminal Courts Charge, so charging for the same thing twice Fine Victim Surcharge How on earth they think putting people who are generally either working poor or on benefits into even more debt is a good idea, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it was purely to increase the revenues and profits of the Private Company taking over fines collection. In fact, the CCC is probably to make up for the giant hole in MOJ Finances, that the private company will cause. We have seen it in every single privatised state service, rather than increasing revenues to the taxpayer, the private companies end up costing the taxpayer even more.

If someone threatened to assault my kids, like the Bailiff's did here, then I too would go Rambo, should they actually touch them, but not with a knife, just the good old Mark 1 Fisticuffs, that come as standard issue on the Human 1.0 Model. Of course, I am a decent human being and law abiding citizen, so I would have never, ever put any friend or family, never mind my own children into harms way in the first place, and certainly would not have tried to use them as a "weapon" to stop a repo. We have no way of knowing if all the crimes were committed due to being in debt, but frankly, the evidence shown and the crimes he has been found guilty of are not the actions of someone feeling desperate due to debt, they are the actions of a habitual criminal, who is also fond of using violence. Grabbing money from the till at work, or on the spur of the moment shoplifting are what people do in that sort of situation, not planning and carrying out motorbike thefts from garages and robberies with violence. And as pointed out, nobody normal, not even someone stressed out from debts walks around with a 2 foot knife. I personally think the custodial sentences for possession of a knife, never mind threatening with or using one, should have a minimum tariff of 8 years. the normal action of someone stressed from debt is also not to turn into a violent partner and wage a campaign of domestic abuse against their partner. The Bailiff's were a bit stupid too making threats against the kids, what if the guy wasn't a violent criminal who pulled out a knife, but instead a normal bloke, they did as threatened and then find the Old Bill knocking on their door later that night, because the kids have been coached to say "that nasty bayleef kept touching me on my winkie..." Threatening to assault kids is never the way to calm a situation down!

Your confusing me now - I have not said the charge should be misuse of powers. If he committed Assault, then the PP would be for Assault, if the Police refused to deal.

If the Warrant runs out in December, that's not actually your problem, it is HIS, ie when it runs out he loses the right to make visits to you, as the Warrant that grants him his powers to do so, no longer exists...... What he is basically saying is please pay me in full by December, or I erm, wont be able to chase you.

I hope Mr Grant does manage to get the funding to take JBW to Court. As the CPS, who are rather more Expert and have far more knowledge in the Law, and its application than JBW have stated that Mr Grant did nothing wrong, and has been wrongfully arrested are backing Mr Grant and his position, it is hard to see why a basic claim should fail. £5000 though? He should try some of the no win no fee's, especially since he can actually package 2 claims together, 1 against JBW, and 1 against the Police Force responsible. I would also be making formal complaints against the Arresting Officers, and doing my best to get them dismissed, or their service record blackened enough that Promotion will never come. I should think he could try a simple claim in the County Courts for far less than £5000, and at least then costs etc would be heavily limited.

Totally agree, but where genuine criminal offences such as assault take place, the Police are refusing to investigate when they hear the word bailiff, even if the victim has CCTV of the incident. Where something as serious as Assault takes place, the CPS should hopefully take it over, but the only way to bring it to their attention, so they can act in the first place is by starting the PP, if Police are refusing to investigate. Sadly, unlike Scotland or the US, the CPS do not have any control over Police and Investigations, as I understand it, in Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal can order the Police to investigate. For example, a PF going through cold cases finding a number of child abuse complaints against the same inviddual or group of individuals that the Police ignored when made, can order the Police to get involved, and can do a lot of investigatory work themselves. Me personally, if the victim of criminal action that the Police refuse to deal with, if I have evidence of the crime, I would go through the regulatory stuff, get the EA sacked, applying for any compensation available from him or/and his employer. Then go for a PP to get him done for the crime. Only if I had video footage, or witnesses who werent just a family member etc. the cost risks of PP make it ludicrous to try for one with very little evidence.

