Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[Annette1973]

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.

 

This was my fear,I do not want them to discover what's going on just yet.

[old bill]

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"

 

I think you will find the cock-ups were IT-related, due to a crappy computer system that doesn't work properly. Obviously, I am legally-restricted in what I can disclose about HMRC's Ghost Squad, but a junior minister would not be able to block any investigation of Capita. As far as things go, Capita are a public limited company, albeit that some government functions have been outsourced to them, but they are neither exempt or immune from investigation or prosecution. Incidentally, where they are carrying out work on behalf of central or local government, they are subject to the Human Rights Act, which means they can be sued for breaches of the Act.

[brassnecked]

This was my fear,I do not want them to discover what's going on just yet.

Agreed Annette, just PM seanamarts or DX to let them know. WD will no doubt have something up the sleeve

 

BN

[brassnecked]

I think you will find the cock-ups were IT-related, due to a crappy computer system that doesn't work properly. Obviously, I am legally-restricted in what I can disclose about HMRC's Ghost Squad, but a junior minister would not be able to block any investigation of Capita. As far as things go, Capita are a public limited company, albeit that some government functions have been outsourced to them, but they are neither exempt or immune from investigation or prosecution. Incidentally, where they are carrying out work on behalf of central or local government, they are subject to the Human Rights Act, which means they can be sued for breaches of the Act.

 

Well let us hope that they will get their come-uppance sooner rather than later

[hallowitch]

former Capita boss Rod Aldridge, who has given Labour £1million, was knighted in the 2012 Honours list

 

 

surprised not

[brassnecked]

former Capita boss Rod Aldridge, who has given Labour £1million, was knighted in the 2012 Honours list

 

 

surprised not

 

This sort of cronyism leaves a nasty taste, especially when someone like tomtubby is likely more worthy.

[Annette1973]

This sort of cronyism leaves a nasty taste, especially when someone like tomtubby is likely more worthy.

 

Here here, if it was not for TT I would be a gibbering wreck by now.

[Banking on change]

One other tip I'd advise is recording their actions including calls to the council.

 

We are also a vulnerable family with an adopted child who has some special needs.

 

We have already travelled the path to bailiffs and complaints procedure and at stage 2 of the complaints procedure the council have rejected my complaint.

In their defence they claim that their record of a phone call a few months ago indicated no request for an income and expenses form. However, my recording of that same call demonstrates that the council rep on the other end advised me not to send in my own spread sheet as they prefer all figures on their own I&E form. She goes on to say she has requested it is sent urgently.

 

I can't wait to hear their answer when I ask how their phone log missed the 3 or 4 times the subject was spoken about and her comment that it had all been entered on the system.

 

We haven't had such a bad experience with the bailiffs although in the councils letter (addressing the complaint) they have to give you a chronilogical record of events, and there was another bailiff visit one day when we were out.

Again breaking their agreement to hold bailiff action until the complaints process had been finalised.

 

Record EVERYTHING!

 

Good luck and don't let them get you down. Easier said than done I know but it's much easier to fight them if you are armed with the facts.

And you'll get some good advice from many of the knowledgable people on this forum.

[Annette1973]

One other tip I'd advise is recording their actions including calls to the council.

 

We are also a vulnerable family with an adopted child who has some special needs.

 

We have already travelled the path to bailiffs and complaints procedure and at stage 2 of the complaints procedure the council have rejected my complaint.

In their defence they claim that their record of a phone call a few months ago indicated no request for an income and expenses form. However, my recording of that same call demonstrates that the council rep on the other end advised me not to send in my own spread sheet as they prefer all figures on their own I&E form. She goes on to say she has requested it is sent urgently.

 

I can't wait to hear their answer when I ask how their phone log missed the 3 or 4 times the subject was spoken about and her comment that it had all been entered on the system.

 

We haven't had such a bad experience with the bailiffs although in the councils letter (addressing the complaint) they have to give you a chronilogical record of events, and there was another bailiff visit one day when we were out.

Again breaking their agreement to hold bailiff action until the complaints process had been finalised.

 

Record EVERYTHING!

 

Good luck and don't let them get you down. Easier said than done I know but it's much easier to fight them if you are armed with the facts.

