Secretly filmed baillif officer - shocking behaviour

[itsacroissant]

Is there any history of bailliffs still coming and taking goods once a payment plan has been set up by the council? the help line merely saying it's unlikely but not impossible is worrying and the fact that bristow & sutor have it in for us doesn't bode well.

[Cinammon]

Wow those videos are shocking! Wish I'd seen her face when she realised you were recording her!! How you managed to stay so calm, I don't know! I hope she gets sacked!

[ploddertom]

Is there any history of bailliffs still coming and taking goods once a payment plan has been set up by the council? the help line merely saying it's unlikely but not impossible is worrying and the fact that bristow & sutor have it in for us doesn't bode well.

 

There is a good chance they will go out of their way to be obstructive and make you default on any payments, examples are:

not sending you details of how to pay

not sending you details of when to pay

making payments days weekends and bank holidays

the length of time any payment takes to reach their account.

General consensus is to pay at least 7 days before any payment is due. Chase them up for any info you do not enough, each time you do this copy the Council in and ask they put it on your record for advice only.

 

To force entry for any valid levy following peaceful entry the Bailiff has to:

gain the permission of the Authority AND if they agree

get a Court Order from the Magistrates - very rarely given - AND if that is agreed

must write to you giving you a date and time of attendance.

As you will be paying none of that above will stand any test that you are wilfully refusing to pay.

 

If you really want to p*** them off big style totally ignore them and pay the Council direct either online or via their automated phone line. Even though they have tricked their way in and can say they have had peaceful entry does not permit them just to turn up and demand entry, if they do there is an Anglo Saxon expression that comes to mind. Mind I suspect after their last performance they may be a little more circumspect next time.

 

PT

[brassnecked]

"my girlfriend is incredibly worried that they will still force there way into the property, as they legally have the right to now since I let the woman in yesterday"

No she cannot force her way in even with a levy, as to attend to remove goods she must give you notice in writing of a date and time. abd the council MUST give her permission and if they take your complaint seriously she is cruising between Jack and some doggie doo, and Jack has left town.

 

She cannot just bring locksmiths, Godzilla, The Hammer Of Thor, to break down the door, send you to jail, or anything else, especially as you will be paying the amount agreed to the council directly to them using their online payment system, and printing off the receipts.

 

If she is stupid enough to return, and the council don't sort her, you film her again and post it to youtube and send copies with another Formal Complaint to CEO MP and the others.

[hallowitch]

can you please list the goods levied

[brassnecked]

If you post up what she has levied the levy can be checked to see if she has "accidentally" levied on exempt items, therefore nullifying it.

[itsacroissant]

Hi, sorry for lack of updates - am really busy at the moment but will be dealing with it as comprehensively as I can over the weekend. All the sympathy, suggestions and advice given to me on here have made this whole thing so much easier to deal with. I think together with the hard evidence we can make sure things like this don't happen again - at the very least from this individual bailliff. I'm so glad I recorded it!

[gstanny]

any more news

[SURFBOY]

Any more updates on this yet?

[Tingy]

A word of caution in this. Be careful how widely you allow copies of those videos to go. If I were you I'd recall as many as possible.

 

They are seriously strong, incontrovertable evidence which could well lead to her dismissal. However, plastering them all over You Tube and Facebook will serve only to hinder your case and give her several avenues to pursue at getting back at you. Have you checked the law on filming people and publishing it to third parties without their consent? You need to be careful.

 

I'm not trying to be a killjoy. I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to a rather sensationalist thread. Use the film to get justice at the right time and in the right place, otherwise keep it to yourselves.

[jonjokes12]

having done a bit of reading myself on the above, i would strongly suggest you get advise regarding this, as from the few bits i managed to read it seemed to suggest it was illegal to film someone, even if on your own property unless warning was given, i.e a sign on your house saying that cameras were in use.

 

Like i said i only read this on a few goolged links but i would definately seek legal advice as you dont want to land yourself in court for publishing videos without consent.

[queensclose]

having done a bit of reading myself on the above, i would strongly suggest you get advise regarding this, as from the few bits i managed to read it seemed to suggest it was illegal to film someone, even if on your own property unless warning was given, i.e a sign on your house saying that cameras were in use.

 

Like i said i only read this on a few goolged links but i would definately seek legal advice as you dont want to land yourself in court for publishing videos without consent.

 

i think a lot of companies would be in court if that was true. and a lot of videos removed from youtube.

[spamheed]

having done a bit of reading myself on the above, i would strongly suggest you get advise regarding this, as from the few bits i managed to read it seemed to suggest it was illegal to film someone, even if on your own property unless warning was given, i.e a sign on your house saying that cameras were in use.

