Can I report bailiff for fraud??

[RaeUK]

Hi munchkette, glad to see you back.

Just reviewed the thread again and note there is nothing regarding your personal circumstances that I can deduce. Just wondering...

Best wishes

Rae.

[munchkette]

Hi Kelkou, i'm not really sure what you are asking or saying???

 

welsh1 when you say my word against his - in regards to what? I understand that is the case with the assault charge but can the judge say the same about the forced entry?

 

I am still very confused here and I don't seem to be getting any responses to my questions

[RaeUK]

Sorry to confuse you munchkette.

I don't know whether you are a single parent, working or not, health problems etc which would have a bearing on my advice. I tend to gravitate towards those who may fall into the vulnerable category of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

As there is a little bit of side tracking on your thread, you may wish to repeat any particular point you wish raise. That saves people having to plough back through all the posts.

Best wishes.

Rae.

Edited February 15, 2010 by RaeUK
typo

[welsh1]

 

welsh1 when you say my word against his - in regards to what? I understand that is the case with the assault charge but can the judge say the same about the forced entry?

 

I am still very confused here and I don't seem to be getting any responses to my questions

 

 

Hi Munchkette,

I was talking about the complaint you made to the courts,(form4)you will have written in your complaint stating what happened and why you are complaining,then a judge will contact the bailiff and ask him for a statement,once the judge has both of your statements he may,dismiss the complaint,or ask the bailiff to come to the court to explain his actions,and if he is still unsatisfied with the bailiffs response he could take his licence away.

 

What i was trying to say was that the judge can only make a decission on the facts put in front of him,so your word against his,it sounds callous but that is what it will boil down to.

Hope that clarifies things a bit:)

[munchkette]

So basically if the bailiff tries to claim that I let him in and he didn't assault me it will be his word against mine? Great!

 

I have no doubt he will try to make up some story to put himself in the clear. I can only hope the judge will find in my favour 'cos it is totally out of order that he could come to my house assault me, abuse his powers to get money out of me, insult me in my own home and then possibly walk off scot free.

 

 

The questions I would like help with are:

 

1. - Am I correct in thinking that the bailiff entered my property illegally by putting his foot in the door and forcing it open?

 

2. - Am I 100% certain on claiming he has defrauded me by misrepresenting his authority in order to obtain money and goods from me?

 

3. - The police have refused to progress the fraud allegation saying it doesn't fit their criteria for criminal prosecution, even though I explained it several times. If I am to complain to the IPCC what should I say? PlodderTom says to file a complaint of misfeasance - is that by the police or the bailiff (misfeasance).

 

I looked on the IPCC's website (after finding the correct one - originally got details on the climate report ) and I couldn't really see on there how I could complain about the fraud not being investigated. If anyone can help on this it would be most appreciated.

4. - With regards to the debit card chargeback am I likely to still be able to reclaim my money if the police won't investigate the fraud? I am taking the assault case forward so will have a crime no. for that.

Will they accept that the money was paid under duress following undue pressure from the bailiff who had misrepresented his authority?

[ploddertom]

So basically if the bailiff tries to claim that I let him in and he didn't assault me it will be his word against mine? Great!

 

I have no doubt he will try to make up some story to put himself in the clear. I can only hope the judge will find in my favour 'cos it is totally out of order that he could come to my house assault me, abuse his powers to get money out of me, insult me in my own home and then possibly walk off scot free.

 

 

The questions I would like help with are:

 

1. - Am I correct in thinking that the bailiff entered my property illegally by putting his foot in the door and forcing it open?

 

Yes - but he will claim otherwise

 

2. - Am I 100% certain on claiming he has defrauded me by misrepresenting his authority in order to obtain money and goods from me?

 

In your own mind yes - but he will claim otherwise

 

3. - The police have refused to progress the fraud allegation saying it doesn't fit their criteria for criminal prosecution, even though I explained it several times. If I am to complain to the IPCC what should I say? PlodderTom says to file a complaint of misfeasance - is that by the police or the bailiff (misfeasance).

 

Can't remember having said that at all - unless it was in the stuff I copied.

 

I looked on the IPCC's website (after finding the correct one - originally got details on the climate report ) and I couldn't really see on there how I could complain about the fraud not being investigated. If anyone can help on this it would be most appreciated.

4. - With regards to the debit card chargeback am I likely to still be able to reclaim my money if the police won't investigate the fraud?

 

I think to prove the fraud you would have to prove the "illegal" entry and if that was successful the payment that you made could well have been seen to have been under duress. As there are no witnesses I think you may be on dodgy ground.

 

I am taking the assault case forward so will have a crime no. for that.

Will they accept that the money was paid under duress following undue pressure from the bailiff who had misrepresented his authority?

