Excel Civil Enforcement Bailiff

[old bill]

So just to get this straight; you were fined for having no TV license.

You didnt pay the fine and were sent a warning by the court.

You didnt respond to this and they sent you a second warning.

You didnt respond to that and the matter was forwarded to a bailiff company

The bailiff company wrote to you at which point you were charged an administration fee you didnt pay the fine and a bailiff attended at which point an attendance fee was applied, at this point you started to take the matter seriously and thought you best pay the fine.

 

The point is that a warrant of distress was issued by the magistrate because you hadnt paid a criminal fine.

You didnt engage with the bailiff company which is why a bailiff called. The bailiffs fees are legally recoverable and as regards 'threatening to break in', their warrant gives them that power under the Domestic Violence Criminal Victims Act 2004 scd 4a. Its not a threat just a warning of possible consequence was they believe you are a 'willful evader', which it would appear you were.

As regards you Form4 complaint, forget it, the bailiff was an agent of the court seeking to collect the courts money, the fine, which you were trying to evade, the judge will just laugh at you and hit you with a bill for costs.

The bailiff costs are agreed by the court and go on to form part of the outstanding fine, if you dont pay them the magistrate Court Act 1980 s.76 states that you could be arrested for a committal hearing and sent to prison, unlikely but it does happen.

 

However you state that you changed address and never received the further steps notice, if this is true then you should have applied to the court for a statutory declaration to stay the proceedings, you would have to do this on Oath and therefore perjury rules would apply.

 

Dont forget bailiff are agents of the court and act upon the courts instructions they can only work on what the court gives them so if that information is incorrect then its a failing of the court.

Dont forget bailiffs have been opperating since the Act of Marlborough 1267, they have the law on their side

 

Although it will be sometime before I am posting on a regular basis again, after reading the above I feel strongly about what has been written. Peccavi, what you have written displays an alarming lack of knowledge and understanding of the reality of private-sector bailiff companies enforcing magistrates courts fines on behalf of HMCTS and the DVCV Act. For your information, the DVCV Act only provides a right of forced entry in cases of persistent non-payment of fines, not carte blanche to force entry as and when a bailiff feels like it. Having discussed the use of the provision with a HMCTS Enforcement Manager, the provision must not be used routinely and it must not be undertaken without written authorisation from the court. The fact is, certificated bailiffs lie and resort to intimidation as a means of achieving their objectives. That is not acting in accordance with the law and, certainly, not acting in accordance with the instructions of the court.

 

As to your comment that bailiffs have the law on their side, you might wish to note that the moment a certificated bailiff crosses the line, any legal protection they may have flies out of the window. This also applies when they decide they are going to do things their way. Private-sector bailiff companies enforcing on behalf of HMCTS have a clause written into the contract that they and their bailiffs must not act in any way that brings the courts and HMCTS into disrepute or exposes the Secretary of State for Justice to litigation. The manner in which the private-sector bailiff companies enforcing on behalf of HMCTS behave frequently brings the courts and HMCTS into disrepute and exposes the SoS for Justice to litigation. The claim made by New Labour and the ConDem coalition that the arrangement is "no cost to the taxpayer" is a fallacy. It is the taxpayer who foots the bill for any compensation, damages and expenses private-sector bailiff companies become liable as a result of the behaviour of their out-of-control employees.

[brassnecked]

@ Peccavi unfortunately as has been mentioned by oldbill, Excel, Marstons and other Certificated bailiffs contracted by HMCS are a pox on the world, Marstons have a track record of assaulting debtors and third parties, at which point the Court itself becomes a criminal, due to being vicariouisly liable for any misdeeds by their agent the bailiff, accomplices before and after the fact if the enforcement becomes unlawful for whatever reason. none of them are absolutely squeaky clean.

 

Oldbill good to see you back even on a passing visit. I am planning a film about bailioff crime, and am hoping Loretta will give permission to use her story, so we can get something out there that is accurate, definitive, and tells the truth about these legalised thugs and bullies.

[Peccavi]

Gentlemen you seem to have both missed the point in furtherance of your own agendas, the point i was trying to make is that people should pay their fines on time then they wouldnt have to worry about bailiffs calling. Its very easy to pin the fault on bailiffs for their actions and conveniently forget that the fines they are chasing are given for criminal acts and have not been paid.

Maybe i do have an alarming lack of knowledge old bill, how you base this on one conversation with an enforcement manage i dont know, but i recognise that bailiffs are working in a very difficult situation with very little public support trying to enforce the will of the court.

Instead of villifying bailiffs for their actions i think you should be encouraging people to pay their fines on time and not duck the issue then they will have no trouble with bailiffs

[wonkeydonkey]

People in the main, will acknowledge they have a debt and are happy to make arrangements to satisfy it.

 

What is the norm with bailiffs is greed and the fact they will take advantage of the debtor whenever possible by, adding fees they know damn fine well are not permitted, the use of intimidation backed by blatant lies to their true authority and you can read multiple accounts that show they are not adverse to using physical violence right here on CAG.

 

Bailiffs belong to an industry that has been shown to be vile for centuries, it is perhaps the lowest form of employment anyone could wish to engage in, unless they follow sadism, if they behaved in a manner society could see to be acceptable, there would be no need for this conversation or this forum??

