Form 4 Complaints: Copies of Judgments where costs have been awarded in favour of the Bailiff !!

[ploddertom]

Does anyone know anything about a Form 4 complaint that was heard last week in a court in the Midland???

Rumour has it that it had all the hallmarks of the template Form 4 “pack” that is being sold to unsuspecting debtors on “another” forum. Apparently word has it that the Form 4 hearing went really badly wrong for the person making the complaint.

 

mmmmmmmmmmmm have had heard some rumours of this but thought it was in the Manchester area. Seems to suggest someone got their fingers badly burned.

[tomtubby]

I have had 2 emails and 3 PM's regarding a Form 4 complaint last week and from the "gossip" that I am hearing, the person making the complaint had goodness knows how many separate complaints against the bailiff and the Form 4 was littered with references to endless case law (much of which is listed on another "advice forum").

 

I have heard conflicting rumors about costs and about which company the bailiff worked for but will not be posting anything just yet until I received something concrete.

 

More later......

[jaffro]

OMG I was at Manchester Court last Thurday and sitting outside when I went in was a man and women, I do not know her but, the face (wearing a very loud shirt for a court appearance) was familiar, only now and reading this do I remember where I had seen him before, his photo is on the website of the 'other' forum!!!!!! which he owns.

[ploddertom]

Seems to concur with what I hear. Seems as if someone will not be Happy.

[citizenB]

Will the Judgment be a matter of public record ?

[wonkeydonkey]

Not sure who the Form 4 was against or the full outcome of the hearing as yet but, I can't see those involved wanting it to get out that the info they peddle has been seriously brought into question.

 

I see the same misinformation is still being peddled on the site so either they don't know of this debacle or they are just going to bury their heads and lead more lambs to slaughter???

 

We can only wait and see materializes with the rumours doing the rounds???

Edited July 4, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[lamma]

Is there a charge for this (mis)information ?

[tomtubby]

Form 4 Complaints are serious matters and the PURPOSE of the complaint is to request that the District Judge consider removing the bailiffs certificate from the individual bailiff on the basis that the bailiff is "not a fit an proper person to hold a certificate" ( this precise wording is outlined in the relevant statutory regulations).

 

Sadly, there is one particular website known to many people on here that actively encourage visitors to their website to file Form 4 Complaints and they even go so far as to state on their website that they have sold over 1,300 "Form 4 Packs" ( £99 each). They site even provide a "service" where they will provide a "affidavit" for the debtor to use to support the Form 4 Complaint.

 

The site is OWNED by a lady who had previously posted on this forum and her site was "taken over" by a gentleman who is very well known to this particular forum ( and indeed another forum as well...LB). The owner still posts on the forum.

 

The site are well known for providing unsuspecting debtors with template letters drafted by them which they encourage debtors to send to the police, the Ministry of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsman etc and such letters are littered with references to bailiff companies committing fraud etc etc. They are noteworthy as well for their constant references to endless case law ( much of which is centuries old or irrelevant).

 

The same site frequently encourage debtors to use bolt cutters to remove clamps and have even gone to the extraordinary lengths to state on their site that if a bailiff were to ignore these stupid "Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices" that it is legal to use an "axe on the bailiff". This is of course WRONG information.

 

There was indeed yet another Form 4 Complaint last week in Manchester County Court and the complainant had every part of her complaint thrown out by the Judge. It would seem that she received a remarkable "personal service" form the other website in that the gentleman who runs the forum was actually in court with her.

 

It is noteworthy that the gentleman has not posted on his forum since the court hearing. I will leave others to make their own minds up as to why.

 

PS: This post of mine is NOT a "Flame War" but sadly, is true.

[unclebulgaria67]

The silly thing here is that if you follow free advice which is contained here and elsewhere online, you should not get into these problems with bailiffs or know how to resolve them. If you pay a fee slighly less than £100 for a 'pack' and follow the advice given, you have spent money on something, which might lead to further costs being incurred. You will have no come back on the site that offered this paid advice, because they are not regulated and there is no contract as they are just providing information.

[wonkeydonkey]

Is there a charge for this (mis)information ?

 

Judging by the banner lamma that is a yes.

 

It now gives the impression there are a lot of desperate people prepared to part with what they don't have in the hope of obtaining a miracle resolution.

 

"Your bailiff problem stopped! - £99"

(Due to high demand and case loads - no new client signups until 04 July)

Edited July 5, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[citizenB]

The silly thing here is that if you follow free advice which is contained here and elsewhere online, you should not get into these problems with bailiffs or know how to resolve them. If you pay a fee slighly less than £100 for a 'pack' and follow the advice given, you have spent money on something, which might lead to further costs being incurred. You will have no come back on the site that offered this paid advice, because they are not regulated and there is no contract as they are just providing information.

