Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[Annette1973]

Following numerous requests to take a look at SAR replies by Sherforce can I suggest you make a slight addition to the template PT has so kindly provided:

 

"It is expected that any documents written to code or abbreviations, be accompanied with the appropriate key to permit clarity"

 

 

Thanks for that, good idea, I hear these people like to bamboozle you with legallese etc......

[Annette1973]

Hi guys, I would just like to thank everyone who has helped me with my letter to Rob Jackson of Ross and Roberts. I am posting it today and will keep you all updated.

[Annette1973]

I have just viewed the female bailiffs Facebook page and it lists her interests as Black Eagle Martial Arts Equipment. This concerns me as it was this lady who threatened me. I have taken a screenshot to save just incase, every little helps.

[brassnecked]

I have just viewed the female bailiffs Facebook page and it lists her interests as Black Eagle Martial Arts Equipment. This concerns me as it was this lady who threatened me. I have taken a screenshot to save just incase, every little helps.

 

If she is into martial arts, there is evidence of this, and behaves in an aggressive manner, it may well go worse for her if she was found to have acted over aggressively.

[caledfwlch]

If she is into martial arts, there is evidence of this, and behaves in an aggressive manner, it may well go worse for her if she was found to have acted over aggressively.

 

It get's even better doesn't it! If she holds any sort of "qualification" or "belt" in a specific martial art, legally speaking, then a crime of violence or attempted violence can be treated the same as if the defendant had been holding a knife or gun, as they themselves are an "offensive weapon"

[brassnecked]

It get's even better doesn't it! If she holds any sort of "qualification" or "belt" in a specific martial art, legally speaking, then a crime of violence or attempted violence can be treated the same as if the defendant had been holding a knife or gun, as they themselves are an "offensive weapon"

If their aggression goes beyond a firm but controlled manner, and is overtly aggressive i would think that a judge would not be happy with her.

[Annette1973]

Thank you brassnecked and caledfwich, I am glad you can see it from my point of view. The female bailiff was extremely aggressive and she mocked my disability as well as threatening my dog. I am appalled that this is the kind of person our court system feels is suited to holding certification. To copy Caledfwich "it gets even better".

[Annette1973]

I think the court system needs to move with the times. When people apply for certification it takes 2 minutes to Google them. Everyone leaves a digital footprint. If you really want to know what a person is like, do your online research. Obviously these people aren't going to put on their application that they are obsessed with collecting weapons or whatever are they?

[Annette1973]

Help, I may be having a Malteser moment. My PM inbox is full and I can't seem to find the delete option, anyone?

[old bill]

I have noted that when someone is going to be certificated as a ******, sorry, bailiff, the fact has to be advertised in the local press and representations as to the persons fitness to act as a bailiff invited. However, in the case of one advertised in The Plymouth Herald, an aggressive statement about costs being claimed from those making representations would be pursued. Anyone know how lawful this is, please?

[king100]

Subbing this, gl with this one will read more with baited breath!!!

[wonkeydonkey]

Copy your letter to Council Head of Revenues as well, if Ross'n'Robbers try the usual 'not guilty plea' then apart from any recourse open to you don't forget the Council are also liable to their appointed agents actions?

 

WD

[Annette1973]

Subbing this, gl with this one will read more with baited breath!!!

 

Thank you kindly, I need all the support I can get.

[Annette1973]

Copy your letter to Council Head of Revenues as well, if Ross'n'Robbers try the usual 'not guilty plea' then apart from any recourse open to you don't forget the Council are also liable to their appointed agents actions?

 

WD

 

Certainly will WD, thanks.

[outlawla]

I have noted that when someone is going to be certificated as a ******, sorry, bailiff, the fact has to be advertised in the local press and representations as to the persons fitness to act as a bailiff invited. However, in the case of one advertised in The Plymouth Herald, an aggressive statement about costs being claimed from those making representations would be pursued. Anyone know how lawful this is, please?

 

 

I was reading part of the Distress for Rent Act 1988 recently, and noticed if the bailiff's certificate is cancelled, then it should be published in a local newspaper, or in a national newspaper if the bailiff’s main area of business extends beyond the district of the court. I'm not sure if this is the case when a bailiff is going to be certificated. It does however say in the Distress for Rent Act, that the name and address of all applicants for a general certificate shall be exhibited in the public area of the court office for the 60 days prior to the hearing of the application.