 

WD

[brassnecked]

Peccavi, it is significant that the late Lord Denning tried to get rid of distress and bailiffs last century as he regarded them as repugnant in a modern society. They belong in the 12th century. wonkeydonkey has summarised what is wrong with bailiffs more than adequately.

 

As to TV Licence that is something that shouldn't even be in existence let at alone be enforced with criminal sanctions.

 

Last century the majority of women in jail were there for non payment of TV licence fines so go figure!

[1Loretta]

Gentlemen you seem to have both missed the point in furtherance of your own agendas, the point i was trying to make is that people should pay their fines on time then they wouldnt have to worry about bailiffs calling. Its very easy to pin the fault on bailiffs for their actions and conveniently forget that the fines they are chasing are given for criminal acts and have not been paid.

Maybe i do have an alarming lack of knowledge old bill, how you base this on one conversation with an enforcement manage i dont know, but i recognise that bailiffs are working in a very difficult situation with very little public support trying to enforce the will of the court.

Instead of villifying bailiffs for their actions i think you should be encouraging people to pay their fines on time and not duck the issue then they will have no trouble with bailiffs

 

I am afraid I must disagree with you on several points

 

1 You are presuming that all bailiffs are 'only doing their job' and do so in a professional manner, no threats and no violence

 

2 You are presuming that bailiffs only ask for fees that they are lawfully allowed to charge

 

3 You are presuming that everyone who works for a Council are super efficient and never make mistakes

 

4 In the unlikely event that they do make a mistake they own up to it and put it right as soon as they can and then apologise

 

5 You presume that if you pay all your fines, Council Tax etc you will never have a visit from a bailiff

 

You obviously have not read either of my threads, please read them and then do what I expect the Council to do, see 4 above for details

[The Evil Bus Driver]

@ Peccavi unfortunately as has been mentioned by oldbill, Excel, Marstons and other Certificated bailiffs contracted by HMCS are a pox on the world, Marstons have a track record of assaulting debtors and third parties, at which point the Court itself becomes a criminal, due to being vicariouisly liable for any misdeeds by their agent the bailiff, accomplices before and after the fact if the enforcement becomes unlawful for whatever reason. none of them are absolutely squeaky clean.

 

Oldbill good to see you back even on a passing visit. I am planning a film about bailioff crime, and am hoping Loretta will give permission to use her story, so we can get something out there that is accurate, definitive, and tells the truth about these legalised thugs and bullies.

 

Brassnecked you have a PM.

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked you have a PM.

 

Nothing in my inbox yet

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Ah bugger. I'll re-send it.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Nothing in my inbox yet

 

Hmm looks like I have to post another 10 messages... lets just say it concerns the film you're planning on making.

[old bill]

Gentlemen you seem to have both missed the point in furtherance of your own agendas, the point i was trying to make is that people should pay their fines on time then they wouldnt have to worry about bailiffs calling. Its very easy to pin the fault on bailiffs for their actions and conveniently forget that the fines they are chasing are given for criminal acts and have not been paid.

Maybe i do have an alarming lack of knowledge old bill, how you base this on one conversation with an enforcement manage i dont know, but i recognise that bailiffs are working in a very difficult situation with very little public support trying to enforce the will of the court.

Instead of villifying bailiffs for their actions i think you should be encouraging people to pay their fines on time and not duck the issue then they will have no trouble with bailiffs

 

It might interest you to know, Peccavi, that I am a retired police officer and have studied law since retiring. I also had to deal with the more violent elements within the civil enforcement industry when in the police force. Furthermore, the final sentence of your post tends to suggest that you are either a bailiff or employed by a bailiff company. If this is the case, take off the rose-tinted spectacles and face up to harsh reality, no matter how unpalatable you may find it. Certificated bailiffs are, unfortunately, bullies, cheats and thugs. Period.

[brassnecked]

@ oldbill, Amen they are all that and more in the world of nastiness, and cheating

[Sparks_]

Certificated bailiffs are, unfortunately, bullies, cheats and thugs. Period.

You forgot pathological liars!

[old bill]

You forgot pathological liars!

 

That as well.

[zydeco]

the final sentence of your post tends to suggest that you are either a bailiff or employed by a bailiff company.

 

no need to get personal.

[old bill]

no need to get personal.

 

The sooner certificated bailiffs wake up and smell the coffee that debtors are better-informed and will fight back, the better. Certificated bailiffs who come onto forums, like CAG, trying to hijack threads or feed misleading information to those being targeted by certificated bailiffs really are showing just how desperate they are to maintain the status quo. Get used to the fact that the consumer is fighting back whether the civil enforcement industry likes it or not.

[zydeco]

OB, I agree fully with your comments about bailiffs,

 

I just think that accusing somebody of being a bailiff is a bit personal.

[old bill]

OB, I agree fully with your comments about bailiffs,

 

I just think that accusing somebody of being a bailiff is a bit personal.

 

If you read the relevant post, you will note that I use the phrase "...suggests you are a bailiff...". That is not accusing someone of being a bailiff. You may consider it is "personal", but it is known that bailiffs do, in fact, trawl forums like CAG and post up information that is misleading and, in some instances, downright wrong or dishonest.

[zydeco]

OB, my original comment was made 'tongue in cheek', hence the smiley.

[old bill]

OB, my original comment was made 'tongue in cheek', hence the smiley.

 

Sometimes, comments such as that can be misinterpreted and may be inappropriate in the circumstances. In hindsight, it may have been better if the comment had not made it at all.