A case from "Can't pay we'll take it away"

[brassnecked]

The key to stopping fraud is to introduce mandatory Enhanced Disclosure screening and abolish performance-related pay in the industry. However, it does make me wonder how many EAs would be left if every EA was subject to Enhanced Disclosure screening, whether they have a current certificate or a certificate approaching renewal. Any instance of dishonesty or violence recorded should result in automatic cancellation/refusal to renew a certificate. However, it would also raise questions as to whether a certificate should have issued in the first place and the lawfulness of any enforcement action. Yes, it would cause mayhem, but I suspect it would also result in rogue elements within the ranks of EAs and EOs being removed from the civil enforcement industry and civil enforcement companies with questionable practices being closed down.

 

I have Enhanced Disclosure as a Media trainer, and as a Prison Officer and a Social Worker, and Taxi Drivers on School and Nursing home contracts also have to have ED, but not a Police Officer, I wonder why Bailiffs who will of neccesity have Frequent DAILY contact with vulnerable groups don't.

 

Ah yes the nature of knocking on and forcing entry into property that MAY have a vulnerable occupant isn.t Regulated Acivity, as also threatening and bullying such people once they open the door isn't Regulated Activity. Perhaps it should be.

[old bill]

I have Enhanced Disclosure as a Media trainer, and as a Prison Officer and a Social Worker, and Taxi Drivers on School and Nursing home contracts also have to have ED, but not a Police Officer, I wonder why Bailiffs who will of neccesity have Frequent DAILY contact with vulnerable groups don't.

 

Ah yes the nature of knocking on and forcing entry into property that MAY have a vulnerable occupant isn.t Regulated Acivity, as also threatening and bullying such people once they open the door isn't Regulated Activity. Perhaps it should be.

 

It certainly should be, BN. ED would, in my view, remove a number of individuals from the civil enforcement industry who should never have been issued with certificates in the first place and also those who should not be allowed to continue to hold a certificate.

[brassnecked]

It certainly should be, BN. ED would, in my view, remove a number of individuals from the civil enforcement industry who should never have been issued with certificates in the first place and also those who should not be allowed to continue to hold a certificate.

 

Most definitely OB, certainly a couple of Marstons finest would need to go to the JokeCentre if it came in.

[old bill]

Most definitely OB, certainly a couple of Marstons finest would need to go to the JokeCentre if it came in.

 

One of whom recently got slammed by a Circuit Judge for attempting to seize third party goods and exempt goods, knowing them to be so, then lying to the police, thus resulting in a man being wrongfully and unlawfully arrested for obstructing an EA. Their legal representative then made the mistake of saying Marston would get the money for a PCN off the man to which the Circuit Judge is alleged to have replied, "You had better not." It is my understanding the local authority involved has wound the PCN back to the pre-enforcement stage and called off Marstons. I have yet to hear if the man who fell victim to the EA's actions is planning to sue. It is not the first time the EA in question has lied to police. The last time it ended up with magistrates dismissing an allegation he made in less than an hour.

[brassnecked]

One of whom recently got slammed by a Circuit Judge for attempting to seize third party goods and exempt goods, knowing them to be so, then lying to the police, thus resulting in a man being wrongfully and unlawfully arrested for obstructing an EA. Their legal representative then made the mistake of saying Marston would get the money for a PCN off the man to which the Circuit Judge is alleged to have replied, "You had better not." It is my understanding the local authority involved has wound the PCN back to the pre-enforcement stage and called off Marstons. I have yet to hear if the man who fell victim to the EA's actions is planning to sue. It is not the first time the EA in question has lied to police. The last time it ended up with magistrates dismissing an allegation he made in less than an hour.

 

Wouldn't the wrongly arrested and detained person have a claim against the police for the Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful detention irrespective of any action available against the EA and LA involved? The coppers could then maybe get the EA for wasting police time. Of course that would never happen in all probability.

