bbc1 8.30pm Cars, cops and bailiffs

[Boro]

It was at least nice to see 2 of the people last night fight the bailiffs and won, lol at the alfa that got towed only for its owner to successfully appeal the parking tickets, guess the council is then responsible for all the costs

[seanamarts]

Why didnt they get a ticket for holdnig up/blocking an ambulance, its lucky for them it wasnt a transplant heart or similar and that the person in the ambulance didnt die. Did any one notice that the car they left was in a disabled parking bay with a blue badge on show, it had nothing to do with the fact that the car wasnt worth the fine.. they knew they couldnt take it..

[Guest ChloeJane]

What got to me was a car with 20 plus tickets wasn't worth collecting on - yet a car with 2 tickets was uplifted in front of the hospital!

 

It goes to show it is about money for the Bailiffs. There should be no difference whether you own an alfa or you own a toyota worth £200.

 

Again, they didn't show certificates, didn't show the warrant and while they made a valiant effort at breaking down the fees, not even they were correct and so am confused to say the least.

 

I have it in writing that fines and costs and charges are based on areas!

[seanamarts]

What got to me was a car with 20 plus tickets wasn't worth collecting on - yet a car with 2 tickets was uplifted in front of the hospital!

 

It goes to show it is about money for the Bailiffs. There should be no difference whether you own an alfa or you own a toyota worth £200.

 

Again, they didn't show certificates, didn't show the warrant and while they made a valiant effort at breaking down the fees, not even they were correct and so am confused to say the least.

 

I have it in writing that fines and costs and charges are based on areas!

 

i thought they charge what ever they feel like on the day.. seems that way to me .. the more they seem to get the more cocky they are

[rambo]

When they were lifting the red alfa it swung and hit the BMW parked behind. The owner of the alfa appealled and won both tickets, hooray!.

 

The young bailiff yet again saying he was from northampton county court, what a [edit]

 

The bailiff trying to take the siver sports car, the bailiff should check with the dvla the SAME day he wants to remove the car. If the owner had not of been in the bailiff would have taken the car illegally and come out with some crap along the lines of "we can only go by the information we have".

 

The whole programme just shows what lying bar stewards bailiffs are!.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Wait till I post you what Tiger Aspect just sent me who produced the series!!

 

My letter to them -

 

Tiger Aspect Productions

7 Soho Street

London

W1D 3DQ

 

4th December 2007

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: Enforcers program/Cops cars and Bailiffs

We write to give Tiger Aspect Productions an opportunity to address a pending claim against your production Company and that of the BBC. This letter addresses the program the Enforcers/Cops cars and Bailiffs Series providing your Legal Department Legislation to verify facts and Laws accordingly.

 

I write to raise the following factual inaccuracies and unlawful acts and concern held of the direct misleading the public on matters of law in the current series above. I would have assumed and rightfully so, that for a factual series to be aired to millions and funded by the BBC, that you would have checked legislation and law prior to production of the series. It appears this has not been done and you have misled the very viewers that you sought to educate and inform.

In addition to the above you were informed that we were in High Court Litigation with JBW Enforcement Ltd. Your program has aired to the public and millions of viewers showing theunlawful acts that are precisely what we are in high court litigation over, to be acceptable and by

virtue of the airing of the programs to date, publicly made statement that we are incorrect.

 

Your program and your Company aired factual inaccuracies and unlawful acts.

 

Despite our requests to investigate the matters previously brought to your attention the damage is now done as two programs aired and doubt has been cast in the public mind of our standing in our current case. Further, that the Company JBW Enforcement Ltd claim that they are correct by virtue of the series going to air, knowing that unlawful acts were being committed upheld by the BBC and Tiger Productions.

The following points are raised;

 

Episode 1

 

Point 1

The first episode showed an uncertificated Bailiff purporting to be a Certificated Bailiff. By law under the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 78 (7) and The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 Section (1) 2 Evidence is held that a Bailiff was Uncertificated.

 

Road Traffic Act 1991 – Section 78 (7)

Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.

 

Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts 1993.

"enforcement officer" means a bailiff certificated in accordance with the Enforcement of RoadTraffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993[2]; or Statutory Instrument 2360.

 

Point 2

No warrant is shown or given to any person whom a levy is made upon. I attach for you the Code of Conduct of the Court whereby it states the following under Section 9.21

 

A copy of the warrant must be forwarded to a Certificated Bailiff for execution. The warrant must be enforced as a county court warrant.

The certificated bailiff must have the warrant in his personal possession when he visits a person or premises with a view to enforcing it and he must produce it on demand to anyone who has reasonable grounds to see it.

