Seriously vulnerable family bullied for over 5hrs by bailiffs

[RaeUK]

poollie, you are technically corrrectish! The assessment rate of ESA is the same as JSA so nothing to gain financially either way. However, some people working for the Jobcentre incorrectly advise people to apply for JSA irrespective of whether they are able to fulfill the JSA contract due to ill health. If I were a little more cynical, I'd be thinking it was to help reduce the burden and cost of ESA Tribunals. I have to say that, where possible, you're far better off trying to avoid a serious long term illness or disability as it is so hard to get the financial support you need ...

[seanamarts]

Kelcou I would have thought this Lady is committing Fraud if she is claiming JS instead of ESA if she is too sick to either seek work or work, just a thought.

 

Fraud?? how do you work that one out?

[numbers666]

Hi,

 

This is awful.

 

Ltd Company - was it insolvent / or voluntary winding up application / struck off ?

 

Debt died with the company NNDR was in the company name as OP stated - the LA has no recourse to the OP to settle debt.

 

You will need to contact the LA with a formal complaint ref this and the actions of the robbin roberts. Sent to CEO councillors etc.

 

State vunerability under guidelines. State as per post 1 the liability of the debt is not yours.

 

I would also contact the police and file a report. They lied. Police in attendance would be aware.

 

Basically kick up a right stink for the LA but LOOK AFTER YOUR HEALTH.

 

N

[caledfwlch]

Kelcou I would have thought this Lady is committing Fraud if she is claiming JS instead of ESA if she is too sick to either seek work or work, just a thought.

 

At best, the OP is failing to keep to her JSA agreement. That is not fraud, otherwise, especially in this current sanction crazy environment several thousands people every 3 or 4 months would be turning up before the magistrates.

 

The OP is ill, and after this Bailiff visit is under extreme stress, your post is wrong, unneeded and unhelpful. Especially since you do not actually know the OP's personal circumstances - its entirely possible she applied for ESA, and was declined, again something happening everyday at the moment.

 

To the OP, thinking of future complaints action - when you are able, could you contact the Police Sergeant and see if she will give you anything in writing to confirm that the Bailiff's did in fact lie out of their teeth at her?

[Malookoo]

Hi

I am posting this with great trepidation as the others helping have great knowledge and are superbly helpfull but here goes.

 

A limited company is an entity on its own so once desolved there is no entity to chase for Business Rates and as such the Council should not even have taken the £300 a month payments that were made.

 

As for the bailiffs I beleive had the Police looked into it more they would find that there conduct was not just wrong but is actually in law a criminal offence and if they took action against the bailiff it would I am sure bring them there employers and the Council up short very quickley.

[seanamarts]

The op can still seek to press charges against the two bailiffs, and definitely the one who was not certificated.

 

Thanks Malookoo, for that slice of info, All info on here is greatly appreciated.

[Annette1973]

I just noticed that they levied on your daughters car, well this levy will be invalid and no fees can be charged for this, the most they can charge is for two visits, this would be £42.50.

 

I really hope this works this time, I've been attempting to reply for a a while and it's all gone squiffy. Firstly let me say a huge thank you for all of the advice and support I have received from everyone, it means so much. Your reply is very helpful and I may take you up on your offer of assistance, thank you. The amount they tried to charge me for yesterdays visit was £222 and they didn't even bring me a cake or anything.

[Annette1973]

Ah, seanamarts, a post to warm the cockles of my heart.

 

The point I would make relates to the above quote. In one way you are, of course, correct. Addresed to just the CEO of the Council, the letter will probably be opened by a PA who will pop it back to revenues.

However - unless the rules have changed - the letter should be clearly marked FORMAL COMPLAINT. All Formal Complaints have to be duly logged and included in the council statistics. Indeed, they were often the only complaints to be used - hence why councils appear to be doing so well!

I would also mark the envelope either 'Private and Confidential' or 'Personal' as this minimises the chances of PA interference.

And never take it in personally and hand it in at reception. Receptionists are as bad as PA's for filtering mail. Always send signed for ...

 

Thanks for this. I was an Office Manager for many years and I have first hand knowledge of how important letters and documents are generally fobbed off. I will definitely be sending my complaint registered post, thank you so much for your advice.

[Annette1973]

Hi

I am posting this with great trepidation as the others helping have great knowledge and are superbly helpfull but here goes.

 

A limited company is an entity on its own so once desolved there is no entity to chase for Business Rates and as such the Council should not even have taken the £300 a month payments that were made.

 

As for the bailiffs I beleive had the Police looked into it more they would find that there conduct was not just wrong but is actually in law a criminal offence and if they took action against the bailiff it would I am sure bring them there employers and the Council up short very quickley.

 

I am in total agreement with you there. I intend to suggest to the police that they file a complaint as these criminals attempted to engage them into committing an offence, they could have been in serious trouble or lost their jobs if they had done what the bailiffs told them to. Thanks for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.

