‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

[Bailiff Advice]

Oh I doubt Tresspass would get anywhere. Even if he wasn't an EA, just jo bloggs of the street.

 

Since the CPS say the EA was acting outwith his powers, then lost earnings, possibly assault, and making a false/vexatious claim to Police leading to wrongful arrest, and losing job etc is what I was thinking. The EA can't really argue that he thought he was acting within the law, or didnt know it actually was tresspass, because Ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

Possibly a claim against the Police too, wrongful arrest etc.

 

Despite claims elsewhere it is not easy to take legal action against a police officer and any such claims would of course be fiercely defended. Since the introduction of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 it is noteworthy that frequent references are being made on the various 'beat the bailiffs' facebook sites and other Freeman on the Land and Sovereign Citizen movement websites 'claiming' that if a police officer attends a debtor's property with a bailiff that the mere mention of a 'Section 26 Complaint' being made is making police officers drop like flies and hastily leave the property. If anyone believes this nonsense they are barking made. Any such 'claims' that the police force are paying damages or compensation under Section 26 is fanciful.

 

http://www.schnews.org.uk/diyguide/suingthepolice.htm

 

With regards to loss of earnings, as I said before, it is very odd that Mr Grant's employer supposedly terminated his employment on the basis that he was unable to attend work on the day of the incident and if a claim is to be made for loss of earning then his full employment details will be closely examined by the police.

 

Any case against the police is difficult and can drag on for years and this is likely to be the reason why solicitors are stating that they would need an upfront payment of £5,000.

[unclebulgaria67]

As we have seen previously, not all information in such stories is found to be accurate. Usually ends up with a theoretical discussion and we never find out what happened exactly. No actions will come about due to this case, apart from the Police force concerned being more careful and checking with CPS before proceeding in future.

[Bailiff Advice]

As we have seen previously, not all information in such stories is found to be accurate. Usually ends up with a theoretical discussion and we never find out what happened exactly.

 

It is sadly the case that a lot of press articles are inaccurate and I must be honest here by saying that the new article referred to leaves to lot of questions unanswered.

[Peterbard]

Of course the CPS would become involved in any case as it is they that will prosecute.

 

The EA should, when in a situation which is likely to present breach of the peace, withdraw and call the police, who then should have the knowledge to be able to discern if the bailiff is acting within his powers and therefore the EA is being obstructed or they are not.

 

In practice this will be a very small area of law as far as your average copper is concerned it will be unlikely that he will understand the ins and outs of the legislation.

 

So they may pull one or both of the parties in to prevent a further breach and then leave it to the CPS to investigate. It is unfair there is no doubt that an innocent party should be inconvenienced in this way, but really I cannot see an alternative.

[E Munch]

It is a shame that this case did not get to court as it seems to involve the rights (or lack of rights) of enforcement agents in the communal areas of a building which was built or adapted to be occupied by different households behind their own front door opening from the communal area.

If that communal area is outside the flats, is it just a public space like the street outside?

If it is, what right did the man in the article have to prevent the enforcement agent being in that space.

If it isn't a public space (and it is hard to see how it is if there is access control to the outermost door to the communal area) and it isn't part of the individual dwellings it presumably has some special status of its own.

Maybe someone here knows of another case which considers this special status.

[mikeymack2002]

No it is classed as an enclosed public space, normally you can use the Vagrancy Act to deter unauthorised visitors, but with the EA they can and will gain access to the landings, again the same rule applies they can only enter via an unlocked but closed door unless for MC and others....

[E Munch]

Thanks. In the original article it suggested the access to the communal area was amicable with the assistance of the man who later turned against the enforcement agent or via an unlocked outer door. So once the EA was in did this man or anyone else have the right to demand he left to re-enter after ringing an outside bell. It is understandable that the man did not want to be thought by his neighbour to have helped the EA to gain access to the front door of the other flat but did he have the right to demand he left and to take physical steps to expel him or prevent further movement within the communal area?

[Peterbard]

There iw case law regarding communal areas, which will still apply, given that the TCE does not mention this situation. I will post it when i remember where i saw it.

[mikeymack2002]

A communal door is not deemed as entry to the debtors property, as their is nearly always still a locked door to the property itself. So this can still be seen as not gaining peaceful entry and within the regs it has stated that they should not be assisted by an uninterested 3rd party...

