urgent in court tomorrow-lost-you need to read this

[Markiemark1]

I think most of us on here, whether from the industry or those in difficult situations, have no problem with those bailiffs, debt collectors and others who go about their business in an ethical and proper way, and also respect that there are can't pays and won't pays. Those in difficulty on here are generally here because they are the can't pays. The won't pays won't be giving a toss. Unfortunately it seems that many lies are told also within the bailiff industry and those tar all bailiffs with the same brush, in the same way as debtors can also be tarred with a brush.

 

Surely though in the same way as those who should be paying are expected to comply with the law, those that are there to enforce the law should be complying with it to the letter.

 

Perhaps once regulation kicks in those cowboys will be sorted out, although I'm not holding my breath.

 

RM

[kermit2482]

Kermit - you may have committed a faux pas, for if that was a veiled reference to me, it may benefit you to know that I was the Claimant at Redditch. In English, I was the one owed money.

 

Maybe my observational skills are not quite up to standard, but I was under the impression that this thread was now about being unable to put a case before a court before being constantly interrupted by the judge

 

You must live in a strange world if you imagine that justice is best served by not being able to present a case in court because a judge won't let you say anything.

 

Clearly this hasn't happened to you..............yet, so in the meantime listen to the voice of experience. You may need it yourself some day.

 

Not referring to you my friend and thanks for the words of wisdom!

[kermit2482]

I think most of us on here, whether from the industry or those in difficult situations, have no problem with those bailiffs, debt collectors and others who go about their business in an ethical and proper way, and also respect that there are can't pays and won't pays. Those in difficulty on here are generally here because they are the can't pays. The won't pays won't be giving a toss. Unfortunately it seems that many lies are told also within the bailiff industry and those tar all bailiffs with the same brush, in the same way as debtors can also be tarred with a brush.

 

Surely though in the same way as those who should be paying are expected to comply with the law, those that are there to enforce the law should be complying with it to the letter.

 

Perhaps once regulation kicks in those cowboys will be sorted out, although I'm not holding my breath.

 

RM

 

Indeed a good post and one which i would have to agree with!!!!

[kel123]

We all have to live with in rules and guidlines the alternative is anarchy. And we all have to face the consquencies of our actions. mine was debt and I ended up paying more for my council tax because of the court charges when the liabilitty was granted.

 

The bailiffs also have rules and guidlines that they have to follow and the consequencies are that they can be bought before a court to answer if they break them. Now if the court (judge) overturns laid down legislation and official guidlines then they should also be taken to task.

[kel123]

I am waiting for Kermit to come back and say that the 5 ruling made by this judge are correct because I can show were officialdom says different.

[kermit2482]

I am waiting for Kermit to come back and say that the 5 ruling made by this judge are correct because I can show were officialdom says different.

 

You would be in for a long wait

[kel123]

Kermit I was annoyed at your initial remarks because I think you had jumped to conclussions. I hope you have now seen that payment is not the issue(s).

 

I do not know how many liabilities for council tax there are per year (I did read that somewhere that there were 200,000 in march/april 2004). The problem is forums like this and others only see a percentage of the ones were the bailiffs have overstepped the mark. And lets be honest the ones you hear of are usually the more extreme. Also you tend to hear reaccurring themes regarding just a few of the companies, if you follow the 80/20 rule of thumb 80% of the problems come from 20% and visa versa. B&S, equita and drakes seem high on the list although there could be others.

 

Your comment of "you would be in for a long wait" can be taken 2 ways, can you please elabourate.

[kermit2482]

Kermit I was annoyed at your initial remarks because I think you had jumped to conclussions. I hope you have now seen that payment is not the issue(s).

 

I do not know how many liabilities for council tax there are per year (I did read that somewhere that there were 200,000 in march/april 2004). The problem is forums like this and others only see a percentage of the ones were the bailiffs have overstepped the mark. And lets be honest the ones you hear of are usually the more extreme. Also you tend to hear reaccurring themes regarding just a few of the companies, if you follow the 80/20 rule of thumb 80% of the problems come from 20% and visa versa. B&S, equita and drakes seem high on the list although there could be others.

 

Your comment of "you would be in for a long wait" can be taken 2 ways, can you please elabourate.