And you'll get some good advice from many of the knowledgable people on this forum.

 

Thank you for that, I totally agree. These days most people have at least some form of recording equipment (mobiles, CCTV, iPods etc.....). It is not so difficult to record the bailiffs. When the bailiffs were on my drive they told me to switch the camera off, I told them that whilst they were on my private property I was at liberty to film them. When we were in the street they once again asked me not to film them, I said it was a public place but I did say that I would not film their faces as a courtesy (I cared more for their human rights then they did mine). My advice to anyone would be to brush up on the laws regarding recordings both audio and visual, and then you will know what you can and can't do, remember bailiffs generally do not tell the truth.

[brassnecked]

Thank you for that, I totally agree. These days most people have at least some form of recording equipment (mobiles, CCTV, iPods etc.....). It is not so difficult to record the bailiffs. When the bailiffs were on my drive they told me to switch the camera off, I told them that whilst they were on my private property I was at liberty to film them. When we were in the street they once again asked me not to film them, I said it was a public place but I did say that I would not film their faces as a courtesy (I cared more for their human rights then they did mine). My advice to anyone would be to brush up on the laws regarding recordings both audio and visual, and then you will know what you can and can't do, remember bailiffs generally do not tell the truth.

 

They CANNOT stop you filming them on your property OR in the street, if a police officer is there and tells you to stop he is wrong, if he takes your phone camera camcorder or other device and deletes your footage or pictures, or sound recording he is committing a criminal offence.as the MET have found to their cost when harassing tourists and photographers by misusing S44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There is no human rights issue in filming a bailiff and you don't need their permission to film them, any more than you need to inform them or have their permission to record a phone call, no matter what they claim. The bailiff may try to get at the footage by levying the phone however, a notice of seizure with mobile phone unspecified on it isn't much use to him imho

[Annette1973]

They CANNOT stop you filming them on your property OR in the street, if a police officer is there and tells you to stop he is wrong, if he takes your phone camera camcorder or other device and deletes your footage or pictures, or sound recording he is committing a criminal offence.as the MET have found to their cost when harassing tourists and photographers by misusing S44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There is no human rights issue in filming a bailiff and you don't need their permission to film them, any more than you need to inform them or have their permission to record a phone call, no matter what they claim. The bailiff may try to get at the footage by levying the phone however, a notice of seizure with mobile phone unspecified on it isn't much use to him imho

 

 

I knew that they couldn't stop me filming, however, I must admit, I did comply with their request not to film their faces when out on the street. I did this because I was unsure about whether or not I could film their faces in public and because I am a respectful person and it wasn't really hurting me not to film their faces as I already had them on film whilst in my drive. Thanks for clearing it up for me, should I be in this situation again, I won't worry about filming their faces. Funny though, I had an iPad with me most of the time (it alerts me about my meds etc...) and they never once mentioned levying on it, which I find strange. Could it be that an iPad is classed as a personal belonging? I wasn't concerned as the receipt is in my Fathers name as he bought it for me as more of a medical device. It does alert me when I need my medication, I have an attachment that monitors my pulse etc... and can also automatically email my Dr if there is any cause for alarm. Technology is a wonderful thing, it has brought us all together in a time of great need to support each other and learn through each others experience. One thing I will say though is that maybe I should put my iPad away after I have taken my medication at night cos I waffle on and on and on and on...........

[Banking on change]

Well done Annette

 

That's whats truly great about modern technology. It does make it much harder for them to cheat. lie and abuse their "position" ; )

 

brassnecked I believe you are totally correct about your take on filming but with regards to recording someone whithout their knowledge it's not admissible in court is it???

I was told by a solicitor they could argue that you set them up.

 

but not being a solicitor I don't know

[seanamarts]

This was my fear,I do not want them to discover what's going on just yet.

 

If you could let myself or dx know what is being done, i cant see a problem with this. Please note though that I would not normally advise this action.

[seanamarts]

When making a levy, a bailiff must be able to touch the item he is levying on, I cant see him doing that to your i pad whilst you were holding it.

[brassnecked]

Well done Annette

 

That's whats truly great about modern technology. It does make it much harder for them to cheat. lie and abuse their "position" ; )

 

brassnecked I believe you are totally correct about your take on filming but with regards to recording someone whithout their knowledge it's not admissible in court is it???