 

 

Suffice to say if the caller is say from a well known type of church they can be asked to leave the entire building as trespassers in an enclosed public space. As I did today, they were somewhat annoyed by this fact but the local Officer politely agree with my assessment of this situation, then asked them to leave and they had not choice not to...

[Bailiff Advice]

It is a shame that this case did not get to court as it seems to involve the rights (or lack of rights) of enforcement agents in the communal areas of a building which was built or adapted to be occupied by different households behind their own front door opening from the communal area..

 

I take your point that for information purposes it would have been interestingly to clarify the position but it does not change the fact that IF there has been trespass by the EA the aggreveid party would have to take legal action to recover any damages and in so doing, would be required to PROVE what damage had occurred by the alleged trespass. For example, if a door had been damaged then proof would be required as to the cost of repair etc. The same would apply to damage to a lock etc.

 

Legal Aid would not be granted for such cases and with the planned increases (yet again) in court fees it would surely be the case that no 'trespass' cases are likely to reach the doors of a court.

[E Munch]

Yes that's right I'd like to know the true position and have it decided in court so everyone could work from the same rules although I suppose every new situation may differ slightly. Yes he'd have to prove a loss but if he really had suffered a loss of a job etc it could be pretty major for him. You see so much of this sort of story in the papers it is easy to be sceptical about such stories. My father was an old time insurance man and he often used to go on about how for insurance (and perhaps society) to work it was essential that no one should profit from a loss. Unfortunately we are in an era when newspapers stories are reported as if every apparently sad loss has a right to lead to financial gain.

[theronstar]

Dear Group,

 

I am the guy you read about in The Guardian article. I declined to take part in any fora because they advised me that the police/JBW would have been roaming them like sharks trying to find something I have said, in order to use it against me.

 

I trust that the world has since moved on so I am now prepared to get involved in your discussions. Just to say, I feel your frustration with news stories that fail to properly answer the readers' question. An underlying reason for it is because the paper has to stand by something they print. If it could be disputed then they will try to report around the disputed point.

 

I could try and respond to each question you have all raised but I am not sure who is still following the thread. The best thing to do is to give you a full account of proceedings as possible and you can find your answer within. If not, then please pose any questions you may have.

 

On 5th Nov 2014 at approx 8.30am, I was woken up by a doorbell. In my underwear I went to the door to greet the caller. I was expecting a Sat Nav from Amazon but it was not to be the case.

 

I opened the door wide enough for me to talk to the caller given I was not in the correct attire to have my door fully open. A man asked me to confirm if I was Ronald Grant and I answered yes. He told me he was here to attend my property to seize my goods. I told him this could not be. I told him I was fully aware I was in council tax arrears but I was in the middle of liaising with a benefits officer who was assessing my entitlement to Council Tax Reduction. He told me this was too late as the account was already with his company.

 

I then brought to his attention that I had been having problems with the mail. It has since been removed but there was a postbox outside the door of the property which I had not been given the keys to. I had brought it to the attention of my housing officer but they had not got round to giving me keys. I had told him that given the shocking information he had just given me I was going to go indoors and ring the council for further information. He said he would be back at 4pm with a van to seize my goods I asked him for his telephone number and thanked him for his time. Our dialogue was now over - or so I thought.

 

He told me he wanted to go to my neighbours door upstairs. Maybe you can see from my photo but I live in a terraced house that has been converted into a downstairs and upstairs flat. The neighbour and I share the front door and although neither of us own the space between our respective front doors, we respectively refer to it as ours given we replace the light bulbs and clear up the junk mail.

 

I was becoming suspicious of him because I had not had any foreknowledge of this visit and he was not producing any paperwork to prove who he was or what he was here for. I told him clearly to ring her doorbell but he responded that there was an open door so he was coming through. He jammed his foot into the doorframe and then shoved through into the communal space.

 

He told he me he did not want any trouble and pinned me up against the wall. The force with which he had come in had caused the front door to slam into wall and my voice was now raised. "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE", I said. He responded, "this is not your building".

 

By this time my neighbour had burst out to see what the commotion was about. I was glad for this because I had assumed she was out and now felt some peace of mind that I had a witness to the proceedings. She called out to her young son to bring her phone so she could call the police but by this point the guy already had his phone out and was dialling 999. "Hello, can the police come out to a property please. I have just been assaulted", he said.

