Well some one had to make a stand, rightly or wrongly

[FunnyMan]

Hi,

 

I have today just issued a criminal complaint to my local Police Constabulary (Cumbria) regarding the actions of Mr. X (a certificated bailiff with his license issued at Lancaster County Court in June 2005), Jacobs the comapany he works for (probably as a self-employed sub-contractor), and my local Distict Council (South Lakeland District Council).

 

I have issued the criminal complaint on the following grounds

 

1) Fraud

2) False accounting

3) Demanding money with menaces (extortion)

4) Breach of the Data Protection Act

5) Breach of the Human Rights Act

 

This may seem a heavy handed approach, but we have writen evidence as proof. It is also time that somebody made a stand against these crimes which are committed on such a wide scale (I think a combined figure for overcharging by bailiffs can be estimated at £100,000,000 per year).

 

The question now is though have the Police got what it takes and will they follow through with the complaint. Are they there to protect the public or are they there just to protect corrupt businesses?

 

I am also starting civil proceedings for damages (although of course these will not be able to proceed until any criminal cases have been dealt with).

 

Well this is my first post, and obviously I cannot say too much at the moment except that I will obviously keep this forum informed as to developments.

[setmefree]

yes please keep us informed,good luck and there are loads of people on here that will help you especially HERBIE

[The Watcher]

Good Luck with it - please keep us informed (esp what actions / decisions the police make).

 

DON'T let them fob you off! All forces have priority areas - and this may be a "low" one - but the police cannot decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

 

You may be surprised - no one expected the police to take the "Cash for Peerages" complaint seriously - but there are quite a few people very worried by the possible outcome !

 

btw - please edit your post to remove the name of the actual bailiff. Naming the firm is OK.

[FunnyMan]

'Setmefree' and 'The Watcher', thank you both for the good wishes, they are really appreciated. I was somwhat concerned at the response I would get.

 

'The Watcher' - yes, I take your point exactly about the 'cash for peerages' investigation. All I have to do is hope that I find police officers with enough gumption to realise the scale of the frauds being perpetrated here (this includes all types of fixed fee bailiffs charges). Also the roughshod way bailiffs ignor and/or breach peoples rights, totally ignor the law, and the threatening behaviour used are all illegal.

 

But we shall have to wait just a few days.

 

By the way I have edited out the bailiffs name as requested.

[The Watcher]

As I said - you have to keep at them. A local "bobby" probably won;t have a clue about bailiff law anyway so will tend to beleive whatever the bailiff tells him (even if he can be bothered to make contact). They are probably told at probationary school not to get involved !

 

If you don't get a satisfactory response ask for a senior officer, and if that does not work contact the Chief Constable (and tell him that you are copying-in your MP, and maybe your local Police Authority too).

 

We can't select which laws we want to obey and which we want to ignore - and it's not the job of the police to "select" which laws to enforce either.

 

(Might be well worth printing and taking with you a copy of the letter from Austin Mitchell MP - in which he outlines (in Parliament) the many rules broken by bailiffs on a regular basis.

 

If the police can't be bothered to do the legwork themselves they may start to listen when they realise that MPs are already onto this.

 

Austin Mitchells' speech in the Commons -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-688931.html

[FunnyMan]

I have now been contacted by a local uniformed constable who has asked me to hand details in to him, although when I made my complaint I was told it would be handed over to CID or Fraud directly! Ah well, I guess this is only to be expected.

 

During the telephone call where I explained the nature and degree of the charges the uniformed constable admitted to me that this was totally over his head and he was used to dealing with petty criminals and youths committing a nuisance. He then said that he would look at the paperwork and discuss it with his sergeant (presumably also not used to such a case) and they would decide what to do with it then.

 

I am handing in the paperwork (copies) later today (including a copy of Austin Mitchells' speach - thanks TW). It would seem this will delay the process but hopefully it will be passed on immediately, I will give them 48 hours from me handing the paperwork in and if I have not heard anything from them will then chase them up.

 

If there is any body else in Cumbria (or dealing with Jacobs) I would be interested to know so that their case/experiences could also be sent onto the same police officer!

 

I will post again as soon as anything new arises.

[The Watcher]

At least you didn't get the usual "this is a civil matter and nothing to do with us" attitude.

 

Fingers crossed - keep us informed !

