lets return to danboys letter

[wonkeydonkey]

Danboy received a letter in reply to his complaint of fraud which he has been kind enough to bring to the attention of CAG, this is a matter that effects all of us but sadly his post seems to have got lost in discussion brought about by protectors of what can be seen to have become a corrupt industry. Hence the reason for this post and could we please keep focused on what danboy has brought to our attention

 

It would seem his complaint has not been properly investigated, the reply he was given proves those investigating have no indepth knowledge of the laws they are there to enact. Bailiff and Enforcement Agencies have latched on to Police ineptitude and lack of understanding of the law, which is one of the reasons they are able to use their own interpretation of the rules to suit themselves.

We are fortunate to have caggers throughout this site who have the knowledge and capability to advise other caggers as to their rights, could we ask those good people to step forward and advise, us the people that are effected by these issues how we can fight back?

We are all aware things will not change overnight but if we can make a difference...........

 

WD

Edited December 27, 2009 by wonkeydonkey

[lets fight bailiffs]

You are correct WD,

 

Things can change, but it will take a large number to do so.

 

I know i keep saying this but we must go to our MP's and ask them to complain for us because we the CASH COW can not do so.

 

if you have a complaint against a HCEO and that complaint is that they have broken the law do not go to the police because you will get, it is a cival matter. however there must be a police officer who comes on to CAG that may want to tell everybody how far you do have to go before you commit a crime.

 

Silly me, i remember now dont pay council tax, drop your cig butt on the floor, and how dear you go 5 miles an hour over the speed limmit now they are crimes that are well worth the time of day because they earn Revinue and lots of it,

 

LFB

[sillygirl1]

According to my sister the police dont have a clue about bailiff law, she works as a forensic scientist for the Met so she knows what she is talking about. The police believe the bailiff as they are supposed to be properly trained in their jobs.

 

We all know that bailiffs, like DCAs, pick and choose which bits of the law apply to them.

 

On a sideline anyone know why I cant use an apostrophe when doing texts, it shoots off and looks for linked threads or goes to the top of the p.age. Works okay in other emails and other forums...

[danboy381]

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

 

dont know sillygirl, but feel free to borrow one above.

 

thx for starting the post WD, about all i have come up so far is nintendos letter pasted below.

 

 

Most of it makes sense really doesn't it.

 

Thank you for your letter of [DATE] received by me today.

 

I regret my complaint remains unresolved on the following points you made in your letter. This is because your letter says the police is satisfied no criminal offence has been committed. There are four counts of fraud by false representation and all are well within the remit of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and supported by a ruling Attorney General for England and Wales in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007. It is not for a police officer to rebuke an Act of Parliament in this way.

 

You mentioned Porterage, this I understand is transporting a debtors goods from one location to another and the bailiff compensated himself using the reasonable Costs clause in the legislation. Unfortunately the bailiff did not transport any goods, and by dishonestly charging a fee for work not done commits an offence of fraud by false representation.

 

You interpret the bailiff can charge whatever see they see appropriate, however the legislation only provides for reasonable costs, this means the bailiff needs to show an actual disbursement and does not provide for bailiffs to make a gain for himself of another. Judge Avent presiding over Culligan v s Marston Group said a bailiff who fails to give a breakdown of his fees cannot show it is reasonable costs. Since no goods were moved and no actual disbursements made, but if the bailiff charges a fee under the pretence it is reasonable costs commits an offence of fraud by false representation.

 

The bailiff was collecting from my company, and sought to obtain money from me personally and is pretending my personal property is property of the company, and intended to convert that property to his own use, for another. Again, this is fraud by false representation and may also be an offence under the 1968 Theft Act.

 

You indicated bailiffs have no ceiling for their fees they can charge to a debtor, this suggest the police accept a bailiff can demand unlimited money, and this negates the very purpose of having a police force – crime prevention. If this is the police interpretation of the law then anyone can purchase a debt, transfer it up and charge fees carte-blanche and defraud the public routinely and systematically by pretending their fees are reasonable costs knowing the police will tolerate bailiff crime.

 

I therefore ask this complaint is logged as being unresolved. I now request the crime is properly investigated. There is no reason why the police should looki for reasons to pretend no crime exists.

 

If the p;olice is still unable or unwilling to investigate the crime, please let me know with the reasons, and I will escalate the complaint to one of Perverting the Course of Justice with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

 

Only if the police work together with the community can we end the pandemic of bailiff fraud.

 

Yours Truly,

 

thanks Nintendo - i'm looking a doing a variation of the above.

DB

Edited January 1, 2010 by danboy381

[wonkeydonkey]

I would send it as it is it reaches the spot. well done np

[Nintendo Pü]

Not with those typos!! Ive given it a tidyup.

 

Thank you for your letter of [DATE] received by me today.

 

I regret my complaint remains unresolved on the following points you made in your letter. This is because your letter says the police is satisfied no criminal offence has been committed. There are four counts of fraud by false representation and all are well within the remit of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and supported by a ruling Attorney General for England and Wales in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007. It is not for a police officer to rebuke an Act of Parliament in this way.

 

You mentioned "Porterage" in your letter, this I understand is transporting debtors goods in vehicle and the bailiff has compensated himself using the reasonable Costs clause in the legislation. Unfortunately the bailiff did not transport any goods, and by dishonestly charging a fee for work not done commits an offence of fraud by false representation.

 

The regulations say what a bailiff can legitimately charge as fees to a liable debtor, but the police is interpreting the legislation as allowing bailiffs to charge "whatever see they see appropriate" without explaining where in the legislation provides for bailiffs to enforce a blank-cheque policy in setting their fees against a debtor. In any event, the expression, reasonable costs means the bailiff needs to show an actual disbursement giving rise to those costs. The law does not provide for bailiffs to make a gain for himself of another. Judge Avent presiding over Culligan v s Marston Group said a bailiff who fails to give a breakdown of his fees is unable to show it is reasonable costs. Since no goods were moved and no actual disbursements made, the bailiff obtained a money transfer under the pretence it is reasonable costs and therefore commits an offence of fraud by false representation.

 

The bailiff was collecting from my company, and sought to obtain money from me personally, and is pretending my personal property is property of the company, and he intended to convert that property to his own use or for another. Again, this is fraud by false representation and may also have committed an offence under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

 

You indicated bailiffs have no ceiling for their fees they can charge to a debtor, this suggests the police accept a bailiff can demand unlimited money, and this negates the very purpose of having a police force – crime prevention. If this is the police interpretation of the law is accurate, then anyone can purchase debts, transfer them up and charge fees carte-blanche and defraud the public routinely and systematically by pretending their fees are reasonable costs knowing the police tolerate bailiff fraud.

 

I therefore ask this complaint is logged as being unresolved. I now request the crime is properly investigated objectively and professionally. There is no reason why the police should look for reasons to pretend no crime exists, the problem will not go away unless the police start taking positive action on bailiff crime.

 

If the police are still unable or unwilling to investigate the crime, please let me know with the reasons, and I will escalate the complaint to one of Perverting the Course of Justice with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

 

You suggested I contact an MP and other named organisations, I would be grateful if the police discontinue the practice of passing off complainants from pillar-to-post when they are unwilling to investigate a crime. Only when the police proactively work together with the community can we end the pandemic of bailiff fraud, even if is only for the benefit of public good.

 

Yours Truly,

[manonabike]

I like the phrase "bailiff fraud" for a title for campaign

[ohitsonlyme]

Subbing with interest

My investigation is on going and as such no answer from police yet

onlyme