Drakes/Marston group balliffs broken my lock and pushed over my baby daughter-PLEASE HELP!!!!

[Michael Browne]

Great-i have just completed a bailiff complaint form (T4)-but when I phoned the local magistrates court to ask where to send it they d never heard of one, and said any complaints have to be sent straight to the bailiff company and that all they will do is forward it on to them!!

 

 

Although court staff are generally very helpful, sometimes I despair at their ignorance of what is a fairly straightforward question

.

You need to return the form 4 to the bailiff’s certificating court. Call 0207 210 0516 with the name of the bailiff to find the court name and address.

[louloubella73]

Thanks for that Michael-I will ring in the morning.

 

Sheraton-good for you-I feel exactly the same-if everyone complained then such ignorance/bad practice would be less common. Mind you,considering the barriers I ve come up against in the last 2 days, I can see why many simply chalk it down to experience if only to preserve their sanity! It s sounds like our experiences are very similar-did the bailiff/s damage your house/ door as well. I didn t make a formal complaint to the police at the time, although now I know what I know I will ring them back in the morning to do so. Is that what you did?

 

Like you the police told me'i d never be able to prove it'- when I said there had been witnesses he sarcastically asked me how they would trace them-'should they put out a media newsflash'-charming! Great judicial system we have!

[sheraton01]

Thanks for that Michael-I will ring in the morning.

 

Sheraton-good for you-I feel exactly the same-if everyone complained then such ignorance/bad practice would be less common. Mind you,considering the barriers I ve come up against in the last 2 days, I can see why many simply chalk it down to experience if only to preserve their sanity! It s sounds like our experiences are very similar-did the bailiff/s damage your house/ door as well. I didn t make a formal complaint to the police at the time, although now I know what I know I will ring them back in the morning to do so. Is that what you did?

 

Like you the police told me'i d never be able to prove it'- when I said there had been witnesses he sarcastically asked me how they would trace them-'should they put out a media newsflash'-charming! Great judicial system we have!

 

I told attending police officer that I wished to press charges, he said to think about it because it wont go anywhere you know.

 

Rung police station next day and said I want to make a statement with a view to pressing charges and was told "well it wont get you anywhere you know, they (bailiffs have a job to do) yes I reply but they have to do it within the law. Police office sighs and says they will get someone to call me.

 

3rd Police officer (when they finally ring the following day) says we cant take a statement unless you immediatley want to press charges. We can only deal with criminal acts and not complaints about bailiffs doing their job etc etc. Ok I say I want to press charges, thanks very much. That was yesterday lunchtime and I am still waiting for the local unit to call me to make an appointment to call me :-?

 

Perhaps they think if they leave it long enough I will forget, yeh right!!

sheraton

[huggy41]

i would ring the police again ask to speak to the senior officer in charge and ask him if the police and bailiffs come from the same packet tell him that if this is not down in writing within the next 24 hours then you will make a formal complaint to the cheif comissioner.

[sweep1]

With regards to this particular thread, unfortunately the Bailiff did have the legal power to force entry.

 

The Original offence the OP described fell under the Road Traffic Act (failure to surrender Tax Disc).

Magistrates would have dealt with the offence and issued a Court Fine

 

Further official reference as to Magistrate Powers can be found here Judicial Studies Board Website

 

With respect to the right of bailiff to use force to effect entry for non payment of court fines Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) - Statute Law Database,

as ammended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database

 

A complaint to the police will probably fail, however a complaint to the court may succeed.

Did the bailiff or his/her employer make aware to the debtor that force may be used to gain entry?

Was the use of force on this occasion neccesary given that the bailiff already had his/her foot in the doorway?

Was the bailiff aware that young children were in the house and that one of them was behind the door? in this case unreasonable force could be argued,given that a young child was knocked over, did the child attend the doctors to be checked over, it could give weight to the argument

 

Sorry if this is not the answer you expected.

[postggj]

hi sweep

this sort of fine, magistrates,

is there a time limit on this

if you dont pay, get stopped a few years later by police, can you get arrested

[sweep1]

As far as I am currently aware, there is no time limit as such as respect of the fine, however there may be time limits as to bailiff action.

Arrest, Yes.

 

I suggest making reference to the official guide links given, despite common myths and statements given by Bailiffs, not every debt is a Court Fine, forced entry rights are only supposed to be used in limited circumstances and for certain types of debts (exemption applys to a breach of walking possession agreements provided that forced exclusion has first occured, a form of walking possession agreement (as now commonly used by most bailiff companys) may allow forced re-entry, provided that said agreement was not signed under duress)

[tomtubby]

Excellent advice as usual SWEEP.

