Newlyn impersonating a bailiff, supported by Ealing Police, forced to pay

[hazza]

"if you build it they will come"

 

i am building it

 

hooray!

just opened a beer!

[High Court Enforcer]

At least you'll only have to do an hours work to pay the bailiff

[kiptower]

keep your stupid comments to yourself HCE, no one wants them on here

[wonkeydonkey]

At least you'll only have to do an hours work to pay the bailiff

 

why can't you act like the adult you claim to be?

[seanamarts]

At least you'll only have to do an hours work to pay the bailiff

Look you have convinced us all that you are a complete ass, now why dont you convince us that you can give out good advice and help which is what this site was set up for.

[JonCris]

Clearly HFC has little to do if he spends time on here being abused Or perhaps he's a masochist which would explain his choice of career

[RaeUK]

At least you'll only have to do an hours work to pay the bailiff

 

*sigh* had rather hoped my posts elsewhere had helped you.

[spamheed]

*sigh* had rather hoped my posts elsewhere had helped you.

 

Once again High School shows his level.

 

Hazza, sorry to hear about your day, it unfortunately displays quite clearly, that in the twenty first century, in a country which is supposed to be a shining example of civilisation and equality.

 

The basis for Justice for the little people can be determined by how the judge got on the night before, how they feel on the morning and whether a judge declares a conflict of interest.

 

:-x:-x

 

If you have the information to pursue the matter further via the criminal justice system (and the will to continue) then good luck to you, and perhaps a word in the "shell like" of this unreliable solicitor. to find out what and why whatever prevented them from attending .

[F_DCAs]

Why is HCE's presence tolerated on this site? He has nothing constructive or realistic to offer (that explains his job as well), and just makes OPs seeking advice feel worse with every thread his unwelcome output turns up on.

[letsmakeamark]

Question. Did you learn anything from your experience ?Facts only ?

[Another Jack]

But please understand that I did not provide ANY evidence to support my complaint at the Form4 hearing... I effectively, just turned up with the bundle provided by the bailiff.

 

So why go to all that trouble? And waste the time of caggers that tried to help you? Just so you can prove that they system is against you and people lie? We knew that already!

[letsmakeamark]

Last name Ever, first name Greatest...

 

My complaint was not upheld. This is now criminal matter for police. I have evidence that he lied in court - thus committing perjury.

 

I do not agree that anyone else should be party to formal legal proceedings as I had experienced - it is truly uncivil.

 

A Form 4 complaint which makes no clear mention of "you will be forced into formal legal proceedings and will face a barrage of insults and lies by the defendant and face costs that could totally destroy your life" should not be allowed.

 

I had stated that if I knew the Form 4 hearing was so litigious, I would not have bothered with it. CAG and CAG users helped, HMCS info is insufficient.

 

But please understand that I did not provide ANY evidence to support my complaint at the Form4 hearing.

I will however provide to police. I effectively, just turned up with the bundle provided by the bailiff.

 

I lost on one matter due to six words placed on this CAG post which the barrister manipulated in a most dishonorable and deceitful way.

 

The bailiff had completely changed his story from his original statement.

 

He said that the information and timings on screenshots was incorrect, by hours!!!!!

 

The barrister was the most the most deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled person I have ever met.

 

I think I may have crucified his confidence.

 

After losing on quite a few issues, he started smarting and it was obvious he had a personal grudge, so much that he was prepared to lie.

 

I had raised about 15-20 points against the the bailiff regarding all areas of his alleged statement of events.

 

The solicitor who at one point had so much fire in his belly i thought he could make the national ignition factory redundant.... did not show up.

 

I do not feel anyone who has experienced bad bailiffs can expect justice from a Form 4 hearing as seen yesterday.

 

This is as proceedings kinda starts off as

 

"Welcome complainer. Understand that this is my bailiff. I gave him a certificate. I trusted him. Please try to explain why I should not trust this bailiff that I personally certificated. Please understand that by submitting this form 4 you are effectively challenging my ability to identify the trustful and trustworthy. You will now be placed in a position of legal complexity and challenge of the lowest order. Prepare to be insulted. Prove to me that this bailiff I approved is not trustworthy thus proving that my ability to identify the trustworthy is perhaps... questionable"

 

given that the judge has a prior - perhaps long term - relationship with the bailiff and that a bad bailiff could imply bad judgement by a judge is why the complainant will face an onslaught

 

i felt this was somwhat unfair - I was the outsider, but still the victi9m of bad bailiffing

 

The end result was that my complaint was not upheld, the bailiff was awarded £750 costs.

