Bailiff damage to buildings

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The ticket was eventually traced to the local council and it has since been revoked because it did not comply with legislation, we appealed to the court and won.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

[Guest 10110001]

*bump*

 

can anyone shed some light on this please?

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[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.

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[bathgatebuyer]

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.

[POCA]

Since you can only recover your losses once why don't you sue the person most responsible, i.e. the bailiff.

[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.

[Guest 10110001]

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

[freedomfighter]

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

[veryannoyed]

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!

[freedomfighter]

i thought about that too. if someone kick my door down and injured me I would rant from every roof top. definately contact the media at the very least.

[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.

[veryannoyed]

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...

[POCA]

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.

[simonjohn]

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.

[POCA]

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.

[simonjohn]

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".

[POCA]

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.

[blfuk1]

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.

[veryannoyed]

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?

[POCA]

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.

[veryannoyed]

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.

[JonCris]

As well as reporting them to the IPCC you can also sue the police for failing to enforce the law (neglect of duty). The courts are now much more willing to find against the police in such cases.