Making a Complaint about a bailiff to the MAGISTRATES COURT....this will land the DEBTOR in real trouble !!!

[unclebulgaria67]

Unless i misunderstood they mentioned Magistrates relating to EA actions where Magistrates were involved.

 

Are there ANY situations where magistrates would be responsible for complaints regarding EA actions ?

[Peterbard]

Even in the letter above the magistrates are not being held "responsible" they are being asked to commence a criminal action against the authority or bailiff or the police !.

 

If you are asking if the magistrates court are vicariously liable for the actions of the ea enforcing a fine in the same way that authorities are in say council tax collection, I would have to say i am not sure.

 

I would think not, i think that the courts liability ends at the issuance of permission to issue the further steps notice. But as said I stand to be corrected on this.

[caledfwlch]

I have to agree with Uncle Bulgaria, and disagree with Dodgeball here.

 

If for example the Police refuse to investigate a criminal act, every citizen has the right to Lay Information before a Magistrate, what is also known as a Private Prosecution.

 

The problem is, if the CPS don't disagree and order the Prosecution stopped, or believe it has merit, but do not wish to proceed themselves, thus leaving it to the Citizen, a CP can be very, very expensive, as of course, the Citizen making the prosecution is liable for the legal costs of the Defendant.

 

Of course going to the Magistrate over fees is ludicrous, there are specific rules and so on for dealing with that issue and a Magistrate would throw it out.

 

If however an Enforcement Agent has committed an Offence, you have video proof of the offence, but the Police as they mostly do refuse to act, the old "bailiffs are our mates" thing then you have every right to Lay information before a Magistrate.

 

On Can't Pay, Paul Bohill famously committed an offence, making an illegal entry using physical force against the debtor, he cannot rely as he claimed on the Foot in the Door argument, it was a civil debt and he had no right of forced entry. Sadly the victim appeared on here and then vanished (wonder if he was offered a few quid by Bohill's firm to prevent legal/police action, as it is all on film and was clearly not acting within his powers)

 

Surely a Bailiff acting beyond his powers, ie forcing entry/committing assault over a civil debt is a Criminal Act (he isn't protected by his powers if he exceeds/breaches them) and if the Police refuse to act, why shouldn't the victim Lay information?

 

This is ONLY an option when a criminal offence occurs (the victim above would need to see if a solicitor agrees it was a offence) anything else, such as fees, and so on, legislation and guidelines provide ways of dealing with this.

 

I bet the Freemen aren't advising "clients" just how much it could cost to go the CP route!!!

 

If a Magistrate not realising fees were not a criminal issue, and proceeded further, I can well imagine the fees of the EA's barristers in getting in thrown out would be astonishing, and the debtor liable.

 

I can also well imagine that someone going to court on Freeman advice, would also be advised to Perjure themselves.

[Peterbard]

Its quite OK to dissagree, perhaps you can site one case of this in the last 300 years of bailiff activity.

[Peterbard]

I think the problem is that many think that initiating a criminal action is down to the debtor, it is not it is down to the prosecutor based on evidence presented by the debtor and other involved parties.

 

If the debtor chooses to bypass the usual criminal enforcement system the judge will want to know why he thinks he is better suited to decide what is a viable criminal action than they are.

 

We have to be careful here because people will be stung badly if they pursue this kind of action.

[caledfwlch]

Its quite OK to dissagree, perhaps you can site one case of this in the last 300 years of bailiff activity.

 

I don't know if anyone has gone for a private prosecution against bailiffs before.

 

My Point is, most complaints about a Bailiff should be dealt with by the relevant authorities and processes, however if a Bailiff commits a Criminal Offence he is not protected by legislation or his powers, and the correct route to take is inform the Police.

If as often happens the Police refuse to act, claiming a criminal offence comiitted by a Bailiff is a civil matter, then you have the right to both complain to the police/IPCC to try and force them to act, and if that does not work, then Lay Information before a Magistrate.

 

Just to be clear, I don't believe going straight to a Magistrate is correct - apart from the fact its not a criminal issue, the Freeman appear to be missing the Police step, and the police deffo wont investigate fees, that is not a criminal issue.

