DCBL Hammered for £10,000 plus costs

[Darrius]

 

 

Judge ruled that the bailiff had no reasonable belief he was entering a debtor's premises and there was not even evidence of a writ.

 

 

Ruled there was no evidence of a NOE sent to the address.

 

Ruled there was a tort of assualt as the bailiff barged in wearing, in the Judge's words, combat gear.

 

Ruled there was a tort os 'misuse of private information' by the bailiff by taking photos of the homeowner's documents

 

More in the link. Case originally discussed here on these boards

 

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief.

There would be quite wrong and it's a shame that this very interesting and relevant video has tried to express this.

[Darrius]

It is telling though that a week in and none of those contributors have had anything to say.

[Peterbard]

I am not sure what you are expecting.

 

This is nothing new, it is just that the person concerned caught the incident on camera, that makes it newsworthy, apparently.

Simply the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises". I can think of several judgments which agree with this, and found against the Bailiff..:

 

6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

The bailiff may call at relevant premises, this may or may not correspond to any residential information suppled by the creditor or his office, the provision is permitted under his general powers.

 

The point is that the EA must have a reasonable belief that the person lives or works there.

Once the EA acts outside the procedure authorised by his writ(Schedule( 12), he is open to actions under common law or those rules applicable under other legislation.

 

Problems only arise when people take this incident to prove something that it doesn't.

 

 

There is no disputing that the bailiff and the company behaved atrociously, and there is no denying that DCBL makes a habit of this kind of thing

 

 

[Crimebodge]

11 hours ago, Peterbard said:

This is nothing new, it is just that the person concerned caught the incident on camera, that makes it newsworthy, apparently.

 

 

 

Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.

 

 

 

Quote

Simply the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises". I can think of several judgments which agree with this, and found against the Bailiff..:

 

Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike." 

 

I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".

 

That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.

 

The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."

 

Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.

 

He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.

 

Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.

 

What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.

 

Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.

 

To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."

 

Seriously? I have to point it out to you.

 

Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.

 

Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:

 

"The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.

 

As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).

 

The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."

 

I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.

 

Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf. 

 

It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.

[dx100uk]

 

On 18/06/2018 at 23:49, dx100uk said:

sniff sniff fMoTl

 

On 19/06/2018 at 16:44, Homer67 said:

The video maker might be but I'm not and Crimebodge is not

Ignoring the rubbish the video maker says the agent does push his way into the property.

 

My opinion is that if the video maker had said hold on there I'll just go and get you some ID the agent would have walked in and the video maker knew that so tried to shut the door but the agent wasn't having that.

 

CB ....this conclusion is true.

 

however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.

 

one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam...

i will leave you to understand why not .....

 

On 10/07/2018 at 05:33, Guest Crimebodge said:

Just to set the record straight, I despise Freeman of the Land and everything they stand for. I have done my utmost over the years to protect and rescue people from their recklessness and I consider any suggestion that I am aligned with them as defaming.

 

10 hours ago, Crimebodge said:

Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.

 

don't think anyone did? 

 

regards 

DX

[Peterbard]

Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.

 

I in fact said the opposite. 

"Once the EA acts outside the procedure authorised by his writ(Schedule( 12), he is open to actions under common law or those rules applicable under other legislation."

 

That is what I said. no backpedalling here.

You cant have it both ways.

 

[Peterbard]

"Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf. "

 

Sorry but my magic wand is out of commission right now. The next best thing would be to provide an accurate reading of the law as it stands.

 

If you are going to discuss the video, then there are sensible matters which could be discussed. Sadly any reasonable debate is impossible, as you always start with the personal abuse, which inevitably leads to thread closure, we have learned that over and over again.

[Peterbard]

You say "the judge did not mention relevant premises," well all i can say is that we are both locking at different judgments, because mine says that the agent had no proof to form a reasonable belief etc.

 

Also why have you cut and pasted content of an offsite blog. You dont know it was even written by me?

 

In any case it is out of context because it referred to a bailiff acting within his general powers.

 

 

[Peterbard]

• 1 post

•  
• #5  

17 hours ago, Peterbard said:

This is nothing new, it is just that the person concerned caught the incident on camera, that makes it newsworthy, apparently.

"Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it."

 

Well. l He didn't just use the video for evidence, if he had, it wouldn't be on u-tube. Not that I object to that but just to correct your point.

If he would have come here and I would have seen it , I would undoubtedly recommend an action in tort. But I get the feeling that such a low key remedy was not what you were after.

[Peterbard]

 

"Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose

 

"All the effort put in"? You mean there was some kind of entrapment? Surely not.

[Peterbard]

40 minutes ago, Peterbard said:

You say "the judge did not mention relevant premises," well all i can say is that we are both locking at different judgments, because mine says that the agent had no proof to form a reasonable belief etc.

 

Also why have you cut and pasted content of an offsite blog. You dont know it was even written by me?

 

In any case it is out of context because it referred to a bailiff acting within his general powers.

 

Quote

 Just to add regarding the judges remarks, this is from Darrises first post.

 

• udge ruled that the bailiff had no reasonable belief he was entering a debtor's premises and there was not even evidence of a writ.

   

• #1  

Posted September 18

 

 

Judge ruled that the bailiff had no reasonable belief he was entering a debtor's premises and there was not even evidence of a writ.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Peterbard

[Darrius]

Have the replies to Peterbard been removed between his posts?

[dx100uk]

no we never do that without advising.

 

 

 

dx