Bailiff enforcement:Social Media Sites responsible for inciting aggressive behavior by calling for ‘Boots on the Ground’

[Bailiff Advice]

On Friday I was extremely concerned about a thread on one of the ‘Beat the Bailiffs’ facebook sites that eventually led to the debtor being removed from his car and with many police in attendance.

 

Background:

 

The debtor (Tony) did not seek advice on the site. Instead, his brother Paul sought advice from the Social Media Site on his behalf.

 

It would seem that ‘Tony’ had not paid a penalty charge notice and accordingly, a warrant of control was issued and passed to Marston Group to enforce. The bailiff attended the property early last Friday and after a short period of time, clamped his car.

 

In ‘Paul’s’ initial post he called for ‘Boots on the Ground’ to attend the address (in Oldham, Lancashire). As is usual with the site, the full address and postcode were provided.

 

One poster (John) spoke with Tony a number of times and reported back that he had advised him that:

 

The warrant was not a legal document as it was not signed.

 

Tony should stay in the car as his vehicle could not be removed while he is inside.

 

and that:

 

He should tell the bailiffs and police that "Wesley is just getting ready with a crew". (Wesley posted himself to confirm that he would be attending).

 

Further alarming posts were made that indicated that the bailiffs would be attacked (for example: “law doesn’t matter, lets all go out and lynch the fxxxing bailiffs”).

 

The situation esclated very quickly indeed and from reading the posts the indication was that many people were on their way to the address (in Oldham) with Wesley himself posting that ‘we have a Mexican standoff’. Further posts reported that about six police officer had arrived together with more bailiffs.

 

In all, almost 400 posts were made on the site and yet....not one person bothered to ask any background information such as:

 

Did he receive all the notices from the local authority?

Did he appeal the penalty charge notice?

Did he receive the Notice of Enforcement from Marston Group?

Did he respond to outline a payment proposal?

 

Instead, as is always the case with these sites, the suggestion made was to ....submit an Out of Time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

One person exhibited a copy of the warrant of control and it was plain to see that the warrant was a legal document. Naturally, it did not require a court seal or a 'wet ink signature'.

 

Telephone calls were made to the bailiff by an admin member of the Social Media Site (a lady with supposedly 30 years of legal experience) asking that the vehicle remain clamped until the Out of Time statutory declaration had been processed. Naturally, with the expectation of many more ‘supporters’ shortly arriving, the enforcement agent took the decision to remove the vehicle (by this time it had been clamped for over two hours). A tow truck was in attendance.

 

The debtor was removed from the vehicle.

 

Fortunately, for the bailiffs, the police and the debtor the 'Boots on the Ground' stunt was a complete failure.

[renegadeimp]

How the hell are people STILL believing this fotl nonsense

[Bailiff Advice]

In the first instance, 'Wesley' is very well known to the Police and enforcement companies. He is a keen Freeman on the Land/Sovereign Citizen individual and is known as a 'Bailiff Baiter'. A simple google search (using the words: Wesley Manchester Police Bailiffs) will reveal his many shocking videos. Astonishingly, the Social Media Site promoted him to the position of 'admin' a few months ago with it's creator stating over the weekend that he had recently asked Wesley to be a Director of the site and to 'head up 'Boots on the Ground'. It would seem that the creator of the site is looking at turning 'Beat the Bailiffs' into a 'not for profit CIC'.

 

Since November, the Social Media Site in question has been openly posting requests to recruit more 'Boots on the Ground with it's aim being to 'organise troops' so that they can:

 

'Halt the bailiffs in their tracks and peacefully prevent them from entering the property, taking goods or evicting families'.

The creator of the Social Media Site site (that has over 37,000 members) has stated that 'Boots on the Ground' originate from his attempts to stop fracking and evictions. In fact, the site were instrumental in arranging for almost 500 'supporters' (for want of a better word) to attend the eviction of Tom Crawford last year. Almost all of those 'supporters' have since disappeared (especially in light of TC's links to FmoTL, the recent 'Rooftop 6' trial and the High Court ruling that Tom Crawford is a 'vexatious litigant' and cannot issue any further legal claims without leave of the court.