[Annette1973]

At best, the OP is failing to keep to her JSA agreement. That is not fraud, otherwise, especially in this current sanction crazy environment several thousands people every 3 or 4 months would be turning up before the magistrates.

 

The OP is ill, and after this Bailiff visit is under extreme stress, your post is wrong, unneeded and unhelpful. Especially since you do not actually know the OP's personal circumstances - its entirely possible she applied for ESA, and was declined, again something happening everyday at the moment.

 

To the OP, thinking of future complaints action - when you are able, could you contact the Police Sergeant and see if she will give you anything in writing to confirm that the Bailiff's did in fact lie out of their teeth at her?

 

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have emailed the station asking for the sergeant to contact me and I will definitely put it to her that she should really make a report against the bailiffs for misrepresenting their powers.

[Annette1973]

Kelcou I would have thought this Lady is committing Fraud if she is claiming JS instead of ESA if she is too sick to either seek work or work, just a thought.

 

Hi there and thank you for your input. Just to clarify, I am not in receipt of JSA, my husband is and although he is my carer he is still seeking part time work as I don't need round the clock care. I do not receive benefits for myself, I have been avoiding applying for financial help from the government, I did not want to be labelled, and yes I know that sounds silly, that's just me though I am stubborn.

 

Again, thanks for your interest, all replies are welcomed.

[seanamarts]

That is the first time they had visited isnt it, i dont suppose they left you a notice of seizure and a break down of charges.

They cannot levy on your daughters car, so its just a visit fee they would be wanting, thats not £222.00. all they can charge you for is the visit fee/s

[Annette1973]

Hi,

 

This is awful.

 

Ltd Company - was it insolvent / or voluntary winding up application / struck off ?

 

Debt died with the company NNDR was in the company name as OP stated - the LA has no recourse to the OP to settle debt.

 

You will need to contact the LA with a formal complaint ref this and the actions of the robbin roberts. Sent to CEO councillors etc.

 

State vunerability under guidelines. State as per post 1 the liability of the debt is not yours.

 

I would also contact the police and file a report. They lied. Police in attendance would be aware.

 

Basically kick up a right stink for the LA but LOOK AFTER YOUR HEALTH.

 

N

 

Thanks for that, great username btw. Robbin Robbers, LOL.

[Annette1973]

poollie, you are technically corrrectish! The assessment rate of ESA is the same as JSA so nothing to gain financially either way. However, some people working for the Jobcentre incorrectly advise people to apply for JSA irrespective of whether they are able to fulfill the JSA contract due to ill health. If I were a little more cynical, I'd be thinking it was to help reduce the burden and cost of ESA Tribunals. I have to say that, where possible, you're far better off trying to avoid a serious long term illness or disability as it is so hard to get the financial support you need ...

 

Yeah, I did try to avoid getting ill, but it's just those doggone genes of mine........

[Annette1973]

That is the first time they had visited isnt it, i dont suppose they left you a notice of seizure and a break down of charges.

They cannot levy on your daughters car, so its just a visit fee they would be wanting, thats not £222.00. all they can charge you for is the visit fee/s

 

They actually didn't get a chance to levy on my daughters car cos when I got in it I did a runner (in my zebra pyjamas and pink dressing gown, it was not pretty). Btw thanks for that snippet, I thought that £222 was a tad excessive for one visit.

[seanamarts]

i think many of us here would sympathise with you there

[Dark Side]

You are classed as vulnerable and if the debt was that of your Ltd company then you should not be chased personally.

[old bill]

If the police officers had assisted the bailiffs to gain entry, they would have been committing the offence of Aiding and Abetting Burglary or, at the very least, being Accessories to Burglary. The bailiffs knew they had not right of entry to OP's home, other than by peaceable means, and by trying to coerce the police officers into assisting them, they committed an offence, that of Inciting a Police Officer to Disaffect. In layman's terms, this means inciting a police officer to commit an act that is in breach of Police (Discipline) Regulations under the Police Act 1996. Burglary is a criminal offence and, under Police (Discipline) Regulations, it is regarded as criminal conduct, which carries the penalty of Dismissal from the Police Service.

 

Looking back through this thread, the bailiffs could be charged with -

 

Attempted Burglary (Section 9(1)(a), Theft Act 1968)

Incitement of a Police Officer to Disaffect (Police Acts 1964-1996)

Causing Another Harassment, Alarm or Distress (Public Order Act 1986)

Causing Reckless Damage to Property Belonging to Another (OP's Daughter's Car)(Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971)

Attempted Theft (OP's Daughter's Car)(Section 1, Theft Act 1968)

 

There may well be breaches of health and safety legislation that could be brought against Ross and Roberts and their bailiffs (Sections 3 & 7, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and Reg. 3, Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs. 1999) by the HSE.