 

As you are probably aware that Distress Warrant must be enforced within 180 days or it s sent back to HMCS.

 

This complaint is such that it most CERTAINLY needs to be one to be sent to one of the seven regional complaints managers who have been appointed by HMCS to deal with complaints such as yours. I can provide the details for you of the relevant person but I will need to know which part of the country you are in. ie: South East, South West, North East etc. There are different people within each area.

 

Regarding your complaint, I will provide a more detailed response later on this evening.

 

This is yet another example of why I strongly believe that ALL bailiffs enforcing these unpaid Magistrates Court Distress Warrants are CERTIFICATED. Their contracts provides that they MUST be certificated but sadly MOJ agreed to allow a grace period so as to ensure that they are properly trained !!! Given that there is provision within the DCVA 2004 for the power to break in I am amazed that the certification is not enforced. In addition of course the bailiff himself/herself has nothing to fear.

 

UNLESS this particular bailiff is certificated, then I am afraid that you CANNOT make a FORM 4 Complaint.

 

Unless complaints are made to the relevant person this sort of treatment WILL continue.

[louloubella73]

With regards to this particular thread, unfortunately the Bailiff did have the legal power to force entry.

 

The Original offence the OP described fell under the Road Traffic Act (failure to surrender Tax Disc).

Magistrates would have dealt with the offence and issued a Court Fine

 

Further official reference as to Magistrate Powers can be found here Judicial Studies Board Website

 

With respect to the right of bailiff to use force to effect entry for non payment of court fines Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) - Statute Law Database,

as ammended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database

 

A complaint to the police will probably fail, however a complaint to the court may succeed.

Did the bailiff or his/her employer make aware to the debtor that force may be used to gain entry?

Was the use of force on this occasion neccesary given that the bailiff already had his/her foot in the doorway?

Was the bailiff aware that young children were in the house and that one of them was behind the door? in this case unreasonable force could be argued,given that a young child was knocked over, did the child attend the doctors to be checked over, it could give weight to the argument

 

Sorry if this is not the answer you expected.

 

 

Thanks for the response-I think I now realise that force COULD be used but my point is this:

 

I made it quite clear to the bailiff that I was prepared to pay the debt on the doorstep, so why did she NEED to come in, particularly as my children (aged 1 and 3) were distressed very early on by her intimidating presence and aggressive manner. thus why was she so intent on coming in despite being offered what was owed? I offered to pay before she attempted to force the door. It seemed to me that it was a battle of wills-she had the right of entry and was INTENT ON USING IT TO PROVE HER POINT. Fair enough, I was £80 short of the £541 owed, but the cashpoint is so near it can be seen from my doorstep and as I said, I was more than willing for her to accompany me to it and pay her there and then. BEARING IN MIND I HAD ALREADY PAID HER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEBT BY DEBIT CARD WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR HER TO GAIN ENTRY_tojustify their costs (£225 for a first visit)

 

I undersatnd that forcan be used IF NECESSAY-in this case it was NOT NECESSARY. As I said my door is GLASS-the bailiff could CLEARLY see my baby daughter standing there when she forced the door, and my toddler was so terrified he was screaming for help from passers by. HOW CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED especially considering my intention to pay there and then was obvious from the outset.

[louloubella73]

Forgot to mention that this part which shows what a lovely 'woman' this bailiif was -When I handed her the remaining cash, she dropped 4 pound coins- she then told me 'she wasn t picking it up, and if I didn t, she d come in and take £4 worth of my things'. Professional? I don t think so somehow. She was no more than 25, so maybe inexperience was a factor, but there is NO EXCUSE for someone who is supposed to be a professional abusing their power in this way.

[mumof3boys]

hi loulou

so sorry to hear of your problems with marstons. i am to getting it in the neck from them. i paid them all my benefit money this week and they want more next week, another £300!!! Dont know how I am supposed to feed my kids...... but theyre not bothered. Like you I agreed I owed and offered to pay over 4 weeks but got refused. At least they didnt force their way into my house. They are just bullies. Hope they sleep well at night.

[pin1onu]

I undersatnd that forcan be used IF NECESSAY-in this case it was NOT NECESSARY. As I said my door is GLASS-the bailiff could CLEARLY see my baby daughter standing there when she forced the door, and my toddler was so terrified he was screaming for help from passers by. HOW CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED especially considering my intention to pay there and then was obvious from the outset.

