Discussions regarding a Regulatory Body/Complaints procedure CONSULTATION

[MARTIN3030]

This thread is now open for discussion

Edited March 11, 2012 by citizenB

[tomtubby]

The matter of a regulatory body for the bailiff and enforcement industry is of vital importance and it should be noted that the Consultation does not include provisions for establishing an independent regulator.

 

According to the Consultation paper; any regulation should “transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent" and targeted only at cases where “action is needed”. However, the Ministry of Justice also state that the Government is ”committed to freeing up business from red tape” and wants to avoid“unnecessary regulation” and finally, they consider that:

 

 

“independent regulation would impose unnecessary burdens on business” !!!!

 

The Governments preferred choice of a regulatory body had been the Security Industry Authority (SIA) but; on 14 October 2010 it was announced that the SIA would no longer be an NDPB (Non-Departmental Public Body) and that there would be a "phased transition to a new regulatory regime" for the private security industry. This is still in the early stages and is not anticipated to be operational until after the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act is implemented.

 

On the subject of a regulator, the Consultation includes two separate submissions from the British Parking Association which MoJ consider would benefit from “further scrutiny”.

 

Copies of both proposals can be read on pages 141 - 146 of the Consultation.

 

 

The argument given by the BPA that they should be a regulator is that they “share common problems and would provide economies of scale”.

 

However the consultation does states that a regulatory body would “require primary legislation for the setting up of a new body and public funding.

 

Under Paragraph 161, MoJ state that although a number of parties have called for a statutory independent regulator they “do not consider that this is appropriate at this time” and instead; that they will “evaluate and monitor the certification and complaints process” covered in Chapter 8 to gather evidence whether further regulation is necessary.

[tomtubby]

The Consultation Paper on the proposed reform of the bailiff industry consists of 203 pages !!!! In the following Newsletter that I have written for Consumer Action Group I have provided an outline of the important parts of the Consultation:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?857-Newsletter-March-2012-Special-Focus-Edition-MOJ

[brassnecked]

That they seriously consider the BPA as a fit and proper body, is ludicrous, An independent Regulator to whom complaints can be made is an absolute, otherwise the ststus quo of uncertainty will remain.

[tomtubby]

On the day that the revised National Standards was released, the government also updated the advice on the justice.gov website and of vital importance is that they also updated the information on the Form EX 345 where they now advise the public that they face a risk of being found liable for court fees in the event that a Judge dismisses a Form 4 Complaint !!!

 

Although this has been known for a very long time, there has to be a correct and FAIR route where complaints may be made.

 

One point that readers need to be aware of with the British Parking Association (BPA) is that they cannot in any way be "independent" and this is because the vast majority of local authorities and most bailiff companies are members of the BPA.

[Notyetavet]

Once again we, as a group, are being corralled into an invidious position because we, as a group, have accepted the lies being offered – by the mouth-pieces for the Ministry of Justice – as being offered in good faith. The facts betray the woolly sinecure as a nefarious scandalous lie.

I offer my sincerest best wishes to S***** and her family. Through her and the perpetuation of the intimidation she has had to endure over recent years, we can see the falsehood of their - the MoJ - position. Or can we? Would the MoJ to be sincere, then the mass of evidence we gave to the MoJ would have resulted in at least one prosecution, for criminal activity ranging from fraud to Corporate Homicide, against a sub unit of the MoJ, namely the money grabbing Bailiff Industry. Being part of that organisation makes the MoJ liable under the law of Vicarious Liability, which is why they have squirmed, doing everything to divert attention from their responsibility.

Making useless comment on recommendations that have been in place for ten years is giving blessing to this charade of legalisation of an illegal position. The swift manoeuvre by Christine Sharples exemplifies my distrust of the MoJ and its lap dogs in placating an already insulted and discriminated against group of individuals. The laws of assault, fraud and more serious crimes have been and continue to be just a talking shop for senile politicians, a million miles from the truth of every day affairs.