 

My neighbour was telling him to leave because he was trespassing but he said that he did not need to be invited into the building. He was not cooperating so she told me to go indoors, as did she, until the police arrived. He remained in the communal area between our doors.

 

I was ringing the council to try and ascertain what was going on but by that point the police were outside.

 

I opened the door to be cautioned and placed under arrest by the PC. I was shocked because it was just a 'given' that I had assaulted him. She told me that we could go through it all at the station. She was radioing for a van. I asked her not to do this because it would not offer me any privacy. At 9am there were builders doing the neighbours houses, mums going to school with kids and of all times my next door neighbour was moving into the property they had just bought!

 

The officer did not show any understanding. She simply said, I have had an allegation of assault so I have to arrest you. I asked her if I could report to the station by a certain time. I told her she knew my face and my address. She was not agreeable to this. I also asked her if she could use her car as it was more discrete. She was not agreeable to this.

 

The officers were saying that the area between the two front doors needs to be accessible to the milkman, electric man etc. I told the officers that these callers never use violence to come in and I always invite them in peacefully. The officers said it was something we will handle at the station

 

The bailiff had a recording of the visit and I asked the officers to take it off him as it was evidence. He refused and told them to call his office for permission. The police backed down.

 

Additionally, they were trying to get him to come to the station to make a formal complaint. He was saying that he did not know where the police station was and that it is hard to find parking in London. The officers had to keep pushing him to come to the station.

 

My upstairs neighbour made it clear to them that she wanted to be interviewed but they fobbed her off, for want of a better word.

 

The van arrived and I saw my next door neighbour see me as I left. Very shameful indeed. The police need to understand what the impact of an arrest is but I think because they do them routinely they become a normal thing to them. I dunno.

 

When I got to the station I was booked in. I brought to their attention I had a new sports job in Fulham so I was hoping that any questioning could take place quickly. They told me that they still had not been able to get hold of the recording. I was very angry because this had meant the police had left the recording unsupervised in the hands of JBW. Thus the recording that is central to this whole thing, for me, is compromised.

 

I was put in a cell and was given a police station lawyer. I did not have a pot to **** in back then, as now, so was quite worried of the consequences of only having access to basic legal advice.

 

I asked the lawyer if the bailiff was allowed to use force to get into my place. She said that she did not know and would get back to me. That made me feel great (sarcasm) but in myself I knew I was going to refute any accusations the police laid at me.

 

After an eternity a lady appeared to question me. In my mind, I was miffed that it was not the arresting officers as I thought they would have been more appropriate questioners. The problem was this lady who interviewed me probably only had their notes to go off and she was interpreting them in the harshest form - or at least this is what I think.

 

She had her mind made up that I had assaulted the bailiff and was constantly trying to trip me up, "So that's when you pushed him, "....and then you hit him did you?".

 

It was absolutely awful.

 

She gave up in the end as I was not accepting guilt. I told her I felt wronged and was going to complain. She did not seem perturbed by this and said that I was within my rights to do so. I feel she was quite confident they were going to convict me.

 

She told me she was going to consult with the station manager as he makes the final decision and that she would be back in a while. To me it was a rhetorical statement.

 

She was back almost immediately to say I was being bailed until 23 Nov for a court summons. She told me not to miss the date or I would put myself in even more trouble.

 

I protested at the front desk that I felt wronged but no one was paying any attention. What made me more disillusioned with the officers there was that they told me I had to go another police station if I wanted to make a complaint. I have since learned that it was to do with administrative procedure but it definitely felt like they were trying to 'put me off'.

 

The next day I wrote a letter to the benefits officer to tell her what had happened. She was horrified and asked that I write another letter to the Council Tax team because although she would raise it with them it would be better if I made a further complaint.

 

I also went to Lavender Hill Police station to lodge a complaint. The officer taking my complaint was concerned that nobody had tried to get at my version of events whilst I was in custody but rang through to Wandsworth. They told him that the officer investigating me would have to also take care of my complaint. I left with a reference number but nothing in terms of confidence. I had a gut feeling that Wandsworth police station were 'against' me.

 

I still had the legal aid lawyer from the arrest day but for me he was just a rubber stamp. I must be grateful as it is free legal advice but I disagree strongly when lawyers say that legal aid is pretty much the same standard as paid work.

