‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

[Bailiff Advice]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59617[/ATTACH]

 

Regretfully, I now have no choice but to approach a QC who read my news story and said they were willing to help. I hope that my grace period has not ran out due to my preference to have kept things easy.

 

If a QC has taken an interest in your case then by all means speak with that person but I am not btoo sure what it is that you want to achieve at the end of the day.

 

If it is the case that a bailiff had trespassed then the deciding point for a Judge would be on the basis of what actual loss had flowed from that 'trespass'. There are very little if any legal cases involving bailiffs that can be relied although the following legal case is one that is very well known to all bailiff companies and is one that the countries expert on bailiff law (John Kruse) has written about about.

 

The case is refereed to as Thornton v Rossendales. I have posted threads about this case twice before and to date, those threads have received over 40,000 views!! Regrettably, this case has the ability to attract significant criticism from debt avoidance/and or FMoTL or Sovereign Citizen supporters.

 

As you will see when opening the link, the Judge refused to consider any claim to damages.

[Bailiff Advice]

Regretfully, I now have no choice but to approach a QC who read my news story and said they were willing to help.

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post this morning, if a QC has shown an interest in your press story then by all means speak with that person. There can be no harm in doing so and at least you will be in the capable hands of a qualified legal person.

 

Unfortunately, yesterday it was being reported that yet ANOTHER two legal legal cases had failed in court and in both cases, the individuals (a lady and a gentleman) had been encouraged to pursue hopeless legal cases by a highly unqualified individual with an appalling history of court failures.

 

I had briefly mentioned one of the cases on the forum in June but had not provided further details on here as I considered it unfair to do so given that the individual had decided (with shockingly poor advice from his 'advisor') to appeal the court decision. It was being reported on the website in question that the debtors application to appeal was being prepared by a Barrister. In fact, this was untrue and the same individual who had drafted the original legal claim was responsible for this latest application.

 

This application to appeal would have been very costly indeed to the debtor and yesterday, it was being reported that this further application has now also been rejected by the court. The debtor has been ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of over £4,300.

 

A second case (a young lady) has also been dismissed by the Court (thankfully before the hearing date) and she was very fortunate indeed in that the court did not make a cost order against her. In the court judgement the Judge was very critical of her failure to abide by the courts earlier ruling for her to provide any supporting evidence to back up her claim.

 

Of serious concern is that this lady had publicly posted full details about her dispute on a forum and the person who encouraged her to issue legal proceedings not only prepared her claim form (no doubt for a significant fee) but most importantly, he also publicly posted full details of the grounds for the claim on the forum. If this is not a serious abuse of the Data Protection Act I don't know what is. Following her court failure, the forum in question has REMOVED the entire thread from public view. This a common feature with this same website and has happened many times before.

[Bailiff Advice]

Since making the above post a couple of hours back I note that the thread has received over 250 additional views. Whether this is because of the thread itself or the information contained

in the above post I do not know. In any event to avoid it would be wise for me to start a new thread. That way, if there are any queries, I can answer them without risk of this thread going "off topic'.

[Peterbard]

It would be useful to see which arguments were proffered and rejected by the court, for the benefit of people who may want to attempt using them.

[theronstar]

Dear Group,

 

I only came onto personal finance forums to answer peoples' question about my news story, that had left them with many unanswered questions.

 

I did not have to come and explain myself on ANY forum but I thought it was the right thing to do.

 

Sadly this has now brought me under personal attacks and this is not what I signed up for. If this should persist then I am afraid I will have to leave.

 

Please can I ask other forum members not to drag me into any ongoing disputes?

 

Thanks muchly,

 

Ronald

[unclebulgaria67]

Dear Group,

 

I only came onto personal finance forums to answer peoples' question about my news story, that had left them with many unanswered questions.

 

I did not have to come and explain myself on ANY forum but I thought it was the right thing to do.

 

Sadly this has now brought me under personal attacks and this is not what I signed up for. If this should persist then I am afraid I will have to leave.

 

Please can I ask other forum members not to drag me into any ongoing disputes?

 

Thanks muchly,

 

Ronald

 

I did tell you the other day, that there are a couple on here who have an obsessive long running argument with another forum. They are not dragging you into this, but can't help themselves

 

The point being made is some people think legal claims can be made, but can be risky, as the enforcement companies are a bit protective, throwing legal costs at it and the Judges are friendly towards them. Might be my conspiracy theory, but would not surprise me if some Judges were members of the same societies as managers of enforcement companies. Should not happen, when Judges are supposed to be independent.