[welsh1]

The key to stopping fraud is to introduce mandatory Enhanced Disclosure screening and abolish performance-related pay in the industry. However, it does make me wonder how many EAs would be left if every EA was subject to Enhanced Disclosure screening, whether they have a current certificate or a certificate approaching renewal. Any instance of dishonesty or violence recorded should result in automatic cancellation/refusal to renew a certificate. However, it would also raise questions as to whether a certificate should have issued in the first place and the lawfulness of any enforcement action. Yes, it would cause mayhem, but I suspect it would also result in rogue elements within the ranks of EAs and EOs being removed from the civil enforcement industry and civil enforcement companies with questionable practices being closed down.

 

Seriously? if that is the case then the police should also undergo the same stringent tests, and before you say they do i will stop you as the complaint i made against a SGT and a PC took 4 months 3 complaints upheld the 4th deemed not to be a "malicious communication" as it was sent by the "police secure net" a total cover up were in any other sector you would lose your job, in this instance it was a smack on the wrist,this from the same force who had a firearms officer reinstated after he was bonking a married woman while he was on duty as a responding firearms officer,apparently if you leave your side arm within reach while you are bonking a married woman you are deemed as available for duty. there are a lot of other officers on duty who have a dubious past.

[old bill]

Wouldn't the wrongly arrested and detained person have a claim against the police for the Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful detention irrespective of any action available against the EA and LA involved? The coppers could then maybe get the EA for wasting police time. Of course that would never happen in all probability.

 

Yes, they would. However, there would also be a cause of action against the EA for making a false allegation in the first place, Marstons, as the EA's employer, and the LA, as the EA was acting on their behalf at the time. The fact the LA wound the PCN back to the pre-enforcement stage and, I understand, are cacking themselves over what happened, says a lot.

 

I am somewhat surprised the EA did not suffer suspension or cancellation of their certificate, given their track record for telling porkies to the police, but am not in the least bit surprised the Circuit Judge said what they did when Marston's legal representative opened their mouth and said the wrong thing.

 

As for the police taking action against the EA, it is very much a case of whether the CPS will run with a prosecution against the EA for Perverting the Course of Justice, Wasteful Employment of Police and Making A False Report to Police.

 

Has the EA gotten off lightly? In my view, they have gotten off too lightly. This is the second occasion, to my knowledge, the EA has made false allegations to police resulting in the arrest of innocent individuals. However, I suspect the EA's luck will eventually run out and they will make false allegations to the police once too often and the bar will be brought down on them pretty hard. The police will only put up with being made to look fools so many times before they hit back.

[mikeymack2002]

Surely Perverting the course of Justice is a serious crime? a quote

 

 

"4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58)."

The reason for using this quote goes to the fact the roadside stops where initiated by the uploading of the data that was known to be wrong in the 1st place

[old bill]

Seriously? if that is the case then the police should also undergo the same stringent tests, and before you say they do i will stop you as the complaint i made against a SGT and a PC took 4 months 3 complaints upheld the 4th deemed not to be a "malicious communication" as it was sent by the "police secure net" a total cover up were in any other sector you would lose your job, in this instance it was a smack on the wrist,this from the same force who had a firearms officer reinstated after he was bonking a married woman while he was on duty as a responding firearms officer,apparently if you leave your side arm within reach while you are bonking a married woman you are deemed as available for duty. there are a lot of other officers on duty who have a dubious past.

 

I totally agree that ALL police officers should be subject to ED before their applications to join a police force are progressed. The matter of the malicious communication you refer to beggars belief. The officers responsible may have sent it via the "police secure net", but it came to you via a public network. Offence complete.

 

Turning to the matter of the firearms officer who got caught showing his Heckler & Koch to a married woman whilst on duty, it is unbelievable this officer was reinstated. If you did that in my day, you were deemed to be absent from your place of duty without authority and faced the consequences.

[old bill]

Surely Perverting the course of Justice is a serious crime? a quote

 

 

"4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58)."

The reason for using this quote goes to the fact the roadside stops where initiated by the uploading of the data that was known to be wrong in the 1st place

 

Thank you for posting that gem up, Mikey. It shows, in a nutshell, what EAs are doing when they make false calls to the police that they are being obstructed or prevented from carrying out their lawful(?) duty. And I have a feeling you will be proven right with regard to the CUBO roadside operations, also.

