Bailiff Action And Breaches Of Health And Safety Regulations During Enforcement

[old bill]

The problem is that these bailiff firms are tied into the justice system, and the police would be reluctant to investigate, them, especially as many uninitiated coppers see them as being on the same side. One way may be to show how corrupt and fraudulent they are, and how the councils, collude and conspire with Capquita, Ross 'n Robbers et al. to rip off taxpayers

 

This is why I set up the petition on DirectGov to make bailiff law an integral part of police training. What would be better, in my opinion, is to empower and require the police to seize a certificated bailiff's certificate, in cases of alleged or suspected misconduct, and for the CPS to decide whether the bailiff should face criminal charges or, simply, forfeit their certificate and bond. The Form 4 procedure, in my opinion, is now being abused by certificated bailiffs and their employers to deter complaints of misconduct when, in many cases, the bailiff should be de-certificated and their bond forfeited.

[brassnecked]

This is why I set up the petition on DirectGov to make bailiff law an integral part of police training. What would be better, in my opinion, is to empower and require the police to seize a certificated bailiff's certificate, in cases of alleged or suspected misconduct, and for the CPS to decide whether the bailiff should face criminal charges or, simply, forfeit their certificate and bond. The Form 4 procedure, in my opinion, is now being abused by certificated bailiffs and their employers to deter complaints of misconduct when, in many cases, the bailiff should be de-certificated and their bond forfeited.

 

Agree 110% it would appear that judges, and bailiff companies are treating a Form 4 wrongfully as if it were litigatiom, as in Debtor V Bailff, rather than the enquiry into a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate. Significantly the likes of Crapquita, are instructing Barristers to represent their bailiff at a Form 4 hearing, and if the judge finds that the bailiff is fit, are landing the complainant with the bailiff's barristers costs. Wrongfully imho.

 

The Form 4 procedure is holed below the waterline and is no use whatsoever if that is how it is being used.

[old bill]

Agree 110% it would appear that judges, and bailiff companies are treating a Form 4 wrongfully as if it were litigatiom, as in Debtor V Bailff, rather than the enquiry into a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate. Significantly the likes of Crapquita, are instructing Barristers to represent their bailiff at a Form 4 hearing, and if the judge finds that the bailiff is fit, are landing the complainant with the bailiff's barristers costs. Wrongfully imho.

 

The Form 4 procedure is holed below the waterline and is no use whatsoever if that is how it is being used.

 

In order to bring about the necessary change, it would only require a statutory instrument that could be in force within three months of being laid before Parliament.

 

What would be effective in combating bailiff misconduct and - caggers, if you want to add to or comment on this, please do - are the following -

 

1. Make it an offence for a certificated bailiff not to be in possession of their bailiff certificate when executing a warrant;
   
2. Make it mandatory for a bailiff to be in possession of a Liability Order or Warrant of Execution when executing;
   
3. Place the onus of proof on the bailiff in cases of alleged misconduct;
   
4. Make it mandatory for all certificated bailiffs to undergo and pass an Enhanced CRB check before they may apply for a Bailiff Certificate;
   
5. Require the police to seize a bailiff's certificate in cases of alleged misconduct;
   
6. Require the Crown Prosecution Service to adjudicate as to whether a bailiff should face criminal charges or forfeiture of their certificate and bond;
   
7. Any bailiff company having three or more complaints in any period of 12 months of misconduct by bailiffs in their employment (direct or contracted) to be liable to an unlimited fine;
   
8. A requirement for the management of bailiff companies to be subject to Enhanced CRB checks.
   

 

Although Cameron and Co. don't like regulation, the financial crisis, caused by lack of regulation, should send them a very stark message - regulation lets everyone know what is expected of them and where the limits of "can do" and "cannot do" lie.

 

Caggers - comments on the above are welcome.

[brassnecked]

OB I like the suggestions, and they have merit, even better, Mrs Green-Jones, and Ms Sandbrook would choke on their champagne and Foie Gras if it came in

[old bill]

OB I like the suggestions, and they have merit, even better, Mrs Green-Jones, and Ms Sandbrook would choke on their champagne and Foie Gras if it came in

 

It sure would make them keep their bailiffs in line. At present, the maximum fine a Magistrates Court can impose is £20,000 (Scale 5). However, giving them the freedom to slap unlimited fines on bailiff companies, would not only free up court time in the Crown and County Courts, it would be cheaper to administer and not so daunting for complainants. A Crown Court hearing can be very oppressive and scary for even the most hardened of individuals - including police officers.

 

Cracking down on creditors is also needed to bring the civil enforcement industry well and truly into line. I'll think about that and post up.

