Distress Warrant and proof that Bailiff's use locksmith's if debtors refuse to pay their fees !!!!

[tomtubby]

Yesterday I was sent a copy of a thread that appeared on another forum (one that "claims" that bailiffs cannot charge fees of £300 for enforcing a Distress Warrant).

 

Sadly, yet another debtor had taken the dreadful "advice" on that site and promptly paid the amount of the fine only to the court and refused to pay the fees to the bailiff company.

 

As predicted, the bailiff returned to his home yesterday at 6am with a LOCKSMITH. Police were called and they took the side of the bailiff company. The debtor tried to convince the police that the "advice" that he had received from that website was correct (which it is not).

 

Most importantly, contrary to the constant claims on that site that bailiffs have NEVER forced entry, in this case the debtor confirmed on the website that locksmiths did in fact start drilling the lock on the front door ( which is actually quite common).

 

Not surprisingly, the entire incident was most distressing for all concerned and the bottom line is that the debtor ending up paying the bailiff fees of £300.

 

However....there is more........

 

The dreadful wrong advice EXPOSED the debtor to having to also pay the "locksmith fees" of £190 !!!!

 

The debtor confirmed on the forum that he had been fined £300 for speeding and had been convicted in his absence and sadly, he confirmed that he had received a letter from the court to advise him of the fine but that he "stupidly put it to one side and didn't pay".

 

What is more is that he also confirms that he is "pretty sure that they sent other letter but they were neither responded to or read"

 

I posted about this yesterday on another thread here on the forum and as predicted, this afternoon the other forum site owners removed the entire thread from their site and hid it in a "members area" .

 

This is a very common feature and is clearly to ensure that the public do not get to read of cases where bailiff companies enforcing Magistrates Court fines use the services of a locksmith if the debtor foolishly pays the fine to the court online and refuses to pay the bailiff fees.

Edited October 12, 2013 by citizenB
just clarifying

[nataku]

Name and shame them!

[josephbloggs]

The website mod on the forum has removed the thread from view now, claiming its been moved to a vip area for extra help. Erm sorry my mate, youve moved it because youve given useless advice and yet again been caught out!

[tomtubby]

It gets even worse.......

 

 

1. I only managed to get a pdf of the thread early this morning and hadn't realised what else had been written before the entire thread was removed. The following arrived by email this evening:
   
   
    
   
   
   Website owner:
   
   
    
   
   
   You really need a judges ruling on this because it enables you to start fresh claims against other parties involved.
   
   
    
   
   
   So I recommend a fast track claim
   and chase it through the small claims track as quickly as possible to get your case before the judge. The Dyfed Powys Excel case was aborted because the police force paid out.
   Therefore I recommend fast tracking it with the MOJ litigation team
   at Petty France.

Get estimates for the replacement door, don't need to be frugal, you can get a nice new door.

Consider making an application under the no-win no-fee scheme
   
   
    
   
   
   Debtor:
   
   
    
   
   
   Rung HMCTS to enquire about the original warrant.
   The man who advised me said that the whole issue of not having to pay bailiff fees is an internet myth that’s been coming up in the past few months,
   and that they had every right to enforce the distress warrant.
   
   
    
   
   
   Debtor:
   
   
    
   
   
   Where do I go from here? Do I go via the small claims court now?
   I want to be sure I’m legally right because the courts and the police are telling me that they have the right to force entry
   ...
   
   
    
   
   
   Website owner
   :
   
   
    
   
   
   The internet myth originated from Britain’s second highest judge. You can't get any higher authority than that.
   
   
    
   
   
   If you want us to manage your claim
   then solicitors can do it but you must complete a fact-find of the he case. Once that has been done, an assessor will evaluate e amount you can recover from each party at fault, being the police force and the MOJ who is responsible fro HM court service.
   
   
    
   
   
   You will get an estimate on what your claim will be.


   
   
    
   
   
   We receive a referral fee (£5k)
   which you never need to pay whether you win or lose. It is charged on as a disbursement and for our time in preparing he case and presenting it to court, it is also for providing the CRM. a solicitor or barrister attends the judgment hearing to do the formalities. His or her fee is added at the end when the orders are handed down by the court.
   