I was told by a solicitor they could argue that you set them up. Not if there are other witnesses, and or if no others you don't put it up on YouTube if you want to rely on it as evidence

but not being a solicitor I don't know

 

How can they argue you set them up if they act unlawfully, and you happen to film them, or record their threats on an audio recording. many consumer CCTV cameras, which by the way are exempted specifically from data protection, for a private house, no matter what a bailiff may claim when the suss out that camera on the side of the house that got them in sound and video. Such a camera will also record the sound even if they are out of the cameras vision. In this circumstance the bailiffs are the architect of their own misfortune. Solicitors don't know the law, they look it up, and see what precedent there is to apply, then they give a considered OPINION

[old bill]

Well done Annette

 

That's whats truly great about modern technology. It does make it much harder for them to cheat. lie and abuse their "position" ; )

 

brassnecked I believe you are totally correct about your take on filming but with regards to recording someone whithout their knowledge it's not admissible in court is it???

I was told by a solicitor they could argue that you set them up.

 

but not being a solicitor I don't know

 

It all depends on the circumstances. If covert filming/recording is the only way to gather evidence, it is permissible, provided the court and the defendant are made aware of the reason, are provided with copies as part of the disclosure requirements and the original recordings are produced in court for the judge to see.

 

As for the bailiffs objecting to being filmed, tough. If they go onto your property, they can be filmed. Same applies in the street - it's a public place. Personally, I would have filmed their faces - connects them to their actions. It's quite true what another cagger said on this thread about lawyers not knowing the law. They are taught how the legal system works. They learn about the law AFTER they graduate. The police learn how the legal system works and what the law is during their training. Imagine a barrister coming up to a police officer and asking them a question about the law? It's happened to me and colleagues when I was on the force.

[brassnecked]

I would have filmed their faces also, old bill. a great deal of law study, is how to look up caselaw and apply it to a situation.

[Annette1973]

If you could let myself or dx know what is being done, i cant see a problem with this. Please note though that I would not normally advise this action.

 

No probs. I am just getting a little help with a letter/notice from WD and OB. I tend to spout off and use too many words. Please see my original attempt below, feedback welcomed.

 

 

Reply to Rob Jackson

 

Dear Mr Jackson

 

RE: COMPLAINT

 

Please find attached a hard copy of our complete formal complaint regarding your bailiffs Dawson and Sellwood.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 23 March, 2012, the contents of which have been noted.

 

I will attempt to address the issues you have raised point by point.

 

1. *We did send notice to NFDC that we would pay what we lawfully owed to them AFTER we had our case reopened at the Magistrates Court. *We refused to deal with a bailiff company due to our vulnerable situation and not because we were planning on not paying. NFDC had already set a precedent by taking back our Council Tax account from Equita due to our circumstances. *We now also believe that due to an administrative error by the council, we may have overpaid them, however these issues are between us and NFDC and will be acted upon. *As the debt was officially in dispute with NFDC, enforcement should have been halted in accordance with current legislation.

 

2. *As Mr Dawson was not certificated, shouldn't he have been observing Nicola Sellwood rather than dealing with us on his own for almost an hour? *Mrs Sellwood did not make her presence known until the police arrived, up until this point she had been sitting in a Citroen Berlingo van approximately 30 meters away. *This is a direct violation of your own Code of Practice, i.e; "Bailiffs will be holders of a current bailiff certificate issued by the county court or shall be undergoing training to obtain the same. No bailiffs will work solely on any liability orders or warrants for our clients unless they are certificated". *Naturally we shall be putting in a recommendation to the Ministry of Justice that Mr Dawson not be allowed to apply for a certificate due to the fact that *he's been labouring under the pretence that he already has one, plus, I seriously doubt that he is fit to become a bailiff. *I also put it to you that Nicola Sellwood is not fit to train another bailiff as she allowed Mr Dawson to deal with us by himself, especially as the original levy is now invalid due to us losing our business and many of it's assets. *It is not acceptable for an uncertificated bailiff to act autonomously, even if the certificated bailiff signs the levy.

