‘I blocked a bailiff – and paid the price’

[theronstar]

I sold an HDTV via eBay some years ago and got [problem]med. I went to a CAB and they gave me very poor advice. I learnt more via my own research. I did not pay for it thus I cannot complain!

 

The best thing I can hope for is a big shot lawyer in a prestigious chambers agreeing to take on the case. I think this because JBW might decide to cut their losses at that point.

 

Alternatively I am considering calling the Director of Wandsworth Council to ask him to hold a mediation session between us. The Council are already extremely annoyed that they have had to deal something they did not want to be dealing with. I recently spoke to a girl on the reception desk in confidence and she said that she had been dealing with a lot of calls/emails coming through with people responding to my story.

 

My hunch is, if JBW refused to have such a meeting they would aggravate the Council even more so and it would not bode well for them in trying to repair relations.

 

The other party - Met Police - has referred my case to IPCC since July. I am going to assume the delay in them responding to me is the ongoing appeal from JBW. I am going to guess that they don't want to say anything to me in case JBW can somehow overrule the CPS position.

 

To be honest I am not that much more in the loop than yourselves so I don't want to speculate in case it annoys anyone!

[Peterbard]

I sold an HDTV via eBay some years ago and got [problem]med. I went to a CAB and they gave me very poor advice. I learnt more via my own research. I did not pay for it thus I cannot complain!

 

The best thing I can hope for is a big shot lawyer in a prestigious chambers agreeing to take on the case. I think this because JBW might decide to cut their losses at that point.

 

Alternatively I am considering calling the Director of Wandsworth Council to ask him to hold a mediation session between us. The Council are already extremely annoyed that they have had to deal something they did not want to be dealing with. I recently spoke to a girl on the reception desk in confidence and she said that she had been dealing with a lot of calls/emails coming through with people responding to my story.

 

My hunch is, if JBW refused to have such a meeting they would aggravate the Council even more so and it would not bode well for them in trying to repair relations.

 

The other party - Met Police - has referred my case to IPCC since July. I am going to assume the delay in them responding to me is the ongoing appeal from JBW. I am going to guess that they don't want to say anything to me in case JBW can somehow overrule the CPS position.

 

To be honest I am not that much more in the loop than yourselves so I don't want to speculate in case it annoys anyone!

 

Not at all, it is all very interesting and you never know someone may come up with info that may help.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank you so much for coming onto the forum and providing the 'blank' pieces from the press article.

 

Do you know whether LB of Wandsworth suspended the contract with JBW or was it due to expire?

 

I read in one of your posts that you consider that bailiff companies are not bothered about negative press comments. In fact, the opposite it true!!!

 

Bailiff companies do not like negative media articles and the reason is very simple. All bailiff companies are fiercely protective of their contracts with local authorities and would not want to put that contract at risk because of a serious complaint.

 

A 'grey' area with bailiff enforcement is almost certainly that of 'trespass' and even more so given the 'communal area'. I would therefore suspect that if JBW are taking legal action, it would very likely be for the purpose of getting a legal ruling on this point.

[theronstar]

To be honest I felt flattered that people were trying to disseminate the incident. I struggled to get a paper to run the story due to them all declaring it 'not news' that now there has been so much debate some of them regret not taking it. So in summary - thank you too.

 

JBW and Wandsworth Council do have an existing contract and before the article went to press I asked the Council to annul it, to which they refused.

 

In fairness to the Council, they have had a very good relationship with JBW which is why they were reluctant in taking in my point of view.

 

As stated before, what I think is going to cost JBW is that they did not make an effort to diffuse the dispute much sooner..

 

Due to their relationship, Wandsworth were evaluating the case based on what JBW were telling them. I think I already stated what these points were earlier, too.

 

However, I gradually gave Wandsworth access to all of the evidence I have in my possession. I was clear with them that I did not want to do so as I had felt unsupported by them in the whole ordeal but at the same time I could not realistically expect them to get the full story from JBW alone. The Council now has everything with which to make an informed decision.

 

Thus, on this basis, they have told me that to make a concrete decision they need to see the outcome of JBW's complaint with the police. My intuition is that, if the CPS reverse on their position, JBW will be in a position to try and reset relations.

