Burlington Bailiffs' - told by Judge to stop enforcement - ignore the judge - Form 4, trespass or what?

[ploddertom]

Can anybody confirm that they can see the FiFa document if they click on it in post 22 please?

 

The attachment is there.

[HCEOs]

Based on what has been said the enforcement agents acting for the HCEO would be extremely foolish

to continue with removal if advised not to do so by the judge.

 

However I must advise that the enforcement officers are only under a duty to make removed goods available for collection

and are not required to deliver them back.

 

Any compliant should be made to the company in the first instance

and only escalated to the HCEOA if the response does not address the issues.

[wonkeydonkey]

Based on what has been said the enforcement agents acting for the HCEO would be extremely foolish to continue with removal if advised not to do so by the judge.

 

However I must advise that the enforcement officers are only under a duty to make removed goods available for collection and are not required to deliver them back.

 

Any compliant should be made to the company in the first instance and only escalated to the HCEOA if the response does not address the issues.

 

On reading the original post again

 

 

it seems the 'bone of contention' lies in the fact the bailiffs concerned

were advised to cease with enforcement by the Judge while the set aside hearing was taking place

and,they were subsequently advised set aside had been granted,

 

Surely at this point everything loaded into a van should have been unloaded at the premises?.

 

 

It appears that not only did they ignore the Judges order,

they actually continued from that moment in time,

to remove goods other than those they had 'listed' on the inventory'

(which I trust you will agree is far from complete)

 

 

the point being,

they had no right to remove them and the cost to returning them should not be laid at the door of the defendant.

 

It would appear the defendant has requested return of his goods

but the attitude is 'come and get them',

 

 

if this is the case then it can be seen the company have shown no intention to address the situation

and for what is worth the defendant will need to seek redress with HCEOA?

[rasg]

WD.

I realise that you are answering HCEO but the main bones of contention of my pal are as follows.

 

Can an HCEO (who was nothing more than a registered bailiff masquerading as an HCEO)

be allowed to terrorise a young woman with a two year old in her arms,

forcing his way past her into the house.

 

Can an HCEO, after being specifically ordered by the judge to return everything as that the judgement had been set aside

be allowed to carry on ransacking a house and garden?

His daughter was terrified.

 

Should an HCEO be allowed turn up mob handed at an address?

It is bad enough if one or two turn up but 4 or 5?

 

How can a certificated bailiff be allowed to do work that is meant to be done by an HCEO?

According to the HCEO website the standards and COP of HCEOs are much higher than bailiffs. (Why, I have no idea)

 

 

How can it be possible that they do not have to return the goods?

To bring them all back it will take at least two or three trips and two vans.

[HCEOs]

Of course an HCEO should not force his way past an occupant in the property.

 

Clearly an HCEO should take the direction of the Judge and as I said before would be foolish to go against what was stated.

 

There is no restriction on the number of enforcement officers on any one job. It sounds like some of the people were there as 'porters' for the removal.

 

Almost all HCEO's authorise other enforcement agents to act for them, many of them being certificated bailiffs.

 

There is no provision in law that I know of that requires the goods have to be returned unfortunately.

 

Your friend may want to seek an addition to the order to set aside judgment requiring the HCEO to return the goods if that really was what the Judge said.

Edited November 11, 2013 by HCEOs

[rasg]

Almost all HCEO's authorise other enforcement agents to act for them,

many of them being certificatedbailiffs.

Here is what I don't understand.

 

 

How can an HCEO,

who according to the HCEO website has a higher standard of behavour,

COP to follow etc,

be allowed to "farm out" a job to a normal bailiff?

 

 

It totally defeats the object of an HCEO doesn't it?

[HCEOs]

No, the HCEO is personally responsible for the agents who act in their name.

 

Your first point of call is to follow the companies complaints procedure and if it is not resolved you can then escalate it to the HCEOA.

[HCEOs]

Something I would add is that the normal bailiff also has to operate under their own certificate and has to work within the National Standards for enforcement Agents which is where the HCEO COP comes from.

 

If they don't then they can both be personally liable.