 

3. *I request that you confirm how exactly your agents received information regarding the Astra and what steps they took to ensure that the information was correct. *On your own admittance your bailiffs received information from a member of the public regarding the car and as your bailiffs chose to believe hearsay, I am assuming that they had taken steps to validate the claim before going anywhere near the car and if not, why not?

 

As far as I am aware, there is no levy on my daughters' car as I did not see your bailiffs complete any paperwork, nor did I sign anything in order to validate a levy on the vehicle. *To avoid any confusion, I request that you forward me evidence of any levy and only then will I provide you with the documents that prove the vehicle belongs to her.

 

*I believe that your bailiffs are guilty of misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) by saying they could seize my daughter's car when they had no right or power in law to do so. *Section 12 of the Act contains a provision that enables companies, their directors, company secretaries, company officers and managers to be held liable, criminally, for any offences, under Section 2, committed in the company's name, whether they knew it was going on or not, and if the directors were to be successfully convicted, it would result in an automatic lifetime ban from acting as a company director, subject to any appeal against conviction. *Your own companies' Code of Conduct states that "bailiffs will *not misrepresent their powers whilst working on behalf of their clients".

 

*Your bailiffs blocked in our daughter's vehicle and attempted to prevent her getting into her vehicle as well as threatening to to take the vehicle they committed a criminal offence, which, falls under the jurisdiction of "Attempted Theft" (Section 1, Theft Act 1968). *In respect of the car, they are also guilty of "Causing Reckless Damage to Property Belonging to Another" (Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971) by cracking the indicator light in an attempt to reverse their vehicle into us.

 

4. *Trespassing - as, I am sure you are aware, trespassing is a Tort law and due to the two bailiffs not acting in accordance with their writ or jurisdiction, they can indeed be taken to civil court for trespassing onto my property, especially when their implied right of access was removed weeks ago, also there is a sign on my gate outlining that there is a charge of £1,000.00 for trespass and as both of your agents trespassed several times, I estimate that they currently owe me £5,000.00 each for being in breach of said notice. *I will go through my footage and check the exact number of times they breached our notice.

 

I question your suitability to hold certification and to train potential bailiffs, if you are not aware of the basic laws of trespass and how they relate to your profession. *I understand that, in order to gain certification, you should be aware of all of the laws and legislation which may apply to the type of debt enforcement you currently undertake. *I consider it to be my civic duty to pass your comments to the Court Manager of the County Court you obtained your certification from, as I believe that this is cause for valid concern, not just in this case but in any future enforcement cases you are involved in.

 

5. *I commend you for your efforts in obtaining information from your bailiffs, however, any feedback from them to you, or anyone else in authority, is going to be biased and engineered to make it appear that they committed no wrong doing. *I do hope that they can back up their claims that my wife was aggressive towards them as she is a very sick woman and would not be capable of any such thing, as her Dr's can attest to. *My wife and I *simply know our rights and were firm in our defence of those rights. *Now that you have put this accusation regarding her supposed aggression, in writing, it could be seen as libellous.

 

6. *I do not understand why you believe that we have no evidence in order to substantiate our claims. *I can assure you that we have been truthful regarding this matter and we do have independent witnesses and video footage of a number of offences taking place. *The police were called by ourselves and are our witnesses, therefore they would have no reason to contact you yet as we are still dealing with them with a view to having criminal charges brought against your staff. *We have contacted the police and requested their report on the incident in question to use as evidence. *Your bailiffs attempted to coax the attending police constables into assisting them gain entry to our property, this is in violation of the Police Acts 1964-1996, namely, " Incitement of a Police Officer to Disaffect". *I will suggest to the police that they also bring charges for this offence.

 

Perhaps you could also explain to us why your bailiffs harassed us for almost 6 hours on the premise that they could force entry to our home and take goods? *They claimed a van and a locksmith had been called, these did not appear, yet, they made a big show of calling them in front of my neighbours and even got the "locksmith" to call me on my mobile, withheld number, of course. *Your bailiffs threatened us several times with forced entry and told the police that they had the right to force entry to our property, they also threatened to call the RSPCA to have our dog removed, however, they left here with nothing, in spite of their harassment and spurious claims. *I can only conclude that this was a gross misrepresentation of their powers as they have not been granted entry, nor have they gained peaceable entry to my property on any previous visits.