[mikeymack2002]

If you take in to account that the EA has complete autonomy with the Police and they race to the "scene" to arrest the debtor for what ever reason, the Police MUST remember this as they say is a CIVIL MATTER and the Police should not be getting involved, which brings us right back to the stops in the Met area. the Police must stop being used as unpaid "enforcers" of the EA.

 

 

Then tell the EA sorry its a CIVIL MATTER. You have to deal with it yourself.

 

 

What would then happen with the EA, I tell you the rattle and pram are a perfect match for the EA

[old bill]

If you take in to account that the EA has complete autonomy with the Police and they race to the "scene" to arrest the debtor for what ever reason, the Police MUST remember this as they say is a CIVIL MATTER and the Police should not be getting involved, which brings us right back to the stops in the Met area. the Police must stop being used as unpaid "enforcers" of the EA.

 

 

Then tell the EA sorry its a CIVIL MATTER. You have to deal with it yourself.

 

 

What would then happen with the EA, I tell you the rattle and pram are a perfect match for the EA

 

Whilst an EA has a right to go about their LAWFUL duty, debtors have a right to be protected from the actions of corrupt, dishonest or malfeasant EAs. To be honest, the police are caught between two rocks. Home Office Guidelines tell them to do one thing, whilst their senior officers tell them to do something completely different.

[mikeymack2002]

Whilst an EA has a right to go about their LAWFUL duty, debtors have a right to be protected from the actions of corrupt, dishonest or malfeasant EAs. To be honest, the police are caught between two rocks. Home Office Guidelines tell them to do one thing, whilst their senior officers tell them to do something completely different.

 

 

 

If the Home Office has rules that should be followed then they should, if the senior officer changes those rules then it is they whom are at fault, again this puts the Police back in control and still should not follow the whim of the EA.

 

 

Adding to this I have the following observations in relations to the EA/Police/similarities

 

 

Police with a s25 warrant bang and crash on the door

 

 

EA with a warrant of control bang and crash on the door

 

 

Police force entry with the big red key

 

 

EA sometimes force entry with a locksmith

 

 

Police knock on the door politely and ask the home owner to come in to discuss an issue

 

 

The EA knocks on the door and pushes past the home owner and demands money goods

 

 

The Police take "evidence" and leaves a compliant entry warrant

 

 

The EA takes goods leaves non-compliant warrant of control/receipt

 

 

The Police investigate the crime then maybe return the seized goods in due course

 

 

The EA WILL take goods and flog them regardless of the situation and pocket the money

 

 

The Police are trained to a very high standard of public relations

 

 

The EA is just a rude bully

 

 

The Police have the VULNERABLE ADULT CHARTER to abide by (Guidance on the Safer Detention and Handling of Persons in Police Custody (ACPO, 2006).

 

 

The EA will trample regardless of who is the debtor is, then will do as they seem fit whether or not the debtor IS VULNERABLE

 

 

The Police will say thank you and please

 

 

The EA will treat you like well ****

 

 

 

 

In regards to the above I have the most utmost respect for the Police

 

 

In regards to the above I have the most utmost contempt for the EA

 

 

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the Police 99.9% abide by the law

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the EA 10% abide by the law

[welsh1]

[quote=mikeymack2002;4668358

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the Police 99.9% abide by the law

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the EA 10% abide by the law

 

Do you have proof to back up your statistics?

 

I was lead to believe that if an EA was convicted of a crime they would lose their certificate and job,and you cannot become an EA with a criminal record.

 

The police are a different matter

More than 1,000 serving police have criminal convictions ranging from assault to burglary, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery.

 

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the figures showed that some officers who committed violent offences while serving or were proved dishonest were being allowed to keep their jobs.

[old bill]

If the Home Office has rules that should be followed then they should, if the senior officer changes those rules then it is they whom are at fault, again this puts the Police back in control and still should not follow the whim of the EA.

The problem, Mikey, is ACPO. They have too much influence and should not be permitted to get involved in the political process or form "relationships" with organisations like CIVEA which could compromise their impartiality and integrity.

