Can I report bailiff for fraud??

[ploddertom]

Can someone help me on an updated wording for my chargeback please?

 

The info PT provided is out of date and also the police will not investigate this as a fraud.

 

PT wrote:

The merchant applied undue pressure on me to obtain this money transfer for himself or another and defrauded me the consumer in fees that are not prescribed in law and committed an offence under Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 1996, Section 2(1)(b)(i) and Section 4(1)©(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 and the police have given a crime number of XXXXXXX and the merchant declined several opportunities to reach an amicable resolve in this matter.

 

I spoke to the police they said Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 1996, Section 2(1)(b)(i) has been withdrawn and is no longer valid.

 

I'm sorry if this has proved to be unsuitable as it was taken from advice offered elsewhere. I have had a search around and can find nothing anywhere else that appears to differ. The only thing I have found that does crop up from time to time is the "payment under duress" no longer appears applicable as it is taken to mean you paid to get rid of. It would pay to explore further what Fair-Parking says.

 

PT

[munchkette]

Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 has not so much been 'withdrawn' as incorporated into the Fraud Act 2006. They should have known that.

Yes that is what they told me

 

 

As for Section 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 being 'withdrawn' -when did that happen? Are your local police saying that it this alleged withdrawal of Section 2 now means it's legal to defraud somebody by the fraudster making a gain for himself?

Sorry that was a case of my over zealous cutting and pasting - that part hasn't been withdrawn.

 

The police said that due to the grey area over bailiff laws they could not investigate the bailiff misrepresenting his authority to take my money and threatening to take my goods as fraud - so no joy there.

 

So can anyone suggest a wording that I can use in my scenario on the chargeback form?

[Fair-Parking]

There is no 'grey' area over bailiffs misrepresenting anybody. Either they have the correct paperwork and/or warrant or they don't. If they don't and if they try to extract money then that is a fraud, more so if they charges excessive fees that they can't or won't explain.

 

The problem is usually due to the fact that the police think that this is civil which it is until the bailiff attempts fraud and theft when the normal criminal laws then apply.

[Mr Worried]

This is NOT true seanamarts.

 

A bailiff does NOT need to be invited in.

 

OK then HCE, you knock at my door I open it ' you walk inn '? erm dont think so matey.....

 

Mr W

[munchkette]

OK people I have finally heard back from the court on my bailiff complaint and it is not good news!

 

The judge has dismissed the complaint saying according to my own description of the incident the bailiff's entry was lawful

 

I wrote 'as I attempted to close the door the bailiff pushed the door back and forced his foot in preventing me from closing it. we stood with his foot in the door for a few seconds then he began to push on the door to force his way into the house. we wrestled with the door for a few moments until Mr X eventually managed to force the door open and come inside'

 

He claimed in his response that I had the door wide open which allowed him to step into the hallway which is completely untrue. However the judge has based his decision of lawful entry on my description so I am trying to contact the court to explain to me just how exactly it is lawful for the bailiff to force the door open

 

I have also heard back from the credit card company who have refused the chargeback saying they can only refund certain claim and referring me instead to the citizens advice bureau Is there anything I can do about that - should I write back to them?

 

Arrrgggh I am so cross!

[Fair-Parking]

This appears to be the judge who passed the mining exams. They consist of only one question - What is your name?

 

Though I think that you ought to check to see if he acheived the mandatory 75% pass rate.......

[munchkette]

yes yes but can I get some help please?

[munchkette]

just posting this again so it is on the most recent page:

 

OK people I have finally heard back from the court on my bailiff complaint and it is not good news!

 

The judge has dismissed the complaint saying according to my own description of the incident the bailiff's entry was lawful

 

I wrote 'as I attempted to close the door the bailiff pushed the door back and forced his foot in preventing me from closing it. we stood with his foot in the door for a few seconds then he began to push on the door to force his way into the house. we wrestled with the door for a few moments until Mr X eventually managed to force the door open and come inside'

 

He claimed in his response that I had the door wide open which allowed him to step into the hallway which is completely untrue. However the judge has based his decision of lawful entry on my description so I am trying to contact the court to explain to me just how exactly it is lawful for the bailiff to force the door open

 

I have also heard back from the credit card company who have refused the chargeback saying they can only refund certain claim and referring me instead to the citizens advice bureau Is there anything I can do about that - should I write back to them?

 

Arrrgggh I am so cross!

[Fair-Parking]

Munchkette - the answer is contained in my post #78 wherein I questioned whether the bailiff had a 'warrant' or not. If he didn't it doesn't matter whether the bailiff had his foot in the door - he had no right to be there in the first place.