 

Point 3

No breakdown of fees is given and fees have been wrongfully charged to those levied upon in the series against legislation under the Statutory Instrument whereby it is unlawful to multiple levy and the fees charged are inconsistent with lawful levy. The gentleman that paid £4,000 was

shown no breakdown of fees and charges nor was he shown all warrants. I draw your attention to point 2.

 

Issues Raised

You have shown that a Bailiff does not have to produce their Certificate and can purport to be a certificated Bailiff. Further that they are not required by law to verify who they are, no warrantsneed to be shown to verify debt owed or legality of the enforcement verified and no breakdownof charges given to a debtor.

 

This leaves the public at risk of anyone making demands for amounts that cannot be quantified nor legally checked. In this single program you showed that the law was broken and is upheld as factual events and acceptable to be aired as facts and matters of law.Your airing of the program with factual inaccuracies and laws that are broken, implies to the public that this form of behaviour is acceptable and depicts that the enforcement is legal. Itfurther implies that we are incorrect with our matters before the High Court.

 

Episode 2

 

The second airing of the program shocked me with the taking of keys from the persons vehicle. I firstly would like to again raise the points listed above.

 

It was nothing more than brutality to show the taking of the keys in that manner and depicted that again this was lawful to the viewer. I fail to see by any means of legislation that this is in fact lawful and is by all intent assault. Under the PACE Act the Police themselves do not have such powers except in lawful circumstances and with all due respect, Bailiffs do not have the training nor the power to behave in such a manner for the collection of Road Traffic debts.

 

Further to this, the person misrepresented their powers and claimed they were from the Northampton County Court. This is fraudulent representation as the character was not and is not from the Court and was misleading and factually incorrect and unlawful. All the points listed

above are again raised to your attention.

 

Issues Raised

The Character impersonated a Court official. This is not only fraudulent and misleading but unlawful as they did not represent the Northampton County Court as stated. These behaviors highlight what is issues raised in the BBC Series in September with the Whistleblower program.

The episode implied that by law Bailiffs hold powers of that of the Police. The Police are regulated by PACE. To imply that a Bailiff has lawful powers to take keys from a vehicle as depicted is unlawful and shows nothing more than brutality and a member of the public was assaulted.

 

Summary

I am amazed that your legal department did not investigate matters to portray lawful enforcement which would have assisted the Bailiffs and public to understanding their rights and responsibilities. Your series is not factual and is damaging and implies to the Public that they hold no rights. This is incorrect.

 

a) By law, a person is entitled to see identification and a Bailiff is not able to perform any duties of a Certificated Bailiff under the Road Traffic Act for the enforcement of civil warrants unless they are certificated. You have aired an unlawful act by virtue of the uncertificated Bailiff

purporting to be Certificated and collecting monies and appearing to be in control of the levy.

 

I draw your attention to point 1 above. You were informed that this is a matter we currently dispute in the High Court.

 

b) By law a person is entitled to see the warrant. The Bailiffs at no time appeared to show the warrants and as we are currently in the High Court over matters of forged warrants, you continued to air the series despite this being brought to your attention. Warrants were not

produced as part of the levy.

 

c) By law a person is entitled to know the fees and charges incurred. Your series has not identified any of these matters and are the primary issue of why abuse is rife in this Industry and the public are at risk. Further that in both episodes the fees and charges were factually incorrect by law and you showed and aired to the public, the breaking of the law.

 

d) By law, impersonating a public official or to misrepresent powers and claiming to be an officer of the Court is Fraudulent and unlawful.

 

The continual airing of the unlawful acts within the series has damaged our reputation by virtue of the Company now able to claim that they are correct in matters of law before the High Court in current litigation as the BBC and Tiger stated it was lawful conduct and a factual series that would not have aired if incorrect.

 

I hold grave concern that the continual running of the series is not only disturbingly inaccurate, but has already damaged our case of which we hold evidence of this. Discussions have begun with QC *** of *********Chambers on the matter for a liability suit be brought against you

for the damages to our reputation.We write requesting your legal department investigate the legalities raised in this letter and our further requirements below to avoid legal action being pursued.

 

1) That if it is found that the acts were unlawful after investigation that a public apology be made to us on behalf of your Company and BBC in this matter of your findings and that this is aired publicly to reduce or limit damage already done to our reputation and our credibility with matters currently before the Court.

 

2) That a public statement be made of your findings to the public and detailed of the inaccuracies making reference to what by law is factual and correct and made available to all viewers or those that have made complaints to date.

 

3) That an offer for damages be made based on Tiger Aspect Productions negligence and damage to our reputation in airing the series despite warning, notification and full knowledge of the impact to our reputation and our credibility prior to the series being aired and implying and stating that we are incorrect on matters of law.

