How many times can the bailiff call to your house?

[pink_eeyore]

I have only seen a hard copy of it and can only find links to amendments on the opsi site.

[Nintendo Pü]

Ok, I'll dig the arhives later, but I have a feeling the times are prescribed in consumer law somewhere, as opposed to civil enforcement regs, because door canvassers are limited to 6am/9pm as well.

[layer_cake]

Ok, I'll dig the arhives later, but I have a feeling the times are prescribed in consumer law somewhere, as opposed to civil enforcement regs, because door canvassers are limited to 6am/9pm as well.

 

Is this any use. The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2002:

 

Enforcing Judgment

 

Refer to the times and hours agents (see terms for explanation of 'agent'). 6am - 9pm.

 

These are up-to-date according to the HMCS website and are the standards set by the Government and endorsed by all the major associations.

Edited December 21, 2009 by layer_cake

[Nintendo Pü]

Its guidelines rather then legislation, pink eeyore indicated "The Law" says bailiffs call between 6am/9pm, but its not established where its provided.

 

The HMCS advisory contains words should and recommended which indicates time limits may not be legislated at all. This explains why courts rule findings of fact saying a bailiff called at an unreasonable time, and avoid saying unlawful time.

[layer_cake]

Its guidelines rather then legislation, pink eeyore indicated "The Law" says bailiffs call between 6am/9pm, but its not established where its provided.

 

The HMCS advisory contains words should and recommended which indicates time limits may not be legislated at all. This explains why courts rule findings of fact saying a bailiff called at an unreasonable time, and avoid saying unlawful time.

yeah, from all dealings I've had with the law in various aspects of my life, the should word is all too common. However, when an organisation allows the flagrant breach of its own rules, as the bailiffs associations clearly do, we at least have evidence to support the outright contempt they have for people's rights. The fight goes on.... If you can think of anything else, I'd appreciate it as I'm pursuing a case v Equita now. Cheers for all your posts

[Nintendo Pü]

I dont think you can claim damaged from a company because it fails to comply with its own rules. There is no contract between you and their bailiff, the law says what you pay, but if a bailiff is cheating you of money then you recover all damages from the council. They are laible for its bailiffs. Don’t let the council palm you off with all this contact the bailiffs.

If the council is uncooperative then file your Form N1, the council can pull the bailiffs contract from under its feet when it receives the Defendants response pack pending its own "investigations"

[layer_cake]

i feel another letter coming on now. cheers!

[Nintendo Pü]

snipped.

 

Parking enforcement

Borough Council

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Parking ticket Vehicle [REG] and your bailiffs fees - official complaint.

 

I received a bailiff from your behalf who asked me to pay him [AMOUNT] including his fees for a parking ticket of [AMOUNT] I believed your bailiff's representation to be honest and genuine. Unfortunately from seeking advice, there is an irregularity with your fees, and do not comply with prescribed regulations.

 

To resolve this complaint, please refund me the sum of [AMOUNT] within seven days.

 

As the council is liable for its agents, rules require me to give the council reasonable opportunity to settle the claim beforehand. Please treat this letter as a notice of intended proceedings.

 

You may wish to launch an investigation of your own, or make some enquiries, however, this does not delay the proceedings being filed at Court, and to protect others from being defrauded in this way, the case will automaticallty transfer to the small claims track.

 

I also would like to draw your attention to Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

These documents are delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests they are handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

[YOUR NAME]

Encs:

Copy of bailiff document showing his fees.

 

Dont bother with the bailiffs, they will only wind you up.

[layer_cake]

snipped.

 

 

 

Dont bother with the bailiffs, they will only wind you up.

You're not kidding! I'm fighting this case all the way. And will claim back on one I paid last year. Cheers~!

[Nintendo Pü]

Then you only need a simple letter asking the bailiff and the council to pay you, and set a deadline. Say why the money is due. e.g. not compatible with fee legislation.

 

No refund by your deadline, then dive right in with a Form N1 & that puts the cat among the pigeons.

[jimbo45]

I wouldnt pay too much attention to that.

 

Anybody with £60-quid can set up a private company, give it a trendy name, and publish a set of rules for its members. The company is not an authority, and its rules are not legally binding on anyone - including debtors.

 

Any Director of a company is 100% responsible for the behaviour of its Employees and Subcontractors.

 

If an employee / subcontractor of a company is breaking the law while carrying out an assignment on behalf of the company - as well as the individual / set of individuals who are breaking the law the directors are also guilty if they knowingly allow the breach of the Law to take place.

 

In the case of some of these "incidents" such as harassement and attempt to charge "Excessive" and "Unlawful fees" the directors MUST KNOW what's happening -- it would be very difficult for them to disprove all knowledge of their "employees" - especially if complaints have already been made.

 

I think by attempting to have the DIRECTORS of these companies barred wherever we can as well as getting the individuals who are actually breaking the law punished severely we might get some sense bashed back into this totally and utterly absurd way we have in England of collecting tax.

