Form 4 Hearing. Can in house solicitor represent the bailiff???

[tomtubby]

Thanks TT

 

In the computerised age wouldn't you think that when an application is received all the info any Judge would need to grant/refuse the licence would be available to those processing the said application before it even got before the Judge?

 

The rumours you mention..are these being investigated?

 

WD

 

 

I believe that MOJ are aware.

 

Becuase of the new on line bailiff register it is HOPED that instances like the one that I have posted above will be rare, but as with the fees scale charged by bailiffs, I am sure that if they wanted to they would try to get around the certification problem and when the SIA become the new regulator in 2012 this should also make any deception like this rare.

[letsmakeamark]

Was this a jbw bailiff by any chance and one of mr wallers wallerites ?

Edited January 9, 2010 by letsmakeamark

[tomtubby]

Was this a jbw bailiff by any chance and one of mr wallers wallerites ?

 

You can rest assured that this does not relate to a bailiff or Director at JBW.

[High Court Enforcer]

hmm so it leaves me to think that my friendly bailiff has used a different court to get his certificate renewed because he may have thought that the judge who he used the last time may have not renewed it.

 

FYI, when a Bailiff starts working for a particular company and goes through his training the certificate is usually issued at the court nearest to the companies head office. If he leaves this company either to work for somebody else or become self employed he may elect to get his renewal at his local county court. Just though I'd point that out.

[tomtubby]

FYI, when a Bailiff starts working for a particular company and goes through his training the certificate is usually issued at the court nearest to the companies head office. If he leaves this company either to work for somebody else or become self employed he may elect to get his renewal at his local county court. Just though I'd point that out.

 

When a bailiff leaves his employment to go elsewhere the regulations state that he must "without delay" advise the court and a new certificate will be granted ( his bailiff bond expires as well).

 

Am I right that he would make this application to the court that is used by his new employer?

[seanamarts]

FYI, when a Bailiff starts working for a particular company and goes through his training the certificate is usually issued at the court nearest to the companies head office. If he leaves this company either to work for somebody else or become self employed he may elect to get his renewal at his local county court. Just though I'd point that out.

FYI he works for the same employer, said bailiff got certificate at a court no where near the head office who employs him. reapplied for certificate at another court in his area again no where near his employers head office.

Only reason, I can see why he didnt renew at the court where he got a telling off by the judge and subsequently told him she may not renew his certificate because of his conduct was because he was afraid that the judge was going to carry out her threat NOT to renew his certificate.

[ploddertom]

I think application to renew Certificates should be made at the "original" Court they applied through. If for whatever reason they need to change Court then application should be made first to "original" Court to de-register and have the appropriate docs stamped as suitable or not & then reapply to "new" Court where docs then have to be re-submitted for examination prior to new Certification. Any one found pulling someones plonker should be "suspended" pending an investigation - this to be at the Bailiff's expense and if found to be in the clear any fee reimbursed.

 

Part of the problem I see is that a lot of the Judicial process is "frightened" of new technology as a lot of the goings on are too archaic.

 

PT

[tomtubby]

FYI he works for the same employer, said bailiff got certificate at a court no where near the head office who employs him. reapplied for certificate at another court in his area again no where near his employers head office.

Only reason, I can see why he didnt renew at the court where he got a telling off by the judge and subsequently told him she may not renew his certificate because of his conduct was because he was afraid that the judge was going to carry out her threat NOT to renew his certificate.

 

Interestingly, I have also seen a few examples of this same situation myself and my personal thoughts are the same as yours.

[seanamarts]

Interestingly, I have also seen a few examples of this same situation myself and my personal thoughts are the same as yours.

Im just thinking here, if this is the case and the new court does not know of this bailiffs record, have i a duty to inform the court of this bailiffs previous conduct. I am surprised that his employers kept him on as they lost the contract for this area with the council.

[letsmakeamark]

This thread is more than meets the eye.

[tomtubby]

Good point. Under the Distress for Rent Rules the MOJ (or DCA as it was then) nominated certain Courts within the UK and Wales to have Jurisdiction to hear application for a Bailiff Certificate. From memory around 60 Courts have jurisdiction. (in the same way that only certain courts can hear applications for Bankruptcy).

 

Although there is this number of Courts, only a few Courts are actually used.

 

As an example, Equita mainly use Northampton and does Newlyn Ltd with Marston Group/JBW and Task using Clerkenwell and Shoreditch etc etc.

 

There is nothing wrong with the bailiff using a different court .....BUT...

 

A couple of months ago, a bailiff from a large company used a different Court to "renew his certificate" . The "new court" had not received the file from the previous court ( error by the court) and were therefore unaware that the previous court had cancelled his certificate following a Form 4 Complaint and accordingly granted him a "new certificate". He then continued working for the very same company where a complaint had been made against him ( that resulted in his certificate being revoked).

 

When this was discovered (my lips are sealed!!) the new Court ordered the bailiff to attend before the Judge and at the hearing his certificate was declared "void". The effect of this being that all levies upon goods and fees charged by that bailiff in the 11 months since he had obtained his "new certificate" were therefore unlawful.

 

This enables debtors to reclaim any fees that they may have paid to this particular bailiff and naturally to recover any goods that had been removed. I am unsure as to whether this would mean a claim against the bailiff, his company or the local authority. This needs to be looked into, in particular because the Judge had declared the new certificate "void" ( in other words that it had never been given).

 

The Judge was highly critical of the bailiff, but even more critical of a Director of the company who had apparently provided a reference to support the bailiff in his application for a "new certificate".

 

Crucially, the Director had apparently stated in the reference that "we have not received any complaints concerning his working practises" .........this was despite the fact that the court files revealed correspondence that had been sent to the Director concerning another Form 4 Complaint in 2007 to which the Judge ordered the complaint to "remain on the court file" and also further documents between the Director and the Court relating to the Form 4 complaint in 2008 that resulted in the bailiff having his certificate cancelled.

 

The Judge confirmed that:

"In light of these letters, there is a strong prima facie case that the statement made by Mr xxxx was not just incorrect but deliberately false and that this would appear to be a serious contempt of court".

 

Whether the Director had been in Court for the two Form 4 Complaints against his companies bailiff is not known.

 

 

Not surprisingly, I have had a number of messages since the above post asking for details of the company, the bailiff or the Director.

 

Due to the seriousness of the complaints the Judge ordered that both the Director and bailiff can appeal to the High Court but that any appeal must be made within 21 days.

 

I do not know whether any appeals have been lodged and will need to make enquiries.

[letsmakeamark]

This looks like a big thing.