jbw Bailiff *allegedly* ‘inadvertently recorded himself attacking woman while collecting council tax debt’

[Coughdrop]

This looks horrendous.

 

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Bailiff-inadvertantly-recorded-attacking-woman/story-26657418-detail/story.html

[outlawla]

The facility to comment has been disabled on that article. I doubt the police are sorry about that as I'm sure there would be plenty of people expressing criticism about their bias toward bailiffs.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hope a good Solicitors takes this on and starts action against those involved.

[Bailiff Advice]

We need to be a wee bit cautious of what we post given that this case has the potential to be very serious.

 

Interestingly, I was at a meeting last week where the subject of body worn cameras was on the agenda. I was surprised to be told that the guidance from the Information Commissioners Office was that the footage (and voice recording) should only be retained for 28 days. This time frame appears to be rather silly given that complaints to the local authority can take more than a month and if the debtor was not satisfied with the response...a subsequent complaint to the LGO could well take that time period to 6 months or even more.

[Coughdrop]

We need to be a wee bit cautious of what we post given that this case has the potential to be very serious.

 

Interestingly, I was at a meeting last week where the subject of body worn cameras was on the agenda. I was surprised to be told that the guidance from the Information Commissioners Office was that the footage (and voice recording) should only be retained for 28 days. This time frame appears to be rather silly given that complaints to the local authority can take more than a month and if the debtor was not satisfied with the response...a subsequent complaint to the LGO could well take that time period to 6 months or even more.

 

I'm surprised by that, the ICO are normally fairly realistic about things. If what you say is going to be accepted practice, it is insane. Is there a document from the ICO or anything where they actually state this?

[Bailiff Advice]

This looks horrendous.

 

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Bailiff-inadvertantly-recorded-attacking-woman/story-26657418-detail/story.html

 

 

 

 

BAILIFF is being investigated for allegedly assaulting a woman while collecting council tax arrears – after he inadvertently recorded the attack.

 

The man called at the flat in Belvedere Road, Crystal Palace, at 11am on April 14, and told the occupant, a 44-year-old woman, he was "from the council".

 

When she opened the door he walked straight in and told her he had been sent by Bromley Council because she owed £83 in council tax on top of a bailiff's fee of nearly £250.

 

The victim, who the Advertiser has agreed not to name, told the man she was not in arrears and, despite showing documents to prove it, the man started to sort through her belongings to see what could be seized.

 

The woman, who was half-dressed, went into her bedroom to get changed and says the bailiff, who works for JBW Group, followed her inside before pushing her.

 

When he refused to leave she called the police and he became aggressive. She says he knocked the phone out of her hand before pushing her onto her bed, still half-dressed, and putting his hands around her throat.

 

The alleged attack lasted several minutes before the woman was able to push herself free. When she picked up her phone the police operator was still on the end of the line and told her officers were on the way.

 

 

 

 

However, when they arrived the bailiff claimed she had attacked him and that he had a recording to prove it. JBW's website says its staff have "integrated mobile recording technology" which means an "accurate record of conversations during enforcement visits is integrated into every visit record".

 

The officers initially told the woman that they intended to arrest her, before deciding not to detain either of them due to a "lack of available evidence at scene".

 

In the weeks that followed the woman urged the police to review the telephone handler's record of the call.

 

It is understood the bailiff originally told police that he could not provide a recording of the visit because it had already been uploaded to JBW's system.

 

 

Full story is in the link provided in the first post and copied to the top of this one.

Edited August 12, 2015 by citizenB
Removed full copy and paste

[Peterbard]

It does indeed sound horrific.

I do wonder though how the details of the attack came to light, and how they have been verified, it seems to be the woman's view of events reported here, hand around the throat etc.

It may be correct of course and the bailiff should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if it is, it would however be good to hear the other side and any independent evidence.

If this report is just a newspaper article then they will print the most newsworthy view of events, just something to consider.