[welsh1]

Something I would add is that the normal bailiff also has to operate under their own certificate and has to work within the National Standards for enforcement Agents which is where the HCEO COP comes from.

 

If they don't then they can both be personally liable.

 

I was told that even though a certificated bailiff has their own certificate,

this is irrelevant when they act as hceo's as they are directly answerable to the ahceo

and are not acting under the distress for rent act which is what their certificate is issued under.

 

 

you do not have to be a bailiff to act as a hceo.

[HCEOs]

I was told that even though a certificated bailiff has their own certificate,this is irrelevant when they act as hceo's as they are directly answerable to the ahceo and are not acting under the distress for rent act which is what their certificate is issued under.you do not have to be a bailiff to act as a hceo.

 

It will really depend on what the bailiff is accused of.

 

Clearly they need to be a fit and proper person to hold a general bailiff certificate so if the accusation is something like 'violence' a Judge might consider the complaint and his fitness to hold a certificate.

 

As already stated though, a Form 4 complaint has its own risks of losing and suffering substantial costs against the complainant.

[welsh1]

It will really depend on what the bailiff is accused of.

 

Clearly they need to be a fit and proper person to hold a general bailiff certificate so if the accusation is something like 'violence' a Judge might consider the complaint and his fitness to hold a certificate.

 

As already stated though, a Form 4 complaint has its own risks of losing and suffering substantial costs against the complainant.

 

 

But the point is he is not a bailiff when acting for an ahceo,

and while i agree with your point about violence

,it is an extreme example,

and i would think the ahceo would take action against the individual

and report him to the court as it would be the ahceo who the hceo was acting under the authority of.

 

I would also think that if violence was committed the resulting arrest and conviction

would automatically have the bailiffs certificate removed.

[rasg]

What about the refusal to obey a Judge who specifically told him to stop what he was doing and replace it?

 

I'm thinking an initial complaint to the court, followed by a complaint to the HCEOA.

 

I still find it staggering that with all of the fancy stuff on the HCEOA website about how HCEOs are a cut above the rest, yet you are now saying they can send almost anybody along?

[HCEOs]

If it is as you say then I'm surprised the Judge has not been contacted already.

 

The HCEOA will not usually deal with a complaint if you haven't gone through the HCEO companies own complaints procedure first.

[HCEOs]

But the point is he is not a bailiff when acting for an ahceo,and while i agree with your point about violence,it is an extreme example,and i would think the ahceo would take action against the individual and report him to the court as it would be the ahceo who the hceo was acting under the authority of.

 

I would also think that if violence was committed the resulting arrest and conviction would automatically have the bailiffs certificate removed.

 

I would agree that almost all Form 4 complaints made against bailiffs whilst acting for an HCEO are dismissed, often with costs awarded against the complainant.

[wonkeydonkey]

Some very good info and excellent advice from HCEO's..

......if you wish to bring the matter of blatant disregard of the Judges order to the attention of the Court,

then you can do that by writing to the court concerned and mark for the attention of the Judge in question.

 

 

without actually doing the form 4

[rasg]

WD. That is a really good bit of advice without the risk of taking out a Form 4 complaint. Thank you.

 

What I don't get is that the teeth have been completely drawn from a Form 4

by charging the person complaining costs if a Judge thinks it's an onerous claim.

 

 

I can understand why they would want to not have to bother with frivolous claims

but it sounds crazy to me having read about the behaviour of bailiffs here and in many other places.

 

I would agree that almost all Form 4 complaints made against bailiffs

whilst acting for an HCEO are dismissed, often with costs awarded against the complainant.

 

This sounds even dafter.

 

 

If I am correct and HCEO is smarter, smoother human being than a bailiff.

Yet a bailiff acting on an HCEO's behalf who, presumably hasn’t had the training etc,

behaves badly, illegally etc and a complaint is likely to be dismissed!

What a mad country we live in!

 

I presume HCEOs is a real HCEO?

[rasg]

Hi WD. Just tried to reply to your PM but your inbox is full...

[HCEOs]

As I said before, the HCEO carries personal responsibility for anybody acting in their name.

 

The reason most Form 4 complaints are dismissed is because people take foolish advice from various forums.

