For discussion thread only! PCN's etc

[Tim Deegan]

Councils very rarely know what bailiffs can and cannot do, they just pass the buck so to speak thinking the bailiffs know what they are doing, its not always about 'working out side the law' its how they bend it to suit them.

Bailiffs (not all) hope that the debtor does not know the law, they work on the assumption that the debtor is none the wiser and see the word 'bailiff' and hope that the debtor succumbs to what ever they say.

 

You are making very sweeping statements, that you can't really back up. Whoever it is in the council who awards the contracts should know the law. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that the council will also be partly responsible for their contractors actions.

[seanamarts]

You are making very sweeping statements, that you can't really back up. Whoever it is in the council who awards the contracts should know the law. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that the council will also be partly responsible for their contractors actions.

 

Read the forums Tim, there are plenty of letters and emails from councils NOT knowing what regulations are correct. I dont have to back myself up at all. The forums speak for themselves.

 

The councils ARE responsible for all bailiff actions when instructed by them, but they dont like to involve themselves after the fact. Again read the forums and you will see that this is so. I also know first hand.

[Tim Deegan]

Tim... When you have had to deal with the fallout from certificated bailiffs' misconduct and the trauma it causes individuals, as I have, in a professional capacity, you will quickly learn that although they may be people "doing their job", the way they go about it is, 9 times out of 10, totally outside the bounds of the law. Even when it is shown these individuals have made glaring errors, they go into denial, insisting they have done nothing wrong. If the MoJ consultation recommends that all certificated bailiffs and HCEOs are subject to Enhanced CRB checks, I have no doubt that 99% of them would be out of a job overnight. Convictions for acts of violence are not uncommon. Another cagger has been seriously assaulted by one these thugs in suits.

 

When I was a serving police officer, locking up these individuals, even for a few hours, was very satisfying when you heard their bleating and belly-aching that they had done nothing wrong and then see their faces when they were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had broken the law and would be facing a court appearance. Sadly, these days, police officers do not receive the training they need to combat bailiff/HCEO misconduct with the result that certificated bailiffs and the less reputable HCEOs are allowed to run riot with little chance of them being brought to book. Calling them "scrotes" is being polite. I could think of more appropriate words to describe them, but they are not fit to be posted.

 

Please, Tim, when you have had first-hand experience of dealing with the misery and trauma these out-of-control individuals cause and the blatant and persistent law-breaking they engage in, then you can post the sort of comments you have made.

 

What you have to remember is that in whatever professional capacity you deal with bailiffs, you only deal with the ones who are complained about. So you probably don't hear anything about the many who operate legally. So this is obviously going to sway your view on them. Otherwise the government would bring in stricter laws to clamp down on them, the same as they did with dodgy carpark clampers.

[ScarletPimpernel]

You are making very sweeping statements, that you can't really back up.

 

What, like your statement that:

 

9 out of 10 bailiffs are just people doing their job

?

 

You have yet to provide any evidence to back your assertion. Quid pro quo, Clarice...

[Fair-Parking]

Mr Deegan - Your posts are becoming more argumentative and your assertions are beginning to read as hopes dressed up as 'fact'. You have for instance claimed that there IS a warrant in this case despite it's solid appearance being distinctly lacking. You are beginning to read like a bailiff in disguise.

 

You also claimed to have received a warrant in your own case, but like all these questionable warrants that never appear, you couldn't quite produce it when challenged. You claimed that the authority involved was North Herts Council.

 

You and other posters might like to know that I have just phoned that council who have confirmed that they do not print warrants, but merely pass motorists details on to bailiffs to deal with, as I have said happened in this case. So whatever it was you may or may not received a few years back, it certainly was NOT a valid warrant of execution.

 

Indeed if you did see a warrant (do you know what one should look like?) it would have been printed on the old style of template which was declared unlawful by the MoJ in April 2011 and thus whatever the reality of your situation you now have every opportunity to claim back whatever you paid to the bailiff through the small claims court.

 

Why not obtain a copy of the 'warrant' in your case and post it here? One phone call is all it takes.

[Jamberson]

As an example, a certificated bailiff attempts to levy on a car parked on the public highway and attaches a wheelclamp to the vehicle. He then calls a tow truck which duly arrives. However, a resident calls the police who then arrive and start asking questions of the bailiff and tow truck driver. The bailiff claims he has a warrant, but when asked by the police to produce it he cannot do so, claiming it is "back at the office". The police order the bailiff and tow truck driver to leave, taking the wheelclamp with them.

 

This puts forward a logical reason why it is in the bailiff's interest to carry one - but that's not the same as there being a legal requirement to. I know there is a requirement to provide a copy to the debtor on request, but not to my knowledge to have ownership of a paper copy just in case.

 

And - can people stop discussing other posters. This thread is not about Tim Deegan, it's about someone with a bailiff issue to resolve.

[old bill]

...and equally there might be nothing untoward going on.