 

Adding to this I have the following observations in relations to the EA/Police/similarities

 

 

Police with a s25 warrant bang and crash on the door

Then find out the person with the warrant needs to go to Specsavers. It has happened and is very embarrassing for those officers who have forced entry to the wrong building/dwelling.

 

EA with a warrant of control bang and crash on the door

No need for them to go to Specsavers. Just an ignorant pillock who will not accept they have made a mistake or think they can get away with bullying and intimidation.

 

Police force entry with the big red key

Not always the best policy.

 

EA sometimes force entry with a locksmith

Any locksmith who facilitates wrongful, unlawful or illegal entry to a building or dwelling risks never working as a locksmith again.

 

Police knock on the door politely and ask the home owner to come in to discuss an issue

As they are taught to do at training school.

 

The EA knocks on the door and pushes past the home owner and demands money goods

As they are taught to do by their colleagues.

 

The Police take "evidence" and leaves a compliant entry warrant

Which is a legal requirement.

 

The EA takes goods leaves non-compliant warrant of control/receipt

Which they proceed to fib about when caught out.

 

The Police investigate the crime then maybe return the seized goods in due course

Again, a legal requirement unless a court orders otherwise.

 

The EA WILL take goods and flog them regardless of the situation and pocket the money

Even when a court orders them to return the goods or hopes the hapless motorist, etc. doesn't realise they are being mislead or knows the law.

 

The Police are trained to a very high standard of public relations

Called SOB (Standard Operational Bull****).

 

The EA is just a rude bully

...and communicates by way of a series of incoherent grunts resulting from consuming copious quantities of intoxicating liquor, smells of perspiration and lets those within smelling distance know they consumed a somewhat dodgy curry the previous evening.

 

The Police have the VULNERABLE ADULT CHARTER to abide by (Guidance on the Safer Detention and Handling of Persons in Police Custody (ACPO, 2006).

This doesn't always get complied with, but the majority of officers abide by it.

 

The EA will trample regardless of who is the debtor is, then will do as they seem fit whether or not the debtor IS VULNERABLE

Leaving HMCTS Criminal Enforcement to pick up the pieces and clear up the mess.

 

The Police will say thank you and please

 

The EA will treat you like well ****[insert text here]

 

In regards to the above I have the most utmost respect for the Police

 

In regards to the above I have the most utmost contempt for the EA

 

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the Police 99.9% abide by the law

Does anyone see a pattern here? Finally the EA 10% abide by the law

 

A lot of what I have put in red text is tongue-in-cheek and intended to be light-hearted mickey-taking, but with a serious side to it as well.

 

It is my understanding that those EAs who abide by the law and treat debtors as human beings do well, are very successful and make a good living. I have no issue with those EAs who abide by the law and wish them every success. Those who think they can circumvent the law, i.e. get the money by whatever means, fair or foul, are the ones who need removing from the civil enforcement industry.

[Conniff]

In regards to the above I have the most utmost contempt for the EA

 

 

I don't, I rather like them and I think they look so fetching in their uniforms

[Coughdrop]

The key to stopping fraud is to introduce mandatory Enhanced Disclosure screening and abolish performance-related pay in the industry. However, it does make me wonder how many EAs would be left if every EA was subject to Enhanced Disclosure screening, whether they have a current certificate or a certificate approaching renewal.

 

Ditto the police and many other jobs.

 

Do the EA's have to have enhanced screening? I am not in the frame of mind to negotiate this:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349126/DBS_guide_to_eligibility_v6.pdf

[mikeymack2002]

Old Bill thx for the humour I took it as such, sometimes just sometimes it helps to smile.

 

 

On a serious side If a member of the public acted in such a way as SOME errant EA's they would have the book thrown at them so why the double standards with this?

 

 

Why are the EA's allowed such "protection" from the Police? Surely the job of the Police is to be fair and EQUAL as much as they can?

 

 

Has there or will there be a full investigation into this whole mess? If so who will run it?

