Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can be sure that pardoning himself, stopping the other prosecutions and vengeance will be his first priorities if he wins. i dont think he will win, but no surety on that
    • The other cases aren't going to happen before November though, are they? Reporters are saying he can't pardon himself for a state conviction. He would have to lean on the governor of New York state, as I understand it.
    • I am requesting your assistance to how I should go about a serious breach of my privacy that occurred during my stay at one of IHG’s hotel on Ma 2023. Having previously had items taken from my hotel room elsewhere I take the added precaution of using a security camera app on my device whenever I stay in a hotel room. The recordings are date and time stamped and it cannot be adjusted by the end user.   On this particular occasion I discovered evidence from my personal security camera recordings of a spy camera had been placed underneath my door, and can be seen moving along the base of the door for approximately 15 seconds.   The spy camera is in fact marketed as an inspection device of drains primarily but is known to be used in observing spaces difficult to enter. It is a usb endoscopic camera that has a length flexible cable that is semi rigid and can negotiate any obstruction by bending. The operator can be up to 3-4 metres away.   Infuriated as I had previously stayed with them in 2022 for 3 months at £260 per night that they would seek to question my honesty and invade my privacy. I immediately called reception and asked why they would do such a thing and if they had any concerns they were welcome to inspect my room and go through my personal belongings and ask me anything they wanted to. I was sleeping for the best part of my stay and was alone throughout.   I sent the recordings to the receptionist within the hour of finding them and I asked to speak to the manager of the hotel who I was told wasn’t present. I tried to have face to face meetings with him but he instead wrote to me denying the recordings were made at their hotel stating that they didn’t observe anyone in the corridor at the time of the recordings and that they don’t have a metal bar at the interface of the tile and carpet which corresponds to the overlying door. I rejected that statement on the grounds the video doesn’t show a bar but a reflection of light on the tile and you wouldn’t see a person outside my door because the cable is black and runs along the floor. If you don’t look for this you won’t see it. The matter was passed up to the area manager and he also denied the allegation. This is where the matter ends as far as IHG are concerned. Leading a busy work and family life I let the matter go but I found myself back at the same hotel a year later. I booked for  2 nights and was given a room facing the lobby door that led to the lifts. Unfortunately, from the hours of 3am I was woken up by the noise of the door opening and closing but also noticed shadows of a person standing in front of my door. At first I took no notice and put this down to a guest waiting for someone but the person or persons returned several times, standing outside my door for up to several minutes. I called the hotel reception and asked if there was an issue  on my floor and they said they would come up to check. They never said they would check the CCTV and as the incidents continued to happen up to 8am I called them 6 times. Given my past experience I didn’t think they took security as serious a# her establishments and made them observe the Cctv and let me know. The explanation I was given was that they could see residents there but they were heading down to breakfast. The time that I had noticed these feet by door was from 3am and breakfast started at 6.30am. It also didn’t explain why they would stand by my door for anything longer than 10seconds and if they were waiting for someone how likely is it that this scenario is played out 6 times when there was only 12 rooms per floor. Later that morning when I went down for breakfast the manager said he would move me to a room at the end of the corridor and asked me what my plans were for the day, essentially when would I be in the hotel. I stated that for the day I was out. He then said that all his staff were uncomfortable about me being a guest and said that I was not welcome there anymore. I had paid for the two nights but when it came to the end of the day I didn’t feel that I would be able to rest at the hotel given the hostility so I returned the next day to collect my remaining belongings, namely items of clothing, an iPhone charging cable and plug, and toiletries. Checkout was at 2pm and I was at the hotel at 3pm. All my belongings were gone and they couldn’t locate the items.  I plan to report the incident of the spy camera to the police, as well as the theft, and write to the hotel emphasising that this breach of privacy is unacceptable and the hotel's failure to properly investigate and address the issue is deeply concerning. The fact that I requested security checks to ensure my safety in the early hours was reasonable, yet their response to ban from the premises was excessive and even possibly discriminatory as I had revealed to them that I had been a victim of a hate crime given my sexuality. . I am seeking compensation for the infringement of my privacy, the lack of proper investigation, and the being humiliated and made to feel like an undesirable. I will request a full refund of my two-night stay totaling £390. Additionally, I will request compensation for the cost of my previous stay when the infringement occurred, which was £220. I am also considering damages for the infringement of my privacy but at a loss as to what this would equate to. I will close the letter giving them a 14 day timeframe to respond.    Is there anything you feel i need to consider here? Many thanks   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Drakes/Marston group balliffs broken my lock and pushed over my baby daughter-PLEASE HELP!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5700 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Maybe she had had a loosing streak and was 'under orders' from her boss to 'remove items' - it has been known. The possibility that she had been too lenient and had been repremanded earlier comes to mind. I am not defending her or her actions - I think bailiffs are evil and have had one intimidate and humiliate me.

 

I don't know if you have filled in the official form to complain yet but it seems that she was well out of order and needs to have her bond rescinded... this is a bailiffs worst nightmare as without a bond they cannot legally collect money... and therefore have no work and no nice 'commission on top' which is what the extortionate fees are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The evidence stacks up that the bailiff didn't actually want you to see the 'warrant'. My advice is to go to the police and file a complaint about this bailiff under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006. The police are duty bound to investigate whether they understand the terms of the Act or not. Don't let them say that you 'owed the money anyway', as you paid the fees the bailiff demanded, none of which would have been written on a real warrant or Court Order. The law only allows bailiffs to ask for fees and does not impart the right to defraud out of people, let alone excess fees beyond the scale allowed.

 

It might help both you and the police to visit the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary website relating to bailiffs and 'template for a policy document', particulary section 4.6 which gives specific reasons for allowing forced entry and section 4.1 relating to the duties of the police to ensure the correct documentation is shown to them.