 

 

When dealing with an HCEO's agent the complaints are usually dismissed because a Form 4

is not the correct procedure to complain unless it is for something very serious like violence.

 

We have been awarded costs in the past having shown that we repeatedly advised the complainant

of the correct procedure but they ignored that and issued the Form 4 anyway.

 

I would add that it has been known for an HCEO to issue a Form 4 complaint against their own Bailiff before.

 

Your best bet is to follow WD's advice.

Edited November 12, 2013 by HCEOs

[rasg]

Many thanks. That was my intention.

 

WD PM'd me earlier but I have been unable to reply as the inbox is full.

 

I would add that it has been known for an HCEO to issue a Form 4 complaint against their own bailiff before.

 

Very interesting. If a bailiff's behaviour is that bad surely a better vetting system has to be put into place for them to get the job in the first place? From what we read so many of them seem to be out of control.

[HCEOs]

Don't believe all you read. The media are only ever interested in poor bailiff action.

 

And, yes of course it happens but the rogues usually get found out and leave the industry. We've dismissed several over the years. Part of the main issues are the creditors, whether they are Councils, HMCTS or whoever.

 

The certification process has for many years been too easy. That is all changing next year but we are still awaiting the legislation to see if the MoJ has really tightened things up. Watch this space...

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi WD. Just tried to reply to your PM but your inbox is full...

 

Made some space now:-)

[Ross Crawford - Burlington]

Dear Rasg,

 

Having read comments above, we would like to comment and clarify a few of the issues raised.

 

Firstly, as I am sure you can appreciate, a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) acts on an order of the High Court. It is up to the Court alone to decide whether or not monies are rightfully owed. It is the obligation of the HCEO to remain neutral to that position and execute the order of the Court.

 

As I am sure you can imagine, HCEOs encounter difficult and challenging situations every day where claimants are owed money from defendants who have no intention of honouring their commitments, and intend to defy the order of a court. This is certainly not the case every time and may indeed not apply on this occasion. However, due to this situation, it is the obligation of the HCEO to protect the creditor’s position and act in accordance with the order of the Court.

 

You would be surprised how often defendants intentionally hide valuable goods if they are left in their trust. So, when our HCEOs are on site, they will often remove goods. Those goods can be stored until they are sold or until payment is made, unless a Court directs the offer to return the goods in the meantime.

 

With regards to your comment about a “mob handed” attendance, it would appear that there has been some confusion. There were only two HCEOs in attendance on the occasion you have described, together with two removal porters who were present to assist with the loading of goods onto a suitable removal vehicle. The two HCEOs would have struggled to carry out an efficient removal without the assistance of professional removers.

 

Finally, in response to your comment regarding our officer speaking with the judge, we can confirm that the HCEO did speak with the judge. The judge made an order for the officer to cease levying on goods. This is known as a stay of execution. The execution of a warrant may be stopped or “stayed” as a result of a further order of the Court. Generally the defendant to the action will make an application to the Court to prevent the judgment against him being executed. The application may be made in stressful circumstances. The HCEO must be able to respond to any order which is made, and the order must be obeyed immediately. If the HCEO is unsure about the extent of the order, or is in any way uncertain about what to do, the matter should immediately be referred to the person who made the order, eg the judge. Under no circumstances be should the officer take it upon themselves to interpret the terms of the order.

 

Once a judgment or order has been made the Court can only grant a stay of execution in limited circumstances. A judgment or order for the payment of money can be stayed either absolutely, or such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit (see RSC, O.47, r.1 (1)).

 

The usual form of order is that the execution of the writ of fieri facias will be stayed so long as the judgment defendant pays the amount of the debt and costs by specified installments on specified dates, and, if he defaults in meeting any installment on the due date, the stay will be removed for any outstanding balance.

 

Any order granting a stay may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order, (RSC, O.47, r.1 (5)).

 

In cases of urgency where, for example perhaps the HCEO is already at premises to remove goods, the defendant can attend to seek a stay of execution pending the hearing. Stays obtained in these circumstances are usually very frantic affairs. The HCEO is rarely represented at the hearing. It then falls upon the execution creditor to instruct the HCEO so that he obeys the order of the Court (see Montague v. Davies Benachi & Co. [1911] 2 KB 595).