 

All RSPCA Prosecutions are Private Prosecutions. They are there as a fail safe, for situations where the Police refuse to act.

And of course, there is such a thing as Civil Prosecution.

 

All I am saying is a Bailiff's powers do not protect them if they commit a criminal act, and if the police refuse to act you have the right to private prosecution. But ONLY for criminal acts.

 

There was a case a while back of a Bailiff committing fraud, if the Police had refused to act, do you believe that either his employer, or the victims should not have a right to private prosecution just because it involves a bailiff?

[caledfwlch]

I think the problem is that many think that initiating a criminal action is down to the debtor, it is not it is down to the prosecutor based on evidence presented by the debtor and other involved parties.

 

If the debtor chooses to bypass the usual criminal enforcement system the judge will want to know why he thinks he is better suited to decide what is a viable criminal action than they are.

 

We have to be careful here because people will be stung badly if they pursue this kind of action.

 

a Private Prosecution should only be the last resort of the victim of a criminal act, if the Police refuse, even after appeals higher up the chain to deal with the matter. And I would imagine Magistrates would throw out any claim if the Police had been bypassed, and not informed in the first place, and thus given a chance to act.

[Peterbard]

I think that if the police refused and you were convinced that you had a sound complain, the next action should be a complaint against the police through their complaint proceedure.

[caledfwlch]

I think that if the police refused and you were convinced that you had a sound complain, the next action should be a complaint against the police through their complaint proceedure.

 

Exactly. Officer Attending or Desk Sarge refuses to deal claiming its "civil" so your next option should be, speak to the Duty Inspector, if he also refuses then you go to the IPCC.

 

If still no joy, but you have proof of the offence (though if you have proof, I should think the Inspector or IPCC WOULD instruct the case be inspected, but especially the Inspector if he has any sense) then you can go Lay Information on a Magistrate.

 

As with anything you must exhaust all the normal procedures first.

 

When that chap died in Michael Barrymore's Pool, the Police either investigated and decided Michael committed no crime, or it went to court and thrown out, I forget which, so the Family of the Deceased went for a Civil Prosecution, don't know if they were successfull though. But I bet it would have failed at the first step had the Police not investigated first.

 

I don't at all agree with there being the option of a Civil Prosecution for Criminal Offences, Civil Courts have much lower burdens of evidence, and so an Innocent person can be taken to court by the Police/CPS, found Not Guilty and walk away, but can then be found guilty in a civil prosecution, despite the fact the Criminal Not Guilty was found with a much higher standard of evidence used.

 

Basically, the family didnt want Michael branded a criminal, they were after Compensation, hence civil prosecution.

[Peterbard]

I think it must be made clear that in laying information before a magistrate you are not becoming the plaintiff in the case, in a criminal case against an EA the plaintiff is the government, so in placing you evidence, all you are doing is asking the court to convince the CPS to act based in that evidence, since the matter would already have been considered by the CPS it is a pretty pointless exercise.

 

It may well also serve to tick the court off .

 

Section 1 of the 1980 ACT is intended for the use of the governmental enforcement agencies not Joe public. The letter refers to members of the publiuc cross examining a defendant in a criminal case, this is absurd.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Dodgeball
Making sure it is understood my remarks relate to EAs

[caledfwlch]

I think it must be made clear that in laying information before a magistrate you are not becoming the plaintiff in the case, in a criminal case the plaintiff is the government, so in placing you evidence, all you are doing is asking the court to convince the CPS to act based in that evidence, since the matter would already have been considered by the CPS it is a pretty pointless exercise.

 

It may well also serve to tick the court off .

 

Section 1 of the 1980 ACT is intended for the use of the governmental enforcement agencies not Joe public. The letter refers to members of the publiuc cross examining a defendant in a criminal case, this is absurd.

 

When the Police refuse to even log and investigate the crime, the CPS have not seen it.

