Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[Annette1973]

That will be me come November because of the 365 day limit to receive ESA CB... my hubby works, so I have worked paid my contributions and gonna be thrown on the scrap heap...thanks alot Mr Cameron..

 

Sorry to hear that, I do know what you mean. My husband and I have always worked and now we're in this situation we are made to jump through hoops just to get a few measly quid.

[brassnecked]

That will be me come November because of the 365 day limit to receive ESA CB... my hubby works, so I have worked paid my contributions and gonna be thrown on the scrap heap...thanks alot Mr Cameron..

 

It is a situation that will become all too common with people on JSA also, as the cuts bite.

[Annette1973]

Update! I received a letter from RR this morning attempting to exonerate themselves. The gist of the letter is that they are claiming that they are allowed to collect on debts that are in dispute, they are allowed to send uncertified bailiffs if an account has a levy on it (the levy they have on our account is invalid as we no longer have the shop), they are stating that they used a firm manner but were neither intimidating, harassing or threatening and are claiming that it was I who was aggressive, they are also stating that there is no evidence against them (I think that they are in for a shock as we have some camera footage plus some independent witnesses) and they are stating that the two bailiffs in question are now on report and that we should basically be happy to leave it at that. They are also claiming that trespass laws do not apply to bailiffs. I think that they need to remember that the police were present through most of the ordeal and were not very happy with the bailiffs misrepresenting their powers to us and them. Thoughts anyone?

[wonkeydonkey]

Well lets just say the replying to that would give me a great deal of pleasure lol.

 

WD

[caledfwlch]

Update! I received a letter from RR this morning attempting to exonerate themselves. The gist of the letter is that they are claiming that they are allowed to collect on debts that are in dispute, they are allowed to send uncertified bailiffs if an account has a levy on it (the levy they have on our account is invalid as we no longer have the shop), they are stating that they used a firm manner but were neither intimidating, harassing or threatening and are claiming that it was I who was aggressive, they are also stating that there is no evidence against them (I think that they are in for a shock as we have some camera footage plus some independent witnesses) and they are stating that the two bailiffs in question are now on report and that we should basically be happy to leave it at that. They are also claiming that trespass laws do not apply to bailiffs. I think that they need to remember that the police were present through most of the ordeal and were not very happy with the bailiffs misrepresenting their powers to us and them. Thoughts anyone?

 

A short email asking them if they do realise you have camera footage of much of what happened, and would they like to alter their letter?

[old bill]

As per usual, a bailiff company spews forth a load of bovine excrement. These scumbags breached the Public Order Act 1986 by engaging in conduct that caused alarm, distress or harassment. They are lucky not to have been arrested. As far as their allegations about your demeanour go, do they realise that by making these allegations, they are hanging themselves good and proper? You have very damning evidence, both on your phonecam and the eye-witness accounts of independent witnesses. As for the comment about trespass laws not applying to bailiffs, the moment a bailiff or HCEO acts in contravention of the warrant or writ they purport to act under, their legal authority flies out of the window and they become trespassers and can be forcibly removed. The main problem with bailiff and HCEO companies is that they are advised by legal professionals who are not familiar with the law in a wider sense. By this, I refer to the Criminal Law. These legal professionals pander to the bailiff and HCEOs companies and tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. With regard to the criminal damage to your daughter's car, have a word with the woman police sergeant who attended regarding applying to your local magistrate's court for a warrant for the arrest of the bailiff who caused the damage. I would think the sergeant will relish the opportunity to execute such a warrant.

