‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

[unclebulgaria67]

I see we are in the land of imagination again, please post links to the incidents or any bailiff related actions which have instigated this section.

 

This offence is not intended for the use of what could be said to be a mistaken action by a constable, this is about intentional fraud or malpractice. Proving this because a PC chose to believe the wrong version of events by two suspects is a vast leap to far.

 

Of course you would have to evidence a criminal offence. A Police officer has to excercise their duties as they have been trained, following the rules that apply. A mistaken action can be criminal, as ignorance of the law is never a defence.

 

I don't buy that Police in connection with EA attendances have received many section 26 complaints, until i have seen the evidence. But my imagination of what could potentially happen suggests it is possible, but rare.

[theronstar]

There is a point. The Police can only attend to ensure no breach of peace or to investigate allegations of an offence being committed. They are not there to assist enforcement agents or to take sides. They should not listen to the allegations of one person, while dismissing what is said by the accussed or witnesses. If the event was filmed by the EA, they should seize it as evidence and not allow it to be taken away.

 

Shame oldbill is not around to discuss the rules regarding how Police should conduct themselves.

 

Thanks for reiterating this although I won't be the one to explore it any further.

[Peterbard]

Thanks for reiterating this although I won't be the one to explore it any further.

 

So what we are saying is that it is OK for the police to decide who is at fault, as long as they do not decide it is you

[Peterbard]

Of course you would have to evidence a criminal offence. A Police officer has to excercise their duties as they have been trained, following the rules that apply. A mistaken action can be criminal, as ignorance of the law is never a defence.

 

I don't buy that Police in connection with EA attendances have received many section 26 complaints, until i have seen the evidence. But my imagination of what could potentially happen suggests it is possible, but rare.

 

We are not just talking about the offfence we are talking the degree of any offence, the constables priority would be to prevent further breach of the peace, it may be that she accepted the wrong version of events as true, but this would be a matter of an error of judgement, not an offence which is indictable and punishable by 14 years in the nick.

 

It is a case of talking a piece of legislation out of context and applying it to an inappropriate incident. A speciality of the FMoTL and other websites.

 

Yes imagination is a wonderful thing, but mixing it with fact is dangerous, because sometimes it blurs the dividing line between the two

[unclebulgaria67]

We are not just talking about the offfence we are talking the degree of any offence, the constables priority would be to prevent further breach of the peace, it may be that she accepted the wrong version of events as true, but this would be a matter of an error of judgement, not an offence which is indictable and punishable by 14 years in the nick.

 

It is a case of talking a piece of legislation out of context and applying it to an inappropriate incident. A speciality of the FMoTL and other websites.

 

Yes imagination is a wonderful thing, but mixing it with fact is dangerous, because sometimes it blurs the dividing line between the two

 

It is up to 14 years and it does say that an offence must be serious enough that prison would be considered.

 

I guess that any report of a section 26 offence would have to be considered by an inspector or above, with reference to Police complaints or CPS. Not sure how they would deal with such a complaint. But it would need to be serious enough to justify investigation.

 

Imagination again (sorry), but say that a Police officer deliberately turns a blind eye to an EA assaulting a debtor and the incident is filmed. From this filmed evidence it is quite clear what happened and the Police officer has not taken action, even though they were aware of it. Perverting course of justice by not reporting the offence.

[Bailiff Advice]

Shame oldbill is not around to discuss the rules regarding how Police should conduct themselves.

 

He is very much around . He is a moderator on the Beat the Bailiffs and Banks Facebook sites and he is the main person advising the use of Schedule 26 complaints. He is also a supporter of Brian Gerrish's UK Colum.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brian_Gerrish

 

PS: It would seem that this thread is quickly going off topic. A new thread regarding Section 26 would probably be a good idea.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

What JasonDWB was arguing is that police officers are now trying to avoid situations where this law can be invoked against them and the CPS would potentially try to avoid cases coming to court where police officers may have to answer to such a charge.

 

It only came to my attention a few moments ago (in my Sunday visit) that links to this thread are being posted by you on another forum and being used by others as a form of silly entertainment. Whilst you have every right to post wherever you wish, I think that it is only right and proper that I refrain from commenting any further on this particular thread. I will of course continue to view the thread for any further updates.

[Peterbard]

It is up to 14 years and it does say that an offence must be serious enough that prison would be considered.

 

I guess that any report of a section 26 offence would have to be considered by an inspector or above, with reference to Police complaints or CPS. Not sure how they would deal with such a complaint. But it would need to be serious enough to justify investigation.