 

 

Has anyone made a FoI request to the MoJ in regards to how things have been since 06/04/2014 in to if this has been seen as a success or if more new regs are to follow in the next year or so?

 

 

Maybe another one to the relevant dept. that will tell us just how many EA's have been sanctioned/disciplined over the new regs as well?

 

 

Is it worth a letter to the Home Secretary/MoJ to find out why the EA is allowed to act inappropriately at times?

 

 

 

 

Thanks to the admin for sorting out the gremlins btw good job

[brassnecked]

Remember that Labour tried to include the right for bailiffs to use force against debtors, but that was dropped, so all the thuggery under discussion would have become lawful.

 

Either way the police will be minded to assist the EA as the offence of Obstructing the EA might persuade the police to ignore the debtors protestations and have them for obstruction rather than the EA for assault or whatever.

[determindator]

Remember that Labour tried to include the right for bailiffs to use force against debtors, but that was dropped, so all the thuggery under discussion would have become lawful.

 

Either way the police will be minded to assist the EA as the offence of Obstructing the EA might persuade the police to ignore the debtors protestations and have them for obstruction rather than the EA for assault or whatever.

 

Points of interest

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/campaign_success/bailiffs.htm

 

Amongst the info on the above link page, there's a link, Bailiffs Timeline, which shows what's been happening with this industry, since 1990.

 

The links on this CAB page will be useful reading.

[HCEOs]

The Police are required to be involved in enforcement though...

 

Offences under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act (TCA) 2007

 

Under section 68 of this schedule, the legislation is clear regarding the actions that constitute and offence during the process of enforcement:

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

 

A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to-

 

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or Both.

 

In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

 

Constable’s duty to assist (High Court) enforcement agents

 

Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003:

 

5. It is the duty of every constable, at the request of -

 

a) an enforcement agent or

 

b) a person acting under the enforcement agent's authority,

 

to assist the enforcement agent or that person in the execution of a writ.

[Matthew Wright 21c]

Ok,as you can see MR BOHIL snatched the paper from my hands before I had chance to read it however I could see nothing of Writ of Warrant..Please can you advice how I check if there was a valid one?

[HCEOs]

Despite the enforcement agent's use of the phrase 'Warrant' it is actually a Writ. Depending on when the Writ was issued it will either be a Writ of Fieri Facias or a Writ of Control (they changed in April). My guessing is it was pre-April so will be a Writ of Fieri Facias.

 

Did you ask for a copy of the Writ when you asked for the breakdown of charges?

 

Once received you can then check it's authenticity with the appropriate Court/District Registry. The Writ should be addressed to Simon Williamson in this matter. Post a copy of it up here when you receive it and I'm sure you'll get some guidance.

[caledfwlch]

Just posted mentioning this case and Nother and then found this thread by the victim!!

 

 

The uniform is very clearly designed to intimidate and convey a greater sense of authority than held and to mislead into thinking police\law enforcement. Otherwise non police colours would be used the design and colour scheme can only suggest that.

 

Council enforcement officers and dog wardens I can just about understand seeing as they are in positions of governmental authority and are civil servants, but have you seen I think its greater Manchester councils?

 

Some of their eo's are wearing identical uniforms to the police officers they often patrol with on stuff like noise abatement including the flat "soft cap" officers on patrol car duty wear, only diffrenxs noticable at night looks like close inspection of the cap badge!

 

Wouldn't be surprised if someone senior at that council was one of old bills fave training companies, common purpose, doing as trained and "acting beyond authority"

[brassnecked]

@ HCEOs

 

Offences under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act (TCA) 2007

 

Under section 68 of this schedule, the legislation is clear regarding the actions that constitute and offence during the process of enforcement:

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to-

 

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or Both.

 

In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

 

 

Doesn't that in extremis mean the EA/bailiff can cry to the police that refusal of entry at the door for that CCJ or council tax is willful obstruction? even though they have no right of entry in reality if the debtor doesn't want to let them in.

 

That part looks as if it was intended to be used in conjunction with the removed part that would have allowed a bailiff to use force against the debtor, and was designed to catch a debtor who resisted the force, with force of his own.