It sounds at though the Bailiff overstepped the mark in this case and you do have grounds for a complaint.

 

While Bailiffs do have a job to do they also have rules and regulations to follow and the courts will and do take action against them if they overstep the mark. This can include the loss of their Bailiffs certification.

 

I would encourage you to make a complaint to the police. Even if you can't prove it - they are still obliged to log it and investigate it. You do have proof that the lock was broken - so that obviously proves that the door was forced at some point. The fact that your child was knocked over also points to the un-necessary use of force.

 

If you do make a complaint to the police it may help you if you sit down calmly beforehand and write down exactly what happened - times,sequence of events - so it is clear in your own mind before you make your statement. It's very easy to forget key details when you are upset or worked up.

Edited September 12, 2008 by pin1onu

[John McKenna]

As an employee of this company I must say that I find this bailiff's actions abhorrent considering you'd already paid the majority of the outstanding amount on your card. She's quite clearly a nasty piece of work, the likes of which the industry can well do without.

[louloubella73]

Hi again and thank you all so much for those replies-they mean a lot as is it easy to feel like a very small insignificant fish in a huge pond at times like these IYKWIM. It s easy for people to say 'well, if you d have paid it, you wouldn t be in this situation' (I love it when people state the obvious-its so helpful!!!) But being in debt (especially when due to unfortunate personal circumstances rather than greed, which I m sure is the case for just about all of us) is not a crime and no one desrves to be treated like (or probably worse than) a criminal because they owe money taht they are trying to repay. Where are (overused) declarations of'human rights' when it comes to treatment like this from a bailiff?????????

 

Ooops, sorry, went off on a rant-will get off soapbox.

 

Thanks for your reply tomtubby-I have found out (from the number someone kindly gave) that this bailiff is certified. From her details on a social networking site it appears that she s only being doing this job since april. I fully expect my complaint to be dismissed by the judge, I know it s word against word and I can t prove exactly what went on. BUT, if she is that new to the 'profession' (sorry-can t quite hide my cynisim just jet!) then hopefully it ll giver her a boot up the backside that she can t get away with acting in this manner, as it d probably only be 1 or 2 more complaints before the judge/es became suspicion.

 

Also just a (very mean) observation-she can t be the brightest bulb on the tree to have an 'open' profile on a social networking site that s open for anyone to see

Edited September 12, 2008 by louloubella73

[louloubella73]

Hi again

 

tomtubby-I forgot to mention in my previous thread that I live in the south east-how can I find out the details of the regional manager to complain to.

[Fair-Parking]

Loubella _ can you advise

 

1) Which police force attended?

2) On what basis?

3) Who called them?

4) What did the police tell you about the bailiff's 'rights'?

5) Was the 'warrant' shown to the police?

6) Did you see the 'warrant'?

7) Was it court stamped to allow bailiff entry?

 

Once you provide the answers I can give you advice.

 

On the face of it, you have been bullied and defrauded by a bailiff who in turn may well have conned the police. Unfortunately that is not unusual.

[robin9342]

As an employee of this company I must say that I find this bailiff's actions abhorrent considering you'd already paid the majority of the outstanding amount on your card. She's quite clearly a nasty piece of work, the likes of which the industry can well do without.

 

For once, we agree

[postggj]

ive said this before, and will say it again

 

this is the 21st century

there is no need for baliffs with attachment of earnings etc

taking benefits of people is extorsion hiding behind the law

why does the goverment do some thing constructive for a change

get rid of baliffs and stop abusing the vunrable

[louloubella73]

Loubella _ can you advise

 

1) Which police force attended?

2) On what basis?

3) Who called them?

4) What did the police tell you about the bailiff's 'rights'?

5) Was the 'warrant' shown to the police?

6) Did you see the 'warrant'?

7) Was it court stamped to allow bailiff entry?

 

Once you provide the answers I can give you advice.

 

On the face of it, you have been bullied and defrauded by a bailiff who in turn may well have conned the police. Unfortunately that is not unusual.