 

When Information is layed before a Magistrate, the information is sent to the CPS, the CPS then have 3 options:

A: The Case is serious enough that they believe it should be prosecuted by them, and they take over the prosecution, making it Regina V Defendant

B: They believe the Case is frivolous or has no grounds and cancel the Private Prosecution

C: They don't want to take it on, but don't believe it should be cancelled, so allow the private prosecution to go ahead

 

That is how i understand it to work. Do you think the CPS look over all the RSPCA prosecutions? Because in RSPCA Prosecutions it's RSPCA's legal representatives vs the "Defendant" and the RSPCA are not the Crown/State nor are they representative of it, they are a private charitable organisation.

[tortle]

Hi bailiff advice sorry if my post is confusing I'm not the best at explaining myself, but also I'm not wrong. A complaint can be taken to the parliamentary ombudsman if the national standards are breached. The standards ,makes the court reponsible for the actions of the ea so a complaint can be taken this way.

 

Hope that clarifies what I was saying.

[Peterbard]

you miss the point, it is not for the debtor to start a criminal action against an EA it is for the authorities or the governments agency, all that the debtor can do is present evidence in these cases, if you think you can circumvent the system by cutting the police and CPS out, I am afraid you are wrong.

 

Never happen.

[Peterbard]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hunting_act/

[caledfwlch]

you miss the point, it is not for the debtor to start a criminal action against an EA it is for the authorities or the governments agency, all that the debtor can do is present evidence in these cases, if you think you can circumvent the system by cutting the police and CPS out, I am afraid you are wrong.

 

Never happen.

 

But which part of legilsation specifically protects an EA, where nobody else is protected from private prosecution over committing a criminal offence, that the Police even on appeal refuse to investigate? The fact he is operating as an EA, and was visiting a Debtor does not lend special circumstances to him then going on to commit a criminal act - providing it is a genuine criminal act, as opposed to a Freeman point of view, or indeed a personal interpretation by the victim of an act as being criminal.

 

For example, A: EA turns up, and tows neighbours car, police tell neighbour EA acted lawfully, neighbour appeals, still no, so goes for private prosecution, the private prosecution will fail at the start, as no criminal act actually took place, the neighbour simply interpreted it as such.

 

B: EA turns up, demands full payment, debtor says no, they get into a heated argument, the EA loses his rag, and head butts the debtor, breaking their nose, pulls them down, and removes house keys, lets himself into house and begins seizing goods. Criminal Acts have clearly taken place here, yet even with CCTV evidence, it will be extremely hard to get most Police Officers to even investigate the moment they hear "bailiff"

 

This is the official guidance on Private Prosecution

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/

 

It does not actually appear to be a requirement to have even informed the Police of a crime before going ahead with PP - afterall, the RSPCA don't do so.

 

It seems with Police Cuts, PP's are also massively on the rise

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twotier-justice-private-prosecution-revolution-9672543.html

 

If only the people mislead by the Freemen this thread is about had read that article, they would have seen just how much a PP route over a genuine criminal issue could potentially cost, never mind misusing PP for non criminal issues.

[Peterbard]

A debtor seeking to use section 6.1 for fraud or even assault on a debtor, would indeed get short shrift from the court, dont forget the CPS can and would rake over a case started under this section, the bailiff can request that they do so or the court can direct that they do.

 

Look at the letter in post 2, I am sure that you do not seriously believe that this would be acceptable as a section 6 action.

 

As also said this has never been used with a bailiff, the reason is that there is other regulatory remedies available.

 

as said never in a million years.

[Peterbard]

I specifically kept my comments in relation to the EA, the RSPCA have bottomless pockets, And still come badly unstuck

 

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/campaigns-hunting/rspca-private-prosecution-of-avon-vale-thrown-out-of-court

 

"The charity had spent £50,000 bringing the private prosecution to Chippenham Magistrates Court, but it failed on Tuesday 7 May when district judge Simon Cooper described it as “not a strong case”.

 

The charges related to an incident on 6 March 2012 when the Avon Vale was in the vicinity of Stockley Hollow near Calne in Wiltshire."

