Husband & wife found guilty of obstucting an enforcement agent

[josephbloggs]

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.

[renegadeimp]

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.

[taurusgemini]

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.

[letsgetitsorted]

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

[lookinforinfo]

It it known what the obstruction was? I assume it was not for refusing entry unless the EA had a Court Order.

[queensclose]

sounds more like he was attempting to remove a car and it got out of hand. not a refused a peaceful entry so it must be obstructing an enforcement agent

[Bailiff Advice]

It must have been very serious given that they were ordered to complete 180 hours community service and pay fine and costs of £1,500.

 

The wife was also disqualified from driving for a year.

[Bailiff Advice]

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.....

[Bailiff Advice]

 

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

 

 

Dukes are not correct when they say that this case is 'one of the first'.

 

This thread is about a debtor who was convicted and decided to appeal to the Crown Court. He lost...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431453-Debtor-loses-Crown-Court-appeal-for-assault-and-removing-a-wheel-clamp.

[Bailiff Advice]

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-.

[Bailiff Advice]

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.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Do the notices (on the window) not have times on them?

[Bailiff Advice]

Do the notices (on the window) not have times on them?

 

The beauty of mobile phones means that debtors can simply take a picture of the sticker and send a copy. In each case there was no time given on the stickers.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Wow, I thought the stickers were notices themselves and the EA needed to list the time of impounding. Space to write the time and not filled in? Or no box on the paperwork to fill in?

[josephbloggs]

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?

[brassnecked]

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.