Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[brassnecked]

@ OB yes good idea, anything that will worry the bailiff and undermine any attempts to pervert the hearing into litigation is good.

[Peterbard]

HI

Its my first post so be gentle.I am considering making one of these complaints myself but have read about people being stuffed for costs.

 

This makes me a bit hesitant, i understand what you say about this not being litigation, but if this is true how could the judge award costs against the person taking the action.

 

DB

[brassnecked]

HI

Its my first post so be gentle.I am considering making one of these complaints myself but have read about people being stuffed for costs.

 

This makes me a bit hesitant, i understand what you say about this not being litigation, but if this is true how could the judge award costs against the person taking the action.

 

DB

Hi Dodgeball, it is not something to enter into lightly, your best option is to start your own thread, and Caggers can advise better if you post up the details, you can use the one I have started for you here if you like

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

[Peterbard]

Many thanks i will do.

[Annette1973]

HI

Its my first post so be gentle.I am considering making one of these complaints myself but have read about people being stuffed for costs.

 

This makes me a bit hesitant, i understand what you say about this not being litigation, but if this is true how could the judge award costs against the person taking the action.

 

DB

 

I must admit DB, that if I did not have an amazing amount of supporting evidence, I would definitely not be entering the Form 4. It can be quite daunting to think about the costs involved, if you lose.

[Peterbard]

Yes that seems to be the opinion on other threads, i was reading tommotubies earlier(sorry if that is not how it is spelled) he/she seems to think that you need all your ducks in a row before you take this on.

 

I am going to get the info together and start a new thread. the issue is resolved now, in as much as they are no longer chasing me, but they ripped me off unmercifully when i was at my most vulnerable and i would love to get some payback

 

DB

[old bill]

If they have charged you fees the law does not permit or for work they did not carry out, e.g. phantom visits, non-existent or invalid levies, the bailiff involved is committing a criminal offence under Section 2(1), Fraud Act 2006 and the bailiff company and its management is potentially committing an offence under Section 12 of the Act. What sort of figure are we talking about in terms of illegal fees?

[Annette1973]

Yes that seems to be the opinion on other threads, i was reading tommotubies earlier(sorry if that is not how it is spelled) he/she seems to think that you need all your ducks in a row before you take this on.

 

I am going to get the info together and start a new thread. the issue is resolved now, in as much as they are no longer chasing me, but they ripped me off unmercifully when i was at my most vulnerable and i would love to get some payback

 

DB

 

Ooh yes, definitely chase it. Loads of help available on here for you

[Annette1973]

Ok guys. I received a letter from the council today (it came yesterday but I didn't see it). You will never believe what they are saying now. Basically they are denying that we have evidence of anything and that we are making serious allegations against council staff with no proof etc.... This letter is 8 pages long and contains some serious veiled threats. I just cannot believe that they are totally dismissing our evidence. I suppose it's a psychological tactic, however, I have provided them with all of the proof that we have, including the Police evidence. I think they are trying to mind f*** me and put me off pursuing it all. Obviously I had already contacted them to tell them not to bother with any further investigation as I was going to invoke the LGO, as they had missed my deadline. I just cannot understand why they believe that I have no substantial evidence, it's ludicrous, I have sent them evidence of everything.

[BananaRepublic]

Annette, I have read this thread with interest the last few days. Don't let the councils lies sway you and put you off. The council have to be liars to enforce their illegal practices, and I don't just mean CTax illegal practices. Councils need exposing just as the MP's expense scandals. If it we're, it would make the MPs scandal look like childs play. Always remember, when dealing with the council, they are cheats. liars and the lowest of low. Go ahead with your action and watch them squirm.

[old bill]

Ok guys. I received a letter from the council today (it came yesterday but I didn't see it). You will never believe what they are saying now. Basically they are denying that we have evidence of anything and that we are making serious allegations against council staff with no proof etc.... This letter is 8 pages long and contains some serious veiled threats. I just cannot believe that they are totally dismissing our evidence. I suppose it's a psychological tactic, however, I have provided them with all of the proof that we have, including the Police evidence. I think they are trying to mind f*** me and put me off pursuing it all. Obviously I had already contacted them to tell them not to bother with any further investigation as I was going to invoke the LGO, as they had missed my deadline. I just cannot understand why they believe that I have no substantial evidence, it's ludicrous, I have sent them evidence of everything.

 

What sort of threats are they making in the letter, Annette? I will be in tomorrow morning. You have my number. Give me a call. If you can, scan the letter and email it to me.

[seanamarts]

I wouldnt give them any more chances Annette its time for the LGO now. Who replied. dont name the person, just their department title.

[Annette1973]

I wouldnt give them any more chances Annette its time for the LGO now. Who replied. dont name the person, just their department title.

 

Hi SM, his title is Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

[Annette1973]

Annette, I have read this thread with interest the last few days. Don't let the councils lies sway you and put you off. The council have to be liars to enforce their illegal practices, and I don't just mean CTax illegal practices. Councils need exposing just as the MP's expense scandals. If it we're, it would make the MPs scandal look like childs play. Always remember, when dealing with the council, they are cheats. liars and the lowest of low. Go ahead with your action and watch them squirm.