 

You can only try

 

 

You said a while back he charged you a levy fee of £45 and charges of £189 - do you know what goods he levied on - apologies if you have said already but can't see it.

 

It may be that you have jumped the gun submitting the Form 4 as I believe Judges like to see if you have been through the Bailiff Company's complaints procedure first so don't be surprised if it is not acted upon. Only if he has "previous" for this type of action may it go any further.

 

PT

[munchkette]

He levied on pretty much anything he could see which to me was in excess of the money owed (approx £650 according to the council although the bailiff has this at £719 + fees coming to £955)

 

xbox 360, hi-fi stereo, blu-ray player, 46" lcd tv, PC speakers, digital camera, printer, 23" lcd monitor, mountain bike

 

The levy & attendance fees are listed against the total sum owed so I am not sure how much of that I can claim to be part of the £400 I paid.

 

In hindsight I should have asked the police who attended to eject him from my house. But I wasn't sure where I stood, although I did tell them he had forced his way in. They could have done more to find out about the situation instead of basically assisting this fraudster in going about his business!

 

Have I really jumped the gun with the form 4? I mean I really can't see what the bailiff co. could have done that would make me not want to still complain about this man. His behaviour was appalling - assaulting me, abusing me, illegally forcing his way in and misrepresenting his powers are all things that need to be reported to the court that certificated him and sooner rather than later.

[RaeUK]

Some things to bear in mind though. Firstly, at auction, items will only realise a fraction of their value. Auctioneers fees as well as the bailiffs fees would need to be deducted before anything went towards the debt. From what you've listed so far probably not too unreasonable. Perhaps you could post the levy just on the off chance excluded items have been levied against?

I'll draw the conclusion - from the list of levied items - you have a reasonable income and may not fall within the remit of vulnerable.

As mentioned, and as I understand things, it is always best to follow the normal complaints procedure to allow the company an opportunity to rectify their wrongs. However, how were you to know that?

Whilst it may well be a 'your word against his word' scenario due to lack of other witnesses, I'd suggest it is always worth pursuing a complaint. It may not do you any good per se, but if he's acted this way to you he will more than likely act this way against someone else.

Probably nothing else I can do for you and leave you in the capable hands of others better placed than I to assist.

Best wishes and good luck with everything.

Rae.

Edited February 16, 2010 by RaeUK
type o

[munchkette]

what do you mean by post the levy? I have listed all the items listed on it there isn't anything else. I saw them looking at my virgin set top box and thought maybe they might have listed that which would have been wrong as it remains the property of virgin media but they did not.

 

Currently I don't have any income as I am unemployed so I could ill afford to pay the £400 I did pay - that was actually meant to go towards my rent for this month. But it was either pay or have my things taken away.

 

I have allowed the company to 'rectify their wrongs' I have sent complaint letters to them, the council and lodged the form 4 complaint. All 3 were sent at the same time. In light of the actual complaint - assault etc. I don't see how this could possibly be resolved by the bailiff company alone - this is something that the certificate issuing court needs to know about. I'd understand if I was just disputing fees but it is more than that. If the bailiff co. offered me compensation would that mean I should not report the conduct of their officer to the certificating court? Surely that way bailiffs could just buy their way out of trouble. How are the courts ever to know if ppl don't report them?

 

There is nothing that the bailiff co. could offer me that would atone for being assaulted and insulted in my own home by their officer there are standards the officer is supposed to follow and he did not adhere to them.

Edited February 16, 2010 by munchkette

[RaeUK]

Munchkette, I appreciate you're upset and have gone through an unpleasant experience. Two points hunni.

Firstly try to relax a little as we meander through the maze to help you.

Secondly, remember a forum is a text based communications tool. It doesn't express emotion well and it's all too easy for me or you or tom cobley to get the wrong picture.

Thankyou for telling me you are on benefits. It was, ahem, one of the questions I asked earlier...

It does have a bearing and gives you some aid in your complaints.

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents are not law. But they are the standard bailiffs, councils and courts should be adhering to. :

 

Department for Constitutional Affairs - Enforcement - National Standards for Enforcement Agents

 

Those who might be considered vulnerable include the following:

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

 

The above list is not exclusive but a guide. Are there any other boxes you tick?

I italicise 'might' because unemployed people may well have a cache of hidden redundancy treasure. I suspect not in your case given your comments.

The unemployed could be classed as vulnerable because of the extra stress placed on already seriously restricted income. It is an argument for the debt to be returned by the bailiff. You need to include this information in any letters of complaint you make.

Rae.

[RaeUK]

what do you mean by post the levy? I have listed all the items listed on it there isn't anything else...

 

Just what was on the WPO. If what you posted was what they levied on then thats fine. As long as it all belongs to you and doesn't include items belonging to a child...