 

Hi there, thanks for taking the time to reply. In reply to you questions

 

1) Medway (Kent) police attended

 

2)The police were called by the bailiff as she alleged that I 'shoved/punched her in the chest' (I didn t- the chain was on the door the whole time,- I know that and she knows that-in hindsight, was a very calculated move on her part-it ensured that the police were there in record time and (I believe) meant that I d been cast as the 'villain' in the situation before I d even had a chance to explain myself. The bailliff obviously didn t wish to pursue the phantom assault on her (in fact,I didn t even know she d accused me of this till the police had been there quite a while) Without a doubt, this woman called the police as soon as she realised that her attempts to force the door (resulting in daughter being knocked over) were being watched and overheard by people. To be fair, the police did seem to change their attitude slightly when they realised I was shocked and upset rather than aggressive. They also seem bemused as to why i wasn t allowed to go to the cashpoint and get the money, but they didn t challege it.

 

3) I think is covered above

 

4) The police told me she had a warrant that allowed her entry or else (to me, that wasn t the point-she didn t NEED entry, all I wanted to do was go and get the money- with her and/or the police if need be. To ask someone for money then refuse to let them go and get in seems nonsecial to me-and to be honest, I think the same began to dawn on the police officers after a while, before they left one of the officers admitted to me that he thought 'she could have handled it a lot better' than she did.

 

5) I m not sure if the warrant was shown to the police, although I assumed so as the policeman explained that the document allowed her 'right of entry to my home'

 

6) No, I didn t -I was told they d send me a copy (as yet they haven t)

 

7) I don t know

 

Sorry if the answers seem overly elaborated-I m just trying to cover all bases, as there seem to be so may 'grey areas' IYKWIM.

 

I noted your comment with regards to 'conning the police with interest,-the mood of the officers definitely seemed to change after a while- when I hinted to them that she had played them like a violin to her advantage they seemed a bit sheepish, but I could be wrong. When I paid, I sarcastically (oops halo slipping, but I never claimed to be perfect!!!!) pointed out that the bailiifs fees charged (£221) weren t bad for half an hours work and I could tell that the irony wasn t lost on them- not surprising really seeing as they probably helped her earn almost as much as they do in a week within the hour.

[louloubella73]

ive said this before, and will say it again

 

this is the 21st century

there is no need for baliffs with attachment of earnings etc

taking benefits of people is extorsion hiding behind the law

why does the goverment do some thing constructive for a change

get rid of baliffs and stop abusing the vunrable

 

 

I totally agree- it s not right. It s almost like we ve never moved on from the 'poor laws' and the work houses of last century.

 

With regards to your last comment, I ve got a horrible feeling it s condoned by the government as it makes them an awful lot of money in revenues! In my mind, it s a bit like smoking-the government is continually bleating on about the dangers/ evils and peril associated with smoking, yet it ll never ban cigarettes as the taxes they generate bring in far too much money. Not a relevant topic I know, but kind of illustrates the point I m trying to make (BTW-I haven t smoked for the last 7 years-couldn t afford it any longer!

[Fair-Parking]

Louloubella - Thank you for your reply, the answers of which were pretty much as I expected.

 

The heart of this revolves around the this bailiff's 'authority'. I note that she didn't show you a copy of the 'warrant' and I also note that the promised 'copy' has not been sent to you.

 

If the 'warrant' that allowed her to enter your premises was genuine there would be no good reason for her not to show it to you. Now why would it be easier to send a copy when the original was purported to be on her person?

 

Of course it wasn't shown and nor will it be sent - it doesn't exist. She has conned her way into your property. She has conned the police into thinking that she had a 'right' when none existed.

 

I have no doubt that she had a 'warrant', but the only way this worthless piece of paper came in existence is because it was almost certainly typed up in the bailiff's office. No court would have been involved. Further the police did not discharge the most basic of their duties by checking the document and ensuring that it was court stamped with specific authority to enter your premises. At best they took her word for it after having this worthless piece of paper purporting to be a warrant waved in front of them.

 

In doing do this bailiff has committed offences under the Fraud Act 2006 section 3

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which she is under a legal obligation to produce

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information -

(i) to gain for herself or another

(ii) to cause loss to another.

 

So please go back to your police station and make them investigate your accusation of fraud and then ask them why they themselves broke the law by assisting this fraudster to deprive you of your money by allowing her to break into your house because of their failure to ensure that the documentation in her possession was genuine.

 

I will 100% guarantee that the police did not see any court stamped warrant allowing her entry. Make them go back to Marstons with the object of insisting that Marstons produce that document, because that is the issue of this case. If it exists the police may excuse themselves. If not then they must accede to the clear fact that you are the victim of a fraud which the police assisted.