 

Now I will give you several reasons why I feel that JBW do not care about bad press.

 

 

1. The magnitude of the appeal they are lodging. The Met Police Professional Standards took four months to complete their investigation and it was signed off by a Superintendent.To enact their appeal I am sure they must be employing the best brains in the business and I doubt they come cheap. Even if they do win, they did not care to attract bad PR along the way. I had a John Lewis Christmas temp stint many moons ago. One thing I recall is that the company was always giving customers refunds/replacements just to avoid any bad press - even when the customer was being troublesome.
   
2. Wandsworth Council acknowledged I had wrote them two complaint letters in Nov 2014. The contents of one was mislaid whereas the other provoked a call to JBW to find out what happened. They were promised a callback which never materialised and regretfully the council officer did not chase it up. JBW told The Guardian I had never made any complaints to Wandsworth Council.
   
3. The Guardian interviewed my neighbour who informed them she had wrote to JBW in Nov 2014. JBW said that she had never been in touch with them.
   
4. When The Guardian started off the story, it was meant to be a general story about bailiff rights in the UK. It's just my opinion but The Guardian are better with publishing articles that are not salacious or liable to lawsuits in comparison to say, The Daily Mail or The Sun. JBW advised them to be prudent and do some investigative journalism instead of simply publishing a story!
   
5. The Guardian wanted a subject access request and told me to write in giving the journalist permission to approach JBW. When they approached JBW with SAR they were told that I needed to travel up 260 miles to Darlington in order to listen to the recording. I then had to make my own SAR to JBW and finally they responded to say that they had complied with The Guardian's request.
   

I am sorry but this is not the sign of a company who wants a good working relationship with the media.

 

I do agree with you that bailiff companies fiercely protect their contracts with local authorities. It would be logical given councils are the lifeblood of their businesses.

 

Though we have a situation right now where Wandsworth are getting a lot of complaints/queries in relation to my story. When I called a Director to warn him an article was going to be published imminently he was concerned about the impact of the story on the Council. I will let you join the dots about how they must be feeling right now.

 

JBW need to throw the kitchen sink at this appeal as a lot is riding on it for them.

[unclebulgaria67]

Try not to let this take over your life and let due process be followed. When you are dealing with vested interests that have the finances to pursue their case, you just have to let them get on with. Your story is out there now, so those involved will not be able to forget about it.

 

Not sure you want this thread to be a constant running debate, as it will be viewed by those with an interest. I have heard of internet forum comments being used by companies and their Solicitors, arguing over inconsistencies with what has been said etc. Therefore you might only wish to update with a comment, when anything significant happens.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Alternatively I am considering calling the Director of Wandsworth Council to ask him to hold a mediation session between us.

 

My personal opinion is that this could be an excellent idea. I am passionately against legal action of any sort and believe that all disputes can be sorted out by way of negotiation.

 

According to the Guardian news article, the CPS consider that the bailiff had trespassed on your property. For JBW and the enforcement industry, this finding is of vital importance and it cannot be underestimated. The subject of 'trespass' has been the feature of many articles by the countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse (who is also a member of JBW's Advisory Group) and it is one that I would think that JBW would like to have a legal ruling on. A ruling in their favour could well assist with their relationship with LB of Wandsworth and assist the enforcement industry in general.

 

A further point that you need to take on board is that the council tax regulations specially state that the LOCAL AUTHORITY are wholly responsible for all 'acts and omissions' of THEIR AGENTS. In this respect, the bailiff was acting as an agent to LB of Wandsworth.

 

A last point (and an important one) is again about enforcement companies and media articles. As mentioned earlier, all bailiff companies are very protective of their contracts with local authorities and with this in mind, most companies view comments on social media and forums on a daily basis. Negative comments on 'debt avoidance' and sites associated in one way or another with FMoTL, are of little importance to them and are generally ignored. That is NOT the case however with this particular forum, which is known within the enforcement industry for providing accurate and reliable information to the public on bailiff matters. I would therefore expect that JBW (and possibly) LB of Wandsworth are viewing this thread. If so, I cannot see that they would find any complaint in any of the posts made.

[unclebulgaria67]

My personal opinion is that this could be an excellent idea. I am passionately against legal action of any sort and believe that all disputes can be sorted out by way of negotiation.

