What is the alternative?

[ploddertom]

That PT is exactly what happened when I was at the hearing, Mr Badger sat there with what I can only describe as a "minutes" book and scribbled notes, he explained at the conclusion of the hearing "he" would get the Masters order typed up and I would receive a copy, which in all fairness I received quite quickly..but if what I got a copy of is what was actually said .. then thats a question a barrister may well take on board.

 

Surely if Mr Badger is the one doing all the Orderes then he is going to protect his staff and his company first. This may explain how the "protection" is sorted out. Surely then what you are all getting is only a part of what happens and you are being prevented from obtaining "true justice". Sounds similar to Restrictive Practices.

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

so yet another one to be added for reform! and add to the list of "what is the alternative"

 

WD

[ploddertom]

Onlyme & Wonkeydonkey

 

My understanding of Interpleader Orders is that a HCEO may have seized goods/effects to which there is some uncertainty over ownership. The HCEO should be asking the Claimant if they either agree or dispute this claim. If they agree then any action is the dropped and any goods/effects returned to the person claiming them. If the Claimant disputes the ownership then the Interpleader goes ahead and a Master makes the decision.

 

There should therefore be listed on any documentation:

The Claimant/Creditor

The HCEO

The Defendant/Debtor

The Interpleader Claimant

 

It follows that any claim made by the Interpleader Claimant are served on all the other parties in the case + 1 copy for the Master. These are the people that should be attending any hearing. From what you both say it appears that neither of your Claimant/Creditors have any knowledge of these proceedings. Are the relevant papers being withheld. In WD's case it would seem he has costs awarded against the Claimant who if they deny any knowledge will possibly apply to have the Masters Order Set Aside thus denying him monies he has laid out to defend his good name.

 

PT

[ohitsonlyme]

Onlyme & Wonkeydonkey

 

My understanding of Interpleader Orders is that a HCEO may have seized goods/effects Or taken money to which there is some uncertainty over ownership. The HCEO should be asking the Claimant if they either agree or dispute this claim. If they agree then any action is the dropped and any goods/effects returned to the person claiming them. If the Claimant disputes the ownership then the Interpleader goes ahead and a Master makes the decision.

 

There should therefore be listed on any documentation:

The Claimant/Creditorlisted

The HCEO not listed

The Defendant/Debtor listed

The Interpleader Claimant llisted as the OC

 

 

It follows that any claim made by the Interpleader Claimant are served on all the other parties in the case + 1 copy for the Master. These are the people that should be attending any hearing. From what you both say it appears that neither of your Claimant/Creditors have any knowledge of these proceedings. They didnt know til I told them In WD's case it would seem he has costs awarded against the Claimant who if they deny any knowledge will possibly apply to have the Masters Order Set Aside thus denying him monies he has laid out to defend his good nameI am in the same position I therefore want the master to remove the protective clause and then I can continue my county court claim

 

PT

PT Both cases are similar my claimant /creditor was not aware of any proceedings nor in fact the effect of them.

The Bodger does have a draft order written in preparation to give to the master assuming that SF win the case but in my case they didnt win however theprotection clause is there and I wasnt aware of it as

A/ I wasnt given a copy of the draft before the master wrote on it to alter it and

B the order is then given back to the bodger to draw up/type which in my case also came quickly.

I had a very good relationship with my claimant before the recession, it is a large firm of solicitors and I am goiing to continue keeping them involved as I am sure they will eventually come on my side, But I first have to push them knowing that they are responsible.

They didnt knowI had won in the high court and were told that I hadnt by SF!!so they thought I was trying to bully them to get my SF costs back now that they know certain things they are beginnging to swing my way and they realise SF told them lies or not all the truth any way

 

In future cases we need to advise others to tell the OC to attend the hearing as it is them in the dock not SF!!