 

No wonder we are a total laughing stock with our European Colleagues -- whoever heard of a Bailiff going round hassling say a single Mum in Dusseldorf or Amsterdam. The Social services would have got involved LONG before any sort of "Bailiff" type action was even contemplated.

 

And yes these countries DO have means to evict people who simply REFUSE to pay -- but the vast majority of Caggers are people who for one reason or other have got themselves into a situation - nobody is condoning people NOT to pay -- it's when they CAN'T PAY that we need a better and fairer mechanism.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[Nintendo Pü]

 

If an employee / subcontractor of a company is breaking the law while carrying out an assignment on behalf of the company - as well as the individual / set of individuals who are breaking the law the directors are also guilty if they knowingly allow the breach of the Law to take place.

 

There is a difference under criminal law and civil law.

 

The scenario, a firm does a job for you - say - tarmac's your driveway and you enter into a contract with the firm at agreed price.

 

The firm uses an employee to do the work, and he decides to steal your car keys and later your car disappears off the driveway that night.

 

The empolyee is liable for prosecution, not the Firm or its directors.

 

If the Firm messes up your driveway and say, sprays hot tar all over your car, fences and buildings surrounding your driveway, then the Firm who employed the person doing the damage is liable.

 

Same with bailiffs, the Authority is liable because they contracted out the work, but any criminal liability - e.g intentional fraud, or knowing or believing the debtor is being defrauded, lies with the individual bailiff.

 

In the case of some of these "incidents" such as harassement and attempt to charge "Excessive" and "Unlawful fees" the directors MUST KNOW what's happening -- it would be very difficult for them to disprove all knowledge of their "employees" - especially if complaints have already been made.

 

Its called 'assisting an offender' An offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, and is why a Firm will distance itself from its bailiff when he is asked to be interviewed under caution by police. They will use right to silence and admit no knowledge of charging fees, e.g a 'van fee' in advance of work that has no prospect of being done. This is called Intent, or Conspiracy to defraud.

 

I think by attempting to have the DIRECTORS of these companies barred wherever we can as well as getting the individuals who are actually breaking the law punished severely we might get some sense bashed back into this totally and utterly absurd way we have in England of collecting tax.

 

No wonder we are a total laughing stock with our European Colleagues -- whoever heard of a Bailiff going round hassling say a single Mum in Dusseldorf or Amsterdam. The Social services would have got involved LONG before any sort of "Bailiff" type action was even contemplated.

 

It does happen, but not common occurring due to EU taxation is related to earnings, whereas UK council tax and parking tickets do not reflect anything to do with the liable persons means. To 'Levy Distress' is fairly unique to Britain now since Canada and Australia have since repealed old English common law and consigned it to medieval history.

 

As we can all see, the use of bailiffs is not compatible with modern times and the result is the profession as now has a fees fraud pandemic.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Whether its Criminal or Civil -- my point was mainly to say that there is definitely SOME penalty that could be applied to these offenders including in a lot of cases the "Employers" of the "offenders".

 

A decent Lawyer could ascertain whether its a Criminal or Civil case - but the point of the post was merely to say that the people responsible whether the Bailiff's themselves, their employers i.e the firm or both should NOT be allowed to get away scot free.

 

In any case isn't about time we got rid of this barbaric Feudal system of tax collection -- and maybe the whole idea of taxes and fines should be based on the ability of people to pay it based on EARNINGS - and not be based on the house you live in -- you can't EAT a House -- and its not your fault if the area has become "yuppified" forcing up the price of your home -- if you are like me your income certainly hasn't gone up and I'm not "consuming" any more Council services -- in fact I'm actually consuming LESS but my Council tax still rises relentlessly.

 

So if our only recourse is to fight back against this BARBARIC system -- then lets do it -- NOBODY should have to endure Bailiff's forcing entry to their house for such trivial things of all sakes as -- Parking Fines -- what harm is that doing to ANYBODY.

 

Until Council Tax is reformed then people will get into difficulties -- and often debt being debt it's not always dealt with quickly and properly -- we are Human Beings and not Machines.

 

People need HELP when they get into this situation -- not BAILIFF's knocking on Doors

 

Welcome to Britain (sorry England -- the Scots do seem a tad more civilized here -- and I'm a REAL SASSENACH too) in 2010.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[layer_cake]

The bailiff won't be back as the company concerned has withdrawn him off my case, and allowed me to pay the initial, pre-bailiff, amount which I wanted to do anyway.

 

Thanks to this site and the people who post on here with free advice, I wrote letter of complaint and common sense has prevailed. The council will get its money too. So, we are all happy, bar one person

[RaeUK]

Always uplifting to read posts with a positive resolution. Congratulations.

Now, all I want to see next is a book entitled 'The Best Of CAG'

Best wishes.

Rae.

Edited January 17, 2010 by RaeUK
type poo

[seanamarts]

excellent news

[digitaly]

Sweet! what about a bit of name it and ashamed them?