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

[hazza]

Sorry meant merit!

 

Also, at least the council have vowed to look into this all again.

Temporary spark of happiness gracefully fades into a deep long sigh.

I am fed up. Only Alizee understands:

 

YouTube - Alizee - I am fed up (top of the pops, perhaps risque, version)

 

(video)

 

enjoy!

[seanamarts]

You know, we live under a very hypocritical government with double standards. They send our girls and boys to fight in countries so that the people of said countries dont have to live under regime laws of terror. So they dont have to be afraid of stepping out side of their front doors. So why is our government not condoning what these bailiffs do to its own people, Ok its not the same as being shot at or tortured, but people still are being made to be afraid of opening their doors because of bullies like the bailiff industry. Yes we all need to pay our debts, but we shouldnt have to be bullied, threatened, assaulted, or lied to. The government is no better than loan sharks if they dont do something about this corruptness that goes on in the bailiff industry.

I feel for you hazza I really do, ok you got a PCN, I can imagine that 90% or drivers have had one, but its not a crime, and we shouldnt be treated like criminals if its not been paid.

sorry waffling again

[tomtubby]

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.

 

 

 

YB.

 

This post of yours is VERY intersting and I hope that you do not mind but I think that this deserves a thread of it own. I will start one.

[YANO BEMUSE]

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

 

It's confusing only because a system that seems to have worked well for over 100 years has been reinterpreted - but perhaps I'm too easily persuaded by my own logic and so hope that some lawyers will comment on the new thread started by TT.

 

I can't recall the first costs order in a complaint but about 7 or 8 years ago, I heard of someone (not me, in case you wonder!) who objected to a bailiff being granted a new Certificate because he was insolvent. The judge called a hearing but decided that being insolvent wasn't a good reason not to grant the Certificate. That was fair enough, because I assume the judge took into account the bailiffs personal circumstances, but the judge also ordered the person who objected to pay the bailiff's costs of getting the Certificate! This meant that the bailiff got his new Certificate free!

 

I know this was mentioned to some MoJ officials (I think it was still called LCD back then), who simply said that it was a judicial decision they couldn't comment on but the person who made the objection could appeal the costs order. It seemed to me, however, that the judge had no legal basis on which to make costs order.

 

That situation seemed bad enough at the time but now it's worse.

[hazza]

Message to Segends:

 

How foolish are you???? Do not send ANY email to this address. You are continuing to harass us.

Any communication should be sent directly to Harrow Council who is responsible for this matter.

Your lack of intelligence is truly shocking and I do not believe you are fit to represent anyone in any legal matter.

I do NOT have a blog. Your understanding of the internet is pathetic as is your ability to communicate with others.

You will someday understand that the Consumer Action Group is a web forum. It is not a blog, it is not mine.

I will be making a further complaint over your childishness.

Edited February 3, 2010 by hazza

[hazza]

1888? this is only 23 years after a law was passed that required every automobile to be preceded on the road by a man on foot carrying a red flag and blowing a horn (Setright, 2004) - from http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/013car.html

 

Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients?

To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service.

 

A lawyer died and arrived at the pearly gates. To his dismay, there were thousands of people ahead of him in line to see St. Peter. To his surprise, St. Peter left his desk at the gate and came down the long line to where the lawyer was, and greeted him warmly. Then St. Peter and one of his assistants took the lawyer by the hands and guided him up to the front of the line, and into a comfortable chair by his desk. The lawyer said, "I don't mind all this attention, but what makes me so special?" St. Peter replied, "Well, I've added up all the hours for which you billed your clients, and by my calculation you must be about 193 years old!"

 

from UK solicitors jokes - Get Me A Solicitor !

[hazza]

Okay, quick update... i have got some wheels turning (in a clamp free zone!)

I feel newlyn have effectively shot themselves in the foot and mouth at the same time - and their industry

i feel that the fat-fingered barrister is to considerably to blame for the outcome - he lied and lied and harrassed - effectively bringing his profession into disrepute alongside the parking industries - why lie and mislead the court?

i'm gonna write to bbc topgear and jeremy clarkson - I KNOW they understand!

[hazza]

okay the only reason i lost was because i was told that i exaggerated my first post

 

I had said:

 

Hi,

My car was clamped while on my property (rear driveway) - private property.

The clamper knocked on my door and demanded payment.

I jumped into another family member's car and blocked the driveway so he could not remove my *company* car - which was owned by a company but registered in my name.

He then jumped in his truck and reversed onto my drive, blocking the entire pavement, forcing pedestrians to walk on on the road. I have pictures.

In doing so, he damaged my neighbors wall.

I then brought my dog out to say hello - he said while holding his ground on my land, that he was calling the police and would have them kill my dog.

I then called the police myself who arrived about 30mins later. I said that the driver had trespassed on my land and had clamped my car.

I asked them to tell him to move off my property and stop blocking the road/pavement/driveway.

My neighbor also came out and demanded he move his truck.

The officers that had arrived clearly did not know the law. They asked the truck driver to clarify the law for them.

They checked his ID and his paperwork and said he was within the law to carry out removal of my vehicle on my land (due to a parking ticket from god knows when).

I said he could not take my car as it was a company car, that i needed it to earn money, and that I had read on the Citizens Advice Bureau website that they cannot take anything that would prevent you from earning.

I was told that the CAB site was rubbish and that they would take my car regardless.

