Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can edit the answers to be in red or would you like me to do it? HB
    • Apologies dx100uk  I did not put the answers in red  Thank you all for your patience. H
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ?  Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account 4546384809766042. The defendant faild to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. The dbt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim.  It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment?  May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bailiff damage to buildings


Guest 10110001
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6394 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest 10110001

In summary:

 

My girlfriend had the bailiffs calling for an unknown parking ticket this summer and the bailiff caused £663.88 of damage to the back door of my flat during the early hours one morning. She paid the bailiff just over £300 with a credit card.

 

The ticket was eventually traced to the local council and it has since been revoked because it did not comply with legislation, we appealed to the court and won.

 

The bailiffs then refused to refund the £300 and would not cooperate saying they cant "unexecute a warrant".

 

I got a refund of the parking ticket and bailiff fees because the bailiff collected the money using a credit card and the refund was under the Consumer Credit Act (a chargeback) and debited out of the bailiffs bank account.

 

So how to I go about reclaiming the builders costs of repairing my flat from the damage caused by a bailiff?

 

Is it posible I can make a county court claim against a council?

 

Do I make a claim against the bailiffs? And what if they don’t pay the judgement? Send the bailiffs in? – no seriously!, I want to know how to get my £663.88 back.

 

Are there any precedents I can follow?

 

How do I recover the costs relating to damage to buildings by a bailiff? Any help & advice is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's complicated to answer with only the details you have supplied. Such as

1]did the bailiff damage the door by trying to make a forcible entrance.

2] did his warrant allow him. at that stage to enter by force

3]did the terms of the bailiffs contract with the Council require him to

get permission from the Council before entering forcibly: and what hours

is the bailiff allowed to operate when on Council business

4] what time of night did the bailiff damage the door

5] do you know what "betterment" is

5] how much of the cost of the repair to the door was the builders charge

[i presume there may have been an element in the cost for making an

emergency callout?].

6] what state was the door in before the bailiff called

7] did you totally repair the door, frame, etc or just cosmetic do work, or

did you upgrade to a stronger type of door.

 

Before answering the question about the Council/Bailiff contract you will

obviously have to speak to the Council. They are more likely to give you the answers over the phone, or in person if you go to their offices, if you do

not say or have not said that you are considering action against them

for tthe damage. [sometimes the contract is on their website btw].

If they will only respond in writing, post the rest of the answers here when

you are ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

Hi, and firstly thanks for taking the time to answer my post. Here is the information you asked for.

 

It's complicated to answer with only the details you have supplied. Such as

 

1]did the bailiff damage the door by trying to make a forcible entrance.

 

Yes, he applied force to the door by leaning into it and this push it over her right foot breaking the 5th metatarsal and laceration to her right breast. A Personal Injury Claim is in motion. The bottom half of the wooden door became bowed out of place preventing it from being made secure again. There was further damage cause by a blunt instrument on the outside and this damage wasn’t there at 11pm the previous night.

 

2] did his warrant allow him. at that stage to enter by force

 

No, and no warrant was showed at the scene and no ID was shown when requested.

 

3]did the terms of the bailiffs contract with the Council require him to get permission from the Council before entering forcibly:

 

No, the council accepts there was no warrant enabling a forced entry. The Police say in writing that the bailiff ‘acted lawfully’ (a contradiction – but that’s with the IPCC now)

 

and what hours is the bailiff allowed to operate when on Council business

 

06:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday and nothing on Sundays, Public holidays, Good Friday and Christmas Day.

 

4] what time of night did the bailiff damage the door

 

06:11.

 

5] do you know what "betterment" is

 

Yes

 

5] how much of the cost of the repair to the door was the builders charge

[i presume there may have been an element in the cost for making an [/color]

emergency callout?].

 

The invoice is £663.88 (£565.00 + VAT) inc parts.

 

6] what state was the door in before the bailiff called

 

Brand new. The entire apartment had been completely renovated about 3 months prior to the indicent and the same builder carried out the emergency repairs.

 

7] did you totally repair the door, frame, etc or just cosmetic do work, or did you upgrade to a stronger type of door.

 

Identical door and obtained from the same supplier as the previous one. The door frame was salvageable but needed work to make it secure.

 

 

 

 

I just need to know whether I start Small claims against the bailiff company (employed bailiff) or I proceed against the council.

 

 

Bailiff company denies it ever happened - even though we have photographs showing his boot being thrust into the door (i happened to have a digital camera in the hall and took pictures) We have plenty to discredit the bailiff and prove him to have lied on several occasions.

 

 

The council refuses to cooperate and has no intention of working to reach any amicable resolve.

 

 

I am seeking £663.88 plus expenses of about £300 (i have the exact figures somewhere) and the parking ticket has been revoked and its cost plus bailiff fees have already been recovered via a credit card chargeback.

 

The statements and exhibits are ready to be filed at the court, we just dont know who to name as the defendent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a frightening experience for your girl friend -hope she is ok now.

