Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[brassnecked]

Whilst I agree with what you say in respect of the LGO, the criminal conduct of the bailiffs involved in this case overshadows misrepresentation of authority. The fact that they compromised a Police Sergeant's position in a way that could have cost that officer her job and, possibly, her liberty, too, referral of the matter by the police to the CPS for direction is, in my honest opinion, a must. Be in no doubt, if the CPS decide prosecution is justified, the comedian who damaged OP's daughter's car will be made to pay for the damage out of their own pocket or Ross and Roberts will have to pay for it. The bailiff who undermined the police officers and made threats, etc., will lose their certificate in any case, whether it goes down the Form 4 route or the criminal route. Do not forget that a criminal conviction against a bailiff means they are deemed not a fit and proper person to act as a bailiff and will forfeit their bond. The courts can order them to pay compensation/damages on top of that.

The problem will be persuading the police to act, and the council to fess up to the wrongful actios of their agents Ross 'n Robbers and Capita fopr which thy are 100% liable. Also the Form 4 route if it goes pear shaped can end up with the complainant paying costs. Outlawla has been having problems trying to get a council to take him seriously, there it seemds the police are almost in cahoots with the counciland baikliffs and will do nothing.

 

Annette1973 I think you should complain and send in Formal complaints marked as such to all including your MP as has been mentioned previously, and there is merit in following old bill's suggestions, as if you can get the police to take this one on, it may well be a milestone in the fight against these scumbags and their ilk. you have been getting some great advice imho

[brassnecked]

Hi Rae yes Annette1973, will get the help needed to navigate the benefit minefield on there. it is appalling that every debtor is seen as a won't pay. You cannot get money from nowhere, even if bailiffs have no compunction in leaving a vulnerable family with children without food heat and light, for the remainder of a fortnight as they forced them to hand over their entire benefit payment, or minimum wage after tax, for their debt. then land them with fees on top,

[brassnecked]

Your points are all to familar to caggers and there are many like you who want to shout the injustices from the rooftops. Please do look at the reform consultation section and you will get to shout a bit louder lol.

 

WD

 

Exactly so, post the horror stories in that section also

 

BN

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked,

 

Thank you very much for your help with the relevant legislation. I'm looking into this and am going to seek clarification about HCEOs.

 

OB

No problem , there are others more knowledgeable, but lawyers don't know the law any more than anyone else, they look it up LOL

[brassnecked]

ESA is a subsistence benefit, and replaces Incapacity benefit, it is means tested. DLA is a "enabling" benefit to help with extra costs that arise as a result of disability, and is not means tested, and can passport someone to other benefits also. people often confuse and misunderstand the differences

[brassnecked]

Only Income Based ESA is means tested, I am on Contributory Based ESA after being migrated from IB, this is not means tested.

 

Sorry pollie1 yes I should have added that if there is no other income, you move over to income based means tested ESA once contributions are exhausted. that is the trap many families fall into when conts based JSA or ESA runs out where the other partner is working.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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..

[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.

[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"

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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"

[brassnecked]

The council are wholly liable for the hell the bailiffs who are acting as THEIR agents put you through, so yes they get the letter also, as the buck firmly stops with THEM.

[brassnecked]

Today I received an email from our local Magistrates Courts. The email stated that they only have details of an old Liability Order from 2010 that we have already paid, which is strange as RR and the council are claiming that the LO they are enforcing was from last year.

 

Ask the council how many LOs there are and when were they obtained again, to check , if all are satisfied it is an even bigger hole they are digging for themselves.

[brassnecked]

It's all becoming very suspicious. I believe that something does not quite add up, hence the harassment. About halfway through the events on Tuesday, my husband and I started to become concerned that the harassment was not just because of the money.

 

Could the bailiffs abetted by the council have been enforcing for dodgy fees alone? You need to check all payments made and check the figures fomo council and bailiffs, but get those complaints off ASAP

[brassnecked]

Words like "rope" and "hang themselves" come to mind. LOL!

 

they are on the trapdoor, with Pierrepoint's hand on the lever.