 

According to the Guardian news article, the CPS consider that the bailiff had trespassed on your property. For JBW and the enforcement industry, this finding is of vital importance and it cannot be underestimated. The subject of 'trespass' has been the feature of many articles by the countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse (who is also a member of JBW's Advisory Group) and it is one that I would think that JBW would like to have a legal ruling on. A ruling in their favour could well assist with their relationship with LB of Wandsworth and assist the enforcement industry in general.

 

A further point that you need to take on board is that the council tax regulations specially state that the LOCAL AUTHORITY are wholly responsible for all 'acts and omissions' of THEIR AGENTS. In this respect, the bailiff was acting as an agent to LB of Wandsworth.

 

Excellent idea for meeting between parties, but as you point out in your last paragraph, Wandsworth are not an uninterested third party in this. Perhaps only have the meeting, if a jounalist from the Guardian can attend. Bet JBW and Wandsworth would find their diaries too full to accommodate a meeting.

 

I wonder whether JBW are pursuing this, bearing in mind it was the CPS that decided not to continue, believing that the EA was tresspassing in a communal hallway and therefore should have left the building. Trying to trick their way past someone stood on a doorstep, should be discouraged by EA companies. Why bother risking a physical encounter, when there are other enforcements option available ? If i were running an EA company, I would provide EA's with a notice to give the debtor explaining the enforcement options and not gaining money or CGA would not be the end of the matter, with costs likely to increase.

[Bailiff Advice]

If i were running an EA company, I would provide EA's with a notice to give the debtor explaining the enforcement options and not gaining money or CGA would not be the end of the matter, with costs likely to increase.

 

Since the new regs (April 2014) the enforcement industry have been complaining to the Ministry of Justice about the number of forms that they are legally required to provide. It would seem that MOJ do not want to reduce (and certainly not increase) the number of forms. With this in mind, I know that I will be facing criticism for suggesting under the One Year Review that there should be ANOTHER statutory form introduced. The problem that I face daily is in the number of enquiries that I receive regarding documentation that is left at the debtors property when an enforcement agent visits and the debtor is not home. Many of these notices (mostly entitled Removal Notice) contain highly suggestive wording leading the debtor to (wrongly) believe that the bailiff will return with locksmith and police to break into properties (for road traffic or council tax debts) or worse still, that a warrant will be issued to commit the debtor to prison.

 

PS: I am going 'off topic' here so best to be discussed under a new 'discussion' thread (One Year Review) maybe. Possibly in a few days time.

[unclebulgaria67]

Since the new regs (April 2014) the enforcement industry have been complaining to the Ministry of Justice about the number of forms that they are legally required to provide. It would seem that MOJ do not want to reduce (and certainly not increase) the number of forms. With this in mind, I know that I will be facing criticism for suggesting under the One Year Review that there should be ANOTHER statutory form introduced. The problem that I face daily is in the number of enquiries that I receive regarding documentation that is left at the debtors property when an enforcement agent visits and the debtor is not home. Many of these notices (mostly entitled Removal Notice) contain highly suggestive wording leading the debtor to (wrongly) believe that the bailiff will return with locksmith and police to break into properties (for road traffic or council tax debts) or worse still, that a warrant will be issued to commit the debtor to prison.

 

PS: I am going 'off topic' here so best to be discussed under a new 'discussion' thread (One Year Review) maybe. Possibly in a few days time.

 

Document issue is easily resolved. MoJ should arrange for standard documents to be issued by all EA companies with few infills required. The documents would be very clear about the enforcement for the debt type, therefore ensures the debtor understands the process and at what stage they are in the process, plus what the next steps might be.

 

Does not need to be difficult.

[theronstar]

Try not to let this take over your life and let due process be followed. When you are dealing with vested interests that have the finances to pursue their case, you just have to let them get on with. Your story is out there now, so those involved will not be able to forget about it.

 

Not sure you want this thread to be a constant running debate, as it will be viewed by those with an interest. I have heard of internet forum comments being used by companies and their Solicitors, arguing over inconsistencies with what has been said etc. Therefore you might only wish to update with a comment, when anything significant happens.