My own view is that the bailiff, his company and the council are all liable.

However I am hoping that there will be someone on the forum who has

more knowledge on the subject, now that the relevant facts are here, to

direct you to where your greatest chance of success would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, you could try a com[plaint to the Local Government

Ombudsman who investigates complaints about Councils. As they are responsible for the behaviour of the bailiffs it might be a cheaper avenue

than the Courts, and still leaving you free to claim against the bailiffs too.

Getting the ticket wrong in the first place won't help their case, even though

they did quash it in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a disgusting mess they appear to have caused. I'm really sorry that you've been put in that situation.

 

And if all of the above fail, get the local politicians involved! It might not seem like much, but it's amazing how much more responsive local authorities become when an MPs letter gets sent in. I can only talk from experience, but I have found that the Section Head oftens reacts more favourably to MPs than the public.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

It was the Northampton County Court that revoked the warrant. The council tried to resist an appeal saying that she cannot appeal after the bailiffs have been in to recover the parking ticket.

 

At present the Council has no intention in seeing an amicable resolve to relating to damage to my flat and my out-of-pocket expenses; they won’t even acknowledge my letters and as of Monday (13/11), even ended the phone call refusing to even discuss it.

 

I have an appointment with my MP on this issue. But I don’t think this will recover my costs.

 

The Bailiff Company doesn’t even accept anything happened – even after showing camera photographs. The bailiff himself is employed and therefore cannot be sued personally by me as he was acting under the employ of the company.

 

I’m thinking of just filing the case naming the Council as a defendant and seeing what comes of it. Wit all the excuses ive been fobbed off with so far, I have this vision the Judge will just throw it back at me.

 

The general comments I have received here and in PM is that I should name the Council as the defendant as they carry the Duty of Care liability.

 

Does anyone know a precedent? Where damage to buildings caused by a bailiff is recovered after the offence is revoked?

 

I don’t have much confidence in the Court system in the UK I’m afraid. It was the Courts allowed a woman to be broken into and attacked at night at home, putting her in hospital, had money embezzled, was threatened with intimidation & further violence if she did not pay, allowed a bailiff to claim he was collecting a fine[/f], and all this over a bogus parking ticket warrant - and its all OK because the Law says so.

 

The Police pass it all off as civil matter, but are keen to get involved in civil matters when it suits them. E.g. motoring offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

Whilst writing, can anyone show me a bailiff’s fee schedule or the regulations which sets out what bailiff’s fees are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

all i can see is this sticky post:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/33623-types-bailiffs-their-fees.html?highlight=baliff+fee+charges+list

 

hopefully the info you need is in there. sorry to hear your gf was hurt and i hope u have the opportunity to make them pay.

 

Kirsty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take this directly to the Home Office personally - this cannot possbily be excused as anything other than breaking and entering and assult? - certainly I would not accept any other judgement than that.

 

Write to all the national newspapers too, and contact BBC and ITV newsdesks, give them hell!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

I wish I had just broken the bailiff’s legs with his own crowbar [MOD: please try not to advocate violence] . I have the ability to do this but I knew it would land me in trouble - even though the Police passed off my g/f's injuries as a civil matter

 

Want a laugh? I asked the police what they would do if I safely removed the bailiff away from the property under the Human Rights Act 1998. Their answer: I'd be arrested for assault! Naturally, the case went to the IPCC for practicing double-standards in policing. Nothing happened from that and now it’s moved up to our MP.

 

The case this week has also been taken up by the Office of Fair Trading but only relating to issues of charging bogus visit and letter fees and they are only investigating the bailiff company but not the bailiff himself.

 

Veryannoyed: The Home Office wont get involved, they will only pass it back and suggest I contact the OFT.

 

The BBC has already run a TV program exposing the scams practiced by bailiffs.

 

BBC NEWS | Magazine | At debt's door

 

The Police won’t get involved therefore allowing certified bailiffs to operate as licensed burglars being accountable to nobody. The Theft Act 1968, embezzlement of money, assault, breaking & entering, and criminal damage are all civil matters now – and that’s according to Inspector x, PC’s x and x all of Surrey Police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when was THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, ASSULT, BURGLARY, ACTUAL BODILY HARM, DECPETION etc. decriminalised?

 

Sorry, but just because the police say it is not criminal, doesn't mean it isn't criminal. Demand the police tell you the exact pieces of legislation that took these crimes out of their remit to investigate and prosecute.

 

The Home Office MUST get involved, or give you a good reason in law why they can't. You are a citizen of the UK, I presume, therefore the home office has ultimate responsibility for your safety (as far as I am aware)

 

...if only you had proof that the bailiff was doing 31mph on the way to your house, then he would be a REAL criminal, of course...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, thanks for the police bashing. It's appreciated.