 

Coming back to the events last Friday. It is a well known fact that many bailiffs view these Social Media Sites (there are now around 10 of them) and monitor posts daily and it is generally assumed that if there is a threat of violence that police will be called (as was the case on Friday).

 

In now transpires that if fact the Social Media Site in question had not as yet set up their 'Boots on the Ground' scheme and that whilst this is a future plan, it was not yet in place and is still in it's infancy. As a consequence only two 'supporters' were in attendance on Friday.

 

On Saturday, the creator of the Social Media Site publicly announced that he had ordered Wesley and one other member of the admin team (this being the lady who advised the Out of Time witness statement) to be removed from the site following a 'witch hunt'.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, anyone taking part in these dreadful stunts faces being arrested themselves. This is because, under Section 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 a person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/offences?view=plain

Edited January 26, 2016 by Andyorch
Edited

[Bailiff Advice]

In the first instance, 'Wesley' is very well known to the Police and enforcement companies. He is a keen Freeman on the Land/Sovereign Citizen individual and is known as a 'Bailiff Baiter'. A simple google search (Wesley Manchester Police Bailiffs) will reveal his many videos.

 

How he 'baits' bailiffs is that he will arrange for the debtor to call the bailiff and offer to pay the amount owed and arrange a time for the bailiff to come to the property to collect payment.

 

Unbeknown to the debtor, Wesley will be rounding up his gang, with the sole aim of intimidating and threatening the bailiff to prevent them from taking payment.

 

Wesley will then attempt to 'educate' the bailiff and police with his usual nonsense about the warrant being a 'fraudulent instrument' and not having a signature. There are many of his video's on youtube as evidence.

[Peterbard]

" Fraudulent instrument" where have we heard that before ?

[caledfwlch]

We really need someone "Neutral" like Citizens Advice to issue posters and leaflets in the local areas of their branches, to give the basic real facts on enforcement, and warning people about FMOTL to try and protect the people who are being deliberately misguided by Freeman idiots using them as pawns for their twisted games, it's getting beyond a joke, the lives being further damaged either financially, or criminally because of these people.

 

I have no problem with "boots on the ground" in the sense of a peaceful demonstration, that does not in any way obstruct the Enforcement, is not threatening or criminal but is simply there in the hope of raising media interest in how brutal the enforcement regime now is.

[caledfwlch]

One of the "Open" Beat the Bailiff Social Media Sites pages, the one attached to the Forum now has a leaflet posted, claiming that they will be able to "write off" all your debts for £99.

 

This surely by now should be a matter for the Police to Investigate, as they are offering a service that cannot possibly exist, lawfully. They could be talking about Debt Relief Orders? But I doubt that Site is an approved 3rd party for instigating a DRO like CAB.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[Bailiff Advice]

One of the "Open" Beat the Bailiff pages, the one attached to the Forum now has a leaflet posted, claiming that they will be able to "write off" all your debts for £99.

 

There are many problems with these bailiff Social Media Sites pages; one being that there are now far too many of them and those people creating the sites cannot control the many FMoTL posters bombarding the sites with their daft theories about fake warrants, wet ink signatures, '3 letter process' etc, etc. Worryingly, new posters will be unaware that each sites has the very same aim......to seek ways in which to avoid paying a bailiff at all costs.

 

A few weeks ago the Beat the Bailiff site wanted to carry out a survey of how many people were in a payment arrangement with an enforcement company. I was really pleased to see the many posts confirming that arrangements were in place. Testimony that the regulations are working.

 

A short while after, the admin team member made an announcement that everyone subject to a payment arrangement should STOP MAKING ANY MORE PAYMENTS. Viewers were told that if payments stopped.....their accounts would be returned back to the local authorities and bailiff fees removed !!! The truth of the matter is that the accounts would not be returned to the council and instead, would be marked as defaulting and be passed to an enforcement agent for a personal visit to 'take control of goods' . This visit would incur an 'enforcement fee' of £235.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[Peterbard]

In addition the sums already paid will be apportioned and the bailiff will get their compliance fee and probably a large amount of any enforcement fee out of what ever has been paid upto date.

This will result in a larger sum being still due to the LA. Only fees not yet collected are not due on return of warrant.