 

We place you on notice that if a reply is not received by 5pm on Friday the 7th December 2007 addressing the above, we will begin a claim with no further discussions on the matter. We have previously pointed out the issues clearly and provided evidence of the damage your series would do to our current litigation. Legislation is attached to this letter. We await your response and reply.

 

Regards,

 

 

Legislation in Support Attached

1) Statutory Instrument 2360

2) Statutory Instrument 2073 of 1993

3) Statutory Instrument Certificated Bailifffs Enforcement Road Traffic

4) Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 78

5) DCA Glossary

6) Northampton County Court Code Conduct 2006

 

THEIR REPLY!!!!

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd179/chloejane_photos/untitled.jpg

[seanamarts]

Id like to know who the 'Lawyer was' who previewed the series before it aired and to see how he is qualified and by whom.. or in fact did he just browse through it?? Can you not request who the Lawyer was

[Guest ChloeJane]

Did so, but they have not replied. Now am livid.

[sillygirl1]

The scene outside the hospital was horrible, they should NOT have blocked the entrance with their van, and the taking of that car (which has proved to be unlawful) should now be taken as theft and hopefully the scumbags will be clobbered.

 

Again the little twerp stated he was from the Court, I've already expressed my views privately about him and hope some Saturday night they may come to fruition - it's not often I really take offense at people but he needs taking down several pegs. The scene where he cut the woman's card up when she couldn't remember her security password was an unnecessary bit of padding. He didn't have any real authority to do that and as she said why don't they have a card reader with them, would make everybody's live a lot easier.

 

But then, if they had a card reader and claimed fraudluent amounts the transaction could be reversed by the card company - I think I've answered my own question there......

[Guest ChloeJane]

Such wise words Sillygirl!

 

Well I wrote back to the production company and...told them to provide the lawyers name.

 

My thoughts are....you ready for it...that they used the JBW Lawyers to cover for them and say all was legitimate and with my email tracking program, how amused I am to note that the production company sent them my letter!

 

So no doubt, this is going to be interesting as I am going to file against them and the BBC. I have nothing more to lose and having this person thrown in my face as an upstanding person....I don't think so!

[sillygirl1]

Thanks for the compliments..

 

Another thought, can we have a separate thread for each programme, with a link to the previous threads, might make it easier for other people to track as they start to discover how much the Beeb are misleading them with this so-called factual programme.

[seanamarts]

Such wise words Sillygirl!

 

Well I wrote back to the production company and...told them to provide the lawyers name.

 

My thoughts are....you ready for it...that they used the JBW Lawyers to cover for them and say all was legitimate and with my email tracking program, how amused I am to note that the production company sent them my letter!

 

So no doubt, this is going to be interesting as I am going to file against them and the BBC. I have nothing more to lose and having this person thrown in my face as an upstanding person....I don't think so!

 

do you think that the company may think they have done a boo boo perhaps and are now going to ask JBW for some answers to their conduct..

[sillygirl1]

I still stand by the fact that the last two programmes were NOT THE ONES ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED which makes me think after the first programme and our complaints somebody decided to do a fast rewind and re-edit of the series... anyone else have the same feelings?

[Guest ChloeJane]

Yes and yes to both Sean and Silly girl.

 

I think they are going to JBW and asking for answers. Well I have them and evidence so we shall see.

 

I just can't believe they are not bothering with the legalities. Well they did leave themselves open as we all know, so lets see tiger claw their way out? sorry bad pun!

[antivirus]

When they were lifting the red alfa it swung and hit the BMW parked behind. The owner of the alfa appealled and won both tickets, hooray!.

 

The young bailiff yet again saying he was from northampton county court, what a f*cking liar!.

 

The bailiff trying to take the siver sports car, the bailiff should check with the dvla the SAME day he wants to remove the car. If the owner had not of been in the bailiff would have taken the car illegally and come out with some crap along the lines of "we can only go by the information we have".

 

The whole programme just shows what lying bar stewards bailiffs are!.

 

I think it is because of these bailiffs that b a i liff chaser was removed from here.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/57289-jbw-enforcement-ltd.html

[antivirus]

Yes and yes to both Sean and Silly girl.

 

I think they are going to JBW and asking for answers. Well I have them and evidence so we shall see.

 

I just can't believe they are not bothering with the legalities. Well they did leave themselves open as we all know, so lets see tiger claw their way out? sorry bad pun!

 

 

You have been told enough times to Not contact anybody at either jbw or the bbc but you still continue to. What is wrong with you ?