Each and every contribution by genuine victims of this dastardly industry just highlights the gulf that becomes more insurmountable as time progresses. I have taken this from http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.com/2012/03/moj-fit-for-purpose.html

 

The MoJ called to London a group of victims of Bailiff illegality, promised to listen to them and promised to close the loop-hole that allows massive and now rich bailiff companies to obstruct, break and completely ignore the laws that govern the ordinary citizen.

It appears that Ken Clark is getting it wrong on everything from RAPE to the MURDER of a VETERAN. Our MP's are still unsuitably silent on these illegal actions and are showing the backbone that pacifists showed to this nation just before WWII. Every excuse under the Sun is being offered and now even the MoJ staff are abandoning their posts, like Italian cruise ship captains, to get more money from Bailiff companies for their expertise.

If you walk down any street and walk into the doggie dooh, you tread it all over your best carpet. This is what the MoJ is doing with the law, rights and legitimacy of ordinary peoples legal rights. Dr Pinto-Duschinsky (The Bill of Right Commission) has experienced what others from the Hillsborough Families to the relatives of Andy Miller are enduring with this insidious sinecure.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Notyetavet
protect privacy

[tomtubby]

The Consultation Paper on the proposed reform of the bailiff industry consists of 203 pages !!!!

In the following Newsletter that I have written for Consumer Action Group I have provided an outline of the important parts of the Consultation:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?857-Newsletter-March-2012-Special-Focus-Edition-MOJ

[comebackjimmy]

Proper, impartial and strict regulation of the industry is a must.

 

The assertion that regulation will only impose red tape on businesses is nonsense in the case of the bailiff industry. In most industrial/commercial scenarios both parties contract with each other and it can be argued that to some degree they should be allowed to get on with it. But in this case the debtor has no choice in the matter. The bailiff has been given the upper hand by force of law. As such their actions MUST be regulated. They should not be treated as regular businesses, but as bodies contracted to carry out a difficult but necessary public service.

[Notyetavet]

When I saw that most organisation belonged to the BPA I knew I automatically would have inroads into the inner sanctums and could manipulate matters my way because I was born in a farmhouse with Pigs and some of my oldest friends were pig farmers before Swine Fever wiped their stocks out. Sadness ensued when I discovered I was looking at the wrong Institutions. I knew I would get no-where with the Paras as was never in that illustrious regiment even though I have done over a hundred combat jumps. Whatever this secretive BPA is, like ALL organisations, it will never take seriously the complaints of outside malcontents irrespective the veracity of their position.

What is wrong with taking a complaint to a small claims court, if the sum involved is under say £10K, placing before a learned person with training and independent view on how the law should be administered, with the arbiter the power to recommend legal sanctions against a miscreant body?

I am certain then that the pseudo tuff bailiff who produces a false warrant at an address long since vacated by a debtor would do their homework/groundwork before threatening the innocent victim. An assault is described as an action 'sufficient to instil fear' in a victim and there is nothing more frightening than having a burly cop lookalike knocking at your door and threatening to take goods from a profoundly disabled child - as happened in Lancashire.

Politicians, police and the bailiff industry are all shying away from the reality and facts of their collective responsibilities.

[ploddertom]

As the majority of debt owed is for Government Taxes in one shape or another i doubt whether we would ever see a truly independent arbitrator.

 

PT

[Deadwood]

As the majority of debt owed is for Government Taxes in one shape or another ..................

 

PT

 

Or pseudo taxes, fee generating government [problem]s of one sort or another.

 

Ken Clarke is of course a lawyer, a barrister and QC to be exact so he isn't going to cut the flow to the trough is he?