[brassnecked]

Old bill I agree these "legal advisors dot "i's2 and cross "t's" as far as civil law is concerned, but remain flippant and ignorant of the criminal nature of some bailiff and HCEO transgressions, that can get them a spell in pokey if they are not too careful

[Annette1973]

As per usual, a bailiff company spews forth a load of bovine excrement. These scumbags breached the Public Order Act 1986 by engaging in conduct that caused alarm, distress or harassment. They are lucky not to have been arrested. As far as their allegations about your demeanour go, do they realise that by making these allegations, they are hanging themselves good and proper? You have very damning evidence, both on your phonecam and the eye-witness accounts of independent witnesses. As for the comment about trespass laws not applying to bailiffs, the moment a bailiff or HCEO acts in contravention of the warrant or writ they purport to act under, their legal authority flies out of the window and they become trespassers and can be forcibly removed. The main problem with bailiff and HCEO companies is that they are advised by legal professionals who are not familiar with the law in a wider sense. By this, I refer to the Criminal Law. These legal professionals pander to the bailiff and HCEOs companies and tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. With regard to the criminal damage to your daughter's car, have a word with the woman police sergeant who attended regarding applying to your local magistrate's court for a warrant for the arrest of the bailiff who caused the damage. I would think the sergeant will relish the opportunity to execute such a warrant.

 

Thanks for this OB, I had a strong suspicion that they could not trespass especially when we have a no trespassing sign up and my husband sent them notice removing any implied right of access due to my condition.

[Annette1973]

Old bill I agree these "legal advisors dot "i's2 and cross "t's" as far as civil law is concerned, but remain flippant and ignorant of the criminal nature of some bailiff and HCEO transgressions, that can get them a spell in pokey if they are not too careful

 

I have had another little dig and have found that in order for a certificated bailiff to hold a certificate they must demonstrate that have a working knowledge of any law that may be relevant to the execution of their duties, especially if they train other bailiffs. I think that being unaware of their rights regarding trespass demonstrates that they are not fit to hold a certificate. [EDIT] has now given me reason to believe that he is not fit to own a bailiff certificate due to being ignorant of the laws that apply to his profession.

Edited March 24, 2012 by seanamarts
removed name of bailiff.

[old bill]

Absolutely agree with you, Brassnecked.

 

Annette - If Rob Jackson is the MD of Ross and Roberts, you would be better targeting him through legislation that would hold him to account. If, for example, the bailiffs who attended your home committed an act of Fraud by False Representation, Section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006 contains a provision that enables the CPS to prosecute not only the company, but its directors, secretary, officers and managers for offences committed in the company's name, whether Rob Jackson knew of the offences or not. If he were then convicted, it would open the gates of Hell for him , personally, as well as Ross and Roberts. Firstly, he would, subject to an appeal, be automatically disqualified from acting as a company director for life, Ross and Roberts would be investigated by HMRC, the Insolvency Service, the Office of the Official Receiver and the Corporate Investigation Division of the BIS, just to name a few.

 

A criminal conviction for a bailiff is serious. On conviction and subject to an appeal, they are deemed not to be a fit and proper person to act as a bailiff and forfeit their bond. I would certainly have a chat with the woman police sergeant who attended your home and sent the scumbags scuttling off about applying for arrest warrants. It would also give you the opportunity to thank her for her help.

 

With regard to having a working knowledge of the law, all police officers have to have a working knowledge of criminal and traffic law. The law exams police officers sit during their training draw questions from Bar exam papers. That is the standard police officers have to meet.

[seanamarts]

Update! I received a letter from RR this morning attempting to exonerate themselves. The gist of the letter is that they are claiming that they are allowed to collect on debts that are in dispute, they are allowed to send uncertified bailiffs if an account has a levy on it (the levy they have on our account is invalid as we no longer have the shop), they are stating that they used a firm manner but were neither intimidating, harassing or threatening and are claiming that it was I who was aggressive, they are also stating that there is no evidence against them (I think that they are in for a shock as we have some camera footage plus some independent witnesses) and they are stating that the two bailiffs in question are now on report and that we should basically be happy to leave it at that. They are also claiming that trespass laws do not apply to bailiffs. I think that they need to remember that the police were present through most of the ordeal and were not very happy with the bailiffs misrepresenting their powers to us and them. Thoughts anyone?