 

I think you have sussed what i meant by your reply and can i just assure you that i neither work for Drakes nor Equita, however i do have to agree with most of the sentiments in your post

[kel123]

I do intend to take this as far as posible. I am not an uneducated person and have dealt with many governments be it with regards to defence and airospace but I have never come across this seario of officialdom saying one thing and the servent of officialdom disregarding it completely. I have, been accused of being too logical because if in a MOD spec or a Bell LCAC spec it says 2+2=4 then it equals 4 no if's no buts, I am having to get used to the 'well I see it like this' The example of which is the word 'force' The DCA say that includes physical against a person i.e. pushing passed or putting a foot in the door yet this judge says It does not mean this, no wonder other countrys are progreesing passed us socially. This style of authority seems to be prevalant in this country now, I see this as anarchy or at the very least marksium.

[JonCris]

Not only was this judge wrong in his interpretation of the law but also in his conduct of the case.

 

I don't want to cause a revolution nor do I want anyone to risk contempt of court & I realise that for many LIP's it will be very difficult but if your confronted by a biased Judge who refuses to hear your argument then you have no option but to object & if necessary threaten to leave their court on the basis that it's clear from their conduct that their mind is already made up & you don't want to waste anymore time.

 

If they want to make an adverse decision in your absence sobeit but not only will you appeal an adverse decision but also report them to the MoJ for their behaviour

 

Also at the conclusion of the hearing ask immediately for a copy of the tape recording & WHATEVER you choose to do be polite at all times

[kel123]

I know I am going around in circles but I cannot get it sorted in my brain. I keep hearing "I am satisfied that....." and that It was me who was making the complaint yet it was me who was on trial. all the judge asked of the bailiff was "is it correct what you have written here" "yes" "good" bang end of questioning and options.

______________________

 

This is what it says on the general form of judgement or order:

 

Upon hearing the claimant in person and upon hearing the defendant in person

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT the action be dismissed

 

AND IT IS ORDERED that there be no order as to costs

 

____________________

 

I like the upon hearing the defendant in person bit. all the defendant said was YES twice (once outside the witness box) and his reading of the oath.

[WWOW]

Having read this thread briefly, it seems you needed an advocate to present your case professionally.

 

A LiP who doesn't have good command of spoken language would have been better to give evidence in a form of sworn statement. The court treats it as fact and leaves as little as possible to question.

[kel123]

WWOW I was not given that option!

 

I was ordered to attend and I was ordered to give testimony.

 

I repeat what I said in my post earlier if this is correct the stickies are misleading if not incorrect.

[kel123]

NDL have got back to me (big thank you) this evening. They have suggested 4 options

 

1) Government ombudsman

2) appeal to circuit judge if original judge was a dirtrict judge

3) appeal to majestrates court

4) Issue a claim for trespass against the bailiff because of ilegal entrance

 

They put it very diplomatically that yes the judge missinterpreted legislation and that there is a presedence 'Khazanchi v Fairchild' in which it was ruled that, pushing passed is use of force.

 

Could some one point me in the direction of khazanchi v Fairchild please

 

Also (it's in the public domain now) could someone tell me at what level His Honour Judge Geddes is because my searches have shown him acting as a high court judge? This would rule out No.2

[kel123]

I have followed my nose and come up with this:

 

For Entrance

 

I think it is khazanchi v faircharm inestments Ltd [1998] WLR 1603;[1998] 2ALL ER 901 and pos Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

Ch 9: Action Against The Property Of The Insolvent

 

December 2002

 

9.15 Entry to premises [Taxes Management Act 1988]

The right to levy distress includes the common law right to enter the premises of the debtor but not to break into them. If a debtor refuses to admit a person trying to levy distress, the attempt will be defeated. The posting of a written notice of distraint through the debtor’s letter box will not be a valid alternative to entry (Re Evans v South Ribble Borough Council [1992] 2 WLR 429).

 

For certified

 

9.4 Who carries out the distraint?

It is usual for the above creditors to use a bailiff to levy distress on their behalf. A bailiff must be certificated by a county court judge and any person acting without a valid certificate acts unlawfully. A county court bailiff also has the power to levy execution on behalf of a judgment creditor (see Part 2). It should not therefore be assumed that distress has been levied where a bailiff is acting.

[I've got no money]

If Geddes is a circuit judge and s/he dealt with your case then the appropriate appeal, I think - but I need to check, would be to the Court of Appeal - there are however some county court appeals which go to the High Court - it may be one of those.

 

The fact that Geddes is a section 9 judge, an experienced circuit judge to "acts up" as a High Court Judge doesn't make any difference in terms of appeals. On this occasion he would be acting as a County Court Judge.