I suspect I have been misreading you - I absolutely agree with this post - a Bailiff who steps outside his powers is not under the protection of those powers. The problem I have been pointing out is that even when a fairly serious criminal offence is created by a Bailiff, the Police often refuse to even investigate, claiming extremely wrongly that the criminal offence is a civil matter not a criminal one, so PP can be used against a Bailiff, but when he steps into Court it is as a Member of the Public, not as a Bailiff, so, you can take out a PP against a Bailiff from an incidident arising during enforcement, if that incident is criminal, but he is not treated as a Bailiff. You can also take a PP against a Company, and like in my link, a company can take out a PP against individuals. If Police refused to act when a Bailiff is being Obstructed for example, I imagine his employer can take a PP against the Debtor. What made me a little uncomfortable about the blog post I linked, is the Lawyer appears to be very keen on using the PP for revenge, to wreck the rest of the life of the defendant, hence his arguments of using PP versus Civil litigation, the damage appears to be as important as recovering the loss. Justice is supposed to be about justice, not revenge.

You appear to be disagreeing with my agreement with most of your position! Any breach of an EA's powers of course is civil, and as you mention there are civil paths to take. What we have been talking about are the situations when a Bailiff commits a Criminal Offence, a Bailiff does not have any special legal protection if they commit a crime, the problem is, it is often near impossible to get the Police to even investigate a criminal offence by a Bailiff. Unlike what the Police often claim, a Criminal Offence committed by a Bailiff, is not turned into a Civil matter because a Bailiff committed it. At the very least initiating a PP is a way of getting the CPS to take notice, and they should take over it the offence passes their test, ie such as a violent assault. If the Police refuse to take an interest, there is no route to the CPS as far as I know, unless you bring it to their attention by starting a PP. Here is one example of a pp for a criminal offence that the Police refused to investigate. http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-examplehttp://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-example

I would also highly recommend that Badboy gets in the habit of parking any cars his family has a couple streets away whilst dealing with the Bailiff, as he will be very keen on seizing any motors. (It doesn't sound like he has already done so) badboy, if you and your wife both have cars, I would still hide yours too as he will simply seize and claim he had a right to assume it's your wifes, and the courts seem to let them get away with this, especially if she is named on the insurance for your car. Because apparantly, being named on the Insurance is "proof of ownership" which would make an interesting case, since obviously people who drive for an employer are insured to drive the employers vehicles, and I could see an ambitious EA with a firm grasp of the law and an eye on becoming management seizing company vehicles based on the insurance argument, at least if they are unmarked.

Got to say, the poo stuff feels very like an EA company is attempting damage control/information warfare by attempting to turn the EA into the victim - Especially with the popularity of Can't Pay etc, I can't imagine that were this event with the poo real, it would have been splashed all over the press.

We could encourage Microsoft to act, by sending loads of complaints to them about their Enforcement Officers behaviour, making them think the name similarity is causing real damage. Excel Civil were formed in 1991, and Microsoft first released Excel in around 1987 so they have prior use of the name.

Could we do some sort of sticky regarding this, and the risks it involves? It is fairly simple - if an EA commits a criminal offence, and you have hard evidence such as CCTV, but the Police refuse to take an interest, then you can go for a PP, but even then it could be expensive unless you win, or the CPS take over, and you should never, ever proceed without proper legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in PP, and you should hire the Solicitor to handle the process for you. Anything else, PP is not a usable tool and it will only cause you lots of costs, perhaps incredibly hefty ones, and I should think a risk of yourself being prosecuted for malicious/vexatious prosecution. If innocent people can sue the Police for malicious/vexatious, then I should imagine an EA subjected to a PP attempt over a fees dispute could, and get Old Bill involved too. Funny how the Freemen are suddenly trying to use the Magistrates Courts - they normally claim they are Admiralty Courts and have no legal authority, they cant even keep their lunacy in any sort of comprehensive order.

That is not the action of someone remotely sane. Something doesn't sound right, if true, it would suggest the debtor has serious mental illness, and was vulnerable, and someone ill enough to behave like that would surely be fairly obviously vulnerable. And why has the woman not been arrested? Spitting is taken as Assault and dealt with severely, due to the stress and potential effects it can have, if the spitter has certain diseases, faeces surely is even worse.