[Saffronflowers]

I will be following this with interest as I too am thinking of taking the bailiffs to court for fraud. They levied goods that were not at the house on the date stated and I can prove it. I am also thinking of taking to court for deception due to the percentage charge fee for paying by debit card. I have spoken to their bank and they state they never ever charge a percentage it is a flat fee.

 

SFx

[tooth_fairy]

Fingers crossed and I totally back your course of action.

[FunnyMan]

Well I have attended at the Police Station and been interviewed by the uniformed officer concerned. He has now to disguss the case with his Sergeant but he thinks it will be forwarded to either Kendal CID or Penrith to the fraud squad. He also said that I should hear within '2 weeks' (personally I think this is far too long).

 

Anyway what I could not say earlier until I had reported to the police was that in this mornings post I received a letter from Jacobs. In it they attached a copy of the particular bailiffs 'Certificated Bailiffs Lisence', which of course included a photo of the bailiff concerned.

 

Well all I can say is that working for Jacobs must be a wonderful job because the photo on the lisence shows a man that is in his mid 30's to mid 40's and very heavily set in build. Somewhat strange as the man who attended my house and showed me his certificated bailiffs license was young to mid 20's, extremely tall and of very frail build. I have therefore also added to the papers handed into the police stating that the man who attended my property on the 1st May and showed me a certificated bailiffs license is apparently not the gentleman who holds the actual lisence according to Jacobs! Now surely that is fraud and must surely be a criminal offence in itself.

 

Anyway sorry about the delay in reporting that but wanted the police to get that information first.

 

Now the waiting game begins.

[The Watcher]

Well I have attended at the Police Station and been interviewed by the uniformed officer concerned. He has now to disguss the case with his Sergeant but he thinks it will be forwarded to either Kendal CID or Penrith to the fraud squad. He also said that I should hear within '2 weeks' (personally I think this is far too long).

 

Anyway what I could not say earlier until I had reported to the police was that in this mornings post I received a letter from Jacobs. In it they attached a copy of the particular bailiffs 'Certificated Bailiffs Lisence', which of course included a photo of the bailiff concerned.

 

Well all I can say is that working for Jacobs must be a wonderful job because the photo on the lisence shows a man that is in his mid 30's to mid 40's and very heavily set in build. Somewhat strange as the man who attended my house and showed me his certificated bailiffs license was young to mid 20's, extremely tall and of very frail build. I have therefore also added to the papers handed into the police stating that the man who attended my property on the 1st May and showed me a certificated bailiffs license is apparently not the gentleman who holds the actual lisence according to Jacobs! Now surely that is fraud and must surely be a criminal offence in itself.

 

Anyway sorry about the delay in reporting that but wanted the police to get that information first.

 

Now the waiting game begins.

 

Good - they are taking you seriously.

 

Re the phantom bailiff .... I have often suspected that this happens. When someone asks for bailiff Certification, they simply "substitute" another bailiff! That way they can pretend that all their bailiffs have the necessary authorisation (which of course they don't).

[StormWarrior]

Have you got any evidence as to who attended?

Could be hard to prove who it was, unless you have.

However, you could find the person who called, and then indentify them as the one who called !

If you need any tips here, PM me

[Guest Herbie]

WATCHER

 

Sadly, a number of bailiff companies that we hear about provide the name of a different bailiff to the one that attended. That is why it is so important to ensure that you get a name if at all possible. If the bailiff makes some excuse about his certificate being back at the office etc, check his ID card, and write down his name.

 

However, the good news here is that if the company are made aware from the outset that there is a strong possibility that your query may lead to an official complaint being made to the court......they are hardly going to give you the name of another bailiff who may well lose his licence.!!!!

[FunnyMan]

I have today received a complaint form from the local County Court where the bailiff whos details were sent through to me is licensed.

 

I am considering my wording very carefully as the license is up for renewal next month and therefore everything stated must be totally accurate and not leave room for misinterpretation. I should have the wording finalised tomorrow when I shall send the form back by recorded delivery.

 

Herbie and TW, in this case the bailiff who called at my property and represented himself as Mr. 'X' is definately not the same person as that shown in the photo on the copy of the Certificated Bailiffs License sent to me by Jacobs.

[Guest Herbie]

PM with a number and I will call you !!

[The Watcher]

I have today received a complaint form from the local County Court where the bailiff whos details were sent through to me is licensed.

 

I am considering my wording very carefully as the license is up for renewal next month and therefore everything stated must be totally accurate and not leave room for misinterpretation. I should have the wording finalised tomorrow when I shall send the form back by recorded delivery.