 

As far as the Magistrates Court is concerned - "res judicata" - I don't think that the Magistrates court will revisit issues which a circuit judge has already determined. Likewise I can't see the Ombudsman intervening. My recollection is that the Ombudsman never was particularly interventionist anyway...

 

I think that your best option is an appeal - you need to get legal advice - you need to draft an N161. Have a look at the Civil Procedure Rules, I'll do the same and try and work out who you appeal to.

[I've got no money]

Incidentally an appeal needs to be on a point of law

[I've got no money]

Claim for Trespass - I forgot to mention that - probably not - I suspect that you would have to re-litigate matters dealt with already - res judicata - they would strike out the claim

[I've got no money]

Can you post a copy of your original complaint - cross out anything that identifies you - case number, name, bailiff names etc

[kel123]

Easier to copy

Dated 28th April 2008

On Thursday 24th April 2008 at just after 7.00pm I answered the door to a man who flashed what looked like a Bristow & Sutor ID card at me and said he was from Bristow & Sutor. (I assumed he was B** W********** who had posted a letter to me the previous day from Bristow & Sutor). He asked if he could come in and discuss the situation with regards to the community Tax I owed to Walsall MBC. I said a firm no and agreed to discuss it with him at the door. I explained that I thought there had been a mistake because Walsall council had included the £100 I owed in with this years bill. And that I was prepared to sort it out with them the next day. He said that he needed to see the bill to confirm this. I said wait there and I’ll fetch it for you to see. As I was turning away he said can I come in again, I turned back saying no! to see him coming in through my front door. I blocked his path and he pushed me at least 4 ft into my dining room about 6 ft in total. (the dining room door is immediately to the left of my front door) We grappled and I managed to forced him back about 3 ft until he dug in and I could not budge him. At this stage I noticed his steel toe capped shoes and became very uneasy with the situation I found myself in. I called for my wife who appeared as I was calling. This settled him down enough for me to escape the situation. My wife blocked his access further (at no time did he move towards my wife or move from his position). I telephoned 999 and asked for the police, during this telephone conversation I said to him that he had not been invited in and could he please leave. He said that he was a court appointed bailiff and he had the right to be here. The police asked what his name was, I said that I don’t know and that I cannot read his name because his ID card was facing the other way (at no time did he tell me his name). I am of the understand that all phone calls are logged and recorded so could you please confirm the conversation and his response. He asked if the police were on their way and I said yes. He said I’ll wait in the car and left. Both my wife and myself were physically shaking at this point. The police arrived shortly after and talked to the man before coming to talk to us. We explained what had happened and they said that our stories matched and that when I turned he came in. They then went on to say that he had more knowledge about his rights than they do and would I let him in to discuss the matter, I said no. The previous evening I researched my rights on the internet and downloaded the Office of Fair Trading, Debt Collection Guidance, July 2003 (updated December 2006), I showed this to the police who unfortunately were not interested. The man started walking down our garden path. The police officers went out side to him with my wife and my self standing in the doorway. I asked the police to escort him off my premises to the boundary line they said ask him yourself which I did and he ignored me I again asked the police but they replied he’s only wants to post a letter and ignored me (the man during this time was writing on documentation). We closed the door and our letterbox. We found a letter later by the doorstep. The letter contained 2 documents both signed by M****** D***** (so who is B** W**********? Is he his lackey?) M****** D***** listed 3 items on his seizure list a Wooden Carved Dining Table and six chairs (It is my understanding that the goods must belong to me, this item belongs to both of us, we do not even have separate bank accounts and never have), a Mantle Clock which is my wife’s (handed down to her by her parents) and a cupboard (from were he was standing I can only assume that this is the gas meter cover and it is a fixture). The other letter was a breakdown of costs which we are disputing because of non peaceful entry, and that the initial bailiff B** W********* is uncertified. I paid the £100 to Walsall MBC the next morning after taking advice from the national Debtline. The following information was given to me by Mr M Johnston, Her Majesty’s Courts Service Headquarters – Enforcement Program. Another Question has to be was this M****** D***** or was it B** W********* using M****** D*****’s name?

M****** D*****

Company: Bristow & Sutor

Certified: 5th Sept 2006

County Court: Redditch

B** W**********

Company: Bristow & Sutor

Certified: No

County Court: Hearing booked for 13th May 2008 at Redditch County Court

I have enclosed all paperwork.