[brassnecked]

Full and thorough investigation, especially as it appears he called on a non debtor. I would be in jail now as had it been me and I owed nothing, I would have poleaxed the muppet. with a walking stick and extreme prejudice, to remove a trespasser who had no business in my home. It is good that the police belatedly reviewed his recording, this of itself is indicative that 6 months retention of data from bodycams etc is a minimum requirement.

[Bailiff Advice]

I do wonder though how the details of the attack came to light, and how they have been verified, it seems to be the woman's view of events reported here, hand around the throat etc.

It may be correct of course and the bailiff should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if it is, it would however be good to hear the other side and any

.

 

Given the seriousness of this allegation, I must confess to being very surprised indeed that the story was published without the benefit of speaking with JBW Group first.

[brassnecked]

Given the seriousness of this allegation, I must confess to being very surprised indeed that the story was published without the benefit of speaking with JBW Group first.

 

JBWs silence could well be telling in the fullness of time, they have a reputation for aggression second only to Marstons finest, from their ANPR enforcements.

[Coughdrop]

On a quick re-read, the article does state this:

 

"Last week she was called by a detective at Bromley CID who told her they had listened to the bailiff's recording and they now believe he attacked her."

 

It seems the police only listened to the recording after a fair bit of pressure was applied which, if true, is just wrong. It will be interesting to hear the fuller story over coming days.

[brassnecked]

Agree Coughdrop, police were in believe the bailiff mode. luckily the woman was not arrested, would look very good (not) for the police if they went to a house where a bailiff had barged in, it wasn't the named debtors address, and arrested the householder whilst the bailiff took their goods.

 

This bailiff must be prosecuted if he indeed assaulted the woman.

[unclebulgaria67]

Given the seriousness of this allegation, I must confess to being very surprised indeed that the story was published without the benefit of speaking with JBW Group first.

 

It is important the story was published. Puts the pressure on the Police to investigate and not to find a reason not to pursue. The enforcement companies should not be above the law.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is important the story was published. Puts the pressure on the Police to investigate and not to find a reason not to pursue. The enforcement companies should not be above the law.

 

And neither should the police. At this present time, the Metropolitan Police are carrying out a trial in 10 London boroughs with 1,000 police officers wearing body worn cameras with the intention of increasing the number of cameras to 10,000 within the next year. The police only retain their video's for a maximum period of one month.

 

This story is of course only one sided and we will obviously await further news, but the subject matter will no doubt be of interest to all bailiff companies who either use body worn cameras or are planning to use them in the near future.

[Bailiff Advice]

I'm surprised by that, the ICO are normally fairly realistic about things. If what you say is going to be accepted practice, it is insane. Is there a document from the ICO or anything where they actually state this?

 

Last year the ICO issued a public consultation on CCTV (which included body worn camera's and drones. The most recent guidance from them is the following and on the subject of how long the recordings should be kept, the guidance only states the following:

 

No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for the stated purpose of a surveillance camera system,

and such images and information should be deleted once their purposes have been discharged.

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

 

It would seem that Transport for London also delete their material after 28 days.

 

Over the past year or so I have received quite a number of enquiries from individuals who have made requests for copies of material from bailiff companies and encountered problems. On this subject the ICO guidance states the following:

 

Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearly defined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosure of images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or for law enforcement purposes.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It is important the story was published. Puts the pressure on the Police to investigate and not to find a reason not to pursue. The enforcement companies should not be above the law.

 

Its important the story was published one sided? Who has said we are above the law. The law is at its toughest when dealing with us I think you will find.

How about wait until the police have investigated. So far nobody has been arrested and nobody has been questioned but the debtor has been invited to make a statement.