I checked his ID and it was only a work ID card for the bailiff company. This did not have an expiry date, nor did it have a court stamp. He was a mere driver but was acting as if he was a certificated bailiff. The police upheld his rights and rubbished mine. That is illegal and I am making a complaint to the IPCC (I spoke to an Inspector who tried to say that the police were powerless in these situation). The fact that they had let a clamper act like a bailiff on my property is of huge concern.

About an hour and a half later a certificated bailiff had arrived and started shouting like he was the law, that he was going to climb through my windows, that he was going to remove the other car at my cost, that my car was only worth £900 (it's actually quite rare and worth over £10,000).

I asked the police what to do - they said I must pay or I may have both cars removed.

I was then forced to pay over a grand for a £50 parking ticket issued by the Council.

He then ran off with my credit card to his van - illegal too.

He then gave me a piece of paper with his company and details of the charges - £155 + expenses + 34 credit card charge.

He was about to drive off when I demanded a receipt, he then went to his van and wrote one out.

Now:

I'd like my grand+ back

I'd like my neighbors wall repaired

I'd like the police officers that arrived disciplined for not knowing the law and not knowing what a bailiff's ID card should look like. IPCC.

I'd like the council to apologize - they hired cowboys.

I'd like to the Bailiff's certification revoked as he did not follow procedure - and acted like a complete amateur, above the law in front of the police

I'd like their contracts reviewed / canceled.

Can anyone help advise on the best way forward?

I am thinking about making a complaint about impersonating a bailiff - today.

Regards

Hazzinksi

 

 

I was told that i had exxaggerated the 'about an hour & half later' sentance and i had effectively lied.

 

truth of the matter, and i hope fattyfingers, fattyfelton, dodgybailiff and harrow & others realise this.....

 

my original post was more like:

 

Hi,

My car was clamped while on my property (rear driveway) - private property.

The clamper knocked on my door and demanded payment.

I jumped into another family member's car and blocked the driveway so he could not remove my *company* car - which was owned by a company but registered in my name.

He then jumped in his truck and reversed onto my drive, blocking the entire pavement, forcing pedestrians to walk on on the road. I have pictures.

In doing so, he damaged my neighbors wall.

I then brought my dog out to say hello - he said while holding his ground on my land, that he was calling the police and would have them kill my dog.

About an hour and a half later a certificated bailiff had arrived and started shouting like he was the law, that he was going to climb through my windows, that he was going to remove the other car at my cost, that my car was only worth £900 (it's actually quite rare and worth over £10,000).

I asked the police what to do - they said I must pay or I may have both cars removed.

I was then forced to pay over a grand for a £50 parking ticket issued by the Council.

He then ran off with my credit card to his van - illegal too.

He then gave me a piece of paper with his company and details of the charges - £155 + expenses + 34 credit card charge.

He was about to drive off when I demanded a receipt, he then went to his van and wrote one out.

Now:

I'd like my grand+ back

I'd like my neighbors wall repaired

I'd like the police officers that arrived disciplined for not knowing the law and not knowing what a bailiff's ID card should look like. IPCC.

I'd like the council to apologize - they hired cowboys.

I'd like to the Bailiff's certification revoked as he did not follow procedure - and acted like a complete amateur, above the law in front of the police

I'd like their contracts reviewed / canceled.

Can anyone help advise on the best way forward?

I am thinking about making a complaint about impersonating a bailiff - today.

Regards

Hazzinksi

 

the bailiff changed his story so his times contracdicted mine

 

truth is that when i made the post i had edited it later (upto the 7th April) , pushing the sentence "About an hour and a half later" down the page, i added the info and forgot to review & update the "About an hour and a half later"

 

silly me

 

sorry for the delay in providing this info, but it is key the perjury

 

i had sent an email to cag admin to get the original versions but no response - if any CAG admins see this, can you please email me all versions of my original post - THANKS!

[Another Jack]

You lost because you didn't try in court. You said so yourself.

[hazza]

erm, no i didn't - anyway, do you know something i don't?

[Another Jack]

I know what you said. You can see my post on January 31st.

[hazza]

erm, no i didn't - sorry 8-)

[hazza]

btw, appeal has been sent

[Another Jack]

btw, appeal has been sent

 

So what?

[hazza]

erm, this is my post about my experience with bailiff - that's what.

if you have nothing constructive to say - don't bother.

[JonCris]

another jack another debt collecting troll

[Another Jack]

another jack another debt collecting troll

 

Gosh, no! Just exercising my right of free speech to say that something is boring. The same right of free speech that empowers hazza to say that someone is 'deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled'.

 

It is tragic that people like joncris respond to criticism by demonising people! Disagree with someone with a grudge and look what you get - nonsense to make it seem that you must be with the enemy.

 

It's no wonder people who want to change a bad system can't hang together long enough to get anything done.

[JonCris]

"So what" is your contribution to this thread. Rather than hide behind cryptic comments if you have something to say then say it .......... incidentally my right to suggest your a troll, which your response confirms, is MY free speech

[hazza]

Gosh, no! Just exercising my right of free speech to say that something is boring. The same right of free speech that empowers hazza to say that someone is 'deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled'.

 

It is tragic that people like joncris respond to criticism by demonising people! Disagree with someone with a grudge and look what you get - nonsense to make it seem that you must be with the enemy.

 

It's no wonder people who want to change a bad system can't hang together long enough to get anything done.

 

complete dribble

 

aj has 27 posts to joncris's 10000

 

joncris you are a legend - and thank you for your help on my post - a pleasure reading your posts, thanks you thank you

 

aj - you are a fraud, so what, so what

 

if you are new to cag - apologise! it will do u good