Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Bankfodder!   Hello again everyone.    I received my SAR back from Elderbridge and what and absolute load of **** it is!   1.  They did not send any transcripts or recordings of any phones calls  - both myself and my husband spoke to them in Aug 2016 (noted in their diary notes) and I called them in Dec 2018 (again noted in their diary notes) it was the same day they sent the reply even though they have mentioned me calling in their notes on that day, so not sure I should let that go or not!   I also spoke to them in July 2016 (again in the notes) and I spoke to them in Dec 2012 (again in the notes)    2.  Going through the diary notes in the beginning notes were sporadic mainly because we were making payment and everything was ok, then later as things changed there were notes almost once a month, then in NOV 2012 and Dec 2012 frequency of notes increase as this is when they began court proceedings.  and throughout 2013 again lots of notes made - mostly their in house stuff about court dealings and so on - so that's fine. then in NOV 2013 hey made a not re the court date in OCT - saying that they were ordered to treat the loan as having a fixed rate from inception and sent off etc.  BUT from 21 Nov 2013 to 17th June 2014 there are no notes at all!  Now the hearing was on the 10th Jan 2014!   17/06/2014 14:43 *****Substantial EVS costs to be added to any SF ****** 17/06/2014 14:43 EVS Defended + At the hearing on 10/01/2014 an SPO for 500 on 26/01/2014 and then CMI + £60 wef 26/02/2014 plus MJ for £103,331.03 suspended on the same terms. It was also held that we could add our costs - Defended costs on this case are £33,879.80. 17/06/2014 00:00 Reviewed Reviewed 17/06/2014 00:00 ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF 21/11/2013 04:13 ADHOC Statement Printed From 03/10/13 To 13/11/13 Batch 2015 Sequence 28 Printed 13/11/2013 00:00:00   Above you can cleary see the gap then suddenly the first notes talk about the court case and costs etc, at the trial in OCT the judge reserved cost till the next hearing (also stated on the documentation from the court)  but then at that hearing in Jan 2014 we did not discuss costs - the 6 month gap I feel is very suspicious.    The final court document  dated 13th Jan 2014 says to pay the claimant £103,331.03 which is the amount outstanding under the mortgage and goes on to says order were not to be enforced as long as we pay etc.  no mention of costs at all - so they seem to just be adding them   3.   They sent a field agent to me in Jan 2018, I only knew this as on the 9th Jan 2018 I was working at home and heard the letterbox, thought it was the postman, went to the door to find an envelope shoved through the door with a letter in it saying they had been requested to visit me and that they called today but I was not in! and gave a number for me to call ( I saw the woman walking down the driveway - but she did not ring the bell! and I wasn't about to run after her!)   But in the notes they have written this utter lie!   30/01/2018 12:44 Field Agent Report Received The field agent visited the security address on three occasions. The customer was spoken to through the window. They refused to discuss and refused to answer the door. The contact number on file is not recognised. RFA - Not known Reasons for items not verified:N/A Details of variances of items outside of expenditure guidelines and reasons N/A Property is a detached house in good condation valued at £406,000. Equity not known.   I actually cannot believe what I have read here! Can I ask them for some kind of proof of this, because I don't know who they are talking about but it certainly wasn't me!   4.  the documents they had sent me a joke, they have sent 77 documents in total, none of these are copies of letter from Elderbridge (which is who I sent the SAR to) all from First Plus and certainly not ALL of them, they have been bulked out by sending me copies of documents that I sent TO THEM for my court defence and there are strange Black boxes over some of the text!? which I don't understand!     After receiving this info from Elderbridge I decided to send a SAR to Barclays and I got a small package with a couple of letters, some diary notes and screen shot of the account, as well as a short statement of account. This was for our ORIGINAL loan from Feb 2006,  (we topped it up in June 2006) and the first one was closed.  The second one is the one that has been transferred to Elderbridge but Barclays seem to know be denying ALL knowledge of it! and I know that they still hold the beneficial interest of these loans and that Elderbridge regularly contact Barclays for help and advise - I have contact with other account holders who have diary notes from Elderbridge showing contact to Barclays!..   This week I also had a reply from the FOS (only from an adjudicator not an ombudsman) and his initial opion is that it's ok for Elderbridge to claim the costs as we defaulted, he seems to be ignoring my argument that the relationship is unfair etc but I will be sending this back and asking for it to be looked at by an ombudsman.   But was hoping that someone here could give me any advise re all of this - sorry I know it's a lot!!
    • why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract? and no proof its paid this year either?  
    • pop the exhibits as a sep file i'll merge them for you
    • Thanks.   I've managed to reduce the file size and deleted from this copy all of the pages of photos and copies of the signs. Just their witness statement and the photos of the car parked up remain.   They say "My company relies on Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) in which it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver's actions as prescribed therein"   Is there a refutation to this case anywhere? Or do I not argue that  and just refer back to EB's earlier post and focus on the signs?   "What you are writing is roughly your side of events and referring to the evidence you can provide so that will include their signage, any evidence or lack of authority for them to offer anything, their paperwork if that doesn't create a liability, the POFA where the vital phrases have been missed by the parking co or the timescales missed.   then you pick holes in the wording and substance fo their claim, for example, contractual sum or breach of contract - they are different. are they claiming from you as driver or keeper, cant assume they are one and the same.   What about the amount claimed? it will invariably include unicorn food tax so if they are saying keeper ia liable they are limited to asking for the amount shown on the NTK and you should make this clear as it helps damage their assertion that driver and keeper liability are the same thing   As they havent responded to your CPR request for documents you can start off with that but it isnt a golden bullet, "   thanks Bundle_the_approved,_signed_statement_with_the_exhibits-_Reduced.pdf
    • Hi, I have had to hand my notice into work this week due to my Manager telling me that I had lied to him. After we had a talk about it I received lots off emails asking about various things that needed sorted as someone else who I work with made such huge problems, so I was told to deal with it, which I have no issue with. I was also promised bonus money in April due to us doing so well and as off yet I have received nothing.  I was thinking about putting in a grievance but wanted to find out more before I do. I am still employed by them + am still on the payroll. Thanks in advance  
  • Our picks