 

I believe this has cost the bailiff £15,000... todate.

 

They should have just repaid the grand they stole.

 

The court obviously needs people to complain to ensure quality in its services.

 

I believe there was another bailiff company's barrister present taking pages and pages of notes on their behalf. Concerned for sure.

 

I have lots more to say, and will.

 

Key point was the 999 records showed that the Newlyn Bailiff impersonator had replied "Firstname, Court Bailiff" when asked his name proves that Newlyn is prepared to impersonate court bailiffs to secure payment.

 

Ultimately, I felt the judge was too lenient towards the bailiff - there was much 'history' that i was not party to that affected the result.

 

Sorry for saying this you started litigation in a vexatious way. According to your own admission you didnt go in prepared so what did you go in for ? If you goto court you should have enough ammo to at least daze the other side. However it seems from this little episode you did not have that. With the amount of litigation i see against bailiffs (previous/current). You have to go in with paper work for this. not only the bailiffs paperwork but also what hmcs etc say and what the rule were that were broken and so on. you are lucky you got hit with £750.00. If newlyns appale the costs they can bugger you up even more.

[Fair-Parking]

Hmm, but I have my doubts that a Form 4 complaint is litigation. Complainants are not Claimants and are not trying to gain monetary advantage.

 

The only reason a Form 4 complaint reaches the court is because the court and not the complainant has demanded his attendance, the bailiff either having failed to reply to a court request for written details or the court is not satisfied with the answer provided.

 

The complainant need not attend and there are no provisions for costs under the Section 8 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, the Act which allows complaints against bailiffs.

 

Courts seem to confuse complaints with litigation and bailiff companies trying to stamp out any possibility of their employees being found guilty try (al la Robert Maxwell) to scare complainants with five figure costs in actions that they are not even party to.

 

This all needs to clarified. A complaint should be just that - and not a gamble with bankruptcy being the ultimate sanction

[hazza]

Sorry to everyone that I may have disappointed.

First up, I have other issues I am dealing with - I do find myself in a rather large pit.

I was not obliged to attend, but having attended, I was wholly obliged to be party to litigation. I was trapped. I was misled into submitting a form 4.

I was not clear if the onus / or burden of proof was on me. I am not legal.

The Judge was a nice although she did criticise me many times.

She spoke a tad too quietly for me to hear clearly - facing away from me.

Newlyn were just after costs.

I cannot believe given the weight of evidence that went against Newlyn, particularly their own evidence, that the judge did not uphold my complaint.

Key point was the the Judge said it would be too draconian to revoke his certificate as she... and i do not recall it exactly... could not inflict hardship or his right to earn a living away.

The court is happy for Newlyn to inflict hardship and take by impersonating court officials from the hardup or troubled.

Draconian was result.

I have lots of explaining to do and am producing a document.

If only Harrow, Newlyn, Segens and 7br and HMCS all looked at each other and thought... this cannot go on. We need to talk. We are wasting other peoples money.

[hazza]

hello fattyfelton

[YANO BEMUSE]

Sorry to everyone that I may have disappointed.

First up, I have other issues I am dealing with - I do find myself in a rather large pit...

 

Hazza, you are in a pit so stop digging!

 

Not only did you go to court unprepared to substantiate your claim, and then got off lightly with only £750 costs against you, you then stated publically on this forum that you had no intention of substantiating your claim. As someone has already pointed out, that makes you look vexatious, whatever you original intentions or how confusing the situation is. Even worse, you may have handed the bailiff a gift of an appeal to increase the costs order against you for wasting everybody's time.

Edited February 1, 2010 by YANO BEMUSE

[hazza]

Vexatious Litigant? Ha Ha... That's the parking industry.

Form 4 is not litigation so i do not think there is any chance of looking like the parking industry.

Or is it litigation? Feels like litigation. Smells like litigation. Looks like litigation. Sounds like litigation.... but it is not, it is a complaint against someone the court should perhaps reconsider trusting.

I had to give cause why the bailiff should not carry a cert.

I understood it was for the bailiff to give cause.