 

As we are classed as a vulnerable family, due to being on benefits and my wife being severely ill, could you please justify to me why your bailiffs chose to harass us for almost 6 hours? *They only left when they did due to the police moving them on at around 8.30 pm. *These bailiffs are guilty of "Causing Another Harassment, Alarm or Distress" (Public Order Act 1986) and they will be held accountable. *Your own Code of Practice states "bailiffs will make appropriate decisions and take no further action on vulnerable cases, and will refer these back to the client at the earliest opportunity. Typically these might be cases of: (a) Mental disability, (b) long term or acute illness, © fragility from old age, (d) recent bereavement, (e) the final weeks of pregnancy or (f) any case the bailiff considers appropriate for special consideration". *We provided proof of at least 2 of the above criteria, whilst the police were present.

 

I request a copy of your fee schedule as Mrs Sellwood is attempting to charge *us £222.00 for Tuesdays visit. *I understand that even if the visit was justified, the charge should have been no more than £42.50, again an explanation as to why she thinks £222.00 is appropriate would be useful.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Annette1973

[Banking on change]

Old Bill and Brassnecked

 

I don't want to hijack Annettes thread but I have two other situations I'd really appreciate your thoughts on.

If I start another thread could I ask you to comment?

[seanamarts]

Just a few small amendments, try not keep all you eggs in one basket for now, in my opinion it is best to hold some things back for your next level of complaint.

 

 

Dear Mr Jackson

 

RE: COMPLAINT

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 23 March, 2012, the contents of which have been noted.

Please find attached a hard copy of our complete formal complaint regarding your bailiffs [edit]

 

I will attempt to address the issues you have raised point by point.

 

1.

*We did send notice to NFDC that we would pay what we lawfully owed to them AFTER we had our case reopened at the Magistrates Court.

*We refused to deal with a bailiff company due to our vulnerable status,

NFDC had already set a precedent by taking back our Council Tax account from Equita due to our circumstances.

*We now believe that due to an administrative error by the council, we may have overpaid them, however these issues are between us and NFDC and will be acted upon.

*As the debt was officially in dispute with NFDC, enforcement should have been halted in accordance with current legislation.

 

2. *As Mr [edit] was not certificated, shouldn't he have been observing [edit] rather than dealing with us on his own for almost an hour? *

Mrs [edit] did not make her presence known until the police arrived, up until this point she had been sitting in a Citroen Berlingo van approximately 30 meters away.

*This is a direct violation of your own Code of Practice, "Bailiffs will be holders of a current bailiff certificate issued by the county court or shall be undergoing training to obtain the same.

No bailiffs will work solely on any liability orders or warrants for our clients unless they are certificated".

Naturally we shall be putting in a recommendation to the Ministry of Justice that Mr [edit] not be allowed to apply for a certificate due to the fact that ; *he' has been labouring under the pretence that he already has one, plus, in my opinion, seriously doubt that he is fit to become a bailiff.

*I also put it to you that [edit] is not fit to train another bailiff as she allowed Mr[edit] to deal with us by himself, especially as the original levy is now invalid due to us losing our business and many of it's assets.

*It is not acceptable for an non-certificated bailiff to act autonomously, even if the certificated bailiff signs the levy.

 

3. *I request that you confirm how exactly your agents received information regarding the Astra and what steps they took to ensure that the information was correct.

*On your own admittance your bailiffs received information from a member of the public regarding the car and as your bailiffs chose to believe hearsay, I am assuming that they had taken steps to validate the claim before going anywhere near the car and if not, why not?

 

As far as I am aware, there is no levy on my daughters' car as I did not see your bailiffs complete any paperwork, nor did I sign anything in order to validate a levy on the vehicle.

*To avoid any confusion, I request that you forward me evidence of any levy made on the day in question , only then will I provide you with the documents that prove the vehicle belongs to her.

 

*I believe that your bailiffs are guilty of misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) by saying they could seize my daughter's car when they had no right or power in law to do so.

 

*Your own companies' Code of Conduct states that "bailiffs will *not misrepresent their powers whilst working on behalf of their clients".