 

On the summons date 24 Nov I pleaded not guilty. The magistrate scheduled a trial date for Feb 15, 2015. Meanwhile my neighbour had written an email complaining to JBW about their conduct but she had had a threatening letter about someone coming to take her stuff in return.

 

I had pretty much given up on any support from the Council and was just going to let things run their course. I got a phone call from my lawyer the day before trial to tell us that the case had been dropped.

 

It felt weird to me that it had gone to the 11th hour. I am no banana but I was thinking to myself that the rationale to have prosecuted me had to have been formed very early on. You may call me cynical but it was like they left it until then in the hope I would have entered a plea bargain. My lawyer himself was shocked that the case was dropped.

 

His managing partner advised me to explore a claim against the police. I was not so keen to do so because black friends said they will make you pay for this but I really wanted to find out what had happened.

 

I decided to file a complaint on my own to the IPCC who redirected it to the Met Professional Standards. The IPCC handle only the most complex cases e.g. Stephen Lawrence, Mark Duggan etc.

 

That was in Feb 2015 and from that point onwards I let the issue slip. From time to time a PC would e-mail me to keep me informed of what was going on or ask a specific question.

 

Finally in June 2015 I had a letter and a report. The Superintendent said that he was going to upheld elements of my complaint - especially the point that I was wrongfully arrested.

 

Although I was glad he apologised for what I went through I still had questions. For example, the report told me that summary offences like assault must be investigated within 6 months else they are too late to be investigated. The incident happened in Nov 2014 and they said that given it was now June 2015 it was too late to investigate the bailiff. They said this was unintentional. Hmm.

 

The report informed me that the bailiff's company had been 'spoken with' but I was not convinced that the situation had yet provided a learning opportunity.

 

I approached lawyers who specialised in claims against the police and they all rejected me and the ones who offered to take on my case said that they wanted a tab of £5000. Though that figure was liable to be adjusted upwards.

 

Concurrently, I was approaching the media for coverage. I had read about JBW in an assault case in Croydon so I figured to myself given I had the confidence to step forward I must do so.

 

The media were a real headache. My story was not juicy enough for them. The Sun said to me it would have been a story if a celebrity lived upstairs! Other newspapers told me it just simply was not news.

 

I got to the point where I had approached all the English media so I started speaking with the Scottish editions. They said they would have been all over the story - like a rash - other than the fact that I was outside the jurisdiction. This gave me some impetus and I started thinking about what paper has been reporting on bailiffs.

 

There were several bailiff articles from 2013 by Jill Papworth of The Guardian so I figured ringing directly through to her editor would be worth a shot. The rest is history...

 

Though as I said in my intro, sorry that the article does not go into the depth you would have wanted it to. Patrick only wanted to print things that could be backed up if contested. Indeed JBW are taking the police/CPS and The Guardian to court as they strongly refute them standing by me.

 

The thing is that bailiffs don't have the best reputation so they don't really care about bad press IMO. Though the ironic thing is I have read bios about Jamie Waller and he said that he set up JBW to clean up the image of the industry. The irony!

 

JBW were very difficult to deal with when the story was being developed. They were saying things like why did it take me so long to approach a paper given the alleged incident happened back in Nov 2014. They also said that I never reached out to complain to Wandsworth Council nor did my neighbour to them.

 

Finally, Wandsworth has found my complaints from 2014 and have said sorry for them falling through the cracks. I told them my remedy is for JBW to cease working for them. Last night they told me that they are not working with them any more but will want to review the decision pending the outcome of JBW's complaint against the police.

 

If I hear anything I will let you all know. If I hear anything from IPCC I will let you know also.

 

Thanks for expressing an interest in my story

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for providing a detailed account. I can see why it was considered tresspass, as according to your account the bailiff used wanting to contact the neighbour for coming into the communal hallway. They are not allowed to force entry in this way for council tax and the communal hallway is joint property of both leasehold flats.

 

As for the Police they seem to think the bailiffs are colleagues, so will take their side. They need training, so they understand what a bailiff can and cannot do, plus how to ensure evidence is collected at the time of their attendance.

[caledfwlch]

Thanks for updating us on the case!

 

What is JBW's police complaint? That the prosecution against you was dropped? In which case, I am sure they will be more than happy to provide proof, ie the camera footage, which from your story could well be enough evidence for a no win no fee lawyer to finally take you on for "free"

 

As you have discovered, the Enforcement Agencies believe themselves above and beyond the law, and of course, the poor taxpayer then suffers, when the Police spend thousands on jumping when a Bailiff tells them, then cancels the prosecution when they realise they have been a little naughty....