 

I am not going to comment on the RSPCA or Michael Barrymore, because frankly it has nothing to do with EAs who have several statutory remedies available under both the legislation and via the threat to their licence. In addition to the criminal protection under the normal channels/

[caledfwlch]

A debtor seeking to use section 6.1 for fraud or even assault on a debtor, would indeed get short shrift from the court, dont forget the CPS can and would rake over a case started under this section, the bailiff can request that they do so or the court can direct that they do.

 

Look at the letter in post 2, I am sure that you do not seriously believe that this would be acceptable as a section 6 action.

 

As also said this has never been used with a bailiff, the reason is that there is other regulatory remedies available.

 

as said never in a million years.

 

Yes, the CPS can and should take over where certain crimes are concerned, and if you read the news article, it states that extremely serious Fraud cases have been initiated by Private Prosecution, and death's caused by others, though its unclear on the specific details.

 

If our theoretical EA assaulted the debtor, and despite being on film, the Police refuse to deal, or the local force has a reputation for always refusing to deal with crimes committed by EA's, or indeed Utility Company Reps etc, then our Debtor can initiate private prosecution and himself notify the CPS. The CPS will then look at the case, see it's an assault, so def something they deal with and take seriously, they then see that the video evidence is clear and shows the unprovoked assault taking place, and take over the case to continue it to court. Job Done.

 

It is a valuable and in these days as the article shows, essential tool for Citizens, especially when faced by Police Forces/Officers who refuse to deal with a particular crime, even if evidence exists. One of the cases the article mentions is against a Police Civilian Worker, who allegedly gave false witness statements, the Police Force they work for presumably, have refused to even investigate, as it's against "one of their own". It is a sad problem with modern UK Police Forces, that where an Officer is concerned, noone is above the law unless they belong to Thin Blue Line, the same way Ignorance of the Law is never an excuse for us, but often bleated out when they cock up on for example Bailiff Issues (I bet the Officers who arrested debtor, put them in cuffs until he agreed to let the EA's in bleated that excuse out) Look who the Police hate most of us - the absolute worst scumbags they arrest? No, the Force Professsional Standards Office....

 

I have repeatedly said that the cases this thread is about are not even criminal and of course Private prosecution is not the acceptable route, and I have little pity for the people being landed with massive costs, for misusing a system designed for criminal offences.

 

What I specifically took contention with (and agreed with Uncle B on) was your claim that an EA can never be liable to private prosecution - if he breaks the guidelines and legislation he operates under, or breaches his powers, no that is NOT a criminal offence (unless he breaches in such a way that the offence of Fraud is committed) If he commits a Criminal Offence however, even whilst enforcing a debt, against a debtor then he is absolutely open for a PP, the same way he is open for a Police/CPS Prosecution.

 

I fully agree that sometimes the line as to whether an EA has committed a Criminal Offence, acted lawfully, or breached his powers may be very blurry, which is why in the absense of clear video footage its best left to the Police, but PP allows citizens to give a kickstart where the Police may be unwilling.

 

Incidently, in the absence of clear video footage, or reliable witnesses/other damning evidence, I think you would be very silly to try for a PP.

 

Whilst little evidence is given on the Death in the article, it is being blamed, by the initiators of the PP that a disturbance in the street caused it, that sounds like something very, very blurry and really should be left to the Police, but its possible they did investigate (it was a death afterall) and found no evidence, so I suspect the initiators could be left with very large bills, and not "justice" as they would see it.

[unclebulgaria67]

The cows will be home soon ! A saying meaning not sure there is any further debate to be had. A PP may be relevant in extreme cases, where it is obvious an EA has committed a criminal offence, there is sufficient evidence, the Police refuse to deal and there is qualified legal advice that a PP can be pursued. If the CPS don't want to take it on, I guess the PP can be withdrawn, if the costs will be too much of a risk

[brassnecked]

It might need a clued up pro bono brief to take a case if there is available compelling video evidence of an assault on a debtor, or a criminal forced entry. As to da dutti babylon aka the Police Farces, they also are as chock full of criminals as the public perception of the Enforcement industry

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172748/The-cops-pounding-beat-convicted-criminals-300-committed-offences-including-sex-attacks-violence-serving.html

 

Had an issue with police on Mothers Day where I was threatened with arrest for Cold Calling in a no cold calling zone, Why was I cold calling? well I was delivering a parcel as in flowers to the house., and a curtain twitching neighbour called the police. Blues & twos for a liveried parcel van, ever likely they will ignore a bailiff acting criminally.