mikeymack2002

‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1223 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

"When a bailiff from one of Britain’s biggest firms of debt collectors called at gymnastics instructor Ronald Grant’s flat last November little did he realise that his life was about to be turned upside down. Within 15 minutes it descended into a hallway brawl, followed by Grant’s arrest, interrogation, and the police charging him with common assault. As a result of the incident, Grant claims his life has been wrecked and he has lost his income."

 

 

More on this this story please read here http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/15/bailiff-rights-dispute-jbw-police-enforcement


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from the left hand margin is as follows

 

 

"Essentially, [the bailiff] was a trespasser and the defendant is within his right to use reasonable force

Crown Prosecution Service "


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as HMO's goes this could be an interesting quote

 

 

"According to the police, if you are living in a flat a bailiff can enter the main entrance to the block as long as they do so without using force – this is regarded as peaceful entry. In essence, this could mean that the main door is unlocked or that another person let them in. But once inside the block, they must leave if another residents requests that they do so.

If the bailiff refuses to leave, he or she is committing the civil offence of trespass. In law, if a treapasser refuses to leave a property when asked the owner/representative is entitled to use “reasonable force” to evict him or her."

 

 

 

 

Before anyone moans about the grammar within the last sentence, when using a quote you leave the mistake in the quote for accuracy not my error by the way


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EA would be tresspassing in that situation. They had no permission to enter the property and presumably had been asked to leave. The liablity order and law does not provide them with any rights above an ordinary citizen.

 

It is about time the EA companies were taken to task for the behaviour of their agents, before it leads to a tragic event.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UB it really is going to be sooner rather than later that some tragic event comes to light, woo the day that happens...


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days a bailiff will push a frail person aside at the door, who will die as a result, would the bailiff be done for manslaughter if it was foot in door for Council Tax?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i saw this courtesy of Scoop.

 

The power conferred by the LO and the 2002 act gives the bailiff the exact same right of initial entry as any other enforcement officer, that is the ones prescribed by schedule twelve of the act. It is untrue that the bailiff has only the same right to attend as the ordinary citizen. His powers to attend are governed by section 14 of the schedule 12 procedure. One of the main effects of the new law is to remove all distinctions between different debts and High Court judgements are generally no more favoured than any other liability.

 

The rights of entry to a property which has common entry to other premises is not mentioned in the act so the old common law provisions apply, these are as quoted in the piece provided in the article.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a tad off topic but just for clarity the abity to attend under schedule 12 procedure is contained here

 

62Enforcement by taking control of goods

 

(1)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exercisable only by using that procedur

 

As you can see it does not differentiate between types of enforcement in the procedures used, other of course than the differences contained within the act, forced entry etc (section 19)

 

The idea of the reduced power of the LO is one dreamt up by someone trying to resurrect the failure of an earlier idea about withdrawing right s of access and has no basis iin law.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the differences in what was supposedly said in the video, I was interested to read that the Information Commissioners Office advise that if a debtor wishes to view the footage from a body worn camera that an appointment should be made to attend the enforcement agents offices in person. This is the same approach that Magistrates Court have is a fine defaulter wishes to see a 'warrant of control'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WOIRA cannot work against EA's as you point out DB, but if the debt is Civil, there is still no right of forced entry to Take Control of goods, so they can still be kept out under that circumstance. It would seem that certain bailiffs from certain companies are blurring the lines and insisting they can force entry for a civil debt regardless.