   
    
   
   
   Debtor:
   
   
    
   
   
   Ok im prepared to do whatever it takes, I dont even care about the money to be honest, i just dont think this is right at all. Please tell me what i need to do or how i start the claim. Im ready right now, i dont mind doing any no win no fee service but does that mean if i win and am only awarded £500, and the fees are £4000, would i be liable for the £3500 left?
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
   Website owner:
   
   
   No, you are never left with any costs, these are insured and the insurer can recover them, or obstruct lawyers to appeal to a higher court. Either way it costs you nothing.
   
   
    
   
   
    
   
   
   Website owner
   :
   
   
    
   
   
   Did you contact a solicitor this morning and do an online claim?

I have been asked to draft a claim for a bailiff drilling locks and it looks very similar to yours, I need to know otherwise I could be doing work in duplicate.
   The solicitor wants to negotiate a deal with MOJ lawyers
   rather than reach a court settlement and have asked me for the Excel police case
   
   
    
   
   
   Website owner
   :
   
   
    
   
   
   The fact find report has arrived and you have a very strong claim
   , it looks like nearly every golden rule in civil enforcement was broken. I feel case should not be conceded to a part 36 offer, but put before a court to decide on the legality of the use of a locksmith under these circumstances.
   
   
    
   
   
   Website owner:
   
   
    
   
   
   Your fact-find has been submitted to legal, I will ask a MOD to create your case management thread and document file in the members area.

Once you have been accessed, it will appear as 'Members' the follow >> Clients >> Your Name.

   
   

2. 
   
3. -
   
   Only forum management, legal and
   of course, myself (introducer)
   can see managed cases. The advocate at court will have the case on an Ipad in front of him, so do try to keep comments succinct because he has to digest it all
   before the trial.

   
   

Edited October 12, 2013 by ploddertom
Ressurrected

[%Ostrich%]

My god! This is worse than phonejacker "George Agdgdgwngo"

[wonkeydonkey]

Sorry to be constantly repeating myself BUT the man is a 24 carat con merchant, a danger to the public and a compulsive liar with all the evidence to support those facts having been posted many many times......when the s$$t hits the fan and it will.....the site owner is going to be the one to take the blame and cannot say in her defence she has not been warned.

Edited October 12, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[mikeymack2002]

TT can you let me know the site, by PM as I may have what you are looking for, if its the same site I think it is. I found it was full of total misinformation, but I tend to stay off of that sort of site, as its so wrong in so many ways it's unreal. if not don't worry. I have been looking for some stupid advice for my class, just to show the pupils how dangerous some sites can be. But in the favour of CAG, I have seen much better and more accurate advice, with fuller explanations to go with it, then why it makes more sense in the long run.

 

As everyone knows the CORRECT thing to do is pay your fine on time every time. There are certain times when this can be missed, but you MUST inform the court at the earliest opportunity, or as in this case feel the wrath of the bailiff.

 

A court debt IS A PRIORITY DEBT, it comes before booze fags n DEFFO before a MONTH in Ibiza, I wont write what everyone is thinking but heyho jail or Ibiza ummm that's a hard one NOT.

 

MM

Edited October 12, 2013 by mikeymack2002

[mikeymack2002]

The website owner wasn't quoting "skidmore" by any chance were they?

[wonkeydonkey]

The website owner wasn't quoting "skidmore" by any chance were they?

 

Yes

[mikeymack2002]

What the hell does "obstruct the lawyers to appeal" mean dohh, I wouldn't trust this guy/gal with my mail let alone a court case pmsl.

 

The way the big guns are chatting about "that" site, it must be a very bad place to get advice from!

 

How bad has this been for those who have taken advice and have acted on it. Do any of you guys know yet if they have they posted up the final damage to themselves?

[tomtubby]

As I mentioned yesterday, I received an email with a copy of the entire thread (before the thread was removed) and have just re-read it again and frankly, it is simply appalling and the poor debtor is being conned. I cannot put it more simply than that.

Here are some examples:

 

Website owner:

 

I need to speak to legals about the fact the defaulter was not at home when the locks were drilled.

 

 

Fact:

In his initial post the debtor said the following:

 

"So this morning Mr xxxxx and Mr xxxx knocked on the door at 6am and i refused to answer. I was told through the letterbox that unless i answered they would tell the locksmith to drill the lock on my door"

 

 

Website owner:

 

"When a valid levy is made on goods, breaking entry is only allowed when the defaulter is deliberately trying to avoid the bailiff after having made a valid walking possession agreement.