 

Imagination again (sorry), but say that a Police officer deliberately turns a blind eye to an EA assaulting a debtor and the incident is filmed. From this filmed evidence it is quite clear what happened and the Police officer has not taken action, even though they were aware of it. Perverting course of justice by not reporting the offence.

 

Yes this is what is meant by an indictable offence.

 

look lets lust imagine that the bailiff was a serial killer with a oozy in his bag.

 

BA yes i did notice re old bill but thought i had better not comment, he is another fan of the invented scenario.

[brassnecked]

If the bailiff pushes past a 13 year old who he swears looked 18 by putting his hand on her breast and pushing in what is the likelyhood of babylon feeling the bailiffs collar?

[theronstar]

It only came to my attention a few moments ago (in my Sunday visit) that links to this thread are being posted by you on another forum and being used by others as a form of silly entertainment. Whilst you have every right to post wherever you wish, I think that it is only right and proper that I refrain from commenting any further on this particular thread. I will of course continue to view the thread for any further updates.

 

Hello, I messaged you through the Contact Us button but I am not sure if it goes to you yourself?

 

In the case that it did not I will just reiterate my position. I came online to consumer advice/bailiff forums under the pretext that they would all be singing off a similar hymn sheet, thus I never cared to check the names of the individual ones when I went to express an opinion. I now know that there are some conflicts - which I do wish not wish to take a part in - thus I will be careful to not express myself in any another forums.

 

I am sorry for any offence caused.

[Peterbard]

It really is no problem Anyone is welcome here to express their views whatever they may be, so long as they are not abusive and respect the other posters. No complaints at all with your posts as far as I can see.

 

Would it be, that it were the same on all on-line forums.

[citizenB]

I think either a new thread or an amendment to the title of this one appears to be appropriate - if someone could advise, then I can sort that out.

[unclebulgaria67]

The section 26 issue relates to the Op's case, but i think BA wanted to have a separate discussion thread. I don't see need to remove posts or move them, unless this side issue debate continues.

 

The Police basically arrested the OP based on an EA allegation and did not do a thorough job. CPS booted the case out and said the EA trespassed. Section 26 related to the misconduct of Police being possibly criminal. A bit of a weak case for this in the OP's case, unless they can prove the Police officers attending refused to look into the OP's allegation of being assaulted. They took the side of the EA.

[citizenB]

[theronstar]

The section 26 issue relates to the Op's case, but i think BA wanted to have a separate discussion thread. I don't see need to remove posts or move them, unless this side issue debate continues.

 

The Police basically arrested the OP based on an EA allegation and did not do a thorough job. CPS booted the case out and said the EA trespassed. Section 26 related to the misconduct of Police being possibly criminal. A bit of a weak case for this in the OP's case, unless they can prove the Police officers attending refused to look into the OP's allegation of being assaulted. They took the side of the EA.

 

I guess the way the story was told depended on which type of journalist ended up running it. Money journalists remit was the bailiff whereas criminal journalists remit was the police. A money journalist ran the story.

 

'This is Money', said that they thought it was a criminal story due to their ability to make more of a 'story' out of police wrongdoing than JBW. Thus they said it could not be a story for them.

 

We can wait and see if JBWs ongoing complaint inadvertently poses this question. I cannot see them intentionally raising a legal question that I would stand to benefit from. It'd be akin to a backhanded compliment.

Edited September 22, 2015 by theronstar

[theronstar]

I think either a new thread or an amendment to the title of this one appears to be appropriate - if someone could advise, then I can sort that out.

 

‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

 

Maybe that could be a better title only for the fact it might help people who read the story find out what happened.next if they went looking. I did not get involved in The Guardian comments section but I would have been happy to have answered some of their questions or simply said thanks to the people for posting.

[Peterbard]

I think there should be a separate thread for this section 26 thing. Perhaps if it is explained again in more detail people may understand why it is not applicable in a case of this nature.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think there should be a separate thread for this section 26 thing. Perhaps if it is explained again in more detail people may understand why it is not applicable in a case of this nature.

 

Section 26 is of no relevance to the dispute that is being discussed on this thread. Section 26 is very new indeed and the incident with 'theronstar' happened a couple of years ago. I would happily take part in a discussion regarding Section 26 but it should be on a different thread altogether.

[unclebulgaria67]

Section 26 is of no relevance to the dispute that is being discussed on this thread. Section 26 is very new indeed and the incident with 'theronstar' happened a couple of years ago. I would happily take part in a discussion regarding Section 26 but it should be on a different thread altogether.

 

Yes i stand corrected that section 26 may well not apply as the legislation was after the event happened. Normally legislation cannot be applied retrospectively.

