The new bailiff regulations came into effect on 6th April and there is now specific reference in the new regulations regarding the procedure for making a complaint to the court regarding the conduct of a bailiff. Most significantly, it now provides that a court can impose a costs order against the complainant if it is satisfied that the complaint: "disclosing no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate" or: "amounts to an abuse of the court's process" From information that I have received in the past week or so it would seem that since April complaints to the court about bailiffs have completely dried up and whether this is to do with fees scale now being transparent we do not know. Unfortunately, with court delays there are still a fair number of 'Form 4' Complaints that are still being heard in court under the old regulations and within one week we received reports of four cases where courts had dismissed 'Form 4' Complaints and ordered costs to be paid by the debtor. The latest one was just this morning when we received a copy of a judgment where His Honour Judge Wilding considered a Form 4 from November 2013 and dismissed the application and ordered the complaints to pay the sum of £2,934 by 4pm on 22nd September 2014.

Today I have posted a new "Sticky" regarding the serious subject of Form 4 complaints and where courts are able to impose costs in favour of a bailiff. If anyone has any questions please feel free to ask. PS: I have split the "Sticky" into two separate posts. They are both lengthly but very important indeed !!

This particular Form 4 Complaint was heard in court a few weeks ago and we are waiting for a copy of the Judgment but I can report that the District Judge has ordered the Complainant to pay an "interim payment" to the bailiff of £10,000 and I am advised that the likely cost payable by Mr Dragon (the complainant) will be in the region of £25,000 !!! This is a very worrying Form 4 Complaint indeed as Mr Dragon appears to have some involvement with the Freedom on the Land movement (which I will be writing more about later). With regards to bailiffs and debt, Freeman on the Land (FOTL) supporters will take as gospel the "advice" given on FOTL websites. These sites actively encourage debtors to display "Removal of Implied Right of Access" notices at the boundary of their homes in the "mistaken" belief that a bailiff will not come to the door and, that if they do so...the bailiff is committing trespass. I have just completed a Newsletter for the forum on this very subject following a recent court case where the judge dismissed the claim for trespass and ordered the claimant to pay the bailiff companies costs. Given the links with the Freeman on the Land movement, a company called Debt Free TV ( associated with the owners of Get out of Debt Free) got involved with Mr Dragon at an early stage and filmed some background to his complaint and representatives of Debt Free TV even went to court with Mr Dragon at his Form 4 hearing. Naturally they could not film events inside the court. There are MANY references to this particular complaint on various websites that support Freeman on the Land theories and there is even a You Tube video (just put the name of Mr Dragon....Corfe Castle ....and bailiffs into Google). What is noteworthy is that barely anywhere will you find any details at all of the OUTCOME of Mr & Mrs Dragon's Form 4 complaint. That is until now....... I will be providing a lot more information as soon a I get it.

There is a legal procedure available to members of the public whereby a Judge can cancel a bailiff’s certificate if he is satisfied that the bailiff is “not a fit and proper person to hold a bailiff certificate”. The procedure is initiated by filing a Form 4 Complaint and details can be found in the “Sticky” section. In considering whether to deprive a bailiff of his livelihood the Judge will need to be satisfied that the bailiff has done something very serious indeed and, as has been made very clear on this forum (and indeed by way of evidence) a “Form 4 Compliant” is referred to a “litigation” and the court may...and indeed in some cases do.....order the complainant to pay costs to the bailiff in cases where the Form 4 complaint was not justified. I have repeatedly stated on this forum that there is a risk of the court ordering costs to be awarded in favour of the bailiff and it is for this reason that such (Form 4) complaints should only ever be made in very serious cases. This morning I received a copy of the Judge’s decision for dismissing a recent Form 4 Complaint. One copy ( of the decision) came to me from a local authority and another from a bailiff company (who were not in any way connected with the complaint). Unfortunately, both copies have the name of the complainant, the name of the bailiff, the vehicle registration number and details of the bailiff company. I am not good with computers and cannot "blank" out such details for this reason in order to preserve confidentiality I have accurately re typed a copy of the Judge’s decision which I will post in a few moments time.

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]

Yet another Form 4 Complaint has been heard in Dartford County Court. The Judge hearing this particular case was His Honour Judge Simpkiss. The complaint was dismissed and the the Complainants were ordered to pay the bailiff costs of the complaint (to be assessed by way of detailed assessment on the indemnity basis). I cannot provide the full details until later as I am reading details of the Judgment on my Blackberry. Of serious concern is that it would "appear" that His Honour Judge Simpkiss dealt with this particular Form 4 Complaint without a hearing.