 

Thanks for the tip. To be honest I have seen many Internet threads run on for a long time where people were just putting out different theories about what may have happened. For example, I noticed you had an earlier thread about the Croydon Advertiser JBW case and it was eventually closed 5 pages in because you felt it was not constructive. With that in mind, it was necessary to post. So at least now, if you guys keep going with the debate I have aided it in being based upon the event itself.

 

I am only saying things that I have already said previously and for which I have emails, PDFs, letters etc. to corroborate with. The only area I was speculating about is the current state of affairs, where I clearly highlighted so and for which I will cease to do any further.. If based on this, other parties want to start taking action against me then it is probably because they felt I have not suffered enough already rather than for what I said.

 

I promise I am not on a crusade with this but rather only discuss it when someone has a question.

 

I will go back to observer status and update you if there are any significant updates.

[unclebulgaria67]

Probably wise. It is just that many people are given legal advice not to have running commentaries online, as it is not always helpful. At some point, you might want to come to a private resolution or if you want to take it further not give them any prior notice.

[theronstar]

My personal opinion is that this could be an excellent idea. I am passionately against legal action of any sort and believe that all disputes can be sorted out by way of negotiation.

 

According to the Guardian news article, the CPS consider that the bailiff had trespassed on your property. For JBW and the enforcement industry, this finding is of vital importance and it cannot be underestimated. The subject of 'trespass' has been the feature of many articles by the countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse (who is also a member of JBW's Advisory Group) and it is one that I would think that JBW would like to have a legal ruling on. A ruling in their favour could well assist with their relationship with LB of Wandsworth and assist the enforcement industry in general.

 

A further point that you need to take on board is that the council tax regulations specially state that the LOCAL AUTHORITY are wholly responsible for all 'acts and omissions' of THEIR AGENTS. In this respect, the bailiff was acting as an agent to LB of Wandsworth.

 

A last point (and an important one) is again about enforcement companies and media articles. As mentioned earlier, all bailiff companies are very protective of their contracts with local authorities and with this in mind, most companies view comments on social media and forums on a daily basis. Negative comments on 'debt avoidance' and sites associated in one way or another with FMoTL, are of little importance to them and are generally ignored. That is NOT the case however with this particular forum, which is known within the enforcement industry for providing accurate and reliable information to the public on bailiff matters. I would therefore expect that JBW (and possibly) LB of Wandsworth are viewing this thread. If so, I cannot see that they would find any complaint in any of the posts made.

 

I responded to UncleBulgaria before I could ask you a question and I really want to do so!

 

I agree with you that the bailiff industry would prefer a legal precedent to work from. I just don't know why they want to make it my individual case. I am certain that bailiffs are attending properties up and down the country every day, some of which must have resulted in arrests since my own. I reckon they could have kept their eyes peeled for one of them just because they must be easier to contest.

 

I will quote from JasonDWB's point of view which I incidentally now agree with.

 

"It's not one I've dealt with. CPS dropping prosecutions are becoming common place because of the new section 26. I am often contacted for consultations by defence solicitors with a client accused of bailiff crime.

 

I am working with a solicitor streamlining the procedures to recover damages following dropped charges and in come cases, criminal complaints for malicious prosecution.

 

It seems the CPS doesn't want to touch bailiff obstruction let alone risk bring one before the courts."

[Bailiff Advice]

[*]The Guardian wanted a subject access request and told me to write in giving the journalist permission to approach JBW. When they approached JBW with SAR they were told that I needed to travel up 260 miles to Darlington in order to listen to the recording. I then had to make my own SAR to JBW and finally they responded to say that they had complied with The Guardian's request.

I am sorry but this is not the sign of a company who wants a good working relationship with the media.

 

Due to my business I have never hidden the fact that I have a good working relationship with ALL enforcement companies and have stood by my stance that disputes should never ever be sorted out by legal action and instead, should be negotiated with the enforcement company. On the other hand if there is any wrondoing, I will no hesitation whatsoever in being being the bailiffs fiercest critic and this particular respect, I am extremely disappointed to read your above comment.

 

Thankfully, there has been a recent highly critical report from the Local Government Ombudsman on an similar subject (in that case where the enforcement company insisted that the debtor travel hundreds of miles to view a bailiffs video recording). I would hope that the LGO's ruling will stop this silly behaviour happening in other cases.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I agree with you that the bailiff industry would prefer a legal precedent to work from. I just don't know why they want to make it my individual case.

