Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • On 3 February 2003 I opened a credit card account with Lloyds TSB.   In May 2009 I defaulted and the proverbial hit the fan and the debt was passed to Cabot.   Any PPI was investigated by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau back in 2009 and all was found to be above board.   I have since that time continued to pay £1 every month to Cabot without sending any details of my income mainly because my circumstances never changed.   Recently I have received a letter from Cabot Financial. They’re considering legal action as they require an update about my situation. If they do not hear from me within 38 days my account will be placed with their solicitors whereby they will send me a “Letter Before Action” and subsequently a court claim will be issued against me. It details all the threats of a CCJ and the outcome from obtaining that would bring, including a warrant of control – enforcement agents (bailiffs) will visit me at home for the money or remove goods.   I am unemployed but not claiming benefits. Do not own any property or goods of any substantial value, only a second hand bicycle and this computer bought in 2012.   I’m not too concerned about a CCJ and I’d rather get this done and dusted after all these years of waiting for such a letter from Cabot. The debt today stands at £9500.00   Perhaps the next step should be send a SAR to Lloyds and a CPR 31.14 to Cabot…. And await the claim form.  
    • Ok. That sounds better. How long ago did they offer the 7th
    • so what..stuff and all they can do unless you want to be a mug and pay for their xmas staff party by giving them free money   dx
    • They offered w/c 7 Dec on Tuesday of this week.  I didn't accept it or reject it. I just said it was better than Feb but still not what was agreed.  I said I wanted to speak with their director before I would consider it and she refused.  
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1693 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

 

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!

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

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

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'.

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 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

 

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!

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

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 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

 

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!

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.

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

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

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 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

 

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!

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

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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 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

 

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!

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...