jbw enforcement limited Court hearing 14th november 2008

[letsmakeamark]

Just picked this up on another thread. Somone has got jbw enforcement in court on 14th november 2008 @ 2pm for illegally removing a car while a n224 application was in place. Its medway county court high street

chatham kent me4 4dw

[Bongo Dancer]

The N244 needs to be filed and served. JBW will probably contend is wasnt served or they were not made aware enforcement needed to be halted. The judge will probably adjourn and ask the claimant to name the authority/council who JBW acted for as a joint defendant and its they who is liable for remunerating the owner of the vehicle.

[letsmakeamark]

I think the authority is medway council.

[Bongo Dancer]

The claimant should add medway C as a joint defendant using a form N244. Let the judge decide who pays what.

[letsmakeamark]

Think they already have

[letsmakeamark]

Apparantly jbw levied on a bloke for his cousins debt or something and the judge agreed by saying he should persue the local authority as what jbw did was on behalf of that authority. so what the judge has said is levying on another persons for someone else debt is legal. Also what this means is that if a bailiff company commits a murder then they are not liable it is the authority that instructed them that are liable !!! I know the person in question is having this clarified at the moment.

[Bongo Dancer]

Apparantly jbw levied on a bloke for his cousins debt or something and the judge agreed by saying he should persue the local authority as what jbw did was on behalf of that authority.

 

Thats the correct advice.

 

so what the judge has said is levying on another persons for someone else debt is legal.

 

Only if the bailiff has reasonable cause the believe the vehicle belonged to the debtor at the time of levy. If they are wrong then the bailiff can face a civil action jointly with the authority. Bailiffs should act dilligently.

[letsmakeamark]

Removed post as people may get the wrong idea.

Edited October 20, 2008 by letsmakeamark

[Bongo Dancer]

It looks like you are on some vendetta. Your efforts are better placed elsewhere.

[letsmakeamark]

No personal vandetta only what is being said on the other forums. Hence rather than people think i am waging a personal vandetta i have removed the relevant post.

[Bongo Dancer]

If this is litigation in progress i suggest deleting this whole thread. Naming the defendant, trial date and court is a bad idea.

[Saffronflowers]

Why?

[Bongo Dancer]

Counsel for the defendant can use comments on this forum to undermine the proceedings by exposing the state of mind of the claimiant. They can even contend the claimant to be a vexatious litigant by publishing case information before the proceedings have concluded.

[Saffronflowers]

I dont think that would apply as it would come under the Civil Evicdence Act 1995 - and therefore would be given little or no weight by any judge.

 

Other provisions of the 1995 Act preserve common law rules relating to public documents, published works of a public nature and public records. The common law in respect of good and bad character, reputation or family tradition is also preserved.

 

The Act moves some of the focus of hearsay evidence to weight, rather than admissibility, setting out considerations in assessing the evidence (set out in summary form):

• reasonableness of the party calling the evidence to have produced the original maker
  
• whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it mentions
  
• whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay
  
• whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters
  
• whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another, or for a particular purpose
  
• whether the circumstances of the hearsay evidence suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight
  

Therefore if any barrister brought such evicence into court it would be duly examined and determined to be no more than unrelated parties discussing an upcoming case.

[Bongo Dancer]

I dont rely on wikipedia. Hearsay in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You forgot to give credit where credit is due. Perhaps you should read this article. Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Saffronflowers]

Well here it is in full for the pleasure of your perusal - to be succinct I thought it was more pertinant to give the informatin in bitesize tranches.

 

Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38)

[chris600uk]

And since the judicial process is public, surely we have a right to know, it's not as if it's in a national rag

[chris600uk]

Therefore if any barrister brought such evicence into court it would be duly examined and determined to be no more than unrelated parties discussing an upcoming case.

 

That's us BD:)

[letsmakeamark]

So if someone was to say defendant so and so did this thing 3 years ago or it has happened this many times before then can that count agains yourselves ?

[letsmakeamark]

Who would be liable if the bailiffs mucked up ? Would it be the council or the biliffs ?

[Guest BURP]

If the bailiff is contracted by a council and the bailiff causes a loss to a third party then the council is liable to make good that loss.

 

If you (or your company) enters into a contract to fix somebodys roof and you hire a person to do it and causes damage then you (or your company) is liable to put things right.

[letsmakeamark]

Anybody else have a problem with them to this extent ?

[KJD]

There is this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/162414-bailiffs-sections-1-2-a.html

 

No update as to whether the OP persued the council / bailiffs for the damage.

[letsmakeamark]

Has anybody actually won against these people ?

[Guest BURP]

The Criminal Damage Act comes under criminal law and isn't used in claiming damage caused by a bailiff. Bailiffs acting for a magistrate's court are immune from criminal liability under Section 27 of the Domestic Crimes Violence and Victims Act 2004. In any event a debtor can make a civil claim and ask a court for judgement the council makes good any damage caused by a bailiff acting under its instruction.