 

I can answer this very easily.

 

Yours is the ONLY case where it has been recorded publicly that the CPS consider that the bailiff was trespassing. No more, no less.

[unclebulgaria67]

I can answer this very easily.

 

Yours is the ONLY case where it has been recorded publicly that the CPS consider that the bailiff was trespassing. No more, no less.

 

Is the situation different between houses split into 2 flats upstairs/ downstairs and a purpose built block of flats with corridors ?

 

I would say that it was, because in a house divided into 2 flats, the front entrance door to a communal hallway is shared between the 2 flats. It is not the same as a block of flats where the corridors and stairs are a public area.

 

Therefore JBW might be unwise to challenge this particular case, as i would think that trespass would be clarified in regard to a private hallway belonging to 2 flats. As it is a private area, the EA would need consent of both flatowners to enter or leave when asked to avoid trespass. If they left this unchallenged, then they would probably continue to gain entry into the private hallway, so they could go to the flatdoor of the debtor.

 

That is my take on it.

[theronstar]

I can answer this very easily.

 

Yours is the ONLY case where it has been recorded publicly that the CPS consider that the bailiff was trespassing. No more, no less.

 

Yikes, so the case has a lot riding on it after all.

[theronstar]

Is the situation different between houses split into 2 flats upstairs/ downstairs and a purpose built block of flats with corridors ?

 

I would say that it was, because in a house divided into 2 flats, the front entrance door to a communal hallway is shared between the 2 flats. It is not the same as a block of flats where the corridors and stairs are a public area.

 

Therefore JBW might be unwise to challenge this particular case, as i would think that trespass would be clarified in regard to a private hallway belonging to 2 flats. As it is a private area, the EA would need consent of both flatowners to enter or leave when asked to avoid trespass. If they left this unchallenged, then they would probably continue to gain entry into the private hallway, so they could go to the flatdoor of the debtor.

 

That is my take on it.

 

I agree with you completely but the problem is that when someone has deep pockets then a lawyer will probably tell them to pursue a case just because they can.

 

In a block of flats, no one really expresses ownership of the communal space. I have seen random people hanging out there for a cigarette, taking a **** on the stairwell, leaving bin bags in the corridor......

 

With respect to my house, if something was out of place in the hallway, me or my neighbour would be on top of it immediately, thus I call it OUR space.

 

We'll have to see what the courts say but I hope that common sense prevails.

 

The other advantage (as you implied) to JBW not contesting the ruling is the ambiguity in the law they would have had going forwards. A lot of people do not really know what bailiff rights are so would simply let them in. I was having a general chat about bailiffs with a security guard in Wandsworth and he told me he thought bailiffs are allowed to beat you up in order to get into your house. I stress here he was speaking out of his own mouth and not as a representative of his employer! It makes me despair of the 'training' companies offer their staff nowadays, let alone security staff.

 

If they go on to contest this and lose then they have less room to wriggle round with.

 

I am changing my position. I will continue to talk in the forum. JBW said in the article they would never apologise to me and in the aftermath they have still not apologised so I cannot see what laying low would achieve. I will not instruct lawyers unless I absolutely have to as I agree with bailiff advice that we should always try to resolve things without them. The offers are out there if I need them.

 

I will call Wandsworth Council tomorrow to invite them to mediate between the two sides. I am sure they will say yes as they will want this to finish as soon as possible. I will ask the journalist if they can be there too because they are a stakeholder. I'll keep you posted.

Edited September 20, 2015 by theronstar

[Peterbard]

There is certainly need for clarifying there situation re communal space and trespass, which I think is what all this comes down to.

 

Does anyone know what is meant by" the new section 26" ?

[theronstar]

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Section 26 is the full title of what I alluded to above.

 

Essentially, the government updated the laws relating to the criminal justice system earlier this year. In Section 26 it specifically refers to "Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges".

 

What JasonDWB was arguing is that police officers are now trying to avoid situations where this law can be invoked against them and the CPS would potentially try to avoid cases coming to court where police officers may have to answer to such a charge.

 

If you can re-read my experiences with the police during the investigation, you will probably see exactly what his argument was driving at.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Does anyone know what is meant by" the new section 26" ?