 

 

Fact:

 

Given that the website owner has "claimed" many times that he has worked in the Magistrates court he will have first hand knowledge of the Forced Entry guide issued by the Government which provides that a bailiff enforcing a Distress Warrant may force entry in order to LEVY upon goods.

 

 

Website owner:

 

"There is a myth that a bailiff can telephone a magistrate, but as this was at 6 am the magistrates courts are closed"

 

 

Fact:

 

The debtor stated that he had received a personal visit from bailiffs on 3rd October. He told the bailiffs that he would need additional time to make payment and it was agreed that the bailiffs would return later that day. The debtor then visited the website in question, believed the rubbish on there that bailiff fees cannot charge fees and then paid the amount of the fine ( as advised by the website owner) to the court using their online payment facility. The bailiffs called him during the day to enquire whether he had managed to get the money together and he informed them that he had paid the fine and that he would not pay their fees. He then received a warning letter giving him 7 days to pay.

 

He failed to pay and on the 7th day ( 10th October) the bailiffs re-attended.

 

So...how is it possible for the website owner to know whether the bailiff company have approached the court during the previous week to request permission to force entry with a locksmith !!! Very serious error indeed!!!

 

 

 

Of significance the website owner will obviously know from the governments Forced Entry guidance that it states the following:

 

"Legally the contractor does not require court approval prior to utilising the above statutory powers"

 

and that:

 

"If the Court Nominated officer or any deputy is not available to give approval at the relevant time, then the contractor may proceed to use the powers of entry at their own discretion"

Edited October 13, 2013 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

The Forced Entry guide has been around for over 5 years and all courts are aware of it. I would assume that almost all police forces are aware as well. Certainly the many police officers that I have spoken to are aware of it.

 

The right to force entry in relation to unpaid court fines had been introduced as an amendment to Schedule 4 of the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act by the previous government.

 

The whole idea of having the power to force entry is one that does not sit comfortably with me at all.

 

The present government had the opportunity to repeal section 4A ( which provides for forced entry to levy upon goods in relation to unpaid court fines) under the Freedoms Bill. They chose not to do so with the argument in favour of keeping the clause in place being that the THREAT to force entry has led to many more fines being repaid.

 

I have avoided for a long time posting a copy of the Forced Entry guide as it could very likely alarm many vulnerable people reading it.

 

However, given the appalling advice on other websites and the way in which debtors are being conned into believing that by completing an online "wizard" that they could then qualify for thousands of pounds by allowing websites to refer their complaint to a "no win, no fee" claim management company it is probably only right to provide a copy.

 

At least in that way, debtors have a choice whether to believe an official government document or,.....to believe .the "advice" from a website owner.

 

At home we use Apple computers and I am useless at being able to transfer a pdf to this forum from Apple. I have Dell computers at the office and should be able to attach the document from their sometime tomorrow.

[tomtubby]

Despite many private messages and emails it is not the policy of this forum to either name the website that has been providing such appalling bad advice or the website owner.

 

This is of course despite the opposite being the case on one particular website !!!

[mikeymack2002]

As we are aware s4a is not the best piece of the enforcement procedure, but .... a fine is in lieu of a much harsher sentence, i.e. prison, but you can still go to prison in default so a win, win for the courts. Ultimately whether or not advice from xx or zz is irrelevant, the court has that power to enforce at will for non payment. The fact that the bailiff does attend and force entry, is wholly the responsibility of the offender, they CHOOSE not to pay, but for those that can not pay, but IF they cannot then they need to attend court for a means hearing before it gets to the bailiff.

 

This is not me having a go at the poor people that face the bailiff for non payment but the people that give the wrong information in the first place. You can not and must not stick two fingers up at the court they WILL eat you alive and sleep well at night . I really feel for the people that can not pay due to financial circumstances, but they MUST talk to the courts before and at time of sentence to agree an affordable repayment plan that deals with this.

 

If you sit in court and see a mum/dad get sent down for non payment it beggars belief but, that is always the last resort, as is calling in the bailiff in the 1st place. I really do wish that the system was overhauled and brought into the 21st century and people being treated with some sort of compassion to a point, BUT cross that line then expect the full force of the courts. As far as these external sites giving such atrocious advice should be shut down period, fined and dealt with by the very people that they try to "CON" the real court service.