 

hmm thats very interesting, R&R has contradicted themselves. On one hand they say the bailiffs had done nothing wrong, but then state they have been placed on report, so my question would be, why have they been put on report if they had done nothing wrong.

 

Its a very poor response and quite laughable.

[old bill]

hmm thats very interesting, R&R has contradicted themselves. On one hand they say the bailiffs had done nothing wrong, but then state they have been placed on report, so my question would be, why have they been put on report if they had done nothing wrong.

 

Its a very poor response and quite laughable.

 

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Not only do these bailiffs need one almighty shock, Ross and Roberts needs to be made the subject of a CWO (Compulsory Winding-Up Order) in the public interest.

[brassnecked]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Not only do these bailiffs need one almighty shock, Ross and Roberts needs to be made the subject of a CWO (Compulsory Winding-Up Order) in the public interest.

 

Won't happen, they are actually part of the many headed Hydra that is Capita PLC, along with the other bailiff company in Capita's ownership Equita. Capita also supply back office functions to councils, see where this is going? and also run TV Licensing for the BBC, so that TV Licence Enforcement Officer, re4porting people for criminal prosecution, is a Capita salesperson. I wonder if Ross 'n Robbers were investigated and prosecuted, would some of the nasty smell adhere to Capita?

 

mind you they might do a Murdoch and close them down then phoenix them into Rossers Collect or something.

[old bill]

It depends whether R & R is a company in its own right or, simply, a trading name of Capita. If a company in its own right, R & R could be closed-down. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Capita's management team won't get asked some awkward questions. If R & R is a trading name, the regulators can go straight to Capita's directors. Knowing the way HMRC Ghost Squads work, it wouldn't just be R & R who would be put under the microscope. Never get on the wrong side of HMRC's Ghost Squad - seriously. They have some terrifying powers.

[caledfwlch]

It depends whether R & R is a company in its own right or, simply, a trading name of Capita. If a company in its own right, R & R could be closed-down. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Capita's management team won't get asked some awkward questions. If R & R is a trading name, the regulators can go straight to Capita's directors. Knowing the way HMRC Ghost Squads work, it wouldn't just be R & R who would be put under the microscope. Never get on the wrong side of HMRC's Ghost Squad - seriously. They have some terrifying powers.

 

Nowt as terrifying as a Revenue Man Scorned

[brassnecked]

Capita bought them out, so they will likely be a subsidiary, but it is so inculcated into "The System" that like banks it cannot fail, or be brought down, without leaving a mess that engulfs MOJ, along with local and national government who use it's services, They have consistently faced off criticisms and backed the actions of their agents for whom they are 100% liable, so are equally culpable, so it would not be in their own best interest to have them investigated.

 

Capita also are basically now part of the system, as they provide so many services to councils and government who outsourced office functions to them, so they will be reluctant to unleash HMRC and other investigators onto them lest they themselves are caught in the trap..

Edited March 24, 2012 by brassnecked

[old bill]

Capita bought them out, so they will likely be a subsidiary, but it is so inculcated into "The System" that like banks it cannot fail, or be brought down, without leaving a mess that engulfs MOJ, along with local and national government who use it's services, They have consistently faced off criticisms and backed the actions of their agents for whom they are 100% liable, so are equally culpable, so it would not be in their own best interest to have them investigated.

 

Capita also are basically now part of the system, as they provide so many services to councils and government who outsourced office functions to them, so they will be reluctant to unleash HMRC and other investigators onto them lest they themselves are caught in the trap..

 

I couldn't have put it better myself. The Ghost Squad are the most feared of HMRC's investigation teams - more than VAT inspectors. They can delve into a company's financial affairs over a fair old period of time without the company being aware it's under investigation, they can freeze a company's bank accounts, freeze the bank accounts of its directors, seize property, and when they question you, YOU have to prove them wrong. Oh and they use sequestration an awful lot. There are other things they do that I'm not allowed to divulge, otherwise I'll be in big trouble. Definitely not people you should mess around.

