Form 4 Complaints and the matter of costs.

[lamma]

"Later, Mrs Hutchinson went to Northampton County Court traffic enforcement centre. But there was no judge in attendance" Of course there was not. How could there be.

[brassnecked]

"Later, Mrs Hutchinson went to Northampton County Court traffic enforcement centre. But there was no judge in attendance" Of course there was not. How could there be.

 

There couldn't be a judge i'ts not a court per se as we understand a court to be; it is a kangaroo court, a rubber stamping centre.

[lamma]

Always remember...bailiffs are unique in that they collect money that is due to a government agency. Common sense alone would tell you that if they have a robust regulatory body this would most likely impact on the ability to collect money.

 

The "revised" National Standards for Enforcement Agents was sufficient to demonstrate the lack of commitment for reform.

 

Exactly. Measures such as GPS tracking and monitoring will not be used. Whatever happened to the vaunted "headcams" that were going to be worn by CEOs ? Monitoring happens in one direction only. Film a public servant in a public place and see the 'noise' it creates.

[tomtubby]

Brassneck....There is a misconception that TEC is not a court. This is not actually correct.

 

Before TEC the administrative Centre had been called the Parking Enforcement Centre ( and later changed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).

 

Previously it had been at Cardiff County Court and now part of CCBC at Northampton. It was given court status under statutory regulations in 1993

Edited April 18, 2013 by tomtubby

[brassnecked]

Brassneck....There is a misconception that TEC is not a court. This is not actually not correct.

 

Before TEC the administrative Centre had been called the Parking Enforcement Centre ( and later changed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).

 

Previously it had been at Cardiff County Court and now part of CCBC at Northampton. It was given court status under statutory regulations in 1993

Thanks TT, it is a bulk clearing centre isn't it? A law lecturer I know says "It's a court Jim, but not as we know it" LOL

[lamma]

Its is considered an office of the court (not an Office). Court it undefiined. So its a room in a thing. Back to the subject. When the bailiff is enforcing CPE is a Form 4 even applicable ? This is not an aspect I have investigated to date but I found the question interesting enough to post before I did the work. Forgive me for that.

[brassnecked]

Its is considered an office of the court (not an Office). Court it undefiined. So its a room in a thing. Back to the subject. When the bailiff is enforcing CPE is a Form 4 even applicable ? This is not an aspect I have investigated to date but I found the question interesting enough to post before I did the work. Forgive me for that.

I will have to do some research myself, my appetite is whetted lamma.

[lamma]

To explain further: As the bailiff is acting in a private capacity when enforcing CPE how can a Form 4 be applicable. Surely the recourse would be in a civil suit in the main. It would depend upon the case. For example if the Bailiff falsely represented himself as acting with the authority of a court (and you could evidence that incontrovertibly - so video with sound probably needed) then there is a clear statutory offence. The possible transgressions are many, but not too many as to be beyond a systematic approach. Or at least that is what my instincts are telling me. As I said I have not sat down and done much analysis. It seems wise to have broached it here as there is much held knowledge and experience of the usual transgressions in certain prominent contributors. The damage will in almost every case be within small claims limits so the horrendous costs issue is negated. The obvious issue springs to mind - was the Agent performing outside their instructions from the Principal ? But that could be left aside and the Agent pursued singly. if the bailiff wishes to bring in the Council ( as they were 'only following instructions' ) then that is their option. But as I said, more thought required.

Edited April 19, 2013 by lamma

[brassnecked]

Definitely more thought required, as if the fees extracted in a Council Tax case were excessive and unlawful , then would one take county court action with council as principal defendant along with the bailiff, rather than a Form 4? Also where does the action lie for a case where a bailiff instructed by HMCS extracts payment from a third party who only happens to have just bought a motor with which say a speeding fine was gained by the previous owner, or the debtor is non known to the person the bailiff attempt to force to pay?

 

This is a nice juicy piece of research. It looks quite interesting lamma.

[tomtubby]

There are a number of problems with the suggestions outlined above. Firstly, if anyone were to take legal action by way of a small claims case against a bailiff there is the small matter of what address to include on the writ. The bailiffs's address is not on public record and instead, will be with the county court that certificated him.

 

The most important point to consider is that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 specifically provide that all complaints against a bailiff must be made by way of a Form 4 complaint.

