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

[sillygirl1]

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have filled in the official form to complain yet but it seems that she was well out of order and needs to have her bond rescinded...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.

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[louloubella73]

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)

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[louloubella73]

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!

[louloubella73]

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).

[Fair-Parking]

When you have no authority, you only have space left for building on lies and deceit.

 

Have you looked at the Devon & Cornwall Constab website - and are you going to make your local police do their jobs?

 

If not - the bailiff won't care.

[Heathliver]

Very good FP. This lays it out very clearly. It is surprising that more local police forces do not have a policy as clear as this.

[Fair-Parking]

There's no good reason for them not to.

 

At the moment we have the inexplicable situation where police are assisting criminal behaviour by bailiffs when they are not being so apathetic to finding out what the law states.

[sheraton01]

Where can I find this 'template for policy' document thingy. I would love to read it, given my own problems with my local police.

 

I have been onto D&C police website but cant find it.

 

Sheraton

[Heathliver]

It took me some finding! Here's the link

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/pdfstore/policies/D222.pdf

 

Just emailed Suffolk to see if they have one!!!!

[sheraton01]

It took me some finding! Here's the link

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/pdfstore/policies/D222.pdf

 

Just emailed Suffolk to see if they have one!!!!

 

 

Thanks for that.

 

Have printed it out ready for my next - it's a civil matter conversation with my local police.

 

Sheraton

[Fair-Parking]

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 September 15, 2008 by Fair-Parking

[JonCris]

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

[JonCris]

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

[Fair-Parking]

It might be of benefit for those interested in this thread to refer to a similar experience under 'Drakes Bailiffs - what goes around comes around'. The last posting was June 21st.

 

It may under parking and traffic offences.

[JonCris]

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

[JonCris]

FP are you referring to the thread of WOW??

[Fair-Parking]

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

[JonCris]

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

[John McKenna]

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.

[Fair-Parking]

So now you can be evicted for not allowing a bailiff to put their foot in your door.

 

Is that what they teach you in bailiff school today John McKenna?

[tonycee]

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.

[JonCris]

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??

[John McKenna]

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?