 

The old Common Law stance regarding flats with a common entrance must still hold force as the entrance to a debtors property is the lockable front door with a letterbox, irrespective of where it is, be it on the street, within a gated development, or a block of flats.

 

For it to be otherwise would be wrong, as that would allow the EA to attempt to seize the goods of any other occupants of the block if the main door is primary access, they would say put in a third party claim as they force the doors of No3 for No 5's debt, relying on the right to force any inner door once through the main entrance. That is where I feel the court was looking when it upheld Mr Grants right to eject the bailiff, the common areas were not the debtors premises.

 

I have seen bailiffs occasionally at entry controlled sheltered accommodation buzzing random flats to attempt to get in to the block.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting aside the differences in what was supposedly said in the video, I was interested to read that the Information Commissioners Office advise that if a debtor wishes to view the footage from a body worn camera that an appointment should be made to attend the enforcement agents offices in person. This is the same approach that Magistrates Court have is a fine defaulter wishes to see a 'warrant of control'.

 

Where does that come from ? The ICO queried the need to visit the EA offices and did not think reasonable. The EA offered to email the footage.

 

If EA's are going to record visits, then the EA companies are going to have to start covering off any DPA reqs better. The same as CCTV in a supermarket car park. There are signs up saying where they can obtain video footage under the DPA.

 

As for this incident, the CPS advised that this visit for council tax was tresspass, as the EA was asked to leave, by the debtor and neighbours. This is my understanding. The EA can visit to try to take control of goods, but in regard to trying to gain access inside any building they must do peacefully and if asked to leave, they must do so immediately. Any actions by the EA after the point where they are asked to leave will risk crimes being committed by them. This is where the argument comes in about Police or private prosecutions. The Police got it wrong in this instance according to the CPS.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does that come from ? The ICO queried the need to visit the EA offices and did not think reasonable. The EA offered to email the footage.

 

If EA's are going to record visits, then the EA companies are going to have to start covering off any DPA reqs better. The same as CCTV in a supermarket car park. There are signs up saying where they can obtain video footage under the DPA.

 

As for this incident, the CPS advised that this visit for council tax was tresspass, as the EA was asked to leave, by the debtor and neighbours. This is my understanding. The EA can visit to try to take control of goods, but in regard to trying to gain access inside any building they must do peacefully and if asked to leave, they must do so immediately. Any actions by the EA after the point where they are asked to leave will risk crimes being committed by them. This is where the argument comes in about Police or private prosecutions. The Police got it wrong in this instance according to the CPS.

 

Wonder if the EA's will once in a common area of an entryphone controlled block, aver Obstruction by any random occupant not the debtor who tries to make them leave? Remember they have not yet got to or accessed the debtors door, having conned their way in by phoning random flats. The coppers would doubtless do to that randomer exactly what they did to Mr Grant.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does that come from ? The ICO queried the need to visit the EA offices and did not think reasonable. The EA offered to email the footage.

 

If EA's are going to record visits, then the EA companies are going to have to start covering off any DPA reqs better. The same as CCTV in a supermarket car park. There are signs up saying where they can obtain video footage under the DPA.

 

As for this incident, the CPS advised that this visit for council tax was tresspass, as the EA was asked to leave, by the debtor and neighbours. This is my understanding. The EA can visit to try to take control of goods, but in regard to trying to gain access inside any building they must do peacefully and if asked to leave, they must do so immediately. Any actions by the EA after the point where they are asked to leave will risk crimes being committed by them. This is where the argument comes in about Police or private prosecutions. The Police got it wrong in this instance according to the CPS.

 

Quite correct UB. My mistake. I have been away and desperately trying to catch up on endless emails and articles and I only glanced briefly at the article.

 

I attended a meeting just a couple of weeks back where the Local Government Ombudsman spoke about body worn cameras and date retention and I would assume that further guidance is likely to be issued very soon.

 

It is interesting to note that the Police conduct review found that police officers had 'misjudged the powers of entry available to bailiffs'. It really is about time that police has proper training in regards to bailiff enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonder if the EA's will once in a common area of an entryphone controlled block, aver Obstruction by any random occupant not the debtor who tries to make them leave? Remember they have not yet got to or accessed the debtors door, having conned their way in by phoning random flats. The coppers would doubtless do to that randomer exactly what they did to Mr Grant.