[hazza]

Just read this on grounds for complaint:

 

"The bailiff committed extortion or blackmail - He said you will have to pay a higher sum of money unless to pay him a lower sum of money according to a deadline"

 

Hmmm he did say that i will have to pay before 3pm or the amount will go up

 

(from screw the bailiff site)

[hazza]

If anyone is confused as to why I would start a post with:

 

"Last name Ever, first name Greatest"

 

Just a song I was listening to at the time -

 

(very bad language)

 

(cleaner version)

 

plus, i joke that the Newlyn wanna be bailiff called police and said on par with "Last name Ever, First name Stupidest"

 

plus Newlyn appears to class itself as 'a great collector'

 

just in case!

[RaeUK]

Please excuse my ignorance. I'm sorry to say but I do seem to have a very large stock of it!

The only knowledge I have in this area is what I have read on this site. And, to be honest, read in passing only.

But isn't the crux of the matter the juxtoposition of 'complaint' and 'litigation' that seems to be occurring here?

As I understand it, a form 4 complaint is a complaint against a bailiff. A bailiff employed by the courts. Pretty similar to a complaint to the shop manager regarding the tardiness of a member of the shop floor staff? If I were to complain to, say, Tesco's, I wouldn't expect to pay their costs in defending that complaint. So why is a complainant forced to pay costs in this scenario?

I'm sure Tomtubby had a thread on the very same subject. IIRC - but not the leagally bits! - it was something to do with the rules not saying costs can't be attributed to the complainant. However, ergo, the rules don't say that they can. [i may have misinterpreted a bit there...]

The fact that hazza was or wasn't prepared doesn't enter the auditorium. Hazza complained about a bailiff, the hearing was to get the bailiff pov. Hazza would be aware of the , global, issues that were incorrect and the bailiff needed to disprove.

I have a feeling I've just entered a very surreal world...

Rae. At least I think I might be...

[seanamarts]

I complained about a bailiff via a form 4, I dont recall anyone mentioning about having to pay costs, not even the bailiff apart from what he had to pay me in way of compensation. I have to say "I dont quite get it" like it has been said, a form 4 is a complaint against a bailiff, no where, when completing a form 4 does it state that if the complaint is not upheld by the court you are liable for costs to the other party.

Im with Kelcou in lala land me thinks

[YANO BEMUSE]

I'm not a lawyer but this is how it looks to me.

 

What is confusing the last couple of caggers to post on this thread is, I think, what is confusing many people, including the judges who call unnecessary hearings and make the people who complain pay the costs

 

A Form 4 complaint takes its name from the form created by The Distress for Rent (Amendment) Rules 1999. The procedure, however, is set out in The Distress for Rent Rules 1988, which was when the whole system of Certification was last overhauled - although the ability to complaint stretches back a further 100 years, to when Certification was created in 1888.

 

This is what Rule 8 of the 1988 Rules says:

Complaints as to fitness to hold a certificate

 

8.

—(1) Any complaint as to the conduct or fitness of any bailiff who holds a certificate shall be made to the court from which the certificate issued.

 

(2) Upon receipt of any such complaint as is referred to in paragraph (1), the proper officer shall send written details of the complaint to the bailiff and require him to deliver a written reply to the court office within 14 days thereafter or within such longer time as the court may specify.

 

(3) If the bailiff fails to deliver the reply within the time specified, or if upon reading the reply the Judge is unsatisfied as to the bailiff's fitness to hold a certificate, the proper officer shall issue a notice summoning the bailiff to appear before the Judge on a specified date and show cause why his certificate should not be cancelled.

 

(4) The proper officer shall send a copy of the notice to the complainant and any other interested party.

 

5) At the hearing:—

(i) the bailiff shall attend for examination and may make representations, and

(ii) the complainant may attend and make representations.

 

(6) The procedure to be followed at the hearing, including the calling of evidence, shall be such as the Judge considers just, and he may proceed with the hearing notwithstanding that the bailiff has failed to attend.

Rule 8(1) allows for complaints and, as I said, the 1999 Rules created a form so that it was easier for people to complain. The ‘proper officer’ is a reference to any member of the court staff. The complaint is copied to the bailiff who has 14 days in which to reply. A judge them looks at both complaint and response - which is where it all begins to go wrong.

 

The judge should decide if the complaint raises a doubt about the fitness of the bailiff to hold a Certificate. The response should answer any doubt, specifically by answering the complaint. If on reading both complaint and response, the judge still has a doubt about the fitness of the bailiff to have a Certificate, the judge should arrange a hearing.