If, as suggested, the police have looked at the video and thought something was wrong, would they not have pursued the bailiff already? But no, they don't appear to be pursuing. They have just told the debtor yo make a statement if she wishes to make a complaint. Maybe this isn't as clear cut as the lynch mob suggests. Let the police do their job and see what comes of it.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

You must also understand that other things go on while we are recording. Telephone calls, discussions with colleagues regarding other cases, paperwork on show being recording. We cant just let that be shown to the world so the release of video data is restricted to official requests. Data protection works both ways. We cant release your data, because to do so would release the data of a third uninterested party.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

And we cants edit it to cut out the data protection bit as we would be accused of all sorts. Rock and a hard place.

[unclebulgaria67]

Its important the story was published one sided? Who has said we are above the law. The law is at its toughest when dealing with us I think you will find.

How about wait until the police have investigated. So far nobody has been arrested and nobody has been questioned but the debtor has been invited to make a statement.

If, as suggested, the police have looked at the video and thought something was wrong, would they not have pursued the bailiff already? But no, they don't appear to be pursuing. They have just told the debtor yo make a statement if she wishes to make a complaint. Maybe this isn't as clear cut as the lynch mob suggests. Let the police do their job and see what comes of it.

 

I would expect that the journalist from the newspaper would have checked what was reported to them and this would have been checked again by the editor before publication. Of course it is then up to the Police to investigate properly. If the story as reported Is true this would not be the first time an EA had been involved in a situation like this.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

And it also wouldn't be the first time that wild and spurious accusations have been made. Could that not also be the case?

What's been checked? Nothing.

They are aware subject has stated that she has been assaulted but no proof has been supplied.

The EA wouldn't respond to a newspaper until an investigation has been carried out.

Police have confirmed they are not investigating but have invited the debtor in to make a statement.

 

But more worrying....you really think the paper would have checked, re checked, checked with the editor and got all facts straight before publishing??

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha

[Peterbard]

I would expect that the journalist from the newspaper would have checked what was reported to them and this would have been checked again by the editor before publication. Of course it is then up to the Police to investigate properly. If the story as reported Is true this would not be the first time an EA had been involved in a situation like this.

 

Grumpy is correct, lets see what actually happened when all the evidence is reviewed. It would be nice to think that newspapers check both sides of the story and review independent evidence before releasing a story, but in practice we all know they dont.They just want to sell copy and the most outrageous stories sell them best.

Some good points raised also about data protection, it does indeed work both ways, I can see several good reasons why there should be a ceiling on the retention of data for instance.

 

It is so easy for a story like this to turn into a rant against the enforcment industry, and it does no one any good, if the person involved was guilty as implied by the piece we will see in due course. Then we can consider the wider implications.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

If the EA is found to be guilty of this, then he can expect a FAR higher sentence than a normal Joe public vs Joe public assault. I have seen the justice system take it out on an EA and its not pretty. And neither should it be.

[unclebulgaria67]

And it also wouldn't be the first time that wild and spurious accusations have been made. Could that not also be the case?

What's been checked? Nothing.

They are aware subject has stated that she has been assaulted but no proof has been supplied.

The EA wouldn't respond to a newspaper until an investigation has been carried out.

Police have confirmed they are not investigating but have invited the debtor in to make a statement.

 

But more worrying....you really think the paper would have checked, re checked, checked with the editor and got all facts straight before publishing??

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha

 

We will have to wait and see. I would expect a journalist to make some checks and for an editor to also check, because if they publish an untrue allegation they may end up suffering financially.

 

Why i think there may be some truth is the length of the article and the details. Not sure it would have been published otherwise or only a small article not naming the EA company involved.

[brassnecked]

If the EA is found to be guilty of this, then he can expect a FAR higher sentence than a normal Joe public vs Joe public assault. I have seen the justice system take it out on an EA and its not pretty. And neither should it be.

 

It is in all our interests that this matter is investigated thoroughly, bailiffs get enough bad press for doing the job correctly, so the possibility of another loose cannon like Boast does no one any favours, EA who will be denigrated even if doing the right thing, and the public who will tend to regard all EAs as thugs and bullies, when the truth is the thugs are minority.

[Peterbard]

Is this the first we have heard of this case, there is something in he back of my mind which is familiar here.