 

Personally I don't see why printing a document is such a big deal, provided the document hasn't been amended, but if there are strict rules, then perhaps someone could clarify them. Otherwise, it's a bit over the top to start bringing up issues such as fraud and blackmail.

 

I'm going by the behaviour of certificated bailiffs on this and other consumer forums! If a local authority sends a warrant to a bailiff firm in PDF format and "locks" it using the Adobe Acrobat security feature so that its details cannot be altered, that is fine, as that is what magistrates courts now do with arrest warrants. However, what would be of concern is if a local authority outsourced the issue of warrants to a bailiff firm. It is too much of a temptation for them. As for what I have said about Blackmail and Fraud, I'm using my knowledge and experience. Believe me, certificated bailiffs and bailiff firms know the strokes they pull are illegal.

[Jamberson]

Found it. It's from a code of practice, rather than a rule book:

 

9.22 A copy of the warrant must be forwarded to a certificated Bailiff for

execution. The warrant must be enforced as a county court warrant.

The certificated bailiff must have the warrant in his personal possession

when he visits a person or premises with a view to enforcing it and he

must produce it on demand to anyone who has reasonable grounds to

see it.

 

So it requires they take a copy (doesn't stipulate on paper, by the way) when visiting a person or premises. Since they weren't paying a visit to the OP when they clamped (they caught the car outside a school) it doesn't seem relevant to me. But in any case, my question really was about the need for paper copies. Where does it say that?

[Fair-Parking]

J - You can believe it or not. Its sitting on my desk.

 

The TEC and their member local authorities doesn't want us mortals to gaze into their closed shop.

[Jamberson]

J - You can believe it or not. Its sitting on my desk.

 

And it doesn't say what you said it says - "when enforcing".

[old bill]

Found it. It's from a code of practice, rather than a rule book:

 

9.22 A copy of the warrant must be forwarded to a certificated Bailiff for

execution. The warrant must be enforced as a county court warrant.

The certificated bailiff must have the warrant in his personal possession

when he visits a person or premises with a view to enforcing it and he

must produce it on demand to anyone who has reasonable grounds to

see it.

 

So it requires they take a copy (doesn't stipulate on paper, by the way) when visiting a person or premises. Since they weren't paying a visit to the OP when they clamped (they caught the car outside a school) it doesn't seem relevant to me. But in any case, my question really was about the need for paper copies. Where does it say that?

 

The requirement that applies to all warrants, summonses, etc., is that they must be in tangible form. So, in theory, a warrant can be printed on paper, card or plastic sheet.

Edited May 22, 2012 by old bill

[Fair-Parking]

No its not a code as such. Its the only rules of the TEC and as this is a court, it is the ONLY rules of the court. Without these there would be no rules at all. You would have LAs and bailiffs making up their own rules or picking which ones in the to obey and which ones to ignore. But these are the same court rules which local authorities and baliffs expect you and I to abide by without question.

 

Dealt with paper copies already in this thread, but you need to fully understand court rule 9.21 and annex 17. Bailiffs can only enforce at the address on the warrant. Incidently the code isn't meant for bailiffs as Lord McNally said in the House of Lords last July, - 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings' (the code). They are applied to LA's who if they do not obey will find the court refusing to administer their requests until they do.

[Fair-Parking]

So when exactly do you expect the bailiff to carry it with him? Up the pub? In the bath?

[Jamberson]

The rule does say that he needs a copy when visiting, and if it has to be tangible, fair enough. But in this case he was not paying a visit, so why does this rule apply?

 

And this bit about enforcing at an address is scarcely applicable in these situations, since cars are almost invariably on the road. Regardless of where the OP was living, the warrant would not have been executed at his home address under the circumstances.

[old bill]

The rule does say that he needs a copy when visiting, and if it has to be tangible, fair enough. But in this case he was not paying a visit, so why does this rule apply?

 

And this bit about enforcing at an address is scarcely applicable in these situations, since cars are almost invariably on the road. Regardless of where the OP was living, the warrant would not have been executed at his home address under the circumstances.

 

Arrest Warrants can be executed anywhere. Search Warrants are address-specific and so are civil warrants. Unless a court or the law stipulates otherwise, the warrant can only be executed at the address stipulated on the warrant. Going by the circumstances of this case, in my considered judgement, the bailiff involved acted unlawfully, if not, illegally, as he clamped the OP's car when it was at an address not stipulated on the warrant. The bailiff is going to have some very awkward questions to answer and so is Barking Mad Council.

[Jamberson]

Any bailiff who is on duty and is going to enforce a warrant must have that warrant in their possession.

 

If so, then it becomes a pertinent issue. Where is it stated?

[Fair-Parking]

Jamberson - if only chronic negativity was common sense....

 

'Visit' - the Act of coming to see a person. The most famous of which occured 2000 years ago.