Here is a statement that my wife made (signed and dated) it was sent to the court when I wrote agreeing to go to court

10th May 2008

To who it may concern

Today 10th May 2008 my husband received a letter from Redditch County Court with regards to a complaint he made against how he was treated by bailiffs working for Bristow and Sutor, whilst they were collecting council tax on behalf of Walsall Council. In a reply to the Court by M****** D***** he said At this point a woman appeared from the rear of the property, this woman did not identify herself and at no point did I have any discussions with her. (paragraph 4 line 1). This statement is not true. I did appear from the rear of our property after hearing shouting and my husband shouting for me, As I ventured around our dining room door, I saw my husband and another man facing up to each other, my husband was trying to get the man out of our house and the man was pushing back preventing him from doing so. When the man saw me he physically relaxed and my husband moved away towards the phone. My husband phoned the police and I heard him say clearly that he does not know the mans name because he has his badge turned around. I asked him to turn his badge around so I could read his name, he said no! I asked him a total of three time do this, his final reply was no I won’t! My husband did not know this until today.

With reference to Paragraph 9: The Bailiff completed his paperwork by our front door it took approximately 5 min to complete and I can confirm that on 3 occasions (twice to the police and once to the bailiff) my husband Mr Kel123 asked for the bailiff to leave or to be escorted to the boundary of our property, each time being told no. We found his letter on our path.

With reference to Paragraph 12: I own half of the table and chairs referred to and after taking advice, it is not only an illegal entry therefore the seizure is illegal (also neither me nor my husband have signed anything) but I also strongly object to my property being used to pay my husbands liability order.

This is a true and factual statement made by me Mrs Kell123 on the 10th May 2008.

[I've got no money]

They were only trying to collect £100 - my internet connection keeps crashing - I'll have a look at the CPR tomorrow

[kel123]

again to make it clear as to fees and non-certification

 

 

[WWOW]

Looking at Document #1

 

The fees quoted by the bailiff are not consistent with Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. For £100 of unpaid council tax the bailiff’s fee on first visit assuming you haven’t signed anything and he didn't come into contact with your goods should be £12.50.

 

The bailiff is forcing the debtor to be (potentially) forced to pay a walking possession fee if the debtor pays by credit card or cheque. Its fraud under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 you can Form 4 him for it.

 

The handwriting is dreadful; this is someone not from mainstream education.

 

Document #2

 

It’s not valid because its not signed by the debtor and I've assumed the bailiff hasn't had physical contact with your goods.

 

The bailiff’s fees are inconsistent with Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

Send this letter to the bailiff and see what happens.

 

Name of firm of bailiffs

FAO the Data Controller

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Address 4

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + ANY REF]: Data Access Request & opportunity to mitigate incorrect fees

 

I write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and enclose payment of £10 the maximum prescribed under the Act and request you send me the following six points.

 

a) An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained by your bailiff being £[AMOUNT]

 

b) The name and address of the court that certificated the bailiff who acts in this matter

 

c) The certificate number of the aforementioned bailiff

 

d) All letters documents emails comments faxes personal opinions memos and other related information which would qualify as information defined under the Act.

 

e) Written confirmation your fees of £[AMOUNT] and confirm they are truthfully compliant with legally prescribed bailiffs fees.

 

f) The name and address of the person or body who instructed you and the date of instruction.

 

I appreciate the Act allows you 40 days to fulfill this request but I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

 

I now give you an opportunity to examine whether your bailiff has charged fees correctly and truthfully compliant with the law prescribing bailiffs fees. If an irregularity is found, you must fully refund me in the next seven days from the date of this letter along with a written explanation why I was overcharged. If we later find an irregularity then I will automatically file a Form 4 complaint at the bailiff’s certificating court for committing an offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006. This may also involve a criminal investigation by police and your firm’s director may be liable for benefiting from a money transfer originating from criminal activity.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service on you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is now your responsibility and in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation. I regret I am unable to discuss this matter by telephone or in person.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

YOUR NAME

[kel123]

Sorry WWOW but the judge said

 

I AM SATISFIED THAT THE FEES ARE CORRECT! NOW SIT DOWN MR KEL123!

 

Yes I argued that! yes I showed that there was no signatures! I even said how can you claim these when you have not even claimed a walking pocession fee. His Honour Judge Geddes said

 

I AM SATISFIED THAT THE FEES ARE CORRECT! NOW SIT DOWN MR KEL123!

 

PS he didn't say it softy nor did he say please.

[WWOW]

I have a feeling this was a very emotionally-charged hearing. You really do need to be properly represented.