EAC2 Complaints to court about bailiffs and complainants ordered to pay costs.

[old bill]

Something is not right here OB. In the case that I dealt with (albeit, quite a few years ago) the Ministry of Justice became involved and I would expect nothing less.

 

If it is the case that a local authority have instructed their contracted enforcement company to enforce a warrant that does not exist, then MOJ should be doing something.

 

What has been the response from TEC?

 

Have you taken your complaint to a senior person at TEC?

 

TEC didn't know about the matter until the pensioner and I enquired as to whether the LA had registered an alleged debt and sought authorisation to issue a warrant. TEC have done nothing wrong and are not at all at fault. It is the LA who are responsible and are now squealing like stuck pigs.

[Peterbard]

There was a case a little while ago where enforcemen't was authorised incorrectly i seem to remember.

Made quite a stir in the press.

 

I don't think that the ICO would be Intersted personally, unless this was endemic.

[old bill]

In this case, Dodgeball, there was no lawful authority given. Period. As for your cynicism, the ICO already has the evidence and it is awaiting allocation to a case officer.

[Bailiff Advice]

TEC didn't know about the matter until the pensioner and I enquired as to whether the LA had registered an alleged debt and sought authorisation to issue a warrant.

 

But now that TEC are aware (that an attempted has been made to enforce a warrant supposedly bearing their authorisation)....what are they going to do about it !!!

[old bill]

But now that TEC are aware (that an attempted has been made to enforce a warrant supposedly bearing their authorisation)....what are they going to do about it !!!

 

No Charge Certificate in existence. It never went through TEC. What sanctions can TEC/MoJ impose on an LA in such cases? Even the LA's in-house data protection team has told those responsible that a breach of data protection has occurred, but those in the department involved are in denial they have done anything wrong.

 

Aside, a PCN can be registered nine times in all before TEC refuse further registration and enforcement.

[Leakie]

Thanks OB

interesting reading

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

No Charge Certificate in existence. It never went through TEC. What sanctions can TEC/MoJ impose on an LA in such cases? Even the LA's in-house data protection team has told those responsible that a breach of data protection has occurred, but those in the department involved are in denial they have done anything wrong.

 

Aside, a PCN can be registered nine times in all before TEC refuse further registration and enforcement.

 

How long as this been ongoing, has enforcementt now ceased. Please forgive my cinicysem, but this is not the first time that massive ICO action has been reported on these pages, it just never seams to happen somehow. Are there an other reports of this case ?

[old bill]

As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason.

 

The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.

[Bailiff Advice]

As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor.

 

I am currently dealing with a case where a pensioner was badly beaten by an enforcement agent who, it turned out, had no lawful authority to be at the pensioner's address and continued regardless when told by the pensioner he should not be at his address. The enforcement agent's client has been unable to come out with a credible explanation, changing its story three times and trying to blame the pensioner for what happened! The matter is currently with the ICO as it involves a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Would you be kind enough to update the thread with any progress reports about both of these cases.

[Peterbard]

As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason.

 

The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.

 

So who do you think is responsible for this in the outset OB is it by intent or error do you think.

[brassnecked]

OB, I hope the EA gets prosecuted for assaulting the child, but I am not holding my breath, hopefully the ICO will tolchock the EA and their company for the breach, and CPS have to act against that EA for beating up the pensioner .

[old bill]

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Would you be kind enough to update the thread with any progress reports about both of these cases.

 

Certainly. My experience of dealing with cases of malfeasant EAs is that referring the matter to the Complaints Manager at the enforcement company has resulted in the matter being resolved in most cases. Where LAs are concerned and council officers try to fob one off to the enforcement company, I have found involving local ward councillors and MPs can be useful. Although TCoG has clarified matters where civil enforcement is concerned, there are, sadly, EAs who seem to be under the impression it is "business as usual" and behave as if TCoG does not exist.

 

OB, I hope the EA gets prosecuted for assaulting the child, but I am not holding my breath, hopefully the ICO will tolchock the EA and their company for the breach, and CPS have to act against that EA for beating up the pensioner .

 

The matter of the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, BN. As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation. The data protection breach appears to lie with the LA. Despite referring the case back to the CPS at district and regional levels, they will not have it that the EA should be prosecuted, even though the injuries the pensioner sustained amount to ABH.

 

So who do you think is responsible for this in the outset OB is it by intent or error do you think.