[antivirus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChloeJane

I am so sorry I am posting this here...but had no where else to post and had such a bad that I couldn't be much lower if I was honest. Ever had one of those days, where you wish the world would stop turning for a minute, so you can get off. I think today is that day. So going to post my rant and hope for a hug !

 

Firstly, I cannot go to Manchester as my partners father has fallen critically ill. Then, to top my day off....I receive finally a reply from the QC Chambers in my current case with a complaint I made about misleading the court.

 

So you write, stating an injustice is occuring....this was their reply.....

 

Dear Miss **

 

 

Mr. G has asked me to reply as follows.

Mr. K has shown Mr. G your letter to him dated 3rd December 2007. Mr. G has also received your letter dated 5th December 2007, addressed to “Head of Chambers”.

 

 

He has now also received your follow up letter of 7th December 2007.

 

 

Mr G has asked me to acknowledge receipt of these letters, and to provide you with a copy of Chambers Complaints Procedure, which I attach.

 

 

However Mr G has also asked me to explain that, as he understands the position, you are currently a party to litigation which is taking place before a judge of the High Court, in which you are representing yourself and Mr K is representing the Claimant. Your complaints appear to be directed at the manner in which Mr K is conducting that litigation on behalf of his client.

The litigation is continuing.

 

 

In the circumstances, Mr G believes that you should make your complaints to the judge. It would not be appropriate for these Chambers to attempt our own investigation or invoke our own Complaints Procedure, with regard to matters which are currently before the High Court.

 

Your sincerely

 

Your kidding right????

 

 

My reply

 

 

Thankyou for your reply.

 

If I was not a litigant in person the tactics and complaint would not have arisen as I am sure such conduct would not be displayed.

 

Due to Mr K dishonesty I don't get an opportunity nor have I had to bring the matters before the Judge. I tried when we were at court on the 28th.

 

Obviously, it appears that Justice is only afforded by those with Money which does in fact make a mockery of the law, if a QC and Solicitors can deceive and mislead the Court.

 

I have brought to you a genuine complaint about conduct. Whether litigation is ongoing or not, I fail to see that this has any bearing on a complaint made of misconduct and misleading the Court.

 

I have asked that the misleading of the Court and misconduct cease and be investigated. From your reply, you are stating that investigations cannot be completed until after litigation. In a complaint of the court being misled and misconduct, the outcome of the investigation is imperative to ensure an injustice does not occur.

 

By your reply, failure to investigate such a complaint would have you party to the misconduct and misleading of the Court at this stage by all matters of legal argument.

 

I am rather astounded by your reply. Such misconduct can have me losing my case, whereby I will then be forced through to the appeals process and another year gone, when I have simply asked you to investigate the claim.

 

QC K refuses to acknowledge a complaint and further refuses to investigate the matter with the conduct of O C Solicitors.

 

This is rather a big circle isn't it. An injustice must occur to gain answers for an injustice that could have been prevented at the onset if the complaints investigated.

 

Upon your advice I will raise the matter with the Court. Please be advised, that if I do in fact lose my case due to dishonesty by QC K and the very reasons this complaint has been brought to your attention, any appeal process I will supply this letter to the court as evidence and will look to mitigate my loss with a claim for further loss against the Chambers which, by all arguments would clearly have prevented such a process would you have investigated my complaint at the onset.

 

I am sure that would be a point arguable in law.

 

While extremely disappointed with your reply and believe that you are not addressing the matter as it appears "closing ranks", I will seek to do all I can to bring this matter to Justice. Dishonesty, by such powerful advocates as yourselves, does not excuse such conduct afforded at the price of money to the highest bidder. An element of Justice and professionalism must prevail.

 

Kind Regards,

Now, I think the law is an A** !!! I hate the British law system it is a farce and only those with money can fight big battles or you get abused by the very system you seek to find justice in!!!

 

ALL HUGS please place in my hug pot...need them.

 

 

 

It would be prudent if somebody were to advise chloe jane that she is already the subject of 2 court injunctions. It would appear that cag is allowing her to use this forum to publicise her action. This is most unwise. She should remember why she is being sued in the first instance.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Well it is official.

 

Tiger Aspect are refusing to reply on the eve of yet another program to withdraw the series or give the lawyers details and have simply referred me back to the lawyers of the very firm and Bailiff Company I am fighting against about injustices.

 

I wonder of late if I will continue my studies with law as the injustice amazes me. I have no option now but to follow through with threat of legal action. Tonights series.....oh joy.

 

Really dissapointed as it is so wrong that everyone is being mis informed.

 

CJ

[antivirus]

Well it is official.