 

I guess the government will never really want to sort this out but its getting beyond a joke, some vulnerable person losing everything to a bailiff because they charge the earth in the first place, all because of a debt.... Grr I'm mad. TT how much would it really take for this sort of thing to get sorted once and for all, put in writing and made law? If there is so much money involved in this why does not the government take control of it completely and have one collection industry under one roof so to speak! instead of so many different companies being involved. Also for those cowboys to be banned from giving such advice in the first place.

 

Does anyone disagree with me regarding going to court when financial change affect the repayment plan before it goes to far? to ask for more time to pay. Or that these cowboys should be shut down? In reality the onus is on the debtor to seek advice from the very people that can turn theirs lives into a nightmare for non payment of fines?

 

MM

[wonkeydonkey]

TT that site is littered with posts that carry given advice which clearly shows the 'owner' does not even read posts properly, he simply spouts forth with stupid advice or dangerous advice...there are many to choose from but as I am in a hurry I picked one at random and came up with this

 

poster 'I also displayed that notice revoking rights to come onto property but that hasn't worked can I do anything about that' ?

owners advice...'For the time being, Deploy the NORIROA'

 

I can support my 'rantings' that discredit him, which is why he cannot come back to deny them.Just look at some of the crap he throws out of his pram at you and I but, he has yet to show anything to support it.... this weeks side splitter is an alleged new client who is a 'doctor' who gave him a telephone diagnosis that concludes..... I am 'mentally deranged' or at best suffer 'bipolar or serious mental health problems'......well what can I say to that corker?????

[wonkeydonkey]

As we are aware s4a is not the best piece of the enforcement procedure, but .... a fine is in lieu of a much harsher sentence, i.e. prison, but you can still go to prison in default so a win, win for the courts. Ultimately whether or not advice from xx or zz is irrelevant, the court has that power to enforce at will for non payment. The fact that the bailiff does attend and force entry, is wholly the responsibility of the offender, they CHOOSE not to pay, but for those that can not pay, but IF they cannot then they need to attend court for a means hearing before it gets to the bailiff.

 

This is not me having a go at the poor people that face the bailiff for non payment but the people that give the wrong information in the first place. You can not and must not stick two fingers up at the court they WILL eat you alive and sleep well at night . I really feel for the people that can not pay due to financial circumstances, but they MUST talk to the courts before and at time of sentence to agree an affordable repayment plan that deals with this.

 

If you sit in court and see a mum/dad get sent down for non payment it beggars belief but, that is always the last resort, as is calling in the bailiff in the 1st place. I really do wish that the system was overhauled and brought into the 21st century and people being treated with some sort of compassion to a point, BUT cross that line then expect the full force of the courts. As far as these external sites giving such atrocious advice should be shut down period, fined and dealt with by the very people that they try to "CON" the real court service.

 

I guess the government will never really want to sort this out but its getting beyond a joke, some vulnerable person losing everything to a bailiff because they charge the earth in the first place, all because of a debt.... Grr I'm mad. TT how much would it really take for this sort of thing to get sorted once and for all, put in writing and made law? If there is so much money involved in this why does not the government take control of it completely and have one collection industry under one roof so to speak! instead of so many different companies being involved. Also for those cowboys to be banned from giving such advice in the first place.

 

Does anyone disagree with me regarding going to court when financial change affect the repayment plan before it goes to far? to ask for more time to pay. Or that these cowboys should be shut down? In reality the onus is on the debtor to seek advice from the very people that can turn theirs lives into a nightmare for non payment of fines?

 

MM

 

You make some good points here MM and if time permitted I would love to go over some of them with you, as it is, I have work to do preparing a bill of costs for one of the poor sods you give mention.

[wonkeydonkey]

Unless you are a member of the site in question you cannot access the forum titled 'Flame Pit' however, so appalled by the content of that forum a member took to copy several posts and forward them to me ......the post you mention has received their opinion it was a 'hoax' but of course they need someone to point their fingers at as the 'hoaxer' ......this time I never got a mention but, the blame has been attributed to...guess who????

Edited October 14, 2013 by citizenB
quote removed.