 

Herbie and TW, in this case the bailiff who called at my property and represented himself as Mr. 'X' is definately not the same person as that shown in the photo on the copy of the Certificated Bailiffs License sent to me by Jacobs.

 

Liase with Herbie - this is an oportunity not to be missed !

[Guest Herbie]

I have put this post on another link but it may well be appropriate here also !!!

 

FRAUD ACT 2006 AND UNCERTIFICATED BAILIFF'S

 

As most us on on this site know, the government is pursuing through parliament the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Bill which proposes under Part 3 to introduce tough new powers to bailiff's: notably the right to force entry into your home, use force if need be....and invite a third party onto the premises to assist !!!

 

Despite so much opposition from many organisations including Peter Bard and our company, the governement needs to ensure that BEFORE introducing this part of the bill, that bailiff's are first certificated and far better regulated.

 

It was our company that made the discovery using Freedom of Information that there were just 1,480 Certificated Bailiffs working within the bailiff industry. Two weeks ago the Governement finally confirmed my figures ( sorry I was out by around 20 bailiffs') .

 

We should all be thankful that we have the support of Lord Lucas, who has put some very difficult questions to Baroness Ashton on the matter of the TCE Bill and bailiff's in general.

 

So as to ensure that we do not have an extremely long post here, I will provide Baroness Ashton's answers throughout the day.

 

 

 

LORD LUCAS( CONSERVATIVE) ASKED HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a CERTIFICATED BAILIFF, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of SECTIONS 1 to 5 of the FRAUD ACT 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTAL (MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE) replied:

 

THE FRAUD ACT 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a CERTIFICATED BAILIFF , but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section.

 

It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[FunnyMan]

Herbie, PM sent.

[FunnyMan]

Well the papers with regard to the bailiff that called and the 'certificated bailiff' whose lisence I was sent by Jacobs is now on the Judges desk at Lancaster County Court. Now I just await to hear from the Court concerning how this will proceed.

 

Even today on threads on here it appears that an un-certificated bailiff has been used in one case to obtain a Walking Possession Order and in another case charges for a vehicle have been added to a bill even before a Walking Possession Order has been obtained.

 

Motto for the day: Bring 'em on, no matter how big, they all will fall.

[The Watcher]

Hi FunnyMan

 

Just to be clear - is it obvious that the man who called (and was subsequently named by the bailiff firms) is NOT the man who is Certificated?

[FunnyMan]

Hi Watcher,

 

Until we get into court and I face the man whose photo is on the lisence then this is not positive, however, the man in the photo is thick set and between 35 - 45 years of age (if he is 35 then nature has not been kind to him). The man who came was between 22 - 25 years old very tall (6ft 4in) and was extremely slightly built. Now this could mean that the man who called had had facial surgery and had undergone severe dietry restriction which resulted in different bone structure, loss of weight, and amazingly making him look 10 - 15 years younger than the photo supplied, but on the balance of probability I concluded that there was enough difference to report the matter to the court.

 

I know the above sounds flippent, but yes, in my own mind the man who attended my property is not the man who was subsequently shown to me in the photograph on the lisence.

 

Oh, by the way, South Lakeland District Council have asked Jacobs to look into this matter and report back to them, now what do you think their report will say?

[Saffronflowers]

Funnyman - my council are being amazing nice and helpful getting the info I need from the Bailiffs and will back my claim for fraud!!!!!

 

Have you thought of putting pressure on your council by saying that you have media interest? I have and have mentioned this, they dont want the papers getting hold of this.

 

The other thing is how did you pay your charges, if by debit card and paid a percentage to the bailiffs, I am at present researching that this is allowed, as I am 99% sure that no bank charges a percentage for a debit card transaction

[FunnyMan]

Hi Saffron,

 

My Council decided to take the debt back from the bailiffs when I pointed out to them I had enough writen evidence to make a police complaint fro fraud against the bailiff, the bailiff company and the Chief Executive and officers of the Council. (Strange how quickly some people can change their minds when they become focused isn't it! )

[Saffronflowers]

What made me laugh Friday, was when they said that not only would they get my money back in full, even the first visit, but would seek compensation!!!!!

 

SFx

[The Watcher]

Well, Good Luck to both FunnyMan and Saffron Flowers .... shows what can be achieved if you stick at it !

 

(Anyone want to take my bet that the bailiff firms will simply deny that the 6' 4" man exists?)