Yes, the CPS can and should take over where certain crimes are concerned, and if you read the news article, it states that extremely serious Fraud cases have been initiated by Private Prosecution, and death's caused by others, though its unclear on the specific details. If our theoretical EA assaulted the debtor, and despite being on film, the Police refuse to deal, or the local force has a reputation for always refusing to deal with crimes committed by EA's, or indeed Utility Company Reps etc, then our Debtor can initiate private prosecution and himself notify the CPS. The CPS will then look at the case, see it's an assault, so def something they deal with and take seriously, they then see that the video evidence is clear and shows the unprovoked assault taking place, and take over the case to continue it to court. Job Done. It is a valuable and in these days as the article shows, essential tool for Citizens, especially when faced by Police Forces/Officers who refuse to deal with a particular crime, even if evidence exists. One of the cases the article mentions is against a Police Civilian Worker, who allegedly gave false witness statements, the Police Force they work for presumably, have refused to even investigate, as it's against "one of their own". It is a sad problem with modern UK Police Forces, that where an Officer is concerned, noone is above the law unless they belong to Thin Blue Line, the same way Ignorance of the Law is never an excuse for us, but often bleated out when they cock up on for example Bailiff Issues (I bet the Officers who arrested debtor, put them in cuffs until he agreed to let the EA's in bleated that excuse out) Look who the Police hate most of us - the absolute worst scumbags they arrest? No, the Force Professsional Standards Office.... I have repeatedly said that the cases this thread is about are not even criminal and of course Private prosecution is not the acceptable route, and I have little pity for the people being landed with massive costs, for misusing a system designed for criminal offences. What I specifically took contention with (and agreed with Uncle B on) was your claim that an EA can never be liable to private prosecution - if he breaks the guidelines and legislation he operates under, or breaches his powers, no that is NOT a criminal offence (unless he breaches in such a way that the offence of Fraud is committed) If he commits a Criminal Offence however, even whilst enforcing a debt, against a debtor then he is absolutely open for a PP, the same way he is open for a Police/CPS Prosecution. I fully agree that sometimes the line as to whether an EA has committed a Criminal Offence, acted lawfully, or breached his powers may be very blurry, which is why in the absense of clear video footage its best left to the Police, but PP allows citizens to give a kickstart where the Police may be unwilling. Incidently, in the absence of clear video footage, or reliable witnesses/other damning evidence, I think you would be very silly to try for a PP. Whilst little evidence is given on the Death in the article, it is being blamed, by the initiators of the PP that a disturbance in the street caused it, that sounds like something very, very blurry and really should be left to the Police, but its possible they did investigate (it was a death afterall) and found no evidence, so I suspect the initiators could be left with very large bills, and not "justice" as they would see it.

But which part of legilsation specifically protects an EA, where nobody else is protected from private prosecution over committing a criminal offence, that the Police even on appeal refuse to investigate? The fact he is operating as an EA, and was visiting a Debtor does not lend special circumstances to him then going on to commit a criminal act - providing it is a genuine criminal act, as opposed to a Freeman point of view, or indeed a personal interpretation by the victim of an act as being criminal. For example, A: EA turns up, and tows neighbours car, police tell neighbour EA acted lawfully, neighbour appeals, still no, so goes for private prosecution, the private prosecution will fail at the start, as no criminal act actually took place, the neighbour simply interpreted it as such. B: EA turns up, demands full payment, debtor says no, they get into a heated argument, the EA loses his rag, and head butts the debtor, breaking their nose, pulls them down, and removes house keys, lets himself into house and begins seizing goods. Criminal Acts have clearly taken place here, yet even with CCTV evidence, it will be extremely hard to get most Police Officers to even investigate the moment they hear "bailiff" This is the official guidance on Private Prosecution http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/ It does not actually appear to be a requirement to have even informed the Police of a crime before going ahead with PP - afterall, the RSPCA don't do so. It seems with Police Cuts, PP's are also massively on the rise http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twotier-justice-private-prosecution-revolution-9672543.html If only the people mislead by the Freemen this thread is about had read that article, they would have seen just how much a PP route over a genuine criminal issue could potentially cost, never mind misusing PP for non criminal issues.