 

The EA is only trying to do a difficult job and no doubt if they don't hit targets for recovery they would get sacked. I don't see a problem in accessing communal buildings if they do so peacefully, but as soon as they are asked to leave they should do so. It is not worth risking personal safety and causing any situation where residents feel threatened or the Police end up being called out. Better to report back to the council that debtor cannot be contacted or is refusing to pay. The Council or EA company should then involve Magistrates in getting the debtor to attend court to explain why they are not paying.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite correct UB. My mistake. I have been away and desperately trying to catch up on endless emails and articles and I only glanced briefly at the article.

 

I attended a meeting just a couple of weeks back where the Local Government Ombudsman spoke about body worn cameras and date retention and I would assume that further guidance is likely to be issued very soon.

 

It is interesting to note that the Police conduct review found that police officers had 'misjudged the powers of entry available to bailiffs'. It really is about time that police has proper training in regards to bailiff enforcement.

 

Give it 20 years and Capita will be running Police forces, while still owning EA companies ! They can train them at the same time.

 

The arguments we see on CAG and elsewhere are caused by legislation that is interpreted in different ways. They make it far more complicated than it needs to be. In other countries, if you don't pay your local taxes, it gets reported to the local court, you are asked to attend to explain non payment and if you don't attend you face arrest. The government appears to be closing down courts, with much more enforcement done as an admin process by local councils and EA companies. It does not progress to court, unless it gets to the point of refusal to pay after a long period of time. This is why local government is owed hundreds of millions going back many years.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EA is only trying to do a difficult job and no doubt if they don't hit targets for recovery they would get sacked. I don't see a problem in accessing communal buildings if they do so peacefully, but as soon as they are asked to leave they should do so. It is not worth risking personal safety and causing any situation where residents feel threatened or the Police end up being called out. Better to report back to the council that debtor cannot be contacted or is refusing to pay. The Council or EA company should then involve Magistrates in getting the debtor to attend court to explain why they are not paying.

The block I saw them trying random flats at was Warden Controlled, so maybe Warden would have her collar felt for obstructing the EA once they were in the Communal area and she asked him to leave Mr & Mrs X being out, so no she could not allow the bailiff into their private apartment.

 

As a result of the Grant case, they will be more eager to use Obstruction as their weapon, Obstruction being Strict Liability, and it doesn't require the debtor to be the one obstructing the EA.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The block I saw them trying random flats at was Warden Controlled, so maybe Warden would have her collar felt for obstructing the EA once they were in the Communal area and she asked him to leave Mr & Mrs X being out, so no she could not allow the bailiff into their private apartment.

 

As a result of the Grant case, they will be more eager to use Obstruction as their weapon, Obstruction being Strict Liability, and it doesn't require the debtor to be the one obstructing the EA.

 

What is obstruction ? Surely it cannot mean simply refusing access telling an EA to leave ? I think the legislation was supposed to relate to instances where for example goods had been correctly seized and the EA had been prevented from taking possession. On a simple visit with a view to take control of goods, the EA is attempting to talk to the debtor to negotiate payment of the debt and if not peaceful entry to take control of goods. For anything other than a criminal fine, as soon as the EA is refused entry and told to leave they should do so in order to remain lawful. Of course for criminal fines, they can force entry, following the rules set out in legislation. They would not have to leave when asked, as they had a court warrant.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The WOIRA cannot work against EA's as you point out DB, but if the debt is Civil, there is still no right of forced entry to Take Control of goods, so they can still be kept out under that circumstance. It would seem that certain bailiffs from certain companies are blurring the lines and insisting they can force entry for a civil debt regardless.

 

.

 

Indeed and the provisions are part of the schedule 12 procedure the same procedure that EAs collecting council tax use, section 19.

 

The right to attend and take control of goods is down to section 14 of the tce however and this is the case for all action.(unless it is under warrant then it section 15.

 

The point is that all ea's no matter whether enforcing a writ warrant or liability order via an enactment, are attending under the TcE and particularly under section 14, there is no difference as far as the power conferred, in as much as all the powers use the same procedure(schedule 12).

 

It is quite possible for a ea enforcing a council tax debt to apply for a warrant to force entry, it would have to be special circumstances to have one granted but the facility is there within the act.

 

I have read it said that EAs pursuing an order have the same powers (or lack of ) as debt collectors, this is dangerous drivel.

