Some very questionable charging from Bailiff

[spj]

MPs? I trust them even less than bailiffs. The overriding decision needs to be made by the court or by the LGO. Anyone else isn't legally binding.

 

Just need to know if I should be waiting to hear from the magistrates court or crack right on with my reply.

 

Another slip up in their letter: "if the value of the goods cover the cost of execution, then the removal is lawful." admitting they only want to cover their costs already, but then they follow up with "If they cannot remove good of sufficient value to clear the debt then... [bit about committal to prison]". They openly admit they only need to cover the costs of execution and yet if they can't cover my debt, (they have just said they won't because they don't have to) I could be sent to prison. This is a very direct threat from a group of people bending the law in a very serious way.

 

The general bullish tactics are to be expected, it's called 'distress' for a reason. But a threat like this is one step too far. Desperately hoping TT is still interested and chips in her reply soon.

Edited October 10, 2011 by spj

[brassnecked]

SPJ If you have made every attempt to pay, and are paying in a n affordable amount using their online system, it could be very woeful for them in court, as it puts you in the "Can't Pay" not the "Won't Pay" category, so commital to prison by the council would likely be regarded as vexatious, BTW tomtubby is a Lady,

[1Loretta]

MPs? I trust them even less than bailiffs. The overriding decision needs to be made by the court or by the LGO. Anyone else isn't legally binding.

 

Just need to know if I should be waiting to hear from the magistrates court or crack right on with my reply.

 

Another slip up in their letter: "if the value of the goods cover the cost of execution, then the removal is lawful." admitting they only want to cover their costs already, but then they follow up with "If they cannot remove good of sufficient value to clear the debt then... [bit about committal to prison]". They openly admit they only need to cover the costs of execution and yet if they can't cover my debt, (they have just said they won't because they don't have to) I could be sent to prison. This is a very direct threat from a group of people bending the law in a very serious way.

 

The general bullish tactics are to be expected, it's called 'distress' for a reason. But a threat like this is one step too far. Desperately hoping TT is still interested and chips in her reply soon.

 

I didn't suggest trusting an MP that would be a step too far! I just meant to make another 'official' record which will help you in the long run,

[spj]

Ok this is my 'first reaction' response.

 

I've still not heard from the Magistrates court so will just continue and start forwarding everything to the LGO. On a successful ruling, I will then go through my MP to see how we can go to getting some tighter restrictions on bailiffs.

 

My reply

[ShinySheen]

Looks pretty good to me ......why are you sending this to the Magistrates Court or am i missing somthing ?

[spj]

Because it's the magistrates court who issue the liability order, grant the warrant of execution and licence the bailiffs to do their job. Using only reliable sources, some say I should complain to the magistrates court, others say I should complain to the LGO, so I'm doing both.

[hallowitch]

so you have sent a form 4 complaint to the court concerning the bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate

[spj]

Not yet, this is a Regulation 46 Complaint as advised by Ploddertom