 

This is a force that seems to have acheived the right balance and one that has informed it's officers on how to act. It goes without saying that the law isn't variable on this, only the attitudes and the information available within the different police forces are.

 

The bailiffs used by D & C Constabulary are Marstons or Drakes as they then were.

 

Now all you have to do is to ask why if one office of Marstons knows the law, others do not. My belief is that Marston's infrastructure isn't that bad. Somebody in the Marstons area covering your property has simply ignored the law.

 

As I said before, this bailiff's intention to defraud was premeditated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

Just to say I have received a letter from the magistrates court that I sent a copy of my complaint to (as it was their fine the bailiff was collecting). It says they are 'very concerned by the contents of my complaint' and that they have sent a copy to the bailiff manager (who s on holiday for the week) but that he 'specifically wants to talk to me at my address or on the phone'. Hhmm-I ve mixed feelings about this-I m pleased it s been acknowledged, but I m not sure I want anyone from that firm in my house after the way one of their employees acted (maybe if I could chain the TV to the wall and have Simon Cowell s bodyguard there with my children I d be happier!!!)

 

On the other hand, I would quite like to meet him just to prove that I m not a Waynetta slob/ benefit cheating/ workshy threatening and violent person that this bailiff has no doubt made me out to be (she kept telling the police how 'dealing with people like me' was normal in her job:-x-she should try doing my job nursing people with learning disabilities- then she d know what it s like to have to put up with violence/abuse on a daily basis and going back because you care, and you want to make a difference even though it earns you a pittance)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention-when I spoke to a court official regarding all this I referred to the Tv programme that exposed Drakes and he quickly said-we wouldn t use them-we use Marstons-he seemed surprised when I said they re part of the same company-nice to know they do their homework!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter if you do act like Waynetta Slob in your property. It was your house and not the bailiffs to treat like a toilet.

 

 

Yes, that s true, It just annoyed me that that was the picture this woman was trying to paint of me in an attempt to justify her actions- I could tell that the police had pre judged me before they arrived as their attitude changed towards me changed noticeably once they d spoken to me and realised that I wasn t acting abusively towards this bailiff (shouting, swearing, threatening her etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that there is an updated version of the D & C policy. Mine is dated Jan 2007 and therefore is different from the June 2008 version now available.

 

Much the same message though, but with one fateful alteration. It refers to 'warrants' from the county court. As already explained on this thread, county courts issue 'Orders' and not 'warrants' except to their own bailiffs.

 

Still this force is an example to others.

Edited by Fair-Parking
Link to post
Share on other sites

I despair.

 

Why oh why do some think that 'putting a foot' in the door is peaceful or lawful entry .................. IT IS NOT ...............It's ILLEGAL ..............It's criminal trespass & if you push past the occupant that's assault

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Fair-Parking,

 

The issue here is the un-necessary use of force having already placed his/her foot in the door, the door was prevented from being closed. The Bailiff simply had to apply enough force and no more to gain full entry.Although most bailiffs believe this to be true it's wrong. If the occupant is refusing or objecting to entry then no peaceful entry is available

 

The Distress Warrant would have been valid having been issued by a magistrates court, the offence was one that generated a court fine and as such Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database (having become statute law 11 July 2005) applied in the event that peaceful entry could not be obtained.

Although the warrant should have been shown to any reasonable person requiring confirmation, on this occasion it was`nt.

Simply not showing sight of the warrant is not enough to prevent the use of force, that right exist`s in statute law.

 

I don`t think the police would be interested in taking this complaint any further, it`s an issue that needs to resolved the court.

 

Was the amount of force required?

Why did the bailiff refuse to show grounds for the action to interested partys, after they deal in Bailiff activity all day, a simple guideline along the lines of unpaid court fines do allow reasonable force to be used in the event of no peaceful entry as granted by statute law would have clarified the law.

 

Since when do bailiffs require a court stamped warrant that specifically states that force could be used? In a ideal world this would clarify the bailiffs position from the start, but we do not live in a ideal world and ignorance of the law is no excuse, unfair I know but thats it.

 

See above in red

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me despair FP is that even those who wish to help & are obviously quite knowledgeable still think putting a foot in the door is lawful & constitutes peaceful entry

 

I can only think they think that because it's what they have been told & got away with for many years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is and yes, I agree it's ignorance of the law that bailiffs feed upon

 

 

Although I think a few might I don't think most knowingly feed off it but that they actually believe it themselves because it's what their employer & their mates have claimed for years

 

Say it often enough & it soon becomes gospel

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is the un-necessary use of force having already placed his/her foot in the door, the door was prevented from being closed. The Bailiff simply had to apply enough force and no more to gain full entry.

 

.Although most bailiffs believe this to be true it's wrong. If the occupant is refusing or objecting to entry then no peaceful entry is available

 

When executing HMCS distress warrants, the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure. The bailiff is not entitled to use further force of any kind to force the door open. The person trying to shut the door is perfectly within their rights to apply as much force as possible in an attempt to close the door. If the bailiff sticks to the letter of the law it would result in a stalemate as no "peaceful entry" is possible. However, in such circumstances, the bailiff could quite easily justify the use of a locksmith once entry is refused. With the Police in attendance to ensure there's no breach of the peace, "peaceful entry" could be gained.

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

When executing HMCS distress warrants, the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal.

 

Could you show us this in writing please ?

 

Perhaps quote the law that permits this action.

 

Thank you.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I despair John you are wrong. To put your foot in the door might be everyday practice for many bailiffs but it does not constitute peaceful entry

 

I ask you to think if, as you state & are correct, the occupant is allowed to use force to remove your foot why do you think that is especially if the bailiff is acting within the law??

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

I'll try again so please read the following carefully.

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant.

 

Are we clear now?

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...