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

[tomtubby]

As soon as I can get a transcript I will of course give further details. Of that you can be sure. As you know I have already provided evidence of other cases when they are made available. Obtaining a transcript is very expensive indeed and unfortunately has been known to take quite some number of weeks.

 

I was only made aware by his posts that this case involved Marston's. This is not information that was previously given out. In any event, as I have said many times, a Form 4 Complaint is NOT against a company it is against an individual bailiff.

 

It is noteworthy that he states that the particular Form 4 that he is assisting with related to a vehicle that was for business use and which was sold by the bailiff company and that the bailiff swore at the debtors tenants. Yet again, members of the public are being encouraged to pay a fee of £99 to have this person's assistance in compiling a Form 4 Complain in cases that are wholly inappropriate.

 

Firstly, bailiff companies and also High Court Enforcement Officers frequently remove vehicles that are used by a business are where the debtors believes that the vehicle should be exempt on the basis of legislation which states that a vehicle is exempt if it is "for your use personally in the course of your business or vocation" The leading case law from the Court of Appeal is the case of Toseland. This was a case regarding Shergroup Ltd and related to a debtor whose fork lift truck was removed and sold by Shergroup. The Appeal case is most interesting because although it was proved that the vehicle was used "in the course of business" the debtor lost the case when information was made available to the court that the vehicle was ALSO used by other people as well. The debtor was therefore unable to prove that the vehicle (whether it be a fork lift truck or everyday vehicle) was for " his use personally" .

 

I work one day a week at a debt advice charity and last week, I was reading about a similar case from around three years ago regarding a licensed private hire vehicle that had been seized. The debtor issued an injunction to stop the sale of his vehicle but lost the case on the basis that HE used the vehicle during the daytime and ANOTHER driver used the vehicle during the evening and early hours of the morning. He too was unable to prove that the vehicle was for "his use personally" etc.

 

Anyway, coming back to this particular Form 4 , if the vehicle has been sold then this cannot be the fault of an individual bailiff whose role is to seize goods. The vehicle would have been sold by the bailiff COMPANY and accordingly, it would not in any way be appropriate to file a Form 4 as such a complaint concerns the personal actions of an individual bailiff !!!!

 

On the basis of the bailiff apparently swearing I would be most surprised indeed if any Judge would remove a certificate from a bailiff on these grounds. After all....if the Judge removed the certificate he is removing the bailiffs right to ever again be employed as a bailiff and such a decision will only be taken in the most exceptional cases. Yet again, it would seem that this is a Form 4 Complaint that was made for the wrong reason.

 

The following quote features on his site today:

 

 

Tomtubby's latest rant post indicates I specifically dislike Marston group. That is not the case because I have brought bailiffs of many other companies before the courts and taken them off the streets. I only dislike fraudsters and violent offenders who make peoples lives a misery by breaking the very laws Parliament intended to protect them.

 

As you will know, on this particular forum I have provided copies of Judgements regarding Form 4 and other legal cases as EVIDENCE.

 

It is astonishing that his site does not feature any evidence whatsoever of even ONE case where a "bailiff has been taken off the streets".

 

Total fantasy and I suspect that the "claims" are made purely so as to ensure that the £99 fees continue to flow in.

Edited July 7, 2013 by tomtubby

[brassnecked]

Is this site run by the Happy Contrails/aka Bartok, Fork-it etc by any chance?

[unclebulgaria67]

Is this site run by the Happy Contrails/aka Bartok, Fork-it etc by any chance?

 

Yes the other site is and I am not sure of many of the claims they make. Lacks credibility from what I have seen. They keep making comment on their site about bailiffs not being able to clamp vehicles on private land due to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. But this is a load of nonsense as that act does not touch any powers that bailiffs have via a relevant court order/law. That act specifically dealt with clamping companies who were clamping cars in private car parks or land, then charging people silly sums for the clamps to be released. The act makes it quite clear that the law is not broken by clamping if there is lawful authority. So as long as a bailiff has lawful authority then there is no issue. So I am not sure why this other site is telling people to report bailiffs to the Police for clamping on private land.

 

This article from Davenport Lyons covers this issue.

 

http://www.davenportlyons.com/news/news-stories/protection_of_freedoms_act_2012/

[tomtubby]

On the same website tonight he has stated that he WILL post a copy of the Judgment in this case (with personal information redacted). This could well be the first ever result of a court hearing that has ever been put on the forum.

[wonkeydonkey]

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).

 

 

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.

 

Posts have recommenced along with all the usual fantasies including the suggestion you 'hacked' Marston's data base to supply myself, ploddertom and 'others' with details of 'Manchestergate'

 

I then joined the site and did openly reply (using my own usernames) to the post but it never made to the forum due to moderation and the entire thread was then removed?

 

Interestingly all new posts by HC are accompanied by photographs of a new 'younger' version of the poster along with yet another username, enough said I think.

[citizenB]

Posts have recommenced along with all the usual fantasies including the suggestion you 'hacked' Marston's data base to supply myself, ploddertom and 'others' with details of 'Manchestergate'

 

 

Oh that is priceless.. images of a drowning man clutching at straws comes to mind !

[wonkeydonkey]

Oh that is priceless.. images of a drowning man clutching at straws comes to mind !

 

Almost as priceless as the electronic gates that trapped a bailiff at his 'West London' home

 

 

"My own driveway is gated and a bailiff drove onto the driveway looking for my nephew while we were away and the bailiff called police when the gates closed behind him. He reported being stranded when he could've simply reversed his van and the gates would have opened."

 

Geography is obviously not his subject either!!

http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/dreaming-bright-Christmas/story-14133395-detail/story.html#axzz2YRoE1FI7

[citizenB]

WD, that link doesn't work for me

[wonkeydonkey]

We're dreaming of a bright Christmas | This is Sussex

 

WD, that link doesn't work for me

[citizenB]

We're dreaming of a bright Christmas | This is Sussex

 

 

Yukk, how tacky is that ?

[wonkeydonkey]

Yukk, how tacky is that ?

 

and even I know Sussex is not considered to be 'West London'.

 

I live in a Council house and have no need to try to ' impress' but then again I also live the 'real world'.

[citizenB]

Almost as priceless as the electronic gates that trapped a bailiff at his 'West London' home

 

and even I know Sussex is not considered to be 'West London'.

 

I live in a Council house and have no need to try to ' impress' but then again I also live the 'real world'.

 

 

I thought I had lost the plot.. Broadfield - Crawley - West Sussex.. But then I remembered the previous post of the gates ..

 

Yes, West London is a fair distance from West Sussex