 

Might be worth looking into getting the couple hundred quid necessary together in launching a small county court claim for compensation, the Council are legally liable for the behaviour of the bailiff, and it might be worth a letter before action to both JBW and the Council - it would be very worth doing a subject access request to the Police to get all the information on the case, as to why the prosecution was dropped etc.

 

Plenty of options still available for you to get justice!

[Peterbard]

Hi

Thanks for the first hand account on this. It is as you say difficult to say what you best next step may be. It certainly needs some thought.

 

In any case I do sympathise, if that does any good, and hope that you get some kind of satisfactory outcome.

[theronstar]

Thanks for updating us on the case!

 

What is JBW's police complaint? That the prosecution against you was dropped? In which case, I am sure they will be more than happy to provide proof, ie the camera footage, which from your story could well be enough evidence for a no win no fee lawyer to finally take you on for "free"

 

As you have discovered, the Enforcement Agencies believe themselves above and beyond the law, and of course, the poor taxpayer then suffers, when the Police spend thousands on jumping when a Bailiff tells them, then cancels the prosecution when they realise they have been a little naughty....

 

Might be worth looking into getting the couple hundred quid necessary together in launching a small county court claim for compensation, the Council are legally liable for the behaviour of the bailiff, and it might be worth a letter before action to both JBW and the Council - it would be very worth doing a subject access request to the Police to get all the information on the case, as to why the prosecution was dropped etc.

 

Plenty of options still available for you to get justice!

 

I can't be sure but I think JBW are complaining about the law with regard to a block of flats. Why they would even bring this into a terraced house case, to me, shows they are clutching at straws.

 

"According to the police, if you are living in a flat a bailiff can enter the main entrance to the block as long as they do so without using force – this is regarded as peaceful entry. In essence, this could mean that the main door is unlocked or that another person let them in. But once inside the block, they must leave if another residents requests that they do so."

 

In the report I received from the police they wrote this. It was copied into the article because I guess it is good information for people to rely on should they ever be unfortunate enough to need it. It's usual for senior legal figures to muddle through until they can have a test case which sets out things officially. I can't recall this convention being challenged before.

 

I'll also copy in what JBW said in their final rebuttal which possibly adds to their complaint.

 

11. From the transcript, you see that an exchange of words took place. By that time Mr Grant had broken the law in committing the criminal offence of Obstructing an Enforcement Agent, under Sch12, Para 68 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

I'll let a banana - if there is one in the forum - muddle through the above for us.

 

The funny thing is JBW never told the council about my complaint let alone the fact that The Guardian was imminently going to publish a story.

 

I called the Revenues Manager on the Thurs (published Sat) and we was quite shocked. He said that any incident involving customers - let alone police call outs - must be brought to his attention. He called in JBW the very next day and they gave him some cock and bull story. Something along the lines of The Guardian are running an article against us to defame us and we are going to sue them for it. Thus for a while he was on their side.

 

He was tough to get on side because at first he just wanted to put a 'naughty' mark on their file. Though given the fact they still uphold their conduct on that day I could not settle for this.

 

I think that contesting the police must be costing them an arm and a leg but if they can somehow overturn the ruling then they will become quite powerful.

[brassnecked]

Thanks for giving your side, it can be seen that JBW are as bad as ever, the police need training and the council need Formal complaint.

[theronstar]

Thanks for giving your side, it can be seen that JBW are as bad as ever, the police need training and the council need Formal complaint.

 

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/complaintsandcomments

 

To all,

 

Please be my guest to go there and leave your two cents

[caledfwlch]

JBW haven't a chance in hell of a successful complaint if its based around the "interpretation" that the bailiff should have left, as far as I know, that is in the guidelines, unless it was removed with the control of goods act, that a Bailiff should leave at the request of tenant/homeowner in order to avoid trouble.

 

How do they believe you were Obstructing their Enforcement Officer? Because you demanded he leave?

 

It also doesnt matter whether he should have left or not anyway, as he made an illegal forced entry into the building, the "foot in the door" trick is absolutely not peaceful entry.

 

JBW seriously need to be dealt with by the authorities, they are clearly completely out of control.

