Jump to content


Husband & wife found guilty of obstucting an enforcement agent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2508 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

http://dukesdebtadvice.co.uk/2015/01/19/obstructing-an-enforcement-agent/

 

The offence of ‘obstructing a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent’ is now becoming recognised

and used by Police after the law was introduced last April as part of

the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (para 68 of Schedule 12).

 

In one of the first cases to be brought to court in England since the new regulations were passed,

2 people – a husband and wife from Cheshire – were found guilty.

 

 

The pair were convicted of intentionally obstructing an Enforcement Agent,

namely Mark Bytheway of Dukes Bailiffs when he visited their home on 10th June 2014 to recover unpaid Council Tax.

 

The husband and wife were also found guilty of Dangerous Driving and Criminal Damage

in an incident which saw the Enforcement Agent’s vehicle damaged, rammed by another car and the keys taken.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DOes it go into any detail of the circumstances? Or are we just meant to believe a one sided view from the bailiff?

 

In any case there was NO reason for anyone to ram his car and take the keys. That is stupidity at the highest level.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's going to be a huge difference between this case, where they've rammed into the EAs car to a situation where someone quietly refuses an EA entry.

 

Let's remind ourselves - it is not an offence to refuse to allow an EA enter, nor is it an offence to ask them to leave. If they try to barge past you, they commit the offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the couple actually have a post on CAG about the actions of the bailiff i can remember reading something similar to this.

 

You might be thinking about this one where the debtor was jailed for 9 months. In this case the debtor chased the bailiff in his car.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431366-Judge-jails-debtor-for-9-months-for-chasing-bailiff-in-his-car.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is by far the worst and seems to be as a result of dreadfully misleading information on the internet. The debtor posted on a forum only a few weeks offering to pay a fee of £500 (I believe) to anyone who may have information about the same bailiffs !!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

 

i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?

 

Hopefully tye ANPR vans will be weighed in at the scrapyard end of problem. perhaps they are being creative within the new regulations to maximise their infliction of terror on the debtor, to make them beg steal or borrow to pay them there and then before they remove a clamp.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...