 

Bailiffs are acting under an enforcment power and can take goods, they are legally able to seize your car or whatever without your consent and sell them, goods are bound to the bailiff when the action begins. None of this applies to debt collectors and people,shroud not be encouraged to treat them as if they can.

 

It is just more drivel form the same place the rest of the detritus emanates.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Mr Grant does manage to get the funding to take JBW to Court. As the CPS, who are rather more Expert and have far more knowledge in the Law, and its application than JBW have stated that Mr Grant did nothing wrong, and has been wrongfully arrested are backing Mr Grant and his position, it is hard to see why a basic claim should fail.

 

£5000 though? He should try some of the no win no fee's, especially since he can actually package 2 claims together, 1 against JBW, and 1 against the Police Force responsible. I would also be making formal complaints against the Arresting Officers, and doing my best to get them dismissed, or their service record blackened enough that Promotion will never come.

 

I should think he could try a simple claim in the County Courts for far less than £5000, and at least then costs etc would be heavily limited.


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£10,000

 

Now I think


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope Mr Grant does manage to get the funding to take JBW to Court. As the CPS, who are rather more Expert and have far more knowledge in the Law, and its application than JBW have stated that Mr Grant did nothing wrong, and has been wrongfully arrested are backing Mr Grant and his position, it is hard to see why a basic claim should fail.

 

The problem is that if Mr Grant is looking to make a claim for 'trespass' any award would be negligible. Also, Mr Grant would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damages caused by the enforcement agents alleged trespass.

 

I notice that he said that on the day of the enforcement agent visit that he had been unable to attend his place of employment and ultimately this led to him losing his job. This does seem very harsh and odd and full details of his employment record would naturally have to be obtained if any claim is made. I have made some further enquiries into this complaint and when I receive a response I will update this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that if Mr Grant is looking to make a claim for 'trespass' any award would be negligible. Also, Mr Grant would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damages caused by the enforcement agents alleged trespass.

 

I notice that he said that on the day of the enforcement agent visit that he had been unable to attend his place of employment and ultimately this led to him losing his job. This does seem very harsh and odd and full details of his employment record would naturally have to be obtained if any claim is made. I have made some further enquiries into this complaint and when I receive a response I will update this thread.

 

Oh I doubt Tresspass would get anywhere. Even if he wasn't an EA, just jo bloggs of the street.

 

Since the CPS say the EA was acting outwith his powers, then lost earnings, possibly assault, and making a false/vexatious claim to Police leading to wrongful arrest, and losing job etc is what I was thinking. The EA can't really argue that he thought he was acting within the law, or didnt know it actually was tresspass, because Ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

Possibly a claim against the Police too, wrongful arrest etc.


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all possibilities Caled given the complete exoneration of Mr Grant for ejecting the bailiff.

 

In future, I feel the EA's in a similar circumstance will wrongfully claim Obstruction if a third party resident questions who the hell are you when they con their way in by ringing multiple flats. They will aver to police they have had peaceful entry, as Mrs X in No 3 let them in even though Mr Y in No 40 on the top floor of the 3 storey block is the debtor, and in reality they have no right to be there as they entered under false pretences. The offence of Obstruction will be swallowed by the police and the third party will be arrested, then the EA will try to get the police to get them into No 40. Yes they are that devious.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be remembered that it was the CPS who stepped in and stopped any prosecution here, which is their job. They are to be applauded for spotting the mistake and halting any further action in this case. I think. It is for them to decide if there is a criminal case to answer and it this that they did.

As for police misinterpreting bailiff law, i cant see anything more than a reprimand, if that, certainly better training is called for in bailiff law but it has always been so.

 

As regards reparations BA is quite right , an action would have to be brought in the civil court for trespass to land against the bailiff and possible false arrest against the police, both of these are common law torts and complaint can be started in any county court by simply issuing an N!, any redress would be directly proportionate to provable and actual damages caused by the action although a complaint to the police regulatory authorities would seem to be the most logical first step and any judge would probably ask why this had not been done prior to any action taken.

 

Contrary to what has been said, the belief by the bailiff that he was acting under the law is a defence in bailiff enforcement, see section 66 TCE, which may be used to get him off the trespass allegation.

 

This thread will undoubtedly give way to yet more fanciful scenarios of bailiffs being burned at the stake.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DB since you have mentioned the Police and the EA in the same sentence have a read at the advice a local plod are giving see below for the link and have a gander at the bailiff advice they are giving thread started on this in the bear garden

 

 

http://www.sussex.police.uk/admin-section/search.aspx?searchtext=bailiffs


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...