 

I assume you are referring to the form 4 complaint when you say "costs being claimed from those making representations would be pursued". This is likely to be propaganda from one of those enforcement regulatory bodies with a vested interest in scarring off potential complainants wishing to submit one of these form 4 complaints. This is only my opinion, but I have never seen any evidence of costs being awarded to any of these ****** firms in these circumstances.

Edited March 28, 2012 by outlawla

[Annette1973]

Panic over guys, I came off my iPad and went on my PC, I then found the delete options in my PM's.

[Annette1973]

Ok guys, I have just come off the phone with my insurance company as RR have reported ME for hitting THEIR car, when my car remained stationary. Obviously we have reported the incident to the police and we have a witness who saw their reverse lights on when my car was stationary. I am so upset. Obviously I have now given my insurance company the correct details and there was no damage to their vehicle so I can only conclude that this is another scare tactic by them as they would've received my Formal Complaint by now. I am literally shaking and my husband and daughter have gone out so I am on my own. I cannot believe this, luckily the witness to a photo of their van to confirm that they sustained no damage after they purposefully hit my car, I'm just so upset guys......

[unclebulgaria67]

I wonder how R& R would fare if you now used a 'no win no fee' company to pursue a personal injury claim against them. I don't know but you may be feeling the after effects of the accident. If this is the case, then you may wish to follow this up if you have a genuine injury as a result of the accident.

 

If it comes out in the claims details, how R&R officials acted on the day, their Insurers might take a dim view. If this ended up in front of a judge, they would not be too happy either.

 

NB. Be careful if the car is your daughters, but the Insurance is not in her name but in the name of her parents. This would be considered fronting by the Insurers and they would cancel the policy, if they found out this was the case. Think carefully before making any claim on the policy.

Edited March 28, 2012 by unclebulgaria67

[Annette1973]

I wonder how R& R would fare if you now used a 'no win no fee' company to pursue a personal injury claim against them. I don't know but you may be feeling the after effects of the accident. If this is the case, then you may wish to follow this up if you have a genuine injury as a result of the accident.

 

If it comes out in the claims details, how R&R officials acted on the day, their Insurers might take a dim view. If this ended up in front of a judge, they would not be too happy either.

 

NB. Be careful if the car is your daughters, but the Insurance is not her name. This would be considered fronting by the Insurers and they would cancel the policy, if they found out this was the case. Think carefully before making any claim on the policy.

 

Thanks UB, I intend to take this as far as possible.

[Annette1973]

Well guys one good thing to come from all of this is that I did get the male bailiffs first name and I have just got an email back from the female bailiffs Certificating Court and have now asked them to forward a form 4 to me. Still quite shaken up by the insurance call but soldiering on. Email below.

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your email dated 21 March 2012

 

I am unable to find any details to confirm that Bournemouth & Poole County Court were the certificating court for Mr [edit]. **Have Ross and Roberts been able to provide you with any details? ***Do you wish to make a formal complaint to the court?

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Ms J Xxxxxxxx

 

Section Manager - Listings

Bournemouth & Poole County Court

Edited March 28, 2012 by seanamarts
removed bailiffs name

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks UB, I intend to take this as far as possible.

 

Have you noted the NB I added to the post. In your earlier posts, I became confused by the ownership of the car. If it is your daughters and she in the main driver, the policy should be in her name. If you have tried to get around a high premium by putting it in your name, this is known as fronting (it is illegal). If this is the case, this may be the reason that R&R have reported the claim, even though their vehicle was not damaged.

[old bill]

I was reading part of the Distress for Rent Act 1988 recently, and noticed if the bailiff's certificate is cancelled, then it should be published in a local newspaper, or in a national newspaper if the bailiff’s main area of business extends beyond the district of the court. I'm not sure if this is the case when a bailiff is going to be certificated. It does however say in the Distress for Rent Act, that the name and address of all applicants for a general certificate shall be exhibited in the public area of the court office for the 60 days prior to the hearing of the application.