[gerson]

Either I am missing something obvious, surely the last statement from TT confirms that this is a 'complaints procedure':

The most important point to consider is that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 specifically provide that all complaints against a bailiff must be made by way of a Form 4 complaint.

 

Imagine if you complained to Natwest, claim was unfounded and they charged you 1000GBP

 

It is about time that there was a proper way to complain about a baliff other that Form 4

 

G

[brassnecked]

Either I am missing something obvious, surely the last statement from TT confirms that this is a 'complaints procedure':

 

 

Imagine if you complained to Natwest, claim was unfounded and they charged you 1000GBP

 

It is about time that there was a proper way to complain about a baliff other that Form 4

 

G

 

Exactly, so if Form 4 is now litigation rather than a Statutory complaint procedure, and runs the risk of the complainant being penalised. It now is the same as penalising a whistleblower for exposing an illegal or corrupt practice.

 

There remains the option of writing a letter to the court that issued the bailiffs certificate outlining the behaviour, and asking it to lie on file awaiting the application for renewal so it can be considered.

[brassnecked]

There are a number of problems with the suggestions outlined above. Firstly, if anyone were to take legal action by way of a small claims case against a bailiff there is the small matter of what address to include on the writ. The bailiffs's address is not on public record and instead, will be with the county court that certificated him.

 

The most important point to consider is that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 specifically provide that all complaints against a bailiff must be made by way of a Form 4 complaint.

Thanks for the clarification TT, this shows that there is now no realistic non adversarial complaints procedure into bailiffs and their behaviour.

[seanamarts]

My twopence worth, having taken a bailiff via a form 4 route and thankfully won, I have to say was extremely hard and took a year of my life from me because of the amount of work and stress that it took.

 

I dont recommend it unless you are very confident that you are going to win.

 

I learnt so much in just that one year and have to say more than the solicitors that helped.

 

I ended up teaching them what I had learnt. I ended up with a whole box full of paperwork at the end of it and still have.

 

Luckily for me the bailiff admitted the one thing he shouldnt of done and that was putting his foot in the door and forcing his way in, that was the clincher for me.

He confessed that he was taught that he was allowed to do that. WRONG!

 

I have to thank TT and others on the forum for the help and support that I was given throughout that year. I vowed I was going to help others, which I have to say I have

 

I never knew what a bailiff was until that day, now I am very familiar with them and their antic's.

 

DONT jump to the form 4 after an issue has happened with a bailiff. Do your research and see if it is viable first and that you are confident that the bailiff was in the wrong.

 

I wouldnt even bother with a form 4 if it is just a case of being over charged, its pointless, that can be done via a small claims court. Or better still pushing the council, courts etc to look at what has been charged and get the proof you need to state that the bailiff has charged you incorrectly.

 

If you are not sure always, always ask.

[tomtubby]

Seanamarts.

 

Your post is excellent and I remember the awful experience that you had to go through with the bailiff. In your case the court made the correct decision but as you say....it took two years of very hard work indeed.

 

You used a Form 4 Complain in the right way by using it for a case of very serious wrongdoing by an individual bailiff.

[seanamarts]

Seanamarts.

 

Your post is excellent and I remember the awful experience that you had to go through with the bailiff. In your case the court made the correct decision but as you say....it took two years of very hard work indeed.

 

You used a Form 4 Complain in the right way by using it for a case of very serious wrongdoing by an individual bailiff.

 

Thanks TT.

 

Just to make a point here as well. The council sent the bailiff for something they made a mistake for. I had a nice apology letter from them, its just a pity I was far to exhausted, mentally to make another complaint against them for maladministration.

[outlawla]

The bailiff would have to demonstrate he was a fit and proper person to obtain his certificate, so I would think an appropriate test to decide whether submitting a complaint is appropriate, would be;

 

Was his certificate granted, conditioned on a certain level of acceptable malpractice?

 

-

if yes

-

Would this include defrauding those subjected to enforcement action with fees and charges?

 

-

if yes

-

Perhaps best not to submit a complaint.

[lamma]

There are a number of problems with the suggestions outlined above. Firstly, if anyone were to take legal action by way of a small claims case against a bailiff there is the small matter of what address to include on the writ. The bailiffs's address is not on public record and instead, will be with the county court that certificated him.

 

The most important point to consider is that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 specifically provide that all complaints against a bailiff must be made by way of a Form 4 complaint.