[brassnecked]

The Industry, will argue that as a debtor owes money, the creditor can almost go to the lengths of Shylock, to recoup their money. This will only get worse as utility bills rise and more buy into the SW Sherfarce collection method, unless it is stomped on PDQ

[old bill]

The Industry, will argue that as a debtor owes money, the creditor can almost go to the lengths of Shylock, to recoup their money. This will only get worse as utility bills rise and more buy into the SW Sherfarce collection method, unless it is stomped on PDQ

 

This is why it needs a two-pronged attack at the enforcement industry and the creditors. The creditors are often guilty of sharp practices, downright lies, abuses of the legal process and turning a blind eye to blatant law-breaking by the enforcement industry. The other industry that needs reform and a clampdown as a matter of urgency is Debt Collection Agencies. The OFT and Trading Standards Officers need to be given stronger powers, including a "three strikes and you're out" power to close down DCAs who repeatedly flout the law and bully debtors. One way of kicking creditors into line is introducing a statutory provision whereby they risk having their debts struck-out if a DCA or bailiff company engages in unlawful or illegal behaviour. Just think if a creditor with a £10,000 debt owing engaged the likes of Mucky Hall and MH engaged in their usual behaviour and the creditor found they couldn't enforce the debt against the debtor. Who would they recoup their money from then? Mucky Hall and all the other low-life DCAs. I will be posting up proposals about kicking creditors and DCAs into touch.

[brassnecked]

This is why it needs a two-pronged attack at the enforcement industry and the creditors. The creditors are often guilty of sharp practices, downright lies, abuses of the legal process and turning a blind eye to blatant law-breaking by the enforcement industry. The other industry that needs reform and a clampdown as a matter of urgency is Debt Collection Agencies. The OFT and Trading Standards Officers need to be given stronger powers, including a "three strikes and you're out" power to close down DCAs who repeatedly flout the law and bully debtors. One way of kicking creditors into line is introducing a statutory provision whereby they risk having their debts struck-out if a DCA or bailiff company engages in unlawful or illegal behaviour. Just think if a creditor with a £10,000 debt owing engaged the likes of Mucky Hall and MH engaged in their usual behaviour and the creditor found they couldn't enforce the debt against the debtor. Who would they recoup their money from then? Mucky Hall and all the other low-life DCAs. I will be posting up proposals about kicking creditors and DCAs into touch.

 

Yes the selling of Statute Barred or written off debt should be a criminal offence, and stamped on severely, also Council tax or Poll Tax from 20 years ago where the liablity order has miraculously surfaced, and Crapquita are calling and adding fees like confetti, also needs examination. Snotcall, Moorcrap, and Mucky hall need special attention also, along with Link Financial, who also handle government accounts under their subsidiary Thesis, who deal with some Student Loans, another can of worms, where they ignore deferment, engineer arrears, and harass people who as the loan is deferred due to unemployment or low income do not have to pay.

 

As to H & S shouldn't the doorstep collector who is a self employed door knocker, for Mucky and the rest risk assess every potential call? An impossibility maybe? But failure to do so lands them in the carp with HSE.

[The Ghost]

No chance IMO of bailff's ever coming before the old bill, sadly. It just ain't reality. Bang on in legal terms, but it won't happen.

 

As for SB debts etc... BN, I'm totally with you on that.

[brassnecked]

No chance IMO of bailff's ever coming before the old bill, sadly. It just ain't reality. Bang on in legal terms, but it won't happen.

 

As for SB debts etc... BN, I'm totally with you on that.

If a debt is SB it should be dead, not sold on to another bottom feeder who will try to make a debtor pay, using dodgy and often illegal tactics, even to the level of fraudulently trying to obtain a CCJ.

 

There should be a central register of written off, SB, and debts that died with a bankruptcy, so should be marked as uncollectable. Debts that died in a bankruptcy, sometimes resurface with Mucky Hall and Snotcall et al

[old bill]

No chance IMO of bailff's ever coming before the old bill, sadly. It just ain't reality. Bang on in legal terms, but it won't happen.

 

As for SB debts etc... BN, I'm totally with you on that.

 

If you read my earlier post, you will note that I am advocating the police being given the power and, indeed, a statutory duty to seize the certificate of any bailiff suspected of or alleged to have committed any breach of the law during the course of their employment as a bailiff and to place the duty of deciding whether to proceed on criminal charges or forfeiture of the bailiff's certificate and bond to the CPS. All criminal offences apprehended by or coming to the attention of the police have to be referred to the CPS for a decision as to what action should be taken by law. Remember that bailiffs are supposed to have their certificates with them when executing an LO or WoE. Seizing a bailiff's certificate would stop them acting as a bailiff until the CPS had decided what action to take.

 

As to the "it won't happen" comment, it is negative and apathetic comments like this that allows the debt collection and civil enforcement industries to continue to behave in a lawless manner. If you don't make sufficient noise in the right quarters, positive change will not come about.

[old bill]

If a debt is SB it should be dead, not sold on to another bottom feeder who will try to make a debtor pay, using dodgy and often illegal tactics, even to the level of fraudulently trying to obtain a CCJ.

 

There should be a central register of written off, SB, and debts that died with a bankruptcy, so should be marked as uncollectable. Debts that died in a bankruptcy, sometimes resurface with Mucky Hall and Snotcall et al

 

That is, in my considered judgement, the only way the debt types you refer to, BN, can be prevented from being enforced. There is legislation available already to deal with the likes of Mucky Hall and Snotcall in the form of Perverting the Course of Justice if they try to fraudulently obtain a CCJ. This is a Common Law offence and carries a substantial custodial sentence on conviction on indictment. It can only be tried as an indictable offence and cannot be tried as a summary or triable either way offence.

 

A central register of SB and "died with bankruptcy" debts would be easy to set up and administer as is the Central Register of County Court Judgements. If it stops the bottom-feeders acting like the spivs they are, good.