 

I assume you are referring to the form 4 complaint when you say "costs being claimed from those making representations would be pursued". This is likely to be propaganda from one of those enforcement regulatory bodies with a vested interest in scarring off potential complainants wishing to submit one of these form 4 complaints. This is only my opinion, but I have never seen any evidence of costs being awarded to any of these ****** firms in these circumstances.

 

No. This was someone APPLYING for certification as a bailiff. I don't know of any legal precedence that would allow an applicant or their potential employer to recover costs from anyone who made representations as to a person's fitness to act as a bailiff. I posted it up to see if any other caggers could shed light on this practice.

[old bill]

If their aggression goes beyond a firm but controlled manner, and is overtly aggressive i would think that a judge would not be happy with her.

 

Aggressive behaviour is normally dealt with under the Public Order Act 1986. In practice, the police give just one warning to desist before arresting the aggressor. When dealing with an aggressive person, a police officer has to make a split-second decision as to whether the person's conduct is a danger to others and if the answer to that is in the affirmative, then arrest is the only option. Where aggressive behaviour deteriorates into violence, that is, a person is physically struck by another, then the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 comes into play, depending on how serious the violence is and whether the person on the receiving end of the violence has sustained injury. I am advised by a learned associate that judges do not like bullying or harassment. It will be interesting to see what happens when the two scumbags involved in this case go before a judge.

[brassnecked]

No. This was someone APPLYING for certification as a bailiff. I don't know of any legal precedence that would allow an applicant or their potential employer to recover costs from anyone who made representations as to a person's fitness to act as a bailiff. I posted it up to see if any other caggers could shed light on this practice.

 

I think it refers to several threads on here where it was inferred that someone initiating a Form 4 could be landed with legal costs. and costs of the bailiff appearing as some courts were treating it as litigation, rather than the inquiry into a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate it really is

 

This one from Fork-it post # 12 last year from this thread:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?311115-Help-please-bristow-sutor-questioned-my-14-yr-old-to-find-out-what-vehicle-was-mine-when-i-wasnt-in-the-home

 

"Further information. I have looked at the allegations of multi-thousand pound costs orders being made against complainants in a Form 4 hearing.

 

These are rumours and their sources all come from within the

bailiff

industry.

 

There are no complainants that have a

costs order made against them, let alone one for thousands of pounds. They would have to be means tested before such an award could be made and an opportunity to defend it. Court rules prevent them being made in a persons absence unless the case is ex-parte (which Form 4 is not).

 

I looked at two

Form 4 complaints filed at Shoreditch

county court

which were

dismissed

as "frivolous and vexatious". One was against a

bailiff

who stubbed a cigarette on a footpath outside the debtors property. The other for parking a van accross a cummunal driveway. None involved any orders for costs.

 

It is more likely the bailiff industry trying to discourage debtors from making complaints. These are very damaging to

bailiffs

regardless of the outcome and can result in the bailiff bond being charged to pay the debtor compensation at the courts discretion. The court cannot award costs for either the complainant or the defendant in a Form 4 complaint hearing.

"

[old bill]

Ok guys, I have just come off the phone with my insurance company as RR have reported ME for hitting THEIR car, when my car remained stationary. Obviously we have reported the incident to the police and we have a witness who saw their reverse lights on when my car was stationary. I am so upset. Obviously I have now given my insurance company the correct details and there was no damage to their vehicle so I can only conclude that this is another scare tactic by them as they would've received my Formal Complaint by now. I am literally shaking and my husband and daughter have gone out so I am on my own. I cannot believe this, luckily the witness to a photo of their van to confirm that they sustained no damage after they purposefully hit my car, I'm just so upset guys......

 

This is the usual behaviour of those who know they are in the wrong. I've seen it and been on the receiving end of it. The fact you have independent witnesses goes in your favour. Did Ross & Roberts report you to their insurers or the police? Either way, they are in serious trouble. If anyone had been struck by the van, Dawson would, in all probability, be facing a charge of ABH or, possibly, GBH, depending on the nature and severity of any injury. Whatever happens, Selwood and Dawson are probably going to swing for their actions.