 

Clearly this judge failed completely to even ascertain whether the basic principle of having authentic warrants had been adherred to.

 

That is why Peter Cook became a miner.

[munchkette]

what is a warrant?

 

And what do I do now? Do I write back to the court asking for a full explanation/the case to be re-examined. All they sent me was a two sentence letter with no explanation/justification with the bailiff's reply attached - what a joke!

 

I have been trying to phone the court all day but their lines are constantly engaged.

 

Also what can I do about the chargeback?

[Fair-Parking]

I think that you need to post more information. Which judge? What court? Can you supply a copy of the order?

 

Is this a refusal of a statutory declaration? In which case no judge became involved or was there a hearing and did you attend?

[munchkette]

I don't know what the judge's name was the letter doesn't say. It was Bromley county court.

 

There wasn't a hearing the judge just read my complaint and the bailiff's response and ruled that the bailiff's entry was lawful and that no further action is required with regards to the rest of my complaint which was about the bailiff's conduct - aggressive behaviour/assault and illegal entry.

 

I understand only a distress warrant can be issued for council tax which does not allow for the bailiff to force entry into domestic premises so I don't understand how the bailiff putting his foot in the door and forcing his way in can be deemed legal Especially as the government's own website says that putting their foot in the door to prevent the person closing it is illegal.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

The judge that dissmissed my form 4, said that £355 in fees in one visit ( Re: £1000 worth of Business rates) was fine. He couldn't see the problem.

 

 

 

Just another obstacle munchkette, more than one way to skin a cat as they say (sorry cat).

 

They want us to give up.

 

We must NOT.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Thegreenpimpernel
prudence!

[ploddertom]

I think it may be difficult to get the Judge's decision overturned unless other facts have come to light that may change things. Hate to say this but sometimes it is the way things are written as Judge's have a different perception to some of the meanings us commoners write - a lot of them are only fluent in legalese alone.

 

I don't believe that you should give up but may be tackle things from a different perspective. Have you asked yet for a breakdown of the fees they have charged - you never know there may be something amiss on there. Have you also had confirmation from the Council about how much the original Liability Order was for and how much is still outstanding.

 

Sorry I can't be of much more help at present.

 

PT

[munchkette]

What can I do now though? Should I write back to the court? I am not happy at all with the judge's decision deeming the entry lawful without providing any explanation??

 

If the government's own website deems the bailiff's entry illegal then what is the judge using to determine it legal? I know it is the bailiff's word against mine here but the judge has said based on my own description of the incident not the bailiffs.

 

Surely there must be some kind of process to appeal the judge's decision?

[andydd]

What can I do now though? Should I write back to the court? I am not happy at all with the judge's decision deeming the entry lawful without providing any explanation??

 

If the government's own website deems the bailiff's entry illegal then what is the judge using to determine it legal? I know it is the bailiff's word against mine here but the judge has said based on my own description of the incident not the bailiffs.

 

Surely there must be some kind of process to appeal the judge's decision?

 

Hiya.

 

Firstly the stuff on the directgov website has no legal standing, its just words on a site, it may be a directgov site but you cant use it as legal evidence or anything, legal or not, putting your foot in the door is a common practise for bailiffs and I cant really see a judge deeming it illegal.

 

It seems a bit difficult to work out what you are really trying to achieve here. ?

 

Andy

[tomtubby]

The judge that dissmissed my form 4, said that £355 in fees in one visit ( Re: £1000 worth of Business rates) was fine. He couldn't see the problem.

 

As in munchkette's case - i can see the problem. Judges paid £130,000+ who know less than a ten year old with Google.

 

Just another obsticle munchkette, more than one way to skin a cat as they say (sorry cat).

 

They want us to give up.

 

We must NOT.

 

I do not want to be seen as taking the side of either the court or the bailiff (heaven forbid!!) but it may help others to explain about the Form 4 process.

 

Firstly, the Court will write to the bailiff with a copy of your complaint and ask that he respond back within 14 days.

 

What happens if the bailiff does not respond within 14 days?......very little!!

 

I have seen so many such cases where the bailiff has not responded at all but that his bailiff company respond "on his behalf" and I have seen one case where thr bailiff failed to respond for 6 months and needed 3 reminders from the court!!

 

Once a response is received, the Judge will consider your complaint and the response and he will then decide "whether to summons the bailiff to court.....to show cause as to why his certificate should not be cancelled"

 

He should therefore ONLY list the case for a hearing in Court if he considers the complaint to be serious enough for the bailiff to not only lose his job with the company that he works for..... but to take away from his his bailiff certificate which will then prohibit him working again as a bailiff for any other company. The implication of this being that the bailiff will then have to join the millions of other unemployed people in the Country.