 

Warrants (when they exist) which cannot be executed lawfully (in line with court rules) cannot be exercised at all. Tough

[Jamberson]

Arrest Warrants can be executed anywhere. Search Warrants are address-specific and so are civil warrants. Unless a court or the law stipulates otherwise, the warrant can only be executed at the address stipulated on the warrant. Going by the circumstances of this case, in my considered judgement, the bailiff involved acted unlawfully, if not, illegally, as he clamped the OP's car when it was at an address not stipulated on the warrant. The bailiff is going to have some very awkward questions to answer and so is Barking Mad Council.

 

Any car they clamp or tow is not at the address stipulated on the warrant. The address refers to the dwelling place, not the road outside.

[old bill]

Jamberson - if only chronic negativity was common sense....

 

'Visit' - the Act of coming to see a person. The most famous of which occured 2000 years ago.

 

Warrants (when they exist) which cannot be executed lawfully (in line with court rules) cannot be exercised at all. Tough

 

Exactly. Thank you, FP.

[Jamberson]

Jamberson - if only chronic negativity was common sense....

 

'Visit' - the Act of coming to see a person. The most famous of which occured 2000 years ago.

 

Warrants (when they exist) which cannot be executed lawfully (in line with court rules) cannot be exercised at all. Tough

 

I don't follow you. By your definition, he was not paying a visit, so what's the point you are making?

[brassnecked]

A warrant has to be enforced at the address on the warrant, so they have to knock on the door and serve it, not skulk about and clamp a motor in the street because an ANPR goes kerching away from the address on the warrant.

 

One other thing that bothers me at least is how the bailiff when police attend seem to infer a criminal element to the warrant, even for a decriminalised Civil PCN enforcement.and the police seem to be misled by this.

[Jamberson]

Have ever thought of studying English in the plainest of varieties? Bailiff met OP after deciding to once ANPR went ping

 

Alas there's nothing plain about it. When the code says "when he visits a person" you can personally assert that this means "when enforcing" or if "Bailiff met OP", but that interpretation is far from clear in the original wording. A lawyer could easily ague the coverse is true - so it comes back to the point that one should excercise caution when throwing around terms like fraud and blackmail. This is, after all, a real case with a real person's money at stake - so it's better to be factual rather than joining the dots and declaring victory.

[Jamberson]

they have to knock on the door and serve it, not skulk about and clamp a motor in the street because an ANPR goes kerching away from the address on the warrant.

 

If you mean execute it, rather than serve it, I think you are wrong. By all means quote chapter and verse to prove me wrong, but what you are saying conflicts with so much of how the system is designed, that it is not plausible.

[old bill]

OB - That's exactly what is happening. The local authorities are sending out lists of people electronically to bailiffs for them to enforce against under the misapprehension that CPR 75 4 allows them to. If only CPR 75 4 referred to warrants! LAs do not send warrants. The bailiff company then just loads these PDF names into ANPR computers and off they go. No paperwork at all, except if and when challenged later - a 'warrant' suddenly appears - backdated of course.

 

Love to show you as an ex policeman some footage obtained from The Times showing this in action in front of four officers.

 

Fraud? wi' a capital F.

 

Could you provide a link, please, FP?

[old bill]

If I were to explain the technicalities of Blackmail and Fraud, it would take up a lot of space.

 

As an example, a certificated bailiff attends a debtor's property to execute a warrant and clamps a relative's car parked on the driveway. The bailiff then proceeds to demand money by refusing to remove the clamp, even though they have been shown evidence the debtor does not own the car. Bearing in mind that a bailiff can only lawfully seize the debtor's property, not a third party's, he does not have a right in law to use menaces to demand the money, under the circumstances, and it is not a proper means of enforcing the demand. The bailiff, under those circumstances, is guilty of an offence of Blackmail. If, on the other hand, the car belongs to the debtor, the bailiff can legitimately refuse to remove the clamp until the debtor pays the money owed as the bailiff is acting in accordance with the warrant. Under those circumstances, the bailiff is acting within the law.

 

As far as Fraud is concerned, this is one offence that crops up on consumer forums over and over again, especially where bailiff fees are concerned. However, if a bailiff claims they have a right to seize something when, in fact, they do not, that is Fraud by False Misrepresentation.

 

As far as the use of ANPR is concerned, the police operate their ANPR systems under very strict guidelines and rules which are attached to this post. Also, bear in mind that the police have statutory powers of stop and seizure. Bailiffs do not have such powers - thankfully - and their use of ANPR is regulated by the Data Protection Act 1998. If the OP's car was parked outside their home, either on the public highway or on a driveway or hardstanding, the bailiff may seize it in accordance with the warrant, as it is at the address on the warrant. On the other hand, if they are at an address other than that stated on the warrant and they attempt a seizure using the data on their ANPR system, then the seizure is, in my considered judgement, illegal as the seizure is not in accordance with the warrant. In any seizure, whether under Civil, Criminal or Road Traffic Law, the seizure must be carried out in accordance with the law, otherwise it is unlawful, if not, illegal.

ANPR Standards - ACPO.pdf

ANPR Guidelines - ACPO.pdf

ANPR Strategy - ACPO.pdf