 

The Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land websites have been running around in circles since the introduction of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act and it is very comical indeed to witness the misleading statements from them claiming that police officers are running for the hills at the sheer mention of a 'Section 26 Complaint.

 

A new thread will be needed but give me a day or so and can get some information together. In my files I also have some recent info from the Home office as well.

[Peterbard]

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Section 26 is the full title of what I alluded to above.

 

Essentially, the government updated the laws relating to the criminal justice system earlier this year. In Section 26 it specifically refers to "Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges".

 

What JasonDWB was arguing is that police officers are now trying to avoid situations where this law can be invoked against them and the CPS would potentially try to avoid cases coming to court where police officers may have to answer to such a charge.

 

If you can re-read my experiences with the police during the investigation, you will probably see exactly what his argument was driving at.

 

Ahh yes i have read about tis on one of the FMoTL sites.

 

Has this ever been used in a case involving bailiffs, this is an indictable offence, with a possible penalty of 15 years.

 

The police's sole purpose in attending is to prevent a breach of the peace, removing one of the participants would accomplish this I would have thought.

 

Even if it did, the offence would not be appropriate to justify an action under this section.

 

In any case the CPS would not stop a prosecution on one matter because of a possible action against the police, that is absurd conspiracy nonsense.

 

You need to be careful about claims made by people on the net, many are the result of an over active imagination.

[unclebulgaria67]

The Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land websites have been running around in circles since the introduction of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act and it is very comical indeed to witness the misleading statements from them claiming that police officers are running for the hills at the sheer mention of a 'Section 26 Complaint.

 

A new thread will be needed but give me a day or so and can get some information together. In my files I also have some recent info from the Home office as well.

 

There is a point. The Police can only attend to ensure no breach of peace or to investigate allegations of an offence being committed. They are not there to assist enforcement agents or to take sides. They should not listen to the allegations of one person, while dismissing what is said by the accussed or witnesses. If the event was filmed by the EA, they should seize it as evidence and not allow it to be taken away.

 

Shame oldbill is not around to discuss the rules regarding how Police should conduct themselves.

[Peterbard]

The Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land websites have been running around in circles since the introduction of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act and it is very comical indeed to witness the misleading statements from them claiming that police officers are running for the hills at the sheer mention of a 'Section 26 Complaint.

 

A new thread will be needed but give me a day or so and can get some information together. In my files I also have some recent info from the Home office as well.

 

Sorry BA crossed posts, not sure which is more unlikely this or the thought of solicitors falling over themselves. LOL

[unclebulgaria67]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/26/enacted

 

If you read it, there is a possibility of a Police officer committing a crime under this act, if they acted to the detriment of another person. For example, we have heard of Police officers temporarily arresting a debtor, insisting on a EA being allowed unfettered access to the debtors home. Then once the EA has done what they want, the Police then release the debtor. If the debtor had breached the peace, the Police witnessed this or the debt situation allowed forced entry, then there might not be an issue. But if Police relied on a false allegation by an EA and the EA can only use peaceful entry, then there is a problem.

 

There may be some circumstances where this section could apply and it could be part of a debtors case against Police and/or EA. But to say that it could apply in many cases and cause fear to Police is an exaggeration.

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/26/enacted

 

If you read it, there is a possibility of a Police officer committing a crime under this act, if they acted to the detriment of another person. For example, we have heard of Police officers temporarily arresting a debtor, insisting on a EA being allowed unfettered access to the debtors home. Then once the EA has done what they want, the Police then release the debtor. If the debtor had breached the peace, the Police witnessed this or the debt situation allowed forced entry, then there might not be an issue. But if Police relied on a false allegation by an EA and the EA can only use peaceful entry, then there is a problem.

 

There may be some circumstances where this section could apply and it could be part of a debtors case against Police and/or EA. But to say that it could apply in many cases and cause fear to Police is an exaggeration.

 

I see we are in the land of imagination again, please post links to the incidents or any bailiff related actions which have instigated this section.

 

This offence is not intended for the use of what could be said to be a mistaken action by a constable, this is about intentional fraud or malpractice. Proving this because a PC chose to believe the wrong version of events by two suspects is a vast leap to far.