 

Thanks for the moral support

[Annette1973]

What sort of threats are they making in the letter, Annette? I will be in tomorrow morning. You have my number. Give me a call. If you can, scan the letter and email it to me.

 

Hi OB, I admit that, I have just scan read the letter, I say letter, it is more like a novel. It appears that they are warning me off by insinuating that I have made serious, unfounded allegations etc.... It is certainly designed to scare me off.

[BananaRepublic]

Hi OB, I admit that, I have just scan read the letter, I say letter, it is more like a novel. It appears that they are warning me off by insinuating that I have made serious, unfounded allegations etc.... It is certainly designed to scare me off.

 

Wow, to put an 8 page letter together, you really have got these on the run!! Annettte, you rustled their feathers, the best course of action with them now is silence and carry on with your action. It would be interesting to see their reply, I bet it's full of snivelling lies to put you off and make you feel like you don't stand a chance. If you didn't have a case they let you carry on, the sheer fact you've got an 8 page letter tells me they are panicking and running for the hills. Go get 'em!!

 

It sounds like they've sent the kind of letter a fraudster would send designed to intimidate. 8 pages, man, they must be desperate!

[brassnecked]

If they have sent an 8 page letter with veiled threats therin, they must be rattled seriously enough to try one final application of "The Frighteners". It is way beyond Immodium in Council Towers now. Wouldn't mind seeing the letter, as per OB I reckon they have incriminated themselves further, and there may be breaches of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 as contained in Section 1

 

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

 

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

 

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

They may use S2 (b) to justify their action, but they fall foul of S2 (b) as their behaviour ,and ongoing threats were NOT reasonable as to absolve them from Criminal Responsibility, further depending on the content, the ongoing threats and attempts to frighten Annette, with bullying and threats, constitutes the mens rea to complete the offence, as they knew exactly what they were doing. their problem is that Annette was not being frightened.

[Annette1973]

If they have sent an 8 page letter with veiled threats therin, they must be rattled seriously enough to try one final application of "The Frighteners". It is way beyond Immodium in Council Towers now. Wouldn't mind seeing the letter, as per OB I reckon they have incriminated themselves further, and there may be breaches of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 as contained in Section 1

 

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

 

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

 

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

They may use S2 (b) to justify their action, but they fall foul of S2 (b) as their behaviour ,and ongoing threats were NOT reasonable as to absolve them from Criminal Responsibility, further depending on the content, the ongoing threats and attempts to frighten Annette, with bullying and threats, constitutes the mens rea to complete the offence, as they knew exactly what they were doing. their problem is that Annette was not being frightened.

 

Thank you BN. I will get round to scanning the mammoth letter this afternoon and will email it to you if you PM me your email address

[brassnecked]

Tried to PM but your mailbox is full Annette.

[unclebulgaria67]

I wonder whether all the elected councillors are aware of your complaint and if so whether they are aware of exactly what happened.

[old bill]

If they have sent an 8 page letter with veiled threats therin, they must be rattled seriously enough to try one final application of "The Frighteners". It is way beyond Immodium in Council Towers now. Wouldn't mind seeing the letter, as per OB I reckon they have incriminated themselves further, and there may be breaches of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 as contained in Section 1

 

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

 

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

 

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

They may use S2 (b) to justify their action, but they fall foul of S2 (b) as their behaviour ,and ongoing threats were NOT reasonable as to absolve them from Criminal Responsibility, further depending on the content, the ongoing threats and attempts to frighten Annette, with bullying and threats, constitutes the mens rea to complete the offence, as they knew exactly what they were doing. their problem is that Annette was not being frightened.

 

The fact that the LO was forged/non-existent knocks that into the long grass, BN. I don't know about you, but I'm thinking Section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988. Also, if the person who has sent this letter is a legal professional, there may be grounds for making a formal complaint to the SRA. Bear in mind that the LGO can only deal with matters of Public Administration.

[brassnecked]

Yes OB that is a good option, they have thrown the JCB away, and are now using the Hymac to dig a deeper hole

[old bill]

Nah, BN. You know those excavators they use in open-cast mines, well, I think NFDC have had to call one of those in. Something very wrong and very serious is going on at NFDC. I can't help thinking that the police are going to have to become involved in this affair at some point. Like I have said in an earlier post, the LGO only deals with matters of Public Administration - that is their remit. I might PM you when I've seen the letter Annette has received from NFDC and compare notes.

[brassnecked]

Tried to pm my email to Annette but her box is full, the mole off Thunderbirds couldn't drill as deep as these muppets have dug themselves.

[old bill]

Tried to pm my email to Annette but her box is full, the mole off Thunderbirds couldn't drill as deep as these muppets have dug themselves.

 

I don't think even The Mole from Thunderbirds could dig deep enough, such is the depths to which NFDC have gone.