.

in addition they have another twelve months to decide if they want to return the warrant, in addition to the time the warrant was on the arrangement.

[Peterbard]

I also believe that these sites are still trying to breathe life into the ridiculous "notice of withdrawal of implied rights" usage, generating yet more money for EAs makes you wonder who they are working for.

[Bailiff Advice]

I also believe that these sites are still trying to breathe life into the ridiculous "notice of withdrawal of implied rights" usage, generating yet more money for EAs makes you wonder who they are working for.

 

In fact, part of the reason for the 'fallout' with the 'Beat the Bailiff' site over the weekend was about finances and the money received from the recent sales of childish 'window stickers' (informing any visitors (bailiffs primarily) that the homeowner will not allow access to the property. The stickers are sold for £1 with the site claiming that they will lead to bailiffs returning accounts back to the council.

 

It seems that quite a few people fell for this nonsense.

[brassnecked]

In fact, part of the reason for the 'fallout' with the 'Beat the Bailiff' site over the weekend was about finances and the money received from the recent sales of childish 'window stickers' (informing any visitors (bailiffs primarily) that the homeowner will not allow access to the property. The stickers are sold for £1 with the site claiming that they will lead to bailiffs returning accounts back to the council.

It seems that quite a few people fell for this nonsense.

 

 

These sites are an absolute menace, big problems taking them down though if hosted on non UK servers.

[Bailiff Advice]

These sites are an absolute menace, big problems taking them down though if hosted on non UK servers.

 

A new one started on Sunday. Remarkably, Wesley has been appointed a member of the admin team. And yet, he is clearly into the freeman/sov citizen nonsense and displays an alarming lack of knowledge regarding warrants and this in itself is highly dangerous (as has been shown many times in his 'bailiff baiting' videos).

 

He and other posters are of the mindset that a warrant has to be carried by a bailiff. This is simply not true. A warrant is addressed to the enforcement agent and outlines what he is required to do. It is not a document to be given to the debtor. The regulations state that the enforcement agent should show his authority (to act). This would naturally include a copy of his enforcement agent certificate. The 'authority' in most cases will be a copy of a letter etc from the local authority confirming that authority to enforce a liability order has been given to the enforcement agent.

 

A common theme with each site is the misunderstanding regarding Liability Orders. There is no such document. There previously had been such a document (called a Form A) but this was revoked from the regulations in 2003.

[Peterbard]

It is a constant mystery to me how these sites state that they are " helping debtors", mainly they are helping themselves, if not financially, then to vent some anger over some slight they feel they have suffered at the enforcment agents hands.

 

If they were helping they would advise people how to pay the debt or arrange some accommodation, these sites never addresses the debt, only flawed ideas to temporarily avoid it. Usually at further cost.

[brassnecked]

It is a constant mystery to me how these sites state that they are " helping debtors", mainly they are helping themselves, if not financially, then to vent some anger over some slight they feel they have suffered at the enforcment agents hands.

 

If they were helping they would advise people how to pay the debt or arrange some accommodation, these sites never addresses the debt, only flawed ideas to temporarily avoid it. Usually at further cost.

And that is the issue, there is no help for the debtor to properly address the debt and actually pay it. Only shenanigans to bait the bailiff.

[unclebulgaria67]

Some of these FMOTL people are making a living from it. You will have seen the Youtube videos of some of them, who appear to believe they are celebrities, holding meetings where presumably tickets have been sold.

 

If you are going to commit criminal acts, which incitement to cause public disorder is probably relevant, then you are pretty stupid posting these requests for boots on the ground.

[mikeymack2002]

The only way to beat a Bailiff is to pay your bills and if late in paying SPEAK to your creditor asap and don't allow it to get that far in the first place. I joined to have a read and promptly left the group just as quick. Bad news all around...

[Bailiff Advice]

The only way to beat a Bailiff is to pay your bills and if late in paying SPEAK to your creditor asap and don't allow it to get that far in the first place. I joined to have a read and promptly left the group just as quick. Bad news all around...

 

Good advice MM.

 

In fact last year I was accepted by the group and allowed to respond to queries. That is until I committed a mortal sin in the eyes of these 'bailiff bashers'.