[tomtubby]

 

Unless you are a member of the site in question you cannot access the forum titled 'Flame Pit' however, so appalled by the content of that forum a member took to copy several posts and forward them to me ......the post you mention has received their opinion it was a 'hoax' but of course they need someone to point their fingers at as the 'hoaxer' ......this time I never got a mention but, the blame has been attributed to...guess who????

 

 

Interesting!!

 

My initial thoughts were that somebody connected with their site had posted it but wasn't too sure.

 

It could well be from a disgruntled debtor. I would assume that they are laying the blame with one of the two bailiffs (who were named in the original thread about the debtor paying £190 for the locksmith).

 

 

 

My second quess as to who they consider was the hoaxer was probably the enforcement company.

[tomtubby]

Bloody Nora !!!

 

His obsession with me is dangerous. Next he will be blaming my two cats (and probably rightly so given that their level of intelligence is far superior to mine !!!)

 

I will send you a pm with my email address. Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the posts. Thank you.

[tomtubby]

The "spoof post" was on the site early yesterday morning and BEFORE I had even mentioned anything about it another poster on here (John Maddison) had already posted a "word copy" which HE had seen on the site yesterday MORNING and this was BEFORE it had been removed from that site !!

 

This is dreadful ......

[unclebulgaria67]

I would suggest that the site team deletes this whole thread

 

on the basis that it was started about a post to another site,

the post which now appears to be spoof.

 

Therefore as the thread does not actually address what has happened to a member of the public,

it does not serve any purpose.

 

It is not helplful to anyone to have a thread which now mostly concerns the bad advice given by another advice site.

 

Most of us know which bailiff site we are dealing with here, so I would draw a line under it.

 

It really surprises me that an internet site which charges fees for various services does not need to be regulated in any way.

[citizenB]

Contributors/viewers to this thread would have been notified that this thread had been removed/deleted. This is not so. An allegation was made that it was a "spoof" thread - and site team decided to take the thread offline whilst the allegation was being investigated and the relevant posts removed.

[unclebulgaria67]

At some stage there needs to be a thorough analysis of what powers a bailiff has to force entry. I have a feeling that it does not happen very often. It would be pretty silly for a bailiff to force entry to purely collect their fees of £300 in respect of a magistrates court fine that had already been settled. Once the fine is settled, I very much doubt that any warrant would still have any operating powers still remaining for the bailiff to use.

Edited October 15, 2013 by ploddertom
Tidying up

[wonkeydonkey]

UB as I see it the debtor having failed to pay the fine and having ignored reminders incurred a visit/letter from the bailiff, it was after this he took advice from the site in question which claimed he did not have to pay any fees once the debt was paid/settled, it was only then he chose to pay the fine direct to the court. Furthermore and on reading the post again...the poster clearly stated he was at home when the lock was being drilled.

 

TT started the thread using the 'genuine' post that had been on that site for some time, the poster(who has my heartfelt sympathy for having been exposed to further costs) returned to give an update....that update confirmed what TT has been trying to warn against for some time...the bailiff can enforce for fees due to him...

Edited October 14, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[unclebulgaria67]

UB as I see it the debtor having failed to pay the fine and having ignored reminders incurred a visit from the bailiff, it was after a previous visit and being given notice a return visit was imminent he took advice from the site in question which claimed he did not have to pay any fees once the debt was paid/settled, it was only then he chose to pay the fine direct to the court. Furthermore and on reading the post again...the poster clearly stated he was at home when the lock was being drilled.

 

TT started the thread using the 'genuine' post that had been on that site for some time, the poster(who has my heartfelt sympathy for having been exposed to further costs) returned to give an update....that update confirmed what TT has been trying to warn against for some time...the bailiff can enforce for fees due to him...

 

The person having their lock drilled at 6am was the spoof post to the other site.

 

I have not seen an actual post from a true case, where someone has had forced entry, for payment of a bailiff fees only.

 

So far I have not seen any 100% conclusive evidence in the form of legislation, case law, where it confirms that a bailiff may force entry to a private house in relation to enforcement of their fees.

 

I am sure that there is misleading advice being offered elsewhere, but to blow their case out of the water, it would be great to have clear evidence that a bailiff can force entry to recover their fees, after a court fine had been settled in full.