The next most important thing is that the hceo is made to provide evidence of costs not just a costs clerks interpretation of time spent which in my case was aload of old BS

the cost clerks workings had no relationship to the statment of costs that I paid in full in 10 days and this is another reason I am appealing I paid against a document that was defended with a made up document!! I blew holes in the statement of costs and should have had a much bigger award, again its not the money that is at stake here its the principle of how these hearings are run.

Edited January 2, 2010 by ohitsonlyme

[jimbo45]

Hi all

the REAL culprit of course is the inquitious taxation system (Council Tax) which doesn't bear ANY RELATION to the individual's ability to pay it.

 

Most sensible taxation policies are based on INCOME which is easily measured etc.

 

How in the world can they say just because my House has suddenly shot up in value that I can now "afford" to pay XXXX in council tax when my income has if anything actually DECREASED. Even if I were to move (and why should I have to) the new place would cost more too -- so no advantage.

 

Of course as more and more people find themseleves in this type of situation Councils get ever more desperate to "Collect" their tax and resort to these really BARBARIC and FEUDAL tax systems.

 

Fortunately more and more people are finding ways of fighting back - and if enough people make the Baliff's life a total misery a newer BETTER and FAIRER collection system can be put in place.

 

People would be a lot more sympathetic if EXTORTIONATE FEES, LIES and other BULLYING TACTICS were outlawed and the perpetrators severely PUNISHED with jail time too.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[welsh1]

I do not post very often,as i am more of an interested observer,but i have to say that HCE seems to give statements of fact,often correcting other posters bad advice,and is then attacked for doing this.

I do not want an argument with anyone,as i have said i am an observer more than an adviser,i will give advice if i know what i am talking about.

 

[qoute=tomtubbyI have to stick my neck out here and say that I agree with High Court Enforcer in that you CANNOT file a Form 4 Complaint against an HCEO.

 

A Form 4 Complaint is unique to Certificated Bailiffs ONLY.

[sea-sidelady]

Please refrain from personal insults. If it continues, I will close the thread.

[RaeUK]

I don't like the bickering that appears on this site from time to time. However, I appreciate that it's simply the result of human nature especially on such an emotive subject as bailiffs et al.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have chronic emphysema and am well and truly in the vulnerable category. I am weak and easily bullied. It wasn't that long ago I had a Christmas completely ruined by a testosterone fuelled knuckle-dragging a***hole of a bailiff. He terrified me, threatened me and completely scared me s***less. [Apols for the language but I want to make my feelings absolutely clear]. I had saved up for months to get my young niece and nephew presents. And when you're on a low income, living day to day, you'll understand just what a sacrifice that was. I went without many times. That swine cleaned me out. Took my last penny. I'm sorry, but I will state - without shame - that I'm crying as I type this. I don't like to hate people but I do hate that guy. I truly hope he rots in hell for his crimes.

This is why I bang on so much about the vulnerable.

That said, I have seen posts by both HCE and twonames to people who clearly are worse off than I, correctly advising them about being vulnerable. For that I credit them with some humanity.

Rae.

[wonkeydonkey]

There have indeed been some excellent debates within this post, positive and constructive. It has only been marred by un-sensitive and often rude comments from those seeking to defend their industry. "you owe it now pay it" seems to be their concensus of opinion, what would be more help to caggers would be the "perhaps"and "because" factor.

eg "Perhaps" you should question the way this bailiff/hceo has acted for they are not playing fair "because" they cannot add this fee to your debt they can only charge... "Perhaps" you should not allow them the right to enter your home "because" if you do they can follow up by breaking in....

"Perhaps" due to this bailiffs behaviour you should pay the claimant direct "because"it is unlawful for him to harass,intimidate or threaten you as it quite clearly states in the regulation xyz you will need to contact abc and bring it to their attention, send a strong letter you can find templates etc These are the posts giving constructive advice

I have been looking for but alas I cannot find.