 

It is for this very reason that a Judge will not normally consider that charging £355 for a visit fee for business rates (Pimpernel's case) should warrant the bailiff having his employment brought to an end.

 

In addition of course...and this is most important...the BAILIFF COMPANY will almost always state to the court that it is THEM and NOT the bailiff who set the charges !!!

 

In the case of Pimpernel, your complaint is one where you really should issue a simple N1 Claim Form in the County Court for the refund of the fees.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Sorry to jump into your thread munchkette, but we have some common ground.

 

andydd

 

I'm sure munchkette can speak for her(?)self - but, I'm guessing she wants a level of legal redress against a court official who has broken the law.

 

I also thought it was MORE important that court officials played by the rules, it would seem fair that they are at least criticized on the record for not doing so.

 

Given that every entrance door in the UK opens inward (into the house), thereby making it impossible for the housholder to 'occupy' that space before the bailiff enters it, this decission effectivly legalises forced entry whenever the door is opened -very worrying.

 

Remember, you have no right to eject the bailiff after peaceful entry, nor obstruct him - therefore once you open the door -that's it.

 

As for the options open to the judge -i thought he could payout some of the bailiffs bond (as compensation) or take some of it as court costs, the legislation seems to indicate that.

 

If that amount was just £1, it would stand as a point of principle.

 

Just for the record, i got the charges back. I'm in this to help the half a dozen other people a day being fleeced by the same bailiff. I guess i will have to track them down and put together a case of systematic overcharging to the Police or Trading Standards.

 

This has left us in the worrying position that my local authority, unable to interpret the NDR Collection & Enforcement regs (to a man!), and therefore incorrectly 'OK'ing these charges on a daily basis.

[Fair-Parking]

I might have thought it beneficial had the judge seen a genuine warrant of execution in this case -which you can be certain that he didn't. As he didn't he couldn't be certain that the bailiff acted lawfully.

 

It doesn't exist of course, so Munchkette could tell the court to reconsider on the basis that no warrant of execution was served and therefore any entry was illegal.

 

It's then up to the bailiff to produce the 'warrant' or stand condemned.

 

For your information M, a warrant of execution is the bailiffs ONLY legal documentation of authorisation for enforcement.

 

No warrant, no foot in door. Only foot in mouth

[Zamzara]

There is no warrant of execution for council tax. The liability order confers on the local authority the right to levy distress without further authorisation.

[Fair-Parking]

But it doesn't automaticially transfer that right to a private bailiff. The LA may well have all the authority it needs to collect council tax, but that court authority doesn't extend to a private bailiff and certainly will not include the collection of bailiff fees which do form part of a liability order.

 

All that is owed is that written on the liability order and not a penny more.

 

Further this bailiff gained entry by what appears to be forced entry and he would require a warrant of excecution signed by a judge authorising forced entry to do that.

[fork-it]

I have several buy-to-let properties and deal with councils and bailiffs fairly often with tenants. I think you will find a council can delegate the authority to collect taxes to a private company under a contract. The LO will show the unpaid tax, but I think there is a collection fee of about £22 or thereabouts. I know there is a [problem] doing the rounds where bailiffs try to charge hundreds of pounds in fees and charges, but that applies is only if the taxpayer agrees to pay them.

[Fair-Parking]

I'm sure you are right, but where is the warrant of execution?

[tomtubby]

There is no warrant of execution for council tax. The liability order confers on the local authority the right to levy distress without further authorisation.

 

For a bailiff to enforce a debt he will need a " legal authority".

 

This is really confusing because different debts have different "legal authorities". These are as follows;

 

For Council tax, the local authority will need to apply to the Magistrates Court for a Liability Order. A bailiff will not have a copy of this on him.

 

For unpaid parking charge notices (PCN's) the local authority make an application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for authorisation to issue a Warrant of Execution and if a bailiff "seizes goods" then he MUST provide a copy of the Warrant of Execution.

 

For unpaid court fines (typically for using a TV without a valid TV licence or for driving without valid tax, insurance or MOT certificate) HMCS will issue a Distress Warrant and this will be sent to either Marston Group, Philips Ltd, Swift Credit Services or Excel Ltd (Wales). The bailiff does NOT need to have the Distress Warrant on him but he must make the Warrant available if the debtor asks to see a copy.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Fair parking

 

Havn't got time to look at the minute, but i'm sure the right to enforce liability orders by various means is included in the Council Tax and NDR regulations themselves. "the right to levy distress anywhere in england and wales etc.."

 

There is a specific mention that a warrent is not needed as per section blah blah blah.. like i say, haven't got time at the minute, but you can get the regs online.