Making a Complaint about a bailiff to the MAGISTRATES COURT....this will land the DEBTOR in real trouble !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

Over the past few months a large number of Facebook pages have been set up (mainly by Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land activists). A common feature of these pages is the use of highly dubious methods of 'beating the bailiff'.

 

The most common feature, and one that is sadly costing debtors dearly is the advice to refuse to speak or correspond with the enforcement agent and instead, to pay the amount of the actual 'debt' (Liability Order, parking penalty notice, court fine) direct to the creditor (minus bailiff fees of course). From further reading it would appear that the reason for refusing to 'engage' with the enforcement company is that by 'engaging' the debtor becomes a 'joinder' and therefore is agreeing to a 'contract' being entered into (a daft Freeman on the Land theory and one that has no basis in law whatsoever).

 

A rather worrying suggestion that I have seen on quite a few of these sites recently is the advice to debtors to make a complaint about bailiff fees to the Magistrate's Court under the provision of Regulation 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. This is novel idea and one that again is being sold by 'Guru's' and has no basis whatsoever in law.

 

Of course as with all such scams, there is no evidence whatsoever of any court 'successes'. This is despite the highly inaccurate 'claims' on these Facebook pages that once the summons is laid before the Justice of the Peace that the Justice will either issue a summons directed to the bailiff requiring him to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information or more ludicrously; that a warrant would be issued ordering the bailiff to be arrested and brought to court to answer the charges.

 

A copy of a recent 'template' is provided in the following post.

[Peterbard]

Honestly it would be funny if it weren't so serious. I suppose this will be the next "money spinner for certain "law firms"

 

I suppose I am wasting my breath, baring in mind that it was here that I said that Mckenzie friends could not recover debtors costs and injunctions were inappropriate and dangerous in terms of possible costs(both found to be entirely accurate, sadly to some debtors cost).

 

This idea has absolutely no credibility and will not work, the reasons will no doubt be gone into in depth on this thread but basically, there are procedures for taking action in regards to EA malpractice laid down in the legislation and CPR and you are considering starting a criminal action which comes under the purview of the police and criminal enforcement agencies, it is not like a civil case.

 

It has been floating around the FMoTL forums for some years and is just complete nonsense.

[unclebulgaria67]

Whilst i accept the previous comments, there must be situations where it is appropriate to lay information with a Magistrate regarding EA behaviour.

 

Therefore it cannot be a case of this being 100% the wrong way to proceed. But if people ever do go down this route, they should have a fully qualified registered Solicitor acting for them. Taking dodgy advice from internet sites and then expecting to be taken seriously by Magistrates is deluded.

 

We know that Police are reluctant to investigate EA's and there will be cases where some sort of civil court procedure is not sufficient to deal with the situation.

[Peterbard]

Sorry but not to muddy the waters here, there are no situations where representation should be made to a magistrates court, if someone considers that there has been a criminal offence you report the matter to the police.

 

Magistrates courts will not even look at an application in the form represented here. Or if they did the person making the proposition may well wish they hadn't.

 

EDIT of course I am referring to EA matters.

[ploddertom]

These people will not listen to any other view or suggestion bar those that will suggest the action is unlawful, the Court is fake or they do not have to pay the fees or any other costs. They have to find out the hard way unfortunately and even then they will refuse to accept it. A prime example of this recently is the Crawford case that has been well played out on different forums & websites. Of course they can always pay using the latest banking details & new currency - the WeRe, but look where that has got some of them and the person who dreamt it up has apparently disappeared.

[josephbloggs]

Ive been told that marstons are deliberatly going after people who pay direct and send these letters in to court or company and forcing entry with a locksmith to make a point that it doesnt work. Mate of mine said 60 times forced entry was used last week... And furthermore they are being encouraged to use reasonable force more and more (ie foot in door) - referring to court fines here only by the way.

[mikeymack2002]

Time to spend reading replies about yet another notice that is allegedly wrong, just curious as to why so much energy is being spent on threads like this, simple advice go see a Solicitor, pure clean very simple:

 

 

Enough said

[Peterbard]

Would have thought the reason was obvious, to prevent people from falling for another [problem] and loosing their money ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Just curious as to why so much energy is being spent on threads like this, simple advice go see a Solicitor, pure clean very simple.

 

Please do not concern yourself MM about the amount of energy spent putting together this thread. It took very little of my time.

 

I also notice this morning that the thread has been picked up by SCOOP and that in less that 24 has received almost 500 viewings. If anyone does not wish to read it then please do not do so.

[Peterbard]

I think also knowledge is always a good thing, especially if it helps consumers avoid problems

[unclebulgaria67]

Please do not concern yourself MM about the amount of energy spent putting together this thread. It took very little of my time.

 

I also notice this morning that the thread has been picked up by SCOOP and that in less that 24 has received almost 500 viewings. If anyone does not wish to read it then please do not do so.

 

I did not like the title of thread about lending debtor in trouble. If you want to educate people, perhaps creating fear is not the way.

 

I still think there will be situations where a debtor will want an EA to face investigation for criminal issues, where the Police are not interested. I thought the whole idea of laying information with a Magistrate was for them to decide based on the information, whether there was a case for the Police to be called to investigate. I thought this was an established right of citizens, where they felt that the Police were not upholding the law. But debtors in this situation should consult a Solicitor before they waste their time.

[Bailiff Advice]

I did not like the title of thread about lending debtor in trouble. If you want to educate people, perhaps creating fear is not the way.

 

I still think there will be situations where a debtor will want an EA to face investigation for criminal issues, where the Police are not interested. I thought the whole idea of laying information with a Magistrate was for them to decide based on the information, whether there was a case for the Police to be called to investigate. I thought this was an established right of citizens, where they felt that the Police were not upholding the law. But debtors in this situation should consult a Solicitor before they waste their time.