 

 

 

 

 

If the judge is satisfied that there is no doubt about the bailiff’s fitness, then the complaint can be dismissed without a hearing. For this to happen, however, there must be three things:

• A complaint that sets out that the bailiff did something illegal.
  
• A response that answers the criticism satisfactorily and so confirms the bailiff’s fitness to have a Certificate.
  
• A judge who knows enough bailiff law to decide the issue and who takes the time necessary to consider the complaint and response properly.
  

I am beginning to think that bailiffs are not setting out their response properly and/or that judges are not taking the opportunity to decide the issue on paper. For example, if the complaint is that the bailiff should not have clamped or removed a vehicle in particular circumstances, and if the response explains why it was done and the legal basis for doing it, a judge should be able to decide whether the bailiff acted legally without a hearing. Or if a complain alleges that the bailiff overcharged, and if the response explains why the fees were necessary and reasonable, the judge can decide from these papers whether there is any real doubt about the bailiff’s fitness to have a Certificate.

 

The purpose of the hearing is to decide whether the bailiff is a ‘fit and proper person’ to have a Certificate. The primary purpose of the hearing is NOT to resolve the complaint, which is why the complainant’s attendance is optional under Rule 8(6). That said, the complaint would normally be resolved during the hearing and, if necessary, the complaianant can be compensated from the bailiff’s insurance bond.

 

The decision to arrange the hearing is for the judge, in order to fulfil his or her responsibility for ensuring that the only bailiffs to have Certificates are those fit to do so. The whole Certification procedure is regulation by judges, not litigation between parties (the complainant and bailiff).

 

I think that bailiffs ask for costs from the complainant because there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Rules to say they cannot. I think, however, that some lawyers at Ministry of Justice should look to see if there is any legal basis for judges making complainants pay costs when they did not start litigation and attended the hearing voluntarily to assist the judge decide if the bailiff should keep his or her Certificate.

 

I think that bailiffs should get back he cost of the hearing if they are found to be fit to have a Certificate but I do not think that the people who complained should pay them. People who complaint are in fact performing a public duty and assist judges in their responsibility to regulate the bailiffs they Certificate.

 

I think that when necessary bailiffs should take solicitors and barristers to court to represent them, because their livelihood is at stake, but the hearing was called by a judge to fulfil his or her duty to regulate the Certificated bailiffs and therefore the court should usually pay the bailiff’s costs. I think there are two exceptions.

 

The first exception is where a complainant wastes the court’s time with an entirely unfounded, vexatious complaint – something as serious as deliberately wasting police time with a fictitious crime.

 

The second exception is where the bailiff failed to give a proper response to the complaint and so maintained the doubt that he or she had acted properly and that he or she was a fit person to keep the Certificate.

[hazza]

Hi,

Well said Kelcou, seanamarts, but I have heard that ignorance of the law...

Yano you are confused as this is a form4 complaint not a 'case' as some people may believe.

It shows that some of these people perhaps over the years have moved so close to each other they have forgotten that the first and most important aspect has been overlooked - ignored even: To uphold the rights of the man on the street. In this case, it was the man at home who had his rights trashed - then was ridiculed, shouted at, criticised, bellowed at and generally harangued from start to finish in court the told to pay £750 for the pleasure.

The parking ticket bailiff is the court's axe wielder.

This is a medieval esque way.

Parking tickets are no longer suitable for collection by bailiffs.

It's just not what we should be doing in a forward looking civilised society.

Problem is the people in the parking industry say the sun will not rise if parking tickets are not forced. That there will be chaos. Shake shake rattle rattle.

I am preparing some FOI requests which I hope can show that the current system is just not fit for purpose.

More pain and suffering.

Knocking on my door for £40 acting like a court bailiff - pathetic - I will come knocking on theirs - starting with the council.

Sickened by what i have seen smelt and heard.

Dishonesty has no place at my front door.

The party which addresses this issue gets my vote.

Shake shake rattle rattle.

[hazza]

Yano, our posts crossed - well said but it is what we have been saying all along! It is confusing!!!!!

Problem is, you try explaining all this in a court of law!

When told that i had to pay £750, I made it clear that if I had known that there was a possibility of me having to make a payment, I would not have complained.

I asked if my complaint had any credit. I was told that it had and the court was glad that I had sent it. Shame that it cost me £750.

[hazza]

Morning fattyfelton! I sent you a friend request - please respond