 

Speak to a QC if they have offered, but try to protect yourself against costs if you were not successful.

[theronstar]

I am sorry I did not respond. I did not have '30 posts minimum' in order to do so.

 

To be honest, I had to put this out publicly because the last thing I want/need are people pointing fingers at me saying I am causing trouble.

 

I have restated many times that I am not a fan of legal action but it got to the point that I need to surrender myself to it. This dispute is beyond my comprehension level and realistically, lawyers are the ones who who society rely on to argue things out. No disrespect to anyone but on Internet forums we are just giving our two cents and this does not prevent unwanted things happening again.

 

To be honest, if I did not have the interest of a distinguished legal representative it would be a waste of time to pursue any kind of case. In the same way enforcement companies may be able to pull favours off a judge, I am certain QCs have their own contacts!

 

'Grant says he has looked into finding a lawyer to take legal action, but he can’t access legal aid. “They want me to put down a tab of £5,000 to take on my case. I don’t have that kind of money.”'

 

In case anyone was mistaken, the above remains the same. Any lawyer taking this on will have to do so on the proviso they think they can win.

 

In good time I will reveal their details and then they can get all the flak from opinionated people instead!

[Peterbard]

UB, I do not have any long term problems with anyone, I give my opinion and expect to be challenged if others do not agree, I will not engage in childish abuse.

 

Theronstar I think the problem that some may have is , we are unsure what it is you seek to gain from all this, is it damages(nothing wrong with that) is it to right what you consider to be a wrong, nothing wrong with that either, but it may be a costly course to take.

[theronstar]

Today I got an apology letter "without prejudice" from JBWs CEO.

 

Wandsworth Council told me to expect so yesterday. I did not even bother to open it because given the stress I am going through at the moment it'd be little comfort.

 

I bumped into a friend yesterday who said he had passed on my news story to a barrister he knows after reading it. I did not not even know he knew one.

 

They are good friends and WhatsApp each other on a regular basis. Specifically, the barrister skipped over that message when he was showing me their chat history. He concludes that there is likely no money/fame in it for his friend. The QC I approached has still not been back in contact as yet. I'll wait to hear from him - if I do so. On a side note he was telling me about a leg injury he had in a job a few years ago which he had put in an initial claim for for £2000. 3 years later the other side acquiesced and his payout was £25,000. It all stemmed from the lawyers on both sides throwing figures at one another and renegotiating ad infinitum.

 

I will do my best to 'move on' from the incident.

[Peterbard]

I tink I ma have mentioned it before, but it is also worth reiterating that claims made under section against a creditor or bailiff do not qualify for protection from fees even if the amount claimed is below the small claims limit, a lost claim will undoubtedly pose a great cost burden for you.

[caledfwlch]

I tink I ma have mentioned it before, but it is also worth reiterating that claims made under section against a creditor or bailiff do not qualify for protection from fees even if the amount claimed is below the small claims limit, a lost claim will undoubtedly pose a great cost burden for you.

 

Surely though, in this case, the trouble was not regarding a creditor of Ronstar - the trouble started when the bailiff attempted to visit another debtor - so would the fees thing still apply, since Ron would not actually be taking a creditor and his appointed bailiff that Ron has a relationship with to court, he would be a 3rd party victim here, if you see what I mean, the ensuing trouble, the arrest and so on, none of this had anything to do with any debts or creditors of Rons.

 

He wont be taking a Creditor to court, but a company that happens to lend credit, but not in this case to Ron.

[Peterbard]

Surely though, in this case, the trouble was not regarding a creditor of Ronstar - the trouble started when the bailiff attempted to visit another debtor - so would the fees thing still apply, since Ron would not actually be taking a creditor and his appointed bailiff that Ron has a relationship with to court, he would be a 3rd party victim here, if you see what I mean, the ensuing trouble, the arrest and so on, none of this had anything to do with any debts or creditors of Rons.

 

He wont be taking a Creditor to court, but a company that happens to lend credit, but not in this case to Ron.

 

Yes you are correct, my comments regarding small claims and costs does not apply to third party claims, it depends I suppose on how the claim is made. In that case it would be an action for trespass free from any of the provisions of the TCE.

[Bailiff Advice]

Today I got an apology letter "without prejudice" from JBWs CEO.

 

Wandsworth Council told me to expect so yesterday. I did not even bother to open it because given the stress I am going through at the moment it'd be little comfort.

 

The QC I approached has still not been back in contact as yet. I'll wait to hear from him - if I do so.