 

It would incredible the way in which a poster would display a copy of a letter received from an enforcement agent. Rarely did anyone bother to remove their personal information (which naturally is of great assistance to the many enforcement agents and companies viewing the sites on a daily basis).

 

Most posters would then post a daft question such as 'What should I do about this"? Regular contributors would immediately advise the debtor to do one of the following:

 

Contact the court to make an appointment to file a Statutory Declaration if the debt was for a court fine.

 

Submit an Out of Time witness statement if the debt was for an unpaid penalty charge notice.

 

Submit a 'vulnerable household' letter if the debt was for council tax.

 

When I was posting, I would ask a series of questions to establish background information on the debt etc. If it was the case that the person had received all the prior notices (which was usually the case), I would advise contacting the enforcement company to set up an affordable payment plan. This was considered a mortal sin. I was warned in no uncertain terms that I should never suggest that a person either speaks with, or makes payment to an enforcement agent (or his company) and that every attempt should be made to get the debt returned back to the court or the local authority. In other words, to give the debtor a second chance to deal with correspondence that they had usually ignored just a couple of weeks earlier !!

 

I was banned from posting after about two months.

[Bailiff Advice]

Yesterday another request was made by this social media site for 'Boots on the Ground' to attend a property in Luton in order to disrupt an eviction. It would seem that one of those attending was arrested.

 

As I have said before, police and enforcement companies monitor and view those particular sites on a daily basis and would naturally be very much aware of the impending threat of violence by these 'activists'.

 

This would have been the only reason why

five armed police officers

were in attendance.

[mikeymack2002]

Surprised it took that long for them to ban you. They may think that you were an under cover EA. Getting background on some sites is akin to jumping of a cliff in as much as the group may gang up on you and ask why you would ask so many questions...

[Bailiff Advice]

Yesterday another request was made by this social media site for 'Boots on the Ground' to attend a property in Luton in order to disrupt an eviction. It would seem that one of those attending was arrested.

 

As I have said before, police and enforcement companies monitor and view those particular sites on a daily basis and would naturally be very much aware of the impending threat of violence by these 'activists'.

This would have been the only reason why

five armed police officers

were in attendance.

The behaviour of these idiots is alarming and so too is their lack of knowledge of bailiff enforcement.

[Bailiff Advice]

Surprised it took that long for them to ban you. They may think that you were an under cover EA.

 

No, they knew who I was and the only criteria given to me at the time was that I should not use my own name or my usual name of Bailiff Advice. I was even asked to re-write the dreadful 'vulnerable household' letter and others as well.

 

The 'nail in the coffin' in my case came about when a poster had her car clamped (and in fact eventually removed). The advice that she was given was to once again commit perjury by submitting an Out of Time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. I disagreed as I had looked back at earlier posts of hers and it was clear that she had received all the notices from the council and she had ignored them on the basis of previous advice from the social media site.

 

Worse still, she had approx 20 other unpaid parking tickets with two other enforcement companies.

[mikeymack2002]

I think that some sites just look to cause as much trouble as possible and this could snowball in the future when the debtor's see that the EA will simply not just walk away.. its not cost effective but very costly in the end.

[Bailiff Advice]

A few days ago a lady posted on the same social media site about the outcome of a two day trial following her arrest in late 2015. The case is very serious indeed and she was found guilty. This was despite being represented by one of the largest criminal solicitors practices in the UK.

 

Given the seriousness, it would be better if I start a new thread in the morning.

 

PS: The lady has been bailed until February 18th for sentencing. She had her first appointment with a Probation Officer today. The Judge prescribing over her trial has advised her to expect a custodial sentence.

[caledfwlch]

Yesterday another request was made by this social media site for 'Boots on the Ground' to attend a property in Luton in order to disrupt an eviction. It would seem that one of those attending was arrested.

 

As I have said before, police and enforcement companies monitor and view those particular sites on a daily basis and would naturally be very much aware of the impending threat of violence by these 'activists'.

This would have been the only reason why

five armed police officers

were in attendance.

The behaviour of these idiots is alarming and so too is their lack of knowledge of bailiff enforcement.

 

Armed Officers is a bit of overkill surely? Or does it just mean they had Tasers, as I think they are considered armed weapons as such.