[theronstar]

I guess JBW want to try their chances all the same. The phrase pyrrhic victory comes to mind. It's either that or they re-evaluate their legal team. I'm going to give a random example but I think it illustrates my point. There are many divorce cases in the media where the lawyers kept both sides going for so long that they ran out of money!

 

JBW are saying I should have let him in just because he told me so. I have re-read the forum and I believe that the 'obstruction' clause specifically refers to a walking possession?

 

When my neighbour challenged him to leave for trespassing, he said that he did not need an invitation. This is on the police' copy of the recording. I am sure his conduct arose out of his training as opposed to personal judgement. JBW told Wandsworth Council that the bailiff in question no longer works for them. I said to the police that although I can bring the incident to the attention of the court that gave him his licence, I would feel more confident if they did so instead.

 

I would agree the authorities have to do something specifically because the media's weapon is bad publicity and if a company does not care about such publicity then there is not really much a paper can do.

[caledfwlch]

The Police have a copy of the Bailiff's Bodycam footage?

 

Try and get a copy! as it may well be enough evidence to make a no win lawyer confident enough to take you on without an up front fee, since it should show him making an unlawful forced entry via foot in the door into the property.

 

It's especially vital to get a copy for your records in case JBW manage to find an interested copper and try and get you done for Obstructing an Enforcement Officer - if they managed to engineer such a situation you can be damned sure they will vanish the footage....

[theronstar]

To be honest I don't like lawyers. I think no win no fee means lawyers only take on cases that they think they can win and given the slash and burn of the legal aid budget it means there are a number of people out there who lack access to justice. Sorry if this a controversial viewpoint but I hope you will agree mine was such a case until quite recently?

 

Ideally, I wish this all never happened but I do feel I have a semblance of justice.

 

 

• The police were bound to have read my news story and on the back of it had words with their officers.
  
• JBW had to go and justify themselves to Wandsworth Council executive team.
  
• Wandsworth Council stopped using them anyhow.
  
• The public have had this brought to their attention and better understand their rights with respect to bailiffs.
  

For the assault, anxiety, loss of earnings. malicious prosecution, I would not say no to some monetary compensation. I had to haggle with the neighbours to cut down the hedge to my waist height, locks changed, Citalopram (anti-depressant), missed genuine callers due to being afraid to open the door, had to shop at the supermarket in evenings because they deep discount food approaching expiry date.[ATTACH=CONFIG]59407[/ATTACH]

[unclebulgaria67]

The EA's lose sight of the big picture, that their behaviour may increase the number of people settling debts at an earlier stage. So if they end up with a situation reported in newspapers and onlne, it scares enough people to settle earlier with councils/courts and therefore in the long run, they might not have a business to work for. Also they may loose contracts. Those who refuse to deal with EA's are better informed about tactics they use.

 

The EA companies should be working on changing their approach and employing the right people, who can be more efficient in collecting debts, by using their brains, rather than to use any force or get into a doorstep argument. If their current methods are so succesful, why is so much owed to councils and courts. If it is not working, then it is time to fix it.

[Peterbard]

Hi

I notice you are considering action yourself through the county court. This is probably what I would do also, although it is by no means an easy option.

 

As I see it you have two causes of action, the assault and the trespass.

 

Both may prove difficult to prove as the first was not witnessed as i understand it and the other side will undoubtedly say that he acted in self defence. Trespass is also a bit of a problem although you do have the statement of the CPS to assist in your claim. They will undoubtedly bring up the TCE and the section which states that a EA acting in the belief that he is acting lawfully cannot be a trespasser, this is of course arguable as is everything but you will have to do your home work.

 

Then there are the damages, these will have to be a direct result of the tort, in similar case where subsequent problems have arisen, the damages have been ruled to be to remote from the event to be allowable. You have to develop a direct causal link between the act and the damages incurred.

 

I am with you about solicitors, also be wary of those who seek to provide unqualified legal services at a cost, ensure that you see some documentary evidence of their ability and record of cases won. Perhaps have a word with some previous clients. You sound to me to be extremely capable and I am probably telling my grandmother how to suck eggs, but anyway. Best of luck and do let us know how you get on.

[citizenB]

Have you spoken with Citizen's advice Bureau ? They usually have a list of legal firms that will provide a discounted first visit. If you were to go to one with a summary of what has happened so you don't need to spend too much time explaining things, they might be able to help.

 

Please don't take up with anyone off the internet who will say they can help you.