 

I will do my best to 'move on' from the incident.

 

I am pleased to read that you have received an apology from the CEO of JBW. I assume that this letter has come from Jamie Waller.

 

I have just read back on your earlier posts and notice that a QC had approached you on 23rd September. I am assuming that this is the same person who you are waiting to hear back from? Please do let us know what route he suggests that you now take (if any).

 

Once again...well done.

[Bailiff Advice]

Dear Group,

 

I am the guy you read about in The Guardian article. I declined to take part in any fora because they advised me that the police/JBW would have been roaming them like sharks trying to find something I have said, in order to use it against me.

 

I trust that the world has since moved on so I am now prepared to get involved in your discussions. Just to say, I feel your frustration with news stories that fail to properly answer the readers' question. An underlying reason for it is because the paper has to stand by something they print. If it could be disputed then they will try to report around the disputed point.

 

I could try and respond to each question you have all raised but I am not sure who is still following the thread. The best thing to do is to give you a full account of proceedings as possible and you can find your answer within. If not, then please pose any questions you may have.

 

On 5th Nov 2014 at approx 8.30am, I was woken up by a doorbell. In my underwear I went to the door to greet the caller. I was expecting a Sat Nav from Amazon but it was not to be the case.

 

I opened the door wide enough for me to talk to the caller given I was not in the correct attire to have my door fully open. A man asked me to confirm if I was Ronald Grant and I answered yes. He told me he was here to attend my property to seize my goods. I told him this could not be. I told him I was fully aware I was in council tax arrears but I was in the middle of liaising with a benefits officer who was assessing my entitlement to Council Tax Reduction. He told me this was too late as the account was already with his company.

 

I then brought to his attention that I had been having problems with the mail. It has since been removed but there was a postbox outside the door of the property which I had not been given the keys to. I had brought it to the attention of my housing officer but they had not got round to giving me keys. I had told him that given the shocking information he had just given me I was going to go indoors and ring the council for further information. He said he would be back at 4pm with a van to seize my goods I asked him for his telephone number and thanked him for his time. Our dialogue was now over - or so I thought.

 

He told me he wanted to go to my neighbours door upstairs. Maybe you can see from my photo but I live in a terraced house that has been converted into a downstairs and upstairs flat. The neighbour and I share the front door and although neither of us own the space between our respective front doors, we respectively refer to it as ours given we replace the light bulbs and clear up the junk mail.

 

I was becoming suspicious of him because I had not had any foreknowledge of this visit and he was not producing any paperwork to prove who he was or what he was here for. I told him clearly to ring her doorbell but he responded that there was an open door so he was coming through. He jammed his foot into the doorframe and then shoved through into the communal space.

 

He told he me he did not want any trouble and pinned me up against the wall. The force with which he had come in had caused the front door to slam into wall and my voice was now raised. "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE", I said. He responded, "this is not your building".

 

By this time my neighbour had burst out to see what the commotion was about. I was glad for this because I had assumed she was out and now felt some peace of mind that I had a witness to the proceedings. She called out to her young son to bring her phone so she could call the police but by this point the guy already had his phone out and was dialling 999. "Hello, can the police come out to a property please. I have just been assaulted", he said.

 

My neighbour was telling him to leave because he was trespassing but he said that he did not need to be invited into the building. He was not cooperating so she told me to go indoors, as did she, until the police arrived. He remained in the communal area between our doors.

 

I was ringing the council to try and ascertain what was going on but by that point the police were outside.

 

I opened the door to be cautioned and placed under arrest by the PC. I was shocked because it was just a 'given' that I had assaulted him. She told me that we could go through it all at the station. She was radioing for a van. I asked her not to do this because it would not offer me any privacy. At 9am there were builders doing the neighbours houses, mums going to school with kids and of all times my next door neighbour was moving into the property they had just bought!

 

The officer did not show any understanding. She simply said, I have had an allegation of assault so I have to arrest you. I asked her if I could report to the station by a certain time. I told her she knew my face and my address. She was not agreeable to this. I also asked her if she could use her car as it was more discrete. She was not agreeable to this.

 

The officers were saying that the area between the two front doors needs to be accessible to the milkman, electric man etc. I told the officers that these callers never use violence to come in and I always invite them in peacefully. The officers said it was something we will handle at the station

 

The bailiff had a recording of the visit and I asked the officers to take it off him as it was evidence. He refused and told them to call his office for permission. The police backed down.

 

Additionally, they were trying to get him to come to the station to make a formal complaint. He was saying that he did not know where the police station was and that it is hard to find parking in London. The officers had to keep pushing him to come to the station.