 

The LA's in-house data protection team has advised the sending of the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company is a breach of data protection, in the circumstances. The ICO have become involved because of what happened to the pensioner as a result. As to what you say, DB, I have my suspicions, but I await the outcome of the ICO's investigation before commenting further.

[stu007]

Have they checked whether the LA has a Data Sharing Policy in place for Third Parties and the LA has a Signed Data Sharing Agreement with the Third Party?

[Bailiff Advice]

As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation.

 

I subscribe to the ICO monthly newsletter and whilst there have been some extremely serious breaches of data recorded, it is the case that breaches of 'data' involving one person rarely lead to a monetary award being made.

 

All ICO decisions now appear online. If it is the case that the ICO find against the LA, I will start a thread on here to highlight the case.

[Bailiff Advice]

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Coming back to the above post from yesterday. In light of John Kruse's article, (and the comments on this thread since yesterday), it will probably be better if I start a new discussion thread on the subject of 'complaints'. Hopefully I should have some spare time later today.

 

PS: One last question for Old Bill. How old is the 'pensioner' that you are assisting?

[old bill]

I subscribe to the ICO monthly newsletter and whilst there have been some extremely serious breaches of data recorded, it is the case that breaches of 'data' involving one person rarely lead to a monetary award being made.

 

All ICO decisions now appear online. If it is the case that the ICO find against the LA, I will start a thread on here to highlight the case.

 

The ICO has informed me the matter of compensation is something that has to be pursued separately, TT. As to them fining the LA, I wil have to wait and see what transpires.

[old bill]

Coming back to the above post from yesterday. In light of John Kruse's article, (and the comments on this thread since yesterday), it will probably be better if I start a new discussion thread on the subject of 'complaints'. Hopefully I should have some spare time later today.

 

PS: One last question for Old Bill. How old is the 'pensioner' that you are assisting?

 

To answer your question, TT, at the time of the assault, the pensioner was aged 69/70 years, which, according to retired counsel I have spoken to, is an aggravating factor.

[old bill]

Have they checked whether the LA has a Data Sharing Policy in place for Third Parties and the LA has a Signed Data Sharing Agreement with the Third Party?

 

The LA had no lawful authority to pass the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company, stu007. In all fairness, the enforcement company advised me the pensioner's personal data was in a digital file with other persons' personal data. They have been helpful in this respect. It is likely they will need to revise their procedures to prevent a recurrence of this.

[Peterbard]

I find it hard to believe that the ICO would issue a fine for a single error like this, as said the fines are generally issued where the offences are indemic, this appears to be a single no fault error and given the vast number of cases handled by the TEC every day...

 

I am also confused about the ICO giving statements regarding the LA guilt in this, when apparently this case is still awaiting issuance to a case officer.

[Peterbard]

I do however see how there could be cause for a damaged claim against the LA, this wold probably be the best course if action for your friend.

[old bill]

I find it hard to believe that the ICO would issue a fine for a single error like this, as said the fines are generally issued where the offences are indemic, this appears to be a single no fault error and given the vast number of cases handled by the TEC every day...

 

I am also confused about the ICO giving statements regarding the LA guilt in this, when apparently this case is still awaiting issuance to a case officer.

 

Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:-

 

1. Do you have insider knowledge; and

 

2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error?

 

The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.

[old bill]

I do however see how there could be cause for a damaged claim against the LA, this wold probably be the best course if action for your friend.

 

This aspect is being looked at, DB.

[unclebulgaria67]

Generally, i find that most people are only posting based on what they know or have seen. I can understand why it is then infuriating to be questioned.

 

If a council has passed on a persons data in error leading to unfortunate consequences, then the ICO do have a proper remit to look into this. They don't just look into whether there is a wider issue, unless the one case leads them to believe the council in this case, has a problem with their DPA processes. Whether they choose not to do anything, is another matter, but they might have searching questions for the council to answer, which might lead to the council admitting to a mistake in this case and being accountable to the pensioner concerned.

[Peterbard]

Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:-

 

1. Do you have insider knowledge; and

 

2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error?

 

The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.

 

I don't think this would come under the ICO remit anyway TBH. The bailiff are after all the authorised data handler for the authority, it is not as if data had been released to the gp.

 

To be fair OB it is not the first time you have tried to Involve the ICO in situations where it is entirely inappropriate.

[old bill]

Oh really? Post up other instances, please.