Bailiff assaulted me - Case closed .. I WON

[seanamarts]

Sea - I was told by big bailiff bloke that GPS is unreliable, if they have this then why have they not supplied it to you?

 

SFx

exactly my point i will be making.. why bring it up now why didnt the bailiff when he came round tell me that he had already tried to contact me at this address.... its all bulls***

[bungy]

Regarding bailiffs calling at "unreasonable" times. Their is a Code of Practice published by the Lord Chancellors Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) that recommends that enforcement does not take place before 6 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Therefore anytime after 6 a.m. is presumably regarded as reasonable.

 

Most people are not in 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. so naturally bailiffs make a number of calls early morning and late evening in order to catch people when they are in. A great many of their clients insist that they do this. When the bailiff calls between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and no one is in, the debtor gets charged for the visit and the bailiff is accused of calling at a time when it is likely that no one is in, just to inflate the charges. Damned if you do and damned if you dont !

[The Watcher]

Regarding bailiffs calling at "unreasonable" times. Their is a Code of Practice published by the Lord Chancellors Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) that recommends that enforcement does not take place before 6 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Therefore anytime after 6 a.m. is presumably regarded as reasonable.

 

Most people are not in 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. so naturally bailiffs make a number of calls early morning and late evening in order to catch people when they are in. A great many of their clients insist that they do this. When the bailiff calls between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and no one is in, the debtor gets charged for the visit and the bailiff is accused of calling at a time when it is likely that no one is in, just to inflate the charges. Damned if you do and damned if you dont !

 

6am is NOT a reasonable time - and up to 9pm (esp in winter) would also imo be unreasonable. Early morning is specifically designed to catch people either in bed or in their pyjamas, so intentionally intimidating, and makes people less able to "stand up for their rights".

 

It makes it impossible - deliberately? - to check whether a bailiff is certificated.

 

Did you see the press reports yesterday that claim up to a third of people now have a weapon at home to deal with intruders? I would strongly advise against anyone opening their door to an unknown person at either 6am or after dark.

[caledfwlch]

If they didnt sign up to such an immoral job, then they wouldnt be damned! :grin:

 

Maybe we should allow sales people to phone and call at 6am to, afterall they are only "doing their job" too.

 

Regarding bailiffs calling at "unreasonable" times. Their is a Code of Practice published by the Lord Chancellors Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) that recommends that enforcement does not take place before 6 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Therefore anytime after 6 a.m. is presumably regarded as reasonable.

 

Most people are not in 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. so naturally bailiffs make a number of calls early morning and late evening in order to catch people when they are in. A great many of their clients insist that they do this. When the bailiff calls between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and no one is in, the debtor gets charged for the visit and the bailiff is accused of calling at a time when it is likely that no one is in, just to inflate the charges. Damned if you do and damned if you dont !

[seanamarts]

***UPDATE****

I have been to see a solicitor today who is willing to take on my case, and was seriously impressed with the knowledge that I have obtained, all thanks to you guys here, unfortunately I will be unable to put anything in here with regards to my case for a while because bailiffs do read what is written in here and some one from Drakes may pass on information with regards to what I'm writing in here, if you get what I mean, but its all good at the moment I will keep you posted on progress though.

[seanamarts]

*** update****

sorry its been a while but lots have been happening here, my solicitor has done some fantastic work on my behalf and Mr W***** has been summons before the judge at the end of september, a complaint to the PCC and been entered and they are now acting on my compliant to the police I have an interview with them in the next few weeks with regards to the conduct of the police, we are holding out on complaining with regards to the council until we get the results from the outcome of the police and bailiff.. its looking good so far

[The Watcher]

Great News !

 

What everyone should realise (and you clearly have) is that it's no good having right and the law on your side unless you are prepared to follow-up and insist that the law is obeyed.

 

Hopefull the police conduct in this matter will become common knowledge (amongst them) and lead to a different approach in future.

[sillygirl1]

Good news indeed, I'd love to be present when the bailiff is in court - bet there will be some porkies around then (thinly veiled of course). Hopefully he will loose his bond and hence his livelihood and licence....

[The Watcher]

Hopefully he will loose his bond and hence his livelihood and licence....

 

Since when has having no licence (and therefor no bond) actually stopped these robbers and thugs?

 

OVER HALF of all bailiffs have no licence !

[Guest Happy Contrails]

seanamarts , get your private messages.

[Thermometer]

??

[seanamarts]

seanamarts , get your private messages.

have read and replied thank you

[seanamarts]

When I read your first post I must say that you wrote with such conviction and clarity that I knew you were not a person to give-in to bully boys.

 

As I understand it, the bailiff was certified when he visited you but his warrant was for another property - I assume that is why he did not show it to you! He was already treading on dangerous ground because he was trying to enforce a warrant at the wrong address!

 

He then put his foot in the door which, his company claims, amounts to 'peaceful entry'. Even if he had done this at YOUR entrance door (not the communal door) this would not constitute 'peaceful entry' (even if he was at the address on the warrant). The Police may believe it does but neither he (nor his company) will convince any magistrate or judge of that!

 

He then compounded his own problems even further by assaulting you! You may be weak in body - but certainly not in mind or spirit - something he has now learnt and for which he will pay dearly for in court next month.

 

I bet your bottom dollar that it will transpire that the bailiff has had similar complaints against him and that when the court case is heard you find he has been charged with other offences too. So, it may be a good idea for your local paper to do a small story about ther bailiff concerned in the hope it brings forward more complainants.