 

My upstairs neighbour made it clear to them that she wanted to be interviewed but they fobbed her off, for want of a better word.

 

The van arrived and I saw my next door neighbour see me as I left. Very shameful indeed. The police need to understand what the impact of an arrest is but I think because they do them routinely they become a normal thing to them. I dunno.

 

When I got to the station I was booked in. I brought to their attention I had a new sports job in Fulham so I was hoping that any questioning could take place quickly. They told me that they still had not been able to get hold of the recording. I was very angry because this had meant the police had left the recording unsupervised in the hands of JBW. Thus the recording that is central to this whole thing, for me, is compromised.

 

I was put in a cell and was given a police station lawyer. I did not have a pot to **** in back then, as now, so was quite worried of the consequences of only having access to basic legal advice.

 

I asked the lawyer if the bailiff was allowed to use force to get into my place. She said that she did not know and would get back to me. That made me feel great (sarcasm) but in myself I knew I was going to refute any accusations the police laid at me.

 

After an eternity a lady appeared to question me. In my mind, I was miffed that it was not the arresting officers as I thought they would have been more appropriate questioners. The problem was this lady who interviewed me probably only had their notes to go off and she was interpreting them in the harshest form - or at least this is what I think.

 

She had her mind made up that I had assaulted the bailiff and was constantly trying to trip me up, "So that's when you pushed him, "....and then you hit him did you?".

 

It was absolutely awful.

 

She gave up in the end as I was not accepting guilt. I told her I felt wronged and was going to complain. She did not seem perturbed by this and said that I was within my rights to do so. I feel she was quite confident they were going to convict me.

 

She told me she was going to consult with the station manager as he makes the final decision and that she would be back in a while. To me it was a rhetorical statement.

 

She was back almost immediately to say I was being bailed until 23 Nov for a court summons. She told me not to miss the date or I would put myself in even more trouble.

 

I protested at the front desk that I felt wronged but no one was paying any attention. What made me more disillusioned with the officers there was that they told me I had to go another police station if I wanted to make a complaint. I have since learned that it was to do with administrative procedure but it definitely felt like they were trying to 'put me off'.

 

The next day I wrote a letter to the benefits officer to tell her what had happened. She was horrified and asked that I write another letter to the Council Tax team because although she would raise it with them it would be better if I made a further complaint.

 

I also went to Lavender Hill Police station to lodge a complaint. The officer taking my complaint was concerned that nobody had tried to get at my version of events whilst I was in custody but rang through to Wandsworth. They told him that the officer investigating me would have to also take care of my complaint. I left with a reference number but nothing in terms of confidence. I had a gut feeling that Wandsworth police station were 'against' me.

 

I still had the legal aid lawyer from the arrest day but for me he was just a rubber stamp. I must be grateful as it is free legal advice but I disagree strongly when lawyers say that legal aid is pretty much the same standard as paid work.

 

On the summons date 24 Nov I pleaded not guilty. The magistrate scheduled a trial date for Feb 15, 2015. Meanwhile my neighbour had written an email complaining to JBW about their conduct but she had had a threatening letter about someone coming to take her stuff in return.

 

I had pretty much given up on any support from the Council and was just going to let things run their course. I got a phone call from my lawyer the day before trial to tell us that the case had been dropped.

 

It felt weird to me that it had gone to the 11th hour. I am no banana but I was thinking to myself that the rationale to have prosecuted me had to have been formed very early on. You may call me cynical but it was like they left it until then in the hope I would have entered a plea bargain. My lawyer himself was shocked that the case was dropped.

 

His managing partner advised me to explore a claim against the police. I was not so keen to do so because black friends said they will make you pay for this but I really wanted to find out what had happened.

 

I decided to file a complaint on my own to the IPCC who redirected it to the Met Professional Standards. The IPCC handle only the most complex cases e.g. Stephen Lawrence, Mark Duggan etc.

 

That was in Feb 2015 and from that point onwards I let the issue slip. From time to time a PC would e-mail me to keep me informed of what was going on or ask a specific question.

 

Finally in June 2015 I had a letter and a report. The Superintendent said that he was going to upheld elements of my complaint - especially the point that I was wrongfully arrested.

 

Although I was glad he apologised for what I went through I still had questions. For example, the report told me that summary offences like assault must be investigated within 6 months else they are too late to be investigated. The incident happened in Nov 2014 and they said that given it was now June 2015 it was too late to investigate the bailiff. They said this was unintentional. Hmm.