 

So discussion related to theronstars case may not be relevant, but it might be something of interest to others at a later date.

 

Best not to continue discussing it here and if someone is interested enough they can start a specific discuss thread.

[Peterbard]

Possibly the discussion regarding this act would be over in legal as it is very unlikely to apply to apply to any actions in bailiff related issues.

 

Unless of course its purpose is to highlight the above fact.

[theronstar]

Hello,

 

I will revisit some stuff as I can see there are a few misunderstandings.

 

Section 26 is a new law concerning police conduct. It is about police conduct in their jobs in a general sense. Typical examples I believe might be with arresting a member of the public just because they can, selling stories to newspapers...... I don't think there would be many or even any reasons for a consumer advice forum to debate it. Criminal law forum, maybe.

 

If the police are called out to deal with a dispute between a bailiff and a member of the public or if the police are handling a complaint in relation to a bailiff then I am sure their conduct would invoke this law, if necessary.

 

The incident happened in Nov 2014 and this law did not exist. The law kicked in on February 12 2015. The court contacted my lawyer in February - the day before my trial - and told me that there was no further action. He in turn contacted me.

 

I thought the whole thing was quite weird thus made a complaint to the IPCC in February 2015 and I raised several points. I guess I still had access to the legal aid lawyer but just did it on my own because as I said before, I did not find them much help.

 

1. ]that the officers on the scene led a biased investigation, failing to seize all the relevant evidence and leading to the wrong person being arrested.
   
2. That I complained previously at a different police station about assault and had had no reply
   
3. My neighbour tried to contact the police to try and make a statement regarding the incident and was never contacted by the police. This affected the impartiality of the investigation
   

 

The IPCC wrote to me at the end of Feb to say that in the first instance, the Met professional standards unit will deal with it.

 

Between Feb and June I had several calls/emails from the PC conducting the investigation with some further questions and then the report itself in June.

 

I already talked about the results of it already so no need to reiterate.

 

Though we can drop this Section 26 thing once and for all now. Sorry for even bringing it up.

[Peterbard]

Not at all you are right there is misunderstanding and one you seem to share with many FMOTL forums, however section 26 would never be applicable in bailiff related cases, unless the EA had some kind of agreement where the police favoured them in a decision or at an incident which is highly unlikely. ,

 

Even in you case if it were not out of time it would make no difference it would still be of no good to you.

 

I would look to a civil action if you are considering a claim for damages, however from what you have seen on here the chances of success seem to be slight , this is only my opinion of course.

 

Detaining a suspect when they have reasonable belief that they are responsible for an offence, is not in itself an offence. Like every other criminal action there must be a knowledge of guilt by the perpetrator at the time the offence was committed, merely miss understanding a law which has not in-itself even had any legal precedents set, is definitely not a crime and a long way off being an indictable offence.

[Peterbard]

There is much more in you post which is incorrect but I will leave it until BA starts a new thread.

[theronstar]

My personal opinion is that this could be an excellent idea. I am passionately against legal action of any sort and believe that all disputes can be sorted out by way of negotiation.

 

According to the Guardian news article, the CPS consider that the bailiff had trespassed on your property. For JBW and the enforcement industry, this finding is of vital importance and it cannot be underestimated. The subject of 'trespass' has been the feature of many articles by the countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse (who is also a member of JBW's Advisory Group) and it is one that I would think that JBW would like to have a legal ruling on. A ruling in their favour could well assist with their relationship with LB of Wandsworth and assist the enforcement industry in general.

 

A further point that you need to take on board is that the council tax regulations specially state that the LOCAL AUTHORITY are wholly responsible for all 'acts and omissions' of THEIR AGENTS. In this respect, the bailiff was acting as an agent to LB of Wandsworth.

 

A last point (and an important one) is again about enforcement companies and media articles. As mentioned earlier, all bailiff companies are very protective of their contracts with local authorities and with this in mind, most companies view comments on social media and forums on a daily basis. Negative comments on 'debt avoidance' and sites associated in one way or another with FMoTL, are of little importance to them and are generally ignored. That is NOT the case however with this particular forum, which is known within the enforcement industry for providing accurate and reliable information to the public on bailiff matters. I would therefore expect that JBW (and possibly) LB of Wandsworth are viewing this thread. If so, I cannot see that they would find any complaint in any of the posts made.

 

Hello.

 

Again I tried to contact LB of Wandsworth to ask for mediation. They told me that I need to take up my own complaint with JBW or CIVEA. I made it clear to them that I do not feel comfortable to approach JBW on my own but they were firm in their position.

 

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.

[citizenB]

Thread title changed at the request of theronstar, who is the subject of this discussion.