 

*Your bailiffs blocked in our daughter's vehicle and attempted to prevent her getting into her vehicle as well as threatening to to take the vehicle they committed a criminal offence, which, falls under the jurisdiction of "Attempted Theft" (Section 1, Theft Act 1968). *In respect of the car, they are also guilty of "Causing Reckless Damage to Property Belonging to Another" (Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971) by cracking the indicator light in an attempt to reverse their vehicle into us.

 

*I commend you for your efforts in obtaining information from your bailiffs, however, any feedback from them to you, or anyone else in authority, is going to be biased and engineered to make it appear that they committed no wrong doing. *

I do hope that they can back up their claims that my wife was aggressive towards them as she is a very sick woman and would not be capable of any such thing, as her Dr's can attest to.

*My wife and I *simply know our rights and were firm in our defence of those rights.

*Now that you have put this accusation regarding her supposed aggression, in writing, it could be seen as libellous.

 

*I do not understand why you believe that we have no evidence in order to substantiate our claims. *I can assure you that we have been truthful regarding this matter and we do have independent witnesses and video footage of a number of offences taking place.

*The police were called by ourselves and are witness to the events of said date, therefore they would have no reason to contact you yet as we are still dealing with them with a view to having criminal charges brought against your staff. *We have contacted the police and requested their report on the incident in question to use as evidence.

Your bailiffs attempted to coax the attending police constables into assisting them gain entry to our property, this is in violation of the Police Acts 1964-1996, namely, " Incitement of a Police Officer to Disaffect".

*I will suggest to the police that they also bring charges for this offence.

 

Perhaps you could also explain to us why your bailiffs harassed us for almost 6 hours on the premise that they could force entry to our home and take goods? *

They claimed a van and a locksmith had been called, these did not appear, yet, they made a big show of calling them in front of my neighbours and even got the "locksmith" to call me on my mobile, withheld number, of course. *Your bailiffs threatened us several times with forced entry and told the police that they had the right to force entry to our property, they also threatened to call the RSPCA to have our dog removed, however, they left here with nothing, in spite of their harassment and spurious claims.

*I can only conclude that this was a gross misrepresentation of their powers as they have not been granted entry, nor have they gained peaceable entry to my property on any previous visits.

 

As we are classed as a vulnerable family, due to being on benefits and my wife being severely ill, could you please justify to me why your bailiffs chose to harass us for almost 6 hours? *

They only left when they did due to the police moving them on at around 8.30 pm. *

These bailiffs are guilty of "Causing Another Harassment, Alarm or Distress" (Public Order Act 1986) and they will be held accountable. *

Your own Code of Practice states "bailiffs will make appropriate decisions and take no further action on vulnerable cases, and will refer these back to the client at the earliest opportunity.

Typically these might be cases of:

(a) Mental disability,

(b) long term or acute illness,

© fragility from old age,

(d) recent bereavement,

(e) the final weeks of pregnancy

(f) any case the bailiff considers appropriate for special consideration".

*We provided proof of at least 2 of the above criteria, whilst the police were present.

 

I request a copy of your fee schedule as Mrs [edit] is attempting to charge *us £222.00 for Tuesdays visit. *I understand that even if the visit was justified, the charge should have been no more than £42.50, again an explanation as to why she thinks £222.00 is appropriate would be useful.

 

Yours etc...

.

[Banking on change]

Hell Seanamarts, that's what I call dedication replying at almost 2am ; )

[seanamarts]

its the only time its quiet here and i can concentrate.

[Banking on change]

Same here, I should really be in bed as in court myself today but can't help going over things several times to make sure all bases covered.

[brassnecked]

Old Bill and Brassnecked

 

I don't want to hijack Annettes thread but I have two other situations I'd really appreciate your thoughts on.

If I start another thread could I ask you to comment?

Will do when you start the htread, alomg with ionterested other Caggers no doubt

[brassnecked]

Having read the letter of complaint, I would as per senamarts, cut it down somewhat, and concentrate on the more serious aspects, like the criminal nature of the harrassment, which is indisputable, due to the bailiff action, and the length of time, they carried on with their pathetic criminal attempts to enforce on a third party motor. Also emphasise that the police themselves removed the bailiffs when it was realised the bailiffs actions were unlawful.

 

you then have plenty more ammunition to fire at them when they attempt to defend. their bailiff, and her "trainee"