[old bill]

Trivia: Did you know journos refer to Capita as "The Cock-Up Kings" because of the way they cock everything up? London Congestion Charge, Criminal Records Bureau and Civil Service Pensions are just three things they've made a mess of. Why do they let them keep on doing it? Answers on a postcard to...

[brassnecked]

I couldn't have put it better myself. The Ghost Squad are the most feared of HMRC's investigation teams - more than VAT inspectors. They can delve into a company's financial affairs over a fair old period of time without the company being aware it's under investigation, they can freeze a company's bank accounts, freeze the bank accounts of its directors, seize property, and when they question you, YOU have to prove them wrong. Oh and they use sequestration an awful lot. There are other things they do that I'm not allowed to divulge, otherwise I'll be in big trouble. Definitely not people you should mess around.

 

Perhaps then the Ghost Squad can investigate Capita Equita and Ross 'n Robbers for VAT anomolies on enforcement fees? Highly unlikelyI fear as they are so entrenched in the system even the Ghost Squad wouldn't dare go in to C®apita as the government would be afraid of what may be uncovered at all levels of government involvement with the hydra that is Capita..

[ronnie6]

they are allowed to send uncertified bailiffs

Surely these are just debt collecters? ie less power than my cat?

But if acting as baliffs, that's illegal?

[Annette1973]

Surely these are just debt collecters? ie less power than my cat?

But if acting as baliffs, that's illegal?

 

Exactly. They are trying to justify themselves by saying that he was training.

[Annette1973]

Well lets just say the replying to that would give me a great deal of pleasure lol.

 

WD

 

I have crafted a reply to the letter, would it be ok to send you it in a PM so you could have a look for me and maybe adapt it if needs be?

[brassnecked]

I have crafted a reply to the letter, would it be ok to send you it in a PM so you could have a look for me and maybe adapt it if needs be?

I personally would support you doing this, as sometimes it requires that certain things don't go on open forum, if it may disclose something that it would be better the other side didn't see until it landed on their desk imho. I would think that site team would be Ok with this, as WD is a brilliant contributor.

[old bill]

Perhaps then the Ghost Squad can investigate Capita Equita and Ross 'n Robbers for VAT anomolies on enforcement fees? Highly unlikelyI fear as they are so entrenched in the system even the Ghost Squad wouldn't dare go in to C®apita as the government would be afraid of what may be uncovered at all levels of government involvement with the hydra that is Capita..

 

It was the last government who let Capita take over and run government duties. However, HMRC is still run by civil servants and always will be. If you let Capita run the tax and customs enforcement functions, that would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of an off licence and telling them not to drink the stock. Also, how do we know that Capita aren't already being investigated by the Ghost Squad? Like I said in an earlier post, a company doesn't know it's under investigation. The first inkling they have is when bank accounts start getting frozen. By then, there's nothing the company under investigation and its management can do and the net is already closing in on them.

[brassnecked]

It was the last government who let Capita take over and run government duties. However, HMRC is still run by civil servants and always will be. If you let Capita run the tax and customs enforcement functions, that would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of an off licence and telling them not to drink the stock. Also, how do we know that Capita aren't already being investigated by the Ghost Squad? Like I said in an earlier post, a company doesn't know it's under investigation. The first inkling they have is when bank accounts start getting frozen. By then, there's nothing the company under investigation and its management can do and the net is already closing in on them.

 

I see your point, but HMRC have had some high profile cock-ups recently, and many of the good genuine Tax Inspectors who weren't just target driven, and knew what they were doing have gone leaving new recruits in call centres who don't know income tax from VAT. Perhaps it is too late and Capita are already in there, in which case known or not the Ghost Squad will be blocked at junior ministerial level, as if it transpired C®apita were dodgy, and there was sound evidence, it would be D Noticed Official Secrets stuff and quietly buried, "In The Public Interest"