 

Surely if they charge for advice then they must be regulated in some way ?

[ploddertom]

Surely if they charge for advice then they must be regulated in some way ?

 

No more than me offering to sell you a Mars bar for £25, you have to decide whether you are prepared to pay for it.

 

To look at it another way - a bailiff calls demanding £1000 for Council Tax, Court Fine, Parking Ticket etc. He is very intimidating and gives 24 hours in which to pay or he threatens to come back with Police, Locksmith, Removal Van. You don't have the cash to pay & he won't accept instalments but you do have £99 spare and someone is offering you a "Get out of Jail" card - a lot will take the risk.

[tomtubby]

I am sure that many people do indeed take the "risk" and that is the problem. There is a huge risk is taking "advice" from that site.

[unclebulgaria67]

I suppose that they only way you could proceed against an advice site who charged a fee for a 'pack', would be under SOGA. Because of the way the service was sold, as a consumer you could be entitled to believe that what was being said was true in all regards and that you had a chance of success in following the paid for advice. It is not the same as just publishing a book on a subject matter, because the site in question appears to be offering a service.

[lamma]

"they have sold over 1,300 "Form 4 Packs" ( £99 each)." Oh my goodness me, this is appalling.

[ploddertom]

I suppose that they only way you could proceed against an advice site who charged a fee for a 'pack', would be under SOGA. Because of the way the service was sold, as a consumer you could be entitled to believe that what was being said was true in all regards and that you had a chance of success in following the paid for advice. It is not the same as just publishing a book on a subject matter, because the site in question appears to be offering a service.

 

I'm not sure SOGA applies unless one can prove it was done by way of a business. Might be it also has a disclaimer.

[danmcr]

"they have sold over 1,300 "Form 4 Packs" ( £99 each)." Oh my goodness me, this is appalling.

 

That's complete BS!

 

I read some place there is only around 3000 Certificated Bailiffs, I bet quite a few don't even use their certificate. I know that alot Bailiff companies have all their office, admin and management Certificated, staff that don't even need a Certificate but have them for a number of reasons (I'll let you use your imagination) Bailiffs carrying out arrest warrants working for the company in the last TV sting carry Certificates although they don't need them.

 

As a Certificated Bailiff I very rarely use my certificate and so do about 6 of my colleagues simply because of the type of work we carry out.

 

I would guess there are less than around 1500 Certificated Bailiffs out on the road carrying out work that requires a Certificate.

[wonkeydonkey]

"they have sold over 1,300 "Form 4 Packs" ( £99 each)." Oh my goodness me, this is appalling.

 

I wonder if that includes those allegedly being sold via ebay?

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm not sure SOGA applies unless one can prove it was done by way of a business. Might be it also has a disclaimer.

 

On the site in question, if you click for more info on the £99 offer, it details what can only be described as a service, not just information. I would think that SOGA does apply, as that just requires you to prove that you were being offered a service you had paid for.

[tomtubby]

According to the Ministry of Justice there are 1,674 certificated bailiffs. As with most information on that dreadful website you cannot believe a word that is said.

[danmcr]

According to the Ministry of Justice there are 1,674 certificated bailiffs. As with most information on that dreadful website you cannot believe a word that is said.

 

Well that speaks for itself, I've never had a form 4 nor do I know any Certificated Bailiff that has.

 

The sooner said website is closed down the better.

[tomtubby]

I have been asked on another forum whether the complainant had the assistance of the gentleman as a Mackenzie Friend. I will be ordering a copy of the transcript but this can take quite a few weeks.

 

As I have stated earlier, there are lots of rumors about this case going around the bailiff industry and it is being discussed heavily on a local authority forum. What I do know is that he (HC) was NOT acting as a Mackenzie Friend. Instead, he tried to "claim" that he was a friend of the complainant........but he was "royally rumbled" after the Judge asked him to confirm who he was.

[unclebulgaria67]

It would nice to have more details of this Manchester case in due course, so all relevant parties can check this for themselves. There is doubt being expressed that this case went as is being said and that scaremongering is taking place. I suppose if you are making money selling packs of information, you don't really want any information to be revealed which is not helpful to maintaining future revenues.

[tomtubby]

Extraordinary outburst from him today. Most odd that he states that the case involved Marston Group. A Form 4 complaint is not against a company it is against an individual person !!

 

I also stated on another forum that costs HAD not been requested.

 

He seems to have a serious PERSONAL dislike about Marston Group. Strange.

[unclebulgaria67]

TT

 

I think what is being said by the other site owner, is that a bailiff company is misinforming people of the outcome of form 4 complaints, including this case in Manchester. They have said that what has been reported of the Manchester case is not true. The only way that neutrals can know which version is more accurate, is to have details published of the Manchester case.