Edited January 5, 2010 by wonkeydonkey

[seanamarts]

There have indeed been some excellent debates within this post, positive and constructive. It has only been marred by un-sensitive and often rude comments from those seeking to defend their industry. "you owe it now pay it" seems to be their concensus of opinion, what would be more help to caggers would be the "perhaps"and "because" factor.

eg "Perhaps" you should question the way this bailiff/hceo has acted for they are not playing fair "because" they cannot add this fee to your debt they can only charge... "Perhaps" you should not allow them the right to enter your home "because" if you do they can follow up by breaking in....

"Perhaps" due to this bailiffs behaviour you should pay the claimant direct "because"it is unlawful for him to harass,intimidate or threaten you as it quite clearly states in the regulation xyz you will need to contact abc and bring it to their attention, send a strong letter you can find templates etc These are the posts giving constructive advice

I have been looking for but alas I cannot find.

They cant say 'perhaps' and 'because', the reason why that is, is because it dosnt get them the money they want.

[spamheed]

Spamheed, you are confusing, perhaps your story with others, Bailiffs do the job, because its that, a job, doormen generaly become doormen because they like the image.

 

I know far more doormen/ wannabe doormen, than I know bailiffs.

You know more doormen than you know bailiffs? why?

wont the bigger bailiff boys play with you Twoheeds?

 

Is this based on your massive experience as a doorman/bailiff/ex navy seal/ex karate kid/ex ninja warrior etc, etc and so forth.

 

You espouse nothing but negativity and rubbish, a doorman without a badge can still obtain a CRB check and become a bailiff, a bailiff without a CRB cannot become a doorman.

 

The Door industry is monitored - Bailiffs are not

The Door Industry is registered - Bailiffs are not

The Door Industry has a national licencing body - Bailiffs do not

A Doorman who loses his licence cannot work in the industry - a bailiff will simply change the name on his/her application and reapply

The Door Industry has a clear set of rules and regulations -

 

So does the bailiff industry - but they don't apply because you're a bunch of lying, thieving bullies who can't follow even the simplest set of charges, or am i wrong and all of the complaints on here are made up and you have a right to apply unfair and unlawful charges?

 

Why do you do that by the way, what right do you and your kind have to apply your own made up charges against the vulnerable and defenceless

 

Fair point twonames.

 

You agree with him - enough said!!

Edited January 5, 2010 by spamheed

[Nintendo Pü]

I had a Christmas completely ruined by a testosterone fuelled knuckle-dragging a***hole of a bailiff. He terrified me, threatened me and completely scared me s***less. [Apols for the language but I want to make my feelings absolutely clear].

 

What we see on this forum are persons who are genuinely aggrieved by bailiffs, and this post is a classic example.

 

Bailiffs, and HCE included do say the majority of debts passed to them are blatant non payers, and we should all agree these should be tackled - lawfully.

 

It is widely accepted that many cases passed to a bailiff or HCEO are 'dead-on-arrival', meaning the case has little prospect being recovered, mainly because of gone-aways, inaccurate data, nulla-bona, debt not genuine, debtor pays creditor direct etc. It’s the debtors that do pay – including many posters here – are compensating the bailiffs and HCEOs for their losses in handling dead cases by charging disproportionately high, and unlawful fees.

 

HCE has given use a rare insight to the mindset of an HCEO, something not seen over often. He disagrees with the Lord Lucas findings on bailiff crime, but appears to agree with the Police own interpretation in that it is a civil matter. In the way he presented his view on this, it was as though HCEO’s have deluded themselves into genuinely believing that over-charging judgement debtors with high fees is perfectly all right – so he can make back the losses, or compensate himself for the dead cases who never pay.

 

HCE has also given us an idea of the mentality a High Court Enforcement Officer. I appreciate he doesn't speak for them all, but from the ones who comment on this forum, it is clear bailiffs readily bend the rules when setting their fees to make a gain. Some will even speak adversely against anyone on this forum who rebukes their comment on high fees or quotes legislation to the contrary.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Nintendo Pü

[sea-sidelady]

I feel I have no choice but to close this thread, as no constructive advice is now being given.