 

Do remember to that this was a premeditated fraud in that it was the bailiff's intention to deprive you of your money before she set out from her office. That said then it follows that calling the police was also part of the fraud because she knew or must have known that she never had any authority to enter your property. She coldly calculated that it would easier with police assistance.

 

Now the act of putting her foot in the door is also a criminal one in that it was meant to intimidate you and that contravenes section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as well as the Administration Of Justice Act 1970

 

Also if at any time she stated either to yourself or the police that she was a 'court bailiff' then she will have committed another act of Fraud under section 2 of the 2006 Fraud Act by misrepresentation in order to make a gain for herself and her employers.

 

The use of ' ' in this post and the previous one is meant to convey to non existance of the items contained within

Edited September 14, 2008 by Fair-Parking

[sweep1]

I disagree Fair-Parking,

 

The issue here is the un-necessary use of force having already placed his/her foot in the door, the door was prevented from being closed. The Bailiff simply had to apply enough force and no more to gain full entry.

 

The Distress Warrant would have been valid having been issued by a magistrates court, the offence was one that generated a court fine and as such Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database (having become statute law 11 July 2005) applied in the event that peaceful entry could not be obtained.

Although the warrant should have been shown to any reasonable person requiring confirmation, on this occasion it was`nt.

Simply not showing sight of the warrant is not enough to prevent the use of force, that right exist`s in statute law.

 

I don`t think the police would be interested in taking this complaint any further, it`s an issue that needs to resolved the court.

 

Was the amount of force required?

Why did the bailiff refuse to show grounds for the action to interested partys, after they deal in Bailiff activity all day, a simple guideline along the lines of unpaid court fines do allow reasonable force to be used in the event of no peaceful entry as granted by statute law would have clarified the law.

 

Since when do bailiffs require a court stamped warrant that specifically states that force could be used? In a ideal world this would clarify the bailiffs position from the start, but we do not live in a ideal world and ignorance of the law is no excuse, unfair I know but thats it.

[louloubella73]

Hi again,

 

I d just like to mention this point again as I m confused-why did the bailiff NEED to use force when I had agreed to pay her the vast majority there and then? Surely it would have been easier for everyone if she had accompanied me to the cashpoint 5 minutes away for the £80 that my debit card wouldn t cover? It would have saved her time and would not have wasted police time (and in my view the police have FAR more important things to be doing judging by the state of the country) If she had had the sense to do this, none of this would have happened. And maybe I can get over the fact that I ve had to get my lock fixed, but what I CAN T swallow is the way she pushed over my baby daughter when she could clearly see she was there-it s this issue that has incensed me the most, far more than the bad handling or injustice of the situation.

 

To me, I can t make sense of this

bailiff-'I need £520'

me 'I ll pay you £437 then get the rest from the cashpoint'

bailiiff-'your not going anywhere till you pay me the full amount'

me-'er, I can t pay you the full amount if I can t go anywhere (ie, the cashpoint)'

To me, this is a ridiculous situation or am I missing something???

 

Surely the RIGHT to use force is not the same as the NEED to?

[Fair-Parking]

Sweep1. Please understand this. Bailiffs are not allowed to put their foot in a door under any circumstances. Further this bailiff was a private citizen working for a private company. The only bailiffs allowed to use force are county court bailiffs and then only on repossessions.

 

That is when the Order (note the term - it is not a 'warrant') is stamped by a judge allowing entry. It also has to give a time as to when the bailiff will call. In other words the Order is delivered a few weeks before the date of repossession in order to allow the householder time to leave or to put an application into the court to have the repossession suspended. Thus there is no chance that a county court bailiff (that is one employed by HMCS) will simply turn up without giving due notice in writing.

 

We do not live in a society where private citizens can turn up at other person's properties and throw their weight about. That is an offence.

 

No magistrates warrant allows entry to another's house via a private citizen. Offences in law are dealt with by the police and not the mass of private armies springing up all over this country

 

In this instance no 'warrant' was shown to anybody. We have yet to see proof that it exists.

 

This bailiff has committed offences under the law. That is a police matter.

 

Louloubella - She didn't and nor did she have the right of force.

As stated she was just throwing her weight about. She had no valid 'warrant' otherwise you would have been shown it. Now did she say that she was a 'court bailiff'?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Fair-Parking

[louloubella73]

I don t recall her saying she was a court bailiff. She just kept waving the bit of paper about saying it entitled her to come in. She also kept repeating 'I m here to remove whether you like it not' (even after I d offered her nearly all the money by debit card)