 

Tiger Aspect are refusing to reply on the eve of yet another program to withdraw the series or give the lawyers details and have simply referred me back to the lawyers of the very firm and Bailiff Company I am fighting against about injustices.

 

I wonder of late if I will continue my studies with law as the injustice amazes me. I have no option now but to follow through with threat of legal action. Tonights series.....oh joy.

 

Really dissapointed as it is so wrong that everyone is being mis informed.

 

CJ

 

Then why you ?

[Guest ChloeJane]

A legal arguement and claim....

 

I watched the series tonight as did 4 million viewers according to statistics.

 

So....my issues are these.

 

If, what is depicted is lawful enforcement, how many of us have actually been enforced upon like that?

 

Does a Bailiff arrive and say he is a Court Bailiff? NO!

 

Is he a Court Bailiff if he is a Certificated Bailiff collecting on Road Traffic Debts? NO!

 

Why, because one needs a certificate and the other doesn't. So it is misleading. YES.

 

Fees. Did the H reg car on 37 warrants at £155 owe just under £8,000? NO!

 

Was this condoning and airing extortion depicted as legal? That is for you to decide.

 

So the facts are as we know here - that they are falsely claiming to be Court Baliffs. The BBC is upholding this by virtue of the series airing and knowing this to be false as they have been sent legislation and the matter raised as misleading the public.

 

So it brings me to my arguement.

 

Due to the series stating it is a factual series, knowing this to be false and misleading to the viewer, does that mean that anyone that has been enforced upon by a person claiming to be a Certificated Bailiff is wrong, or as they are saying does it mean that anyone that has been enforced upon by a person claiming to be a Court Bailiff are wrong.

 

We know by law they are wrong and they are not a court bailiff. They are a Certificated Bailiff.

 

If, the series is as we know airing unlawful acts and condoning them to the public as lawful, and condoning extortion then surely viewers have a claim against the BBC and production company for false representation as any viewer of the series that is led to believe that they are Court Bailiffs, are being decieved.

 

It would give rise to and imply that a Bailiff collecting on road traffic debts does not have to be certificated if they are claiming to be a court Bailiff.

 

 

• County Court Bailiffs - are employed by the county courts and are responsible for enforcing court orders by recovering money owed under a county court judgment. This means they can seize and sell your goods to cover the amount of the debt. County Court Bailiffs also supervise the possession of property and the return of goods under hire purchase agreements.

 

• Certificated Bailiffs - hold a certificate which enables them to levy distress for rent and to levy distress for road traffic debts. This means that they can seize and sell your goods to cover the amount of the debt you owe either for rent or a road traffic debt. Certificated Bailiffs also collect council tax for local authorities and money on behalf of other organisations such as magistrates' courts.

 

Department for Constitutional Affairs Website

Broadcasting Act 1996 - doesn't cover deliberately misleading the public on matters of law and facts.

 

 

So.......my arguement is that there is a claim against the BBC for misleading the public with intent. Who would claim? Anyone that was misled by the series or ever has been misled to believe the Bailiff Collecting is a Court Bailiff and paid a debt believing this to be true.

 

Good arguement????

 

Just wondering if it can be upheld and how many people could or would claim that the Bailiff purported to be a Court Bailiff.

[antivirus]

37 Warrants @ £155 per warrant = £5735 plus costs etc = £8k.

He got away as we could not find him. We will take it of some one else. why worry about it chloe ? you have chased tomtubby off.

[rambo]

The main thing that worried about last nights programme was the fact that the police and the bailiffs were working together.

I am asuming that the bailiffs ANPR gets a hit on it's computer and the police stop the car for the bailiffs.

I was under the impression that PCN were decrimilised, so why are the police getting invoved?.

If I was stopped by the police on behalf of the bailiffs I would REFUSE to talk to the bailiffs.

[PizzaMaker]

Westminster Council are responsible for organising the ANPR exercise which includes the bailiff and police in this instance shown last night.

 

The bailiff company is working on behalf of the Council who have set this ANPR exercise up.

 

The company should then only execute warrants directly linked to Westminster.

[Lefty]

Have you logged an official complaint with OFCOM, ChloeJane?

 

They are legally bound to investigate any complaint received - and they do carry quite a bit a clout, even against the mighty BBC!

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

[antivirus]

Have you logged an official complaint with OFCOM, ChloeJane?

 

They are legally bound to investigate any complaint received - and they do carry quite a bit a clout, even against the mighty BBC!

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

What everybody does not know is chloejane is under 2 injunctions. She has already broken both of these. Now as a judge was not available to hear the case it has been postponed till march. I would advise miss laughton to keep it zipped.