 

Like i said i only read this on a few goolged links but i would definately seek legal advice as you dont want to land yourself in court for publishing videos without consent.

 

 

This is entirely incorrect and has been covered on many other sites. You do not have to notify anyone of CCTV or videoing on your own property.

 

This lump needs to be put firmly back in her box before she attempts to dominate other people "she doesn't like"

[jonjokes12]

may well be incorrect

According to the Data Protection Act, section 36, there is an exemption. This section states that if the recording is made inside the data controller’s (person making the recording) own home then the person making the recording is entitled to do so. The person making the recording also does not need to inform those that he or she is recording the meeting or the fact that they are actually being recorded. The person making the recording also does not have to give a copy to those recorded if they were to request a copy.

[Tingy]

Totally agree with the above regarding the DPA, but have you also read what it says about its distribution to third parties? This is the bit I was cautioning about, hopefully totally in the protective interests of the OP.

[jonjokes12]

Dr Chris Pounder, a data protection specialist at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the DPA has an exemption in section 36 that applies when recordings like this are used for domestic purposes. This exemption excludes all of the data protection principles and rights, and applies, for example, when parents take their video cameras to record their children's performance in a school play.

But, he said, as soon as the recording was published online it is ineligible for the "'domestic purposes" exemption because of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in a case involving Mrs Bodil Lindqvist in Sweden.

[jonjokes12]

taken from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/22/baby_battle_dpa_exemption/

[Tingy]

So unless I'm misreading it, this reinforces exactly what I said. For personal use it is fine, but once distributed to a third party those exemption rights are forfeited and the OP has acted other than in accordance with the law.

 

I despise bailiffs with a passion and just wish I'd picked up on this thread earlier. However, while the bailiff is definitely in the wrong, she could also counter sue for a serious breach of the DPA, especially if it is now on You Tube and Facebook, hence my original suggestion last night to try to recall it asap.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Tingy

[brassnecked]

Op can pull it from youtube quite easily

[gstanny]

nothing illegal about filming a crime ,and putting it on national tv if you wished. the person being filmed loses there rights. roughe traders,crime watch, police camera action etc, this ***** needs showing for what she is.

Edited May 21, 2011 by silverfox1961
please refrain from personal insults

[Tingy]

Would you like to give a link to the relevant legislation for the above? Once in the hands of the police then things may well change. What crime do you believe the bailiff has committed? She has certainly gone against a Code of Conduct, but that is not a crime.

 

All I'm trying to do is protect the OP and give them the best chance possible of achieving justice with this evidence.

[brassnecked]

Would you like to give a link to the relevant legislation for the above? Once in the hands of the police then things may well change. What crime do you believe the bailiff has committed? She has certainly gone against a Code of Conduct, but that is not a crime.

 

All I'm trying to do is protect the OP and give them the best chance possible of achieving justice with this evidence.

 

If it isn't a crime, but a breach of guidelines the bailiff and the company will be subjected to much public odium and unwanted attention from the likes of MP's Watchdog, and others regarding their activities, if they make a big fuss and start action to pull the videos down imho. It is difficult to apply the lindvquist ECJ judgment with certainty here, imho as it is in regard to a child protection case, but if the bailiff company tried litigation, a "Public interest" based justification may well be an adequate defence, as the behaviour in itself is indefensible.

 

BUT I am with you on gaining the right and best resolution to this sorry situation for the OP, as the bailiff is way out of order, and would likely become a victim herself if she called on the "wrong person" and acted in that manner.

 

I think it is obvious that the behaviour shown is probably her usual "modus operandi" and she tries to intimidate and bully people who may be vulnerable into paying more than they can afford, even to the level of taking all the money needed to buy food fuel and essentials.

[Tingy]

I'm totally with you there brassnecked. In my personal opinion, acting in what I believe to be the best interests of the OP, the clips should be taken down for now until they have pursued a complaint through the correct channels. After this, then by all means broadcast them publicly, but in the knowledge that you may (or may not) be asked to account for doing so at a later date.

 

The strength of this evidence is such that it should be handled with care. To my mind this means taking care an acting quickly on what is there, and taking care how it is published. While it is wrong to share it with a third party, I believe the offence of publishing to an indeterminable audience is much more serious. If you notice in the papers, it is never the person who leaks the information who is punished, it is the publisher of that information. The same would apply here to my mind.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Tingy

[brassnecked]

Yes Tingy, I think looking at how a case against the bailiff may develop, including at some stage the certificating court calling her to account, the videos should be pulled until any use of them as evidence in any investigation is complete. Even though there is nothing libellous or defamatory to character as the actions speak for themselves, their possible usage as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing means a temporary takedown for now.

[hallowitch]

I see the the op has removed the videos