[spamheed]

On the contrary, between all of the name calling and denial of bailiffs unlawful activities there have been some great ideas put forward in line with the original posters question.

[wonkeydonkey]

This saddens me as there have been many excellent posts identifying what is wrong with the industry and equally what could be veiwed as constructive proposals to suggest an alternative.

[saintly_1]

Thread temporarily closed closed

[saintly_1]

I have unapproved several post ........... please keep posts civil or the thread will be closed perminantly

[pink_eeyore]

Are you saying there are corrupt officials awarding government contracts to their friends? or bailiffs companies are paying a kickback to an official in return for being awarded a contract?

 

Without a doubt! Westminster being the main culprit with their 'risk/reward' scheme which they openly requested proposals for in their tender for the current contract.

 

Biggest kickback wins!

[Nintendo Pü]

Wow, thats quite a sweeping statement.

 

If this is true, then it is beyond me any civil servant is willing to risk their career, their pension and a criminal record in return for giving a mate a public sector contract.

[pink_eeyore]

I'm saying they are doing it publicly as if there is nothing wrong in it and they are not the only ones.

 

Bailiff companies do not like doing it (and not just for the obvious reasons)but have no choice if they want to win tenders.

 

I would suggest that anyone who wants to 'out' this practice does an FOI request on the westminster bailiff tender submissions - tomtubby may already have this info.

[Nintendo Pü]

I dont think a FOI would reveal a kickback between a government entity and a priovate company, a clause in the legislation says a public authority has discretion to withold information that could be used in future criminal proceedings.

 

All an FOI would show is who is on the tender list, and the text of the contract with any bid & other permitted information requested in the letter.

 

Surely, if bailiff companies dont like paying kickback, then it can grass up its rivals that do.

[pink_eeyore]

You can request any tender submissions (from previously awarded contracts) - the onus is on the bailiff company to provide adequate reasons for omitting such information form a request.

 

Certain bailiff companies as a rule request other's submissions when they are unsuccessful! (after a period of time has elapsed).

[Nintendo Pü]

I dont think you can make a FOI request on a company, this is all about accessing information held by a public authority.

 

Deja Vu, I recall someone saying public authorities have a liability under the data protection act, even thought the legislation specifically excludes them

[tomtubby]

I'm saying they are doing it publicly as if there is nothing wrong in it and they are not the only ones.

 

Bailiff companies do not like doing it (and not just for the obvious reasons)but have no choice if they want to win tenders.

 

I would suggest that anyone who wants to 'out' this practice does an FOI request on the westminster bailiff tender submissions - tomtubby may already have this info.

 

I do have the Contract....all three ringbinders of them!!

 

The Contract is simply dreadful and allows Philips to charge fees that are NOT as laid doen by Parliament.

 

The MOST worrying part of the Contract is the part that deals with "pre-debt" recovery of a PCN. This is where Philips will pursue the "debt" BEFORE Westminster have applied for a Warrant of Execution. If payment is secured from the debtor this will SAVE Westminster the £5 "court registration fee" payable to TEC.

 

Without a Warrant, Philips of course are prohibited from charging ANY FEES at all.

 

However...if a person is contacted by Philips to demand payment of (for instance ) £500, how is that person to know whether or not Philips have a Warrant of Execution. What I can say... is that we have come across TOO MANY CASES where it has been established that NO warrant existed and they charged £500. Such cases have been brought to the attention of Westminster.

 

A question that needs to be asked is this:

 

If Philips were successful in getting the PCN;s paid without a warrant at "pre debt" stage and as they are prohibited from charging any fee.....HOW CAN THEY MAKE ANY MONEY ??

[Nintendo Pü]

 

A question that needs to be asked is this:

 

If Philips were successful in getting the PCN;s paid without a warrant at "pre debt" stage and as they are prohibited from charging any fee.....HOW CAN THEY MAKE ANY MONEY ??

 

They take their fee out of the money collected before paying it onto the authority.