 

Where a formal seizure of the goods has already been made by the HCEO, then any order made by the Court should clearly direct whether the Sheriff should withdraw from possession, and if so, when.

 

If the HCEO and/or removal contractors are in the process of removing the goods from the defendant’s premises, the removal should cease immediately. Goods which have been loaded on the removal vehicle should be taken into store. Goods still remaining in the premises should remain in the premises. The object of this is to maintain the status quo at the time of the order coming to the knowledge of the Officer. If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court.

 

I hope that this clarifies the position.

 

We are happy to answer any questions we can.

 

Burlington Group

 

 

 

This is a long story and I would like some advice for a friend.

 

He had a limited company until just over a year ago and took on a job that was a pita from start to finish. The original amount was for around £3500 but the friend was pulled around all over the place with partnership problems as well as problems with the client. As a result after giving the client all that had been promised he baled out of the company and walked away. He was close to a breakdown.

 

The client chose to sue him (for around £7000) and used the company address that was standing empty where the papers were served.

 

Of course my pal didn’t ever receive them and as a result, judgements were made against him in December 2012 and then on the 27th July 2012. (The second was probably when when they chose to change the address on the judgement to his home address. I am no legal expert at all, by the way so I don't really know.).

 

The only way he even found out about the judgement was when the bailiffs turned up at his door step back in August 2012. He wasn't in and his wife was absolutely petrified and wrote a cheque for £1500 to the bailiff.

 

I first found out when the friend called and asked me to loan him the money to pay the debt in full. My comment was, why on earth are you paying this when you say the client was happy and nothing was owed? I also pointed out that he had a Limited company which should mean that he was not personally liable. I refused to loan him the money on that basis and suggested that he trot off to Brentford County Court and apply to have the judgement set aside. This he did.

 

Fast forward to the hearing in the first week in September and the judge threw the case out when he saw the facts.

 

While my buddy was at the court the bailiffs returned, but this time mob handed (5 of them). The main man forced himself past my pal's daughter who had a 2 year old in her arms. Despite being a Special she was terrified. I have no idea why the bailiffs turned their attention to the back garden but they removed garden heaters, a compressor and then cleaned out my pal's workshed of material and some very specialised equipment to do with his work. As a side note. The inventory of items was woeful. Probably 5 or 6 items written down when over a hundred were taken.

 

While this was going on the daughter called her dad who was actually in the courtroom with the judge at the time, and the judge spoke to the bailiff directly on the daughter's mobile and ordered him to stop what he was doing, return everything to where he had found it and leave as she had set the judgement aside and that there was no case to answer.

 

They didn't. For another 30 minutes the mob stripped his workshed of everything of value and disappeared with it in a van or two.

 

The bailiffs were forced to return the £1500 by the court which took a few weeks but they refused to return the items they had taken. He was told he would have to pick it all up.

 

There are no recordings of what went on. The bailiff company was Burlington Credit and the bailiff is registered on the bailiff register as working for them.

 

My friend would really like to take this further but on reading up a bit on a Form 4 complaint, it seems, if unsuccessful, he could end up with costs awarded against him for making the complaint.

 

Any ideas, comments please?

[ims21]

Contributors please note.

 

Burlington Group have been approved to post on CAG so please extend some respect towards them and keep posts within the site rules.

 

Thanks

[tomtubby]

I would like to welcome Burlington Credit to the forum and given the complex nature of the enquiry, either HCEO or even Wonkey Donkey may well wish to respond. I confess that I am not too experienced on the subject of High Court Enforcement.

 

There will always be 'two sides' to a story and with such a subject, it is good to read the creditors view.

 

Whilst writing, I would like to extend my congratulations to Burlington Credit for walking away with the Enforcement Team of the Year 2013 award at the Credit Today's Debt Collections Awards 2013 ceremony last week.

[ploddertom]

Whilst the answer given by Burlington Group is welcome with regard to its content there is no mention of why as told by the OP that they carried on with removal after speaking to the Judge?