 

Where does it say ALL complaints - of any kind.. And, not least, it is not a complaint I envisage but an action. And yes the action starts with a 'complaint' being lodged, but certainly not a "Complaint as to fitness to hold a certificate", merely remedy for injury caused by one private individual to another with no mention or question as to fitness to hold a certificate As already mentioned I am focussing on distress carried out under CPE where the bailiff is not acting in the capacity of a court bailiff, he is acting as an individual and carries the responsibility for his actions. The bugbear in the 1988 rules may be "conduct" but as he is not conducting himself as a bailiff at the time that is arguable in my opinion, especially considering the head of that section. The 1988 rules are not a get out clause that means any bad behaviour in a bailiff's private capacity has to go through a Form 4 procedure. e.g. Drunk and disorderly, common assault at a football match, theft, trespass, domestic violence, drink driving, speeding, murder; to name but a few of the possible examples.

[tomtubby]

Lamma,

 

Good question. There can be no doubt that the regulations as they stand are no now fit for purpose.

 

Paragraph 8 of the Distress for rent Rules 1988 states as follows:

 

Any complaint as to the conduct or fitness of any bailiff who holds a certificate shall be made to the court which issued the certificate.

 

The word shall has the same meaning as must and I would assume that this para would be used to object to a complaint being made in any other way.

 

Also, if a complaint were to be made to the County Court they would not have access to the court file regarding the bailiff.

 

Furthermore, as I had mentioned earlier, only the certificating court has the address of the bailiff.

 

What would be needed would be a "test case" .

 

If there was an allegation of a CRIMINAL nature, then this would be altogether very different indeed and would mean that the person making the complaint would need to take the matter to the police to investigate.

[lamma]

tt, read the head of S.8 carefully. I am not talking about a complaint as to fitness to hold a certificate. There are many forms of injury, far from all of them are criminal matters.

[tomtubby]

I am shocked at how many people have viewed this post and the Sticky since last week. !!! It is clearly an important subject.

 

It is very sad that posters on a small forum have spent the past week posting highly critical comments to "claim" that judgments do not actually exist.

 

My personal opinion is that the two people who post on that little forum know perfectly well that cost orders have indeed been made by County Courts in relation to Form 4 Complaints but, if these orders/judgments are made public this could affect sales of their "Form 4 packs" .....

 

In the past few days I have received authorisation to post copies of various judgments. This will of course include case references.

 

Sadly I am not too brilliant on the computer and will be asking somebody to help me with uploading copies in the morning.

 

In one case, His Honour Judge Bray sitting at Northampton County Court on 23rd February 2010 ordered costs of £5,000 to be paid to the bailiff by the complainant.

 

In the second case regarding a complaint about fees, District Judge Allen sitting at Croydon County Court on 18th November 2011 ordered that the fees should be the subject of Detailed Assessment and ordered costs of £1,200 against the complainant.

 

In the third Form 4 case, before His Honour Judge Welchman sitting at Wandsworth County Court on 28th November 2012 ordered the complainant to pay costs of £1,655 to the bailiff.

 

There is a further Form 4 Complaint that was heard in court last Friday and an interim costs order of £10,000 has been made. I will post a copy of the Judgment later in the week when it is received.

[letsmakeamark]

TT Look forward to reading the judgements.

Isnt the person who runs that other forum. the who was a pilot and sued marston group for loads of money when a bailiff broke a bone in his partners foot. She was also a pilot.

[brassnecked]

TT Look forward to reading the judgements.

Isnt the person who runs that other forum. the who was a pilot and sued marston group for loads of money when a bailiff broke a bone in his partners foot. She was also a pilot.

More than likely, He has popped up on other forums as well.

[wonkeydonkey]

Oh!!!!!!!! that must be the same person who was in the Navy, a commercial pilot for several prestigious airlines, a stipendiary magistrate, and a paralegal among other challenges in his career, all this after leaving secondary school in 1984 and between jobs of being a 'kleeneze' peddlar and a cab driver, of course we mustn't forget he worked as a 'will writer and estate planner' both of which require no qualifications and have been given media attention in the past few weeks, sadly not positive!!!

 

Are we talking about the same guy 'lmmark'?

 

WD

Edited April 22, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[brassnecked]

Indeed WD it is he who must not be named.