 

The report informed me that the bailiff's company had been 'spoken with' but I was not convinced that the situation had yet provided a learning opportunity.

 

I approached lawyers who specialised in claims against the police and they all rejected me and the ones who offered to take on my case said that they wanted a tab of £5000. Though that figure was liable to be adjusted upwards.

 

Concurrently, I was approaching the media for coverage. I had read about JBW in an assault case in Croydon so I figured to myself given I had the confidence to step forward I must do so.

 

The media were a real headache. My story was not juicy enough for them. The Sun said to me it would have been a story if a celebrity lived upstairs! Other newspapers told me it just simply was not news.

 

I got to the point where I had approached all the English media so I started speaking with the Scottish editions. They said they would have been all over the story - like a rash - other than the fact that I was outside the jurisdiction. This gave me some impetus and I started thinking about what paper has been reporting on bailiffs.

 

There were several bailiff articles from 2013 by Jill Papworth of The Guardian so I figured ringing directly through to her editor would be worth a shot. The rest is history...

 

Though as I said in my intro, sorry that the article does not go into the depth you would have wanted it to. Patrick only wanted to print things that could be backed up if contested. Indeed JBW are taking the police/CPS and The Guardian to court as they strongly refute them standing by me.

 

The thing is that bailiffs don't have the best reputation so they don't really care about bad press IMO. Though the ironic thing is I have read bios about Jamie Waller and he said that he set up JBW to clean up the image of the industry. The irony!

 

JBW were very difficult to deal with when the story was being developed. They were saying things like why did it take me so long to approach a paper given the alleged incident happened back in Nov 2014. They also said that I never reached out to complain to Wandsworth Council nor did my neighbour to them.

 

Finally, Wandsworth has found my complaints from 2014 and have said sorry for them falling through the cracks. I told them my remedy is for JBW to cease working for them. Last night they told me that they are not working with them any more but will want to review the decision pending the outcome of JBW's complaint against the police.

 

If I hear anything I will let you all know. If I hear anything from IPCC I will let you know also.

 

Thanks for expressing an interest in my story

 

Given that this thread has received almost 6,500 views, I thought that it may be appropriate to provide an update.

 

Mr Grant took his complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. They have considered his complaint and a few days ago, published their findings on their website (since 2014, all decisions are published online (with personal information omitted).

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/other/15-010-551

[silverfox1961]

I, being cynical, think that 'the old boys club' came into the police investigation of the bailiff. Why did they not investigate the allegations? There was BWV of the incident so they should have been able to see what happened.

 

If this was me, I would now be issuing a Formal Complaint to the police for, well basically, not doing their job.

 

Did the IPCC actually do anything regarding the original complaint?

[caledfwlch]

The EA Firm presumably became aware very quickly that the matter had become a Police issue, they should be done for disposing evidence of a crime if the footage has been deleted.

 

The Police Non Help and indeed refusal to even investigate as is standard when a Bailiff is involved means that I think anyone in a similar situation should covertly record their attempts at reporting the alleged crime, and hopefully the Constable, Sgt or Inspector claiming its a "civil matter" when it is clearly not, and imediately try and escalate it to a higher authority at the Station, and also straight in contact with their MP and local Councillor, in the hope of getting 1 or both to attend the station with you, and see if an alleged criminal offence committed by a Bailiff is still a "Civil Matter" in front of the MP and/or Councillor.

 

Or perhaps even better, turn up with a journalist and photographer, or camera crew to make your complaint.

[Bailiff Advice]

The EA Firm presumably became aware very quickly that the matter had become a Police issue, they should be done for disposing evidence of a crime if the footage has been deleted.

 

Like a small number of other enforcement companies, JBW's enforcement agents do not use Body Worn Camera's (or videos). What they use instead is voice recording. This facility enables the enfoorcement company to play back a recording of the visit.

[Leakie]

Lets hope in the review that this can be taken into consideration, (keeping the recordings for a period of time)

or at least they should had it over if the police are involved

 

I tend to agree with SilverFox1961 about the old boys network

.

[Bailiff Advice]

Lets hope in the review that this can be taken into consideration, (keeping the recordings for a period of time) or at least they should had it over if the police are involved.

 

The 'One Year Review' (which is actually still ongoing) is only in connection with any 'unintended consequences' of the regulations. In that respect, the mater of 'Body Worn Video/Camera's will not feature.

 

There is a very important conference on the subject in 10 days time and the Information Commissioners Office will be giving a presentation. I intend reporting back with further information.