 

If the OP goes to her local police with the above list, she needs to inform them a retired police officer identified these offences after reading of the circumstances.

 

I hope Ross and Roberts and their Rent-A-Thug employees get what is coming to them.

[jimjim5]

That's how Ross and Roberts work, they send in an uncertificated bailiff and leave the certified bailiff outside in the white citeron berlingo. They reckon its fully legal as long as the certified bailiff signs the levy.

 

Is make a formal complaint to rob Jackson at r and r too.

[Annette1973]

I would like to say to everyone who has taken an interest in my dilemma. Unfortunately I went to see my Dr this evening and my operation has been postponed due to the stress on my heart and my extremely high blood pressure, largely down to yesterdays events. I now have to monitor my blood pressure at home 3 times a day for 3 weeks and I have a new lot of lovely tests to look forward to. Frankly guys I am gutted, I just wanted my liver op over with, I don't care if it's good news or bad, I just want it all to be over. My poor daughter, my only child has just become an adult and should be enjoying the best years of her life, instead she is going into hospital for tests next week as the Drs strongly suspect she has the same health issues as me.

 

I want you all to know though that with everyone's amazing advice and support in this forum, I will do my very best to expose these criminal bailiffs and make them accountable for what they have done.

 

Thank you, once again to you all, I feel empowered by your excellent advice, I can't begin to tell you what a comfort it has been to my family and I.

[Annette1973]

If the police officers had assisted the bailiffs to gain entry, they would have been committing the offence of Aiding and Abetting Burglary or, at the very least, being Accessories to Burglary. The bailiffs knew they had not right of entry to OP's home, other than by peaceable means, and by trying to coerce the police officers into assisting them, they committed an offence, that of Inciting a Police Officer to Disaffect. In layman's terms, this means inciting a police officer to commit an act that is in breach of Police (Discipline) Regulations under the Police Act 1996. Burglary is a criminal offence and, under Police (Discipline) Regulations, it is regarded as criminal conduct, which carries the penalty of Dismissal from the Police Service.

 

Looking back through this thread, the bailiffs could be charged with -

 

Attempted Burglary (Section 9(1)(a), Theft Act 1968)

Incitement of a Police Officer to Disaffect (Police Acts 1964-1996)

Causing Another Harassment, Alarm or Distress (Public Order Act 1986)

Causing Reckless Damage to Property Belonging to Another (OP's Daughter's Car)(Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971)

Attempted Theft (OP's Daughter's Car)(Section 1, Theft Act 1968)

 

There may well be breaches of health and safety legislation that could be brought against Ross and Roberts and their bailiffs (Sections 3 & 7, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and Reg. 3, Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs. 1999) by the HSE.

 

If the OP goes to her local police with the above list, she needs to inform them a retired police officer identified these offences after reading of the circumstances.

 

I hope Ross and Roberts and their Rent-A-Thug employees get what is coming to them.

 

You are a star, this is amazing info. The police lady was great, I did not blame her at all for believing the bailiffs at first, they are very convincing. I cannot believe that they used her in this way and threatened her livelihood. At the end of the day she was just doing her job and get rid of the uniform and you have got a wife and mother (and a dog owner btw) who has bills to pay and a mortgage to keep on top of, it actually angers me immensely that they could show such disregard for another human being. If she had taken them at their word without checking, she would have been lucky to have landed a job as a security guard at the local shopping centre. Shameless!

[Annette1973]

You are classed as vulnerable and if the debt was that of your Ltd company then you should not be chased personally.

 

Thanks for that. I did know this but know how it is, you are convinced you are right until you've been through 6 hours of torture and then you begin to doubt yourself and start to think that they could be right.

[Annette1973]

i think many of us here would sympathise with you there

 

It was quite amusing, if my Dr had seen me he would have had me sectioned. P J's, dressing gown, slippers, wild hair, no makeup and looking a lovely shade of Margery Simpson yellow...

[Annette1973]

That's how Ross and Roberts work, they send in an uncertificated bailiff and leave the certified bailiff outside in the white citeron berlingo. They reckon its fully legal as long as the certified bailiff signs the levy.

 

Is make a formal complaint to rob Jackson at r and r too.

 

Hi there, thanks for your reply. You are absolutely right, I believe that is what happened as the female bailiff did seem to appear from nowhere. Just a bit of info though, my husband called the council this morning and asked the name of the Head of Revenues, we were told it was Rob or Bob Jackson (couldn't hear her very well). We asked the council if Mr Jackson was employed by Capita or them and they were reluctant to say but when pushed they were adamant that he was employed by the council.

[jimjim5]

Rob Jackson is head honcho of r and r. He also trains uncertificated bailiffs or trainee enforcement officers. R and r was bought by capita in April 10. R and r bailiffs are also strongly discouraged from seizures as they don't hold storage facilities at their premises. It costs them too much money.