 

As I've said in another thread the legal profession had a vested interest in keeping the bailiff and HCEO gravy train going. They view debtors as **** and courts as the pinnacle of justice, many HCEO's are solicitors if it wasn't already realised. The legal system in the UK is a crooked as it could be, the adversarial system favours the establishment and wealthy to the detriment of the poor.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Deadwood

[tomtubby]

My 2nd Newsletter dedicated to the subject of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents was released today:

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert. com/showthread.php?t=3846425& highlight=bailiff

[tomtubby]

As I've said in another thread the legal profession had a vested interest in keeping the bailiff and HCEO gravy train going.

 

 

You are so right !!!

 

Until I am proved otherwise, I am most certainly of the belief that the government "side "with the bailiff industry and consider that all people who fall into arrears with council tax etc are "refusing" to pay...

[Notyetavet]

Ken Clarke is of course a lawyer, a barrister and QC to be exact so he isn't going to cut the flow to the trough is he?.

 

But not all lawyers made a fortune by selling cigarettes to children!!!!

[Clavis]

As you doubtlessly know, the current situation in the United Kingdom is that when a party purportedly defaults on a mortgage, loan facility or similar, the aggrieved party, issues one warning and then generally after one month, issues a default notice which is registered at one or more of the central registries, an example being Experian.

The purportedly aggrieved party having undertaken this action is under no legal obligation to follow up their action in the courts and they may leave the matter in abeyance.

This frequently leaves the 'borrower' in a position where they have to instigate an action in the County or High Court to resolve the matter and so clear their name. The bringing of such action is now especially difficult as the resources of legal aid are no longer available except in the rarest circumstances.

Even when successful, the notice concerning the default remains on the books of the central registry for a period of six years unless it is removed by the aggrieved party.

Recently, there has arisen the habit of re-issuing default notices before the end of the limitation period, a six year arbitrary term, thus reinstating and prolonging the original claim, again without reference to due law.

On occasion, debt collection agencies have been marking debtors credit files; possibly without properly assigned debts or armed with 'sold on debt'; they have been changing the date of the debt to the date they purchased the debt and thereby falsifying the initial start date of the registration on the central agencies books so defying the Statute of Limitations.

The problem may be compounded by the facility now offered by the central registries of 'no footprint', so one has no idea as to who has accessed personal data thus ignoring the Data Protection Act.

There is a prevalence for lenders; without due care; to scatter default notices like confetti, to knowingly use fear and intimidation, thus obviating their own responsibilities.

In the United Kingdom there are thousands; if not tens of thousands; of people who have fallen foul of this ignominious facility of default registration thereby disenfranchising a large segment of the populace.

The matter can be further complicated in the High Court when the plaintiff is of limited means or is not armed with ATE (after the event) insurance because counsel for the defence; at the initial court hearing; merely states that the plaintiff has no means of paying the costs of the case should they lose and the judge will then generally strike out the action.

The days when a 'litigant in person' could go to the High Court and plead their case are now gone, that is unless they possess substantial assets. Further, it is most unlikely that any 'litigant in person' would be able to access ATE insurance.

So there is no redress for a person of limited means to action a party in the High Court unless assisted by Pro Bono or CFA (no win, no fee) help and our solicitors/barristers rarely work on these principles.

 

Possible relevant examples of four previous cases:

 

In Kapohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996)

The claimant was awarded £5,500, the amount being £1,000 for the damage caused by the default and £4,500 being the value of the default. Lord Justice Evans said at page 124

"The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

 

In King v British Linen and Co (1897)

 

In Wilson v United Counties Bank (1919)

 

In Richard Durkin v DSG Retail and HFC Bank (2007)

[brassnecked]

I concur with your premise, Clavis, I see a potential for further harm to innocent parties when these bottom feeders who have bought statute barred debt, disadvantaging someone as the name is similar and they lived in the same area not necessarily the same address of the actual debtor, who may well have moved on or even died. It becomes more of a problem if the falsified dates become a basis to initiate enforcement with a dubious CCJ, for this actually legally unenforceable debt, using Bailiffs/HCEO.