 

In fact I had not known until this morning where this daft idea had come from. I really did think that they had been put together by one of the fmotl facebook group and this was on the basis of a similar notice that I have copied from one of the sites this morning. This second template encourages debtors to 'lay a complaint' to the Magistrates Court against a police officer under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is being said by those selling these ideas that courts are awarding payouts to debtors and that police are falling like flies to settle claims to avoid being arrested. This is sadly conning the public. There is not a shred of evidence that courts are rolling over or that police (or bailiffs) are settling any of these complaints.

 

On your point that the title of the thread may be harsh, I would disagree. If a complaint is laid in the Magistrates Court about either a police officer or a bailiff then without a shadow of a doubt the 'accused' would have legal representation and debtors will quickly find that this daft idea could land them with a significant cost order.

[mikeymack2002]

It can be filed under buyer beware best advice offered would seek a professional service like a Solicitor...

 

 

Also is worrying that the word FMOTL has not made its way in to this thread yet how come?

[Peterbard]

FMOTL

 

There you go

[mikeymack2002]

Spoil sport DB....

[mikeymack2002]

So with this how bad can it or would it be for someone to go down this route?

[Peterbard]

Well if you were lucky the court would just ignore it.

 

There used to be a procedure under section 46 of the council tax regs for making complaint to the MC regarding an irregular levy, I think it went with the introduction of the TCE

[Bailiff Advice]

 

There used to be a procedure under section 46 of the council tax regs for making complaint to the MC regarding an irregular levy, I think it went with the introduction of the TCE

 

The relevant regulation was indeed Regulation 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 and this was repealed on 6th April 2014.

 

A 'Regulation 46' complaint was a very odd creature indeed and around 2008/9 I drafted quite a few of these but none were ever successful given that almost all Magistrates Courts around the country had little or any knowledge of the PROCEDURE that they should follow. I have looked back at notes on my computer on a few of these from that time and in once case with Canterbury Magistrates Court they advised the debtor that there was a 'court fee' of £350 to request the summons. Another Magistrate could quoted £225.

 

The complaint was one that allowed that if a debtor was 'aggrieved' by the 'levy' that they could lay a compliant at the Magistrates Court and that if the court considered that a grievance had been evidenced then the court would be responsible under Section 51 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to issue a summons on the local authority (given that the LA are wholly responsible for the levy and actions of the enforcement agent).

[tortle]

Hi,

just to clarify complaints can be made against the magistrates court for breaches of the national standards by there bailiffs cant they.

 

And this wouldn't entail someone having to make a court application.

 

I just wanted to clarify that in case the heading of the thread put of someone taking the complaint direct to the court on there lack of control of the EA.

 

And yes i know they most likely wont look at complaints about charges but where wrong charges arise there is usually something else that the compliant can be based on.

 

[Peterbard]

Hi,

just to clarify complaints can be made against the magistrates court for breaches of the national standards by there bailiffs cant they.

 

And this wouldn't entail someone having to make a court application.

 

I just wanted to clarify that in case the heading of the thread put of someone taking the complaint direct to the court on there lack of control of the EA.

 

And yes i know they most likely wont look at complaints about charges but where wrong charges arise there is usually something else that the compliant can be based on.

 

 

dependant om the complaint there are prescribed methods under the act for breaches of the procedure, i suspect the MC would direct you to these. If this were a criminal matter it would be better just to report the matter to the police, any magistrate would want to know why you thought the authorities were incorrect in not pursuing the criminal action on your behalf.

 

From looking a the old section 46 complaint , it wold seem to limit to civil complaints in any case rather than criminal ones, it speaks of damages etc rther than fines.

 

The letter speaks of fraud assault etc which are firmly in the criminal realm. In a criminal case of course it is not you that are making a case against the other side, it is the state, they may be acting on your information regarding the perceived criminal action but it is not you who are prosecution it will be the state.

 

Any talk of preparing witness statements or interrogating witnesses is nonsense this will be down to a prosecution lawyer engaged by the CPS.

[tortle]

Hi dodgeball

 

i am referring to complaints on breaches of the national standards. The Magistrates Court are responsible for the behaviour of the enforcement agent.

 

So it is more that type of complaint rather than one where you take legal action, i do think it is important that the two are not confused and that even if a complaint cant be made to the magistrates court for legal reason there is always that option.

 

In my opinion this is actually quite a good option because complaining to a trade organization such as CIVEA is usually a waste of time .

 

Thanks

[Peterbard]

The national standards is guidance and not legally actionable. Unfortunately.

[tortle]

No i agree, but an ombudsman decisions carries a lot of weight, and they will look at breaches of guidance for example just look at the work of the LGO and council tax cases.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hi dodgeball

 

I am referring to complaints on breaches of the national standards. The Magistrates Court are responsible for the behaviour of the enforcement agent.

 

Thanks

 

I am sorry Tortle but you are not correct. An enforcement agent is granted his certificate in the COUNTY COURT (not Magistrates Court) and accordingly, any complaints about the enforcement agents should be directed to the County Court using the prescribed form; EAC2.

 

Thankfully, since the new regulations came into effect in April 2014 the actual number of complaints has decreased significantly and hopefully that continues to be the case.

[Peterbard]

The procedure is itemise in section 66 of the act

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

(4)Subject to rules of court, the proceedings may be brought—

 

(a)in the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

 

(b)in a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court;

 

©in any other case, in the High Court or a county court.

 

(5)In the proceedings the court may—

 

(a)order goods to be returned to the debtor;

 

(b)order the enforcement agent or a related party to pay damages in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach or of anything done under the defective instrument.