 

Sometimes they've been known to accidently levy beds and fridges and cookers and washing machines etc...

 

Rae.

Edited February 16, 2010 by RaeUK
type o

[ploddertom]

He levied on pretty much anything he could see which to me was in excess of the money owed (approx £650 according to the council although the bailiff has this at £719 + fees coming to £955)

 

You need to contact the Council ASAP to find out exactly how much the Liability Order was for and how much is till outstanding.

 

xbox 360, hi-fi stereo, blu-ray player, 46" lcd tv, PC speakers, digital camera, printer, 23" lcd monitor, mountain bike

 

Do you have any children and if so do the 2 items highlighted belong to them? Or do they belong to a relatives children who visit you on a regular basis?

 

 

PT

[High Court Enforcer]

Do you have any children and if so do the 2 items highlighted belong to them? Or do they belong to a relatives children who visit you on a regular basis?

PT

 

PT, you wouldnt be encouraging the OP to ficticiously make things up would you?....

[Fair-Parking]

Hello.....

 

Earth to High Court Enforcer.....

 

When can we expect an answer to my question in post 21? Page 2 post 1

[munchkette]

@PT no both the bike and the xbox are mine

 

To be fair do I really need to bother with the walking possession agreement seeing as it is invalid anyway?

 

I know the bailiff will try to claim he entered my house peacefully but it will certainly be interesting to hear his version of events on how he happened to enter my home.

 

Oh and that info on the complaint to the IPCC was from the info you posted about filing a chargeback.

Edited February 16, 2010 by munchkette

[ploddertom]

PT, you wouldnt be encouraging the OP to ficticiously make things up would you?....

 

As if

8-)

 

PT

[ploddertom]

@PT no both the bike and the xbox are mine

 

Shame but it was worth an ask

 

To be fair do I really need to bother with the walking possession agreement seeing as it is invalid anyway?

 

I know the bailiff will try to claim he entered my house peacefully but it will certainly be interesting to hear his version of events on how he happened to enter my home.

This is where the arguments begin as it all boils down to one word against another.

 

Oh and that info on the complaint to the IPCC was from the info you posted about filing a chargeback.

 

Ah - see where that was now, it relates to the Police Officer.

 

PT

[welsh1]

Hello.....

 

Earth to High Court Enforcer.....

 

When can we expect an answer to my question in post 21? Page 2 post 1

 

I seem to have spent a lot of time trying to show people the facts of bailiffs entering a property,but it seems showing a government web site is not enough,here is a bit more that i dug up while i was trying to find all the information.

 

The bailiff may enter an open door or open an unlocked door(Budd v Pyle [1846] 10 JP 203),having the authority by law to open the door in the ordinary way in which other persons may (Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72).

 

Can we please put this to bed,THEY WILL WALK IN WITHOUT BEING INVITED,saying anything else is miss informing all the caggers

[munchkette]

OK got my chargeback form from the card company - what should I put on it?

[Fair-Parking]

Welsh 1. I KNOW the law on this, however we are all waiting for the HCE to tell us his side of the story. If there is a simple answer then he really shouldn't have any problem telling us what it is.

 

Don't blame Fair Parking for the lack of resolution on this matter.

[RaeUK]

Can anyone help munchkette with her chargeback wording?

Rae

[wonkeydonkey]

Can anyone help munchkette with her chargeback wording?

Rae

 

Hi Rae

 

PT did wording for the chargeback on 1st page?

 

WD

[RaeUK]

Hi Rae

 

PT did wording for the chargeback on 1st page?

 

WD

 

 

Quite right, post 18!

 

In that case, can anyone help Rae with her reading???

 

Best wishes WD

Rae

[munchkette]

Can someone help me on an updated wording for my chargeback please?

 

The info PT provided is out of date and also the police will not investigate this as a fraud.

 

PT wrote:

The merchant applied undue pressure on me to obtain this money transfer for himself or another and defrauded me the consumer in fees that are not prescribed in law and committed an offence under Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 196, Section 2(1)(b)(i) and Section 4(1)©(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 and the police have given a crime number of XXXXXXX and the merchant declined several opportunities to reach an amicable resolve in this matter.

 

I spoke to the police they said Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 196, Section 2(1)(b)(i) has been withdrawn and is no longer valid.

[Fair-Parking]

Oh dear - police having trouble with the law again? What do they think they are employed to uphold? Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 has not so much been 'withdrawn' as incorporated into the Fraud Act 2006. They should have known that.

 

As for Section 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 being 'withdrawn' -when did that happen? Are your local police saying that it this alleged withdrawal of Section 2 now means it's legal to defraud somebody by the fraudster making a gain for himself?

 

Or is it more likely that the police are a) ignorant of the law? b) too apathetic to look it up? and c) to lazy to implement an investigation?

 

Back to the card game boys....