 

The chances are that the police regard it as a civil matter because as far as they are aware the bailiff was there executing a court warrant. So, as far as they are concerned his actions were lawful. If you had assaulted or obstructed him you would have committed an offence. Hence them telling you that you'd have been arrested. This is perfectly true as long as the warrant was correct. Now, remember that the police will assume the warrant was lawful until it was shown that it was not. So don't get too angry about the police because from their point of view this is a civil matter. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the rights and wrongs of the police's actions.

 

Now, you can sue the bailiff. Him being employed by a company does not take away his personal responsibility for his unlawful actions.

 

Also, please don't name police officers on public forums. It leads to all sorts of trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, thanks for the police bashing. It's appreciated.

 

The chances are that the police regard it as a civil matter because as far as they are aware the bailiff was there executing a court warrant. So, as far as they are concerned his actions were lawful. If you had assaulted or obstructed him you would have committed an offence. Hence them telling you that you'd have been arrested. This is perfectly true as long as the warrant was correct. Now, remember that the police will assume the warrant was lawful until it was shown that it was not. So don't get too angry about the police because from their point of view this is a civil matter. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the rights and wrongs of the police's actions.

 

Now, you can sue the bailiff. Him being employed by a company does not take away his personal responsibility for his unlawful actions.

 

Also, please don't name police officers on public forums. It leads to all sorts of trouble.

 

What concerns me most about about this situation is the manner in which the bailiff forced entry and the injuries sustained by the posters partner.

 

While the warrant may have been lawfull, the actions of the bailiff were not.

As has been admitted by the council the warrant did not include forced entry, therefore the bailiff can only gain peacefull entry.

 

I would not consider forcing a door whilst someone is behind it as peacefull entry, especially as there is the liklyhood of someone being behind it, which in this case resulted in the person sustaining a broken metatarsal and a laceration to her breast. Further, in my opinion this should have resulted in the offening bailiff being arrested and charged with actual bodily harm.

 

Another point: By forcing the door and causing damage to it should also attract an offence of criminal damage, as most bailiffs would call for a locksmith, albeit it may increase the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly from what has been written here which is only one side of the story I'd be looking at investigating for assault. I think the burglary issue is dead in the water as there would be no chance of proving a theft since the bailiff will argue he believed he was acting lawfully in attempting to recover the goods.

 

Criminal damage would be iffy as well since the bailiff will again claim lack of intent or recklessness since he will have believed he was acting lawfully.

 

The best course of action is to sue the bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly from what has been written here which is only one side of the story I'd be looking at investigating for assault. I think the burglary issue is dead in the water as there would be no chance of proving a theft since the bailiff will argue he believed he was acting lawfully in attempting to recover the goods.

 

Criminal damage would be iffy as well since the bailiff will again claim lack of intent or recklessness since he will have believed he was acting lawfully.

 

The best course of action is to sue the bailiff.

 

I can see your point with regards to the criminal damage issue, but could it not be arrgued that as the bailiff only had right of peacefull entry( which he should have known, if he was properly trained) Therefore He exceede his authority and Intent can be proved. "As they say there is no law against ignorance, only ignorance of the law itself".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know he had not entered before? If the bailiff believed he had a right of forceful entry his mistaken belief will muddy the waters sufficiently that the CPS would not proceed with a charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want a laugh? I asked the police what they would do if I safely removed the bailiff away from the property under the Human Rights Act 1998. Their answer: I'd be arrested for assault! Naturally, the case went to the IPCC for practicing double-standards in policing. Nothing happened from that and now it’s moved up to our MP.

 

 

Only just saw this thread. I would not want to make any detailed comment without knowing the full facts from both sides. However, I would advise that if a bailiff attempts to enter by force, where force is not permitted, and where the debtor denies entry, then the debtor CAN resist entry and use reasonable force to do so. There is case law to support use of force where a bailiff exceeds his powers of entry.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How is "reasonable force" to be defined? is it any action necessary that stops him from entering, so long as you start of by saying "NO", then say using your body weight against the door, then if he broke the door open could you use direct action against him?

 

Obviously if you opened the door as soon as he rung the doorbell and twatted him on the nose, that would be unreasonable? - I assume the force has to be gradually increased until it proves to be effective?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no easy way of defining reasonable force. It's whatever is both reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as you perceived them to be.

 

Sorry I can't be more precise but it's a (deliberately) inexact science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I know it is a very difficult thing to define, and is usually decided by a Court, I was just wondering if my assumption that starting off with a firm verbal "NO" and proceeding up the scale of physical force to whatever was eventually necessary to stop someone from breaking into your property would be deemed to be "reasonable"

 

There is of course gathering case law that deems shooting a burglar that has entered your house and is threatening the welfare of your family is "reasonable"

 

... seems perfectly reasonable to me - and I'm a non-violent person, but having said that I do firmly believe in taking any and all necessary steps in self-defence.

 

I'm NOT trying to stir things up here by the way! - I genuinley think it is important for people to know where they stand should they ever find themselves in the terrible position of a bailiff forcing their way into their home, causing actual bodily harm, without any legal authority whatsoever to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6394 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...