 

Please keep us posted of the outcome. I just hope that all this is not affecting your health.

at the moment the mind is very willing but my health has taken a bit of a battering as of late. im staying positive though and will fight this to the very end, what this man did no one should have to go through, ever!!!!! I have a great solicitor now who is working hard on this case on my behalf and am very lucky to have them on my side and have done some brilliant work for me so far. thank you all for your concerns

[Guest 10110001]

**** UPDATE****

 

I have just been seen by an officer from my local police station, she has taken a statement and there is now a warrant in process for the arrest for the bailiff concerned he is being charged with ABH and for forcing his way into my home. if he had broken my fingers instead of just bruising them it would have been GBH.

The police have said that he had no right to enter my home even if he was certified or not.

once again people thank you so much for giving me this information and the support to see me through this, I have sent several letters to my local council the bailiff company involved the chief inspector of my local station and my MP. I will keep you informed of the out some, oh and what the papers say next week

 

According to Surrey Police, Breaking & Entering is lawful.

 

[The Watcher]

The police are clearly as confused by the current situation as many others are - and the bailiffs take advantage of this.

 

If his Certification had not been checked - then the police could have been assisting in a crime. Of course, you do not tell us the full circumstances - and the type of debt, so bailiffs (if they are genuine and Certificated) MAY have the right to break-in, if it was for a certain type of debt.

[Guest 10110001]

That’s precisely the point, in our case the Police didn’t check his certificate, the DCA said it had expired and therefore the bailiff was uninsured.

 

The Police at the scene said that the criminal damage to property (and bodily injuries) reported to them at the scene were a civil matter and our subsequent complaint to the IPCC was dismissed.

[The Watcher]

Then you clearly have a claim for damages against the bailiff (for trespass etc) and also a complaint against the police for assisting an unauthorised and illegal act to happen.

 

Contact CAB, and your MP, and if you have one, a solicitor asap.

[Guest 10110001]

It’s all done.

 

I billed the council for the damages to property but they refused to pay saying it’s the bailiffs problem. The bailiff said it’s the council’s problem.

 

I filed in the small claims track against the council and got judgment. Council has now paid for the damage plus our handling charges for their invalid parking ticket.

 

The injury matters are with a Personal Injury firm and working with Drakes towards a settlement. Drakes wouldn't cooperate with us, we was just fobbed off with excuses.

 

Because the bailiff was not certificated, his liability insurance was invalidated so Drakes have to settle the claim in-house.

 

MP was useless; we were fobbed off with lip service.

 

CAB didn’t know what to do; they just handed us a list of local solicitors.

 

We wrote to all the solicitors; none wanted to get involved.

 

The Police said this was a civil matter.

 

The IPCC dismissed our complaint; the officers did nothing wrong.

 

The certificating court dismissed our complaint against the bailiff for having an expired certificate. (contradicting another court which made a finding of fact).

 

I only found a solicitor by chance who were willing to take on the personal Injury matter probably because Drakes are now uninsured and therefore an easy target.

 

The only way to resolve a bailiff dispute is by filing a claim at the county court.

 

Our case is a near mirror of seamanarts and if there is anything I can do to help. Do let me know.

[The Watcher]

You seem to have done everything right. I'd get on the police again and "push" this - because anyone who isn't Certificated isn't a real bailiff at all - they have no authority whatsoever.

 

I'm sure I read recently that Vera Baird (the UK's new Solicitor-General) had told the House of Commons that anyone who carried out this work (without Certification) would be committing fraud (under the Fraud Act 2006).

 

I'll see if I can find the reference somewhere .....

[Guest 10110001]

It’s an offence under Section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 to obtain money dishonestly. A bailiff saying that he is collecting a court fine and acting as if he is certificated is within the remit of the Act.

The police said that this is a civil matter. I can’t even make a complaint against the police officers for Assisting an Offender because even though they allowed money to be dishonestly obtained by a person pretending to be a bailiff. (Uncertificated bailiff)

It was the goodwill of the bank that revoked the credit card transaction because Drakes did not have a provisional entitlement in their card payments merchant terminal agreement to charge a credit card processing fee onto the consumer. This is called a Prohibited Fee and this revoked the transaction under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Cardnet dismissed Drake’s appeal against their decision to revoke the transaction and asked for their money back.

Speak to Recycler; he is clued up on bailiffs and the Fraud Act 2006.

[Saffronflowers]

SM

 

Glad to know that you are making progress - have been on my hols and hubby is still banning me from doing any work like this till September!!!! Will keep an eye on this - well done keep going

 

SFx

[The Watcher]

It’s an offence under Section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 to obtain money dishonestly. A bailiff saying that he is collecting a court fine and acting as if he is certificated is within the remit of the Act.

 

The police said that this is a civil matter.

 

I can't understand HOW this is a civil matter if everyone agrees that the law has been broken?

[PizzaMaker]

gg

[seanamarts]

*** UPDATE***

 

Its finally gone to court for a Judges directions, with regards to the bailiff who assaulted me, should hear the outcome at the end of September, not only my statement is being heard but those of two other witnesses as well, plus doctors and hospital reports. Not sure if im attending as of yet but I want to. Also with regards to the police complaint that I made, thats all in the pine line. Next is the council ombudsman.. watch this space

[tomtubby]

Well Done !!!

 

If this was a Form 4 Compliant which I think it was, then you have every right to attend the hearing.

 

The court will acknowledge receipt of the complaint and a copy is sent to the bailiff and the company that employs him/her.

 

They have 14 days to respond to the court. If the court are satisfied (doubtful) it will be dealt with without a hearing. On the other hand if the court feels that the bailiff should be brought before the court to explain himself, then a hearing date is set and you may attend.

 

You may wish to know that if a bailiff has previously been found guilty of an offence by the courts, then you are able to ask for details of the previous complaint. No information will be provided if the court did not find him guilty.