 

In the main though the public see the system as so screwed up through misinformation and programmes like Can't Pay, and Cops on camera that people take bad advice to go to magistrates.

[caro]

The cows will be home soon ! A saying meaning not sure https://www.facebook.com/bewarmers/videos/769981346445642/ refuse to deal and there is qualified legal advice that a PP can be pursued. If the CPS don't want to take it on, I guess the PP can be withdrawn, if the costs will be too much of a risk

 

I was wondering myself if this was worthy of any more debate. I quite see we don't want people following bad advice but those wanting help are going to be more interested in what DOES work than speculation about what might or might not happen in various scenarios.

[Peterbard]

Yes it is a problem, the thread could, instead of bringing to light a dangerous and doomed strategy, actually encourage people to try this.

 

Still everyone has the right to air their opinions I suppose. I am afraid that now the matter has been raised it will take one or two to come a cropper before the idea is buried for another three or four years.

[caro]

Yes it is a problem, the thread could, instead of bringing to light a dangerous and doomed strategy, actually encourage people to try this.

 

Exactly. People have a habit of not reading everything, so they may pick up, for example, a duff letter, but not read the posts surrounding it warning against it. When in a panic people don't always think clearly.

 

If people fall a cropper following bad advice from other sites, or even from cag, (which obviously we don't want to happen) then by all let's try and help them, and I can see it helps to have discussed and formulated strategies, but let's highlight what people SHOULD do rather than what not to do.

[caledfwlch]

Exactly. People have a habit of not reading everything, so they may pick up, for example, a duff letter, but not read the posts surrounding it warning against it. When in a panic people don't always think clearly.

 

If people fall a cropper following bad advice from other sites, or even from cag, (which obviously we don't want to happen) then by all let's try and help them, and I can see it helps to have discussed and formulated strategies, but let's highlight what people SHOULD do rather than what not to do.

 

Could we do some sort of sticky regarding this, and the risks it involves?

 

It is fairly simple - if an EA commits a criminal offence, and you have hard evidence such as CCTV, but the Police refuse to take an interest, then you can go for a PP, but even then it could be expensive unless you win, or the CPS take over, and you should never, ever proceed without proper legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in PP, and you should hire the Solicitor to handle the process for you.

 

Anything else, PP is not a usable tool and it will only cause you lots of costs, perhaps incredibly hefty ones, and I should think a risk of yourself being prosecuted for malicious/vexatious prosecution. If innocent people can sue the Police for malicious/vexatious, then I should imagine an EA subjected to a PP attempt over a fees dispute could, and get Old Bill involved too.

 

Funny how the Freemen are suddenly trying to use the Magistrates Courts - they normally claim they are Admiralty Courts and have no legal authority, they cant even keep their lunacy in any sort of comprehensive order.

[Peterbard]

Sorry missed this.

 

This is not a "viable option" for bailiff related offences.

If you are talking about common assault or fraud, these are offences that can be committed by anyone and can be pursued by the police or if you like by PP, but it has nothing to do with the fact that breaches of the taking of goods procedure, under the TCE are civil.

 

Regarding criminal action for bailiff misdeed. As I said on the thread here are various statutory remedies. The TCE prescribes that an action should be commenced in the county or high court, there are various CPRs available for this in addition there is the EAC2 which can deprive the bailiff of his licence and his deposit, which can be paid directly to the plaintiff as reparations,.

 

These are both civil actions, as you know the standard of proof is just on the balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case. So the question that the magistrate would have to ask is, why would the plaintiff chose to take on the task of this burden of proof given that he can get the bailiff sacked and get damages under a civil one which requires a less onerous test.

 

One of the reasons why such an action would never happen.