EAC2 Complaints to court about bailiffs and complainants ordered to pay costs.

[Bailiff Advice]

Over the past five years or so I have made frequent threads on the forum concerning complaints that were made to the court about bailiffs (Form 4 Complaints) and the many times that courts did not find the bailiff at fault and ordered that the person MAKING THE COMPLAINT must pay the bailiffs legal costs in challenging the complaint against him. The worst case that I reported about concerned a debtor who had been ordered to pay over £20,000 !!!!

 

In April 2014 when new bailiff regulations took effect, a new complaint procedure was implemented and 'Form 4' complaint forms were done away with and a new form (EAC2) was introduced. Crucially, the new regulations specifically state that the court can make a finding that the person making the complaint can be ordered to pay the bailiffs costs.

 

During October I received enquiries from THREE individuals who had been ordered to pay costs. In the worst case, a lady was ordered to pay £3,000. Another lady was ordered to pay £1,500 and a gentleman ordered to pay £900. Worryingly, in two of the enquiries, the individuals had submitted an EAC2 Complaint to the County Court where the bailiff was certificated on the very SAME DAY as the bailiff visit. It simply beggars belief that anyone would do this without first making a complaint to the enforcement company or creditor (usually the local authority). Worst still, in one of the cases (the lady who was ordered to pay £3,000), she was a SOLICITOR !!!

 

In EACH case, the person making the complaint had not known that the PURPOSE of the complaint was to seek the Judges agreement that the bailiff was not a 'fit and proper' person to hold a bailiff certificate.

 

If anyone considers that a bailiff has done something wrong, then the FIRST step should be to make a complaint to the company that he works for. If their reply is not satisfactory, then a further complaint can be made to the local authority etc

 

If a bailiff has a complaint made against him to the County Court, he will know that the Judge has to consider whether or not to remove his certificate from him. If so, this will lead to his immediate unemployment. It is for this reason that the bailiff will ALWAYS have legal representation and if the court do not find fault, they can....and do.....order the complainant to pay these costs.

[ploddertom]

Is it any wonder things like this are happening given some of the totally incorrect information out there, mainly I suppose from some of the Beat the Bailiff pages on Facebook. The Solicitor at least should have known what they are doing & makes me wonder what sort of advice is given out in her day job.

 

Having looked at the Form itself I would suggest it need further improvement. The one I have looked is on the Justice website andimagine itwould the one used by most. However it is a little scant on any help or warning being limited to:

 

Complaint against a

certificated person

This form should only be used when the complaint relates to

the fitness of an individual to hold a certificate.

This form should

be completed by the person making the complaint. When you

have done so, send it to the County Court hearing centre where the

Enforcement Agent obtained their certificate. If you do not know

which court this is, please telephone County Court Business Centre

Northampton, on 0300 123 1057 where staff will be able to tell

you or view the register at http://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/

certificatedbailiffs

 

Possibly 3rd party websites may include suitable warnings but again the "official" one is sadly lacking.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Having looked at the Form itself I would suggest it needs further improvement.

 

This is a subject that has been raised for the One Year Review on the enforcement regulations and my personal suggestion, was that an explanatory note should also appear with the EAC2 Complaint form highlighting Regulation 9 of the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/421/part/1/crossheading/complaints-and-cancellation-of-certificates/made?view=plain

 

 

Crucially there should also be a link to Civil Procedure Rule 84.20 as follows:

 

 

Complaints as to fitness to hold a certificate

84.20

 

(1) This rule applies to a complaint under regulation 9(1) of the Certification Regulations.

 

(2) The complaint must be submitted to the County Court hearing centre at which the certificate was issued, using the relevant form prescribed in Practice Direction 4.

 

(3) A copy of the complaint must be sent to the applicant at least 14 days before the hearing, and the applicant may respond both in writing and at the hearing.

 

(4) The complainant is not liable for any costs incurred by the certificated person in responding to the complaint, unless paragraph (5) applies.

 

(5) The court may order the complainant to pay such costs as it considers reasonable if it is satisfied that the complaint—

 

(a) discloses no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate; and

 

(b) amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

 

 

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-84enforcement-by-taking-control-of-goods#84.20

[Bailiff Advice]

Is it any wonder things like this are happening given some of the totally incorrect information out there, mainly I suppose from some of the Beat the Bailiff pages on Facebook. The Solicitor at least should have known what they are doing & makes me wonder what sort of advice is given out in her day job.

 

Many regular contributors on this forum view some of these Facebook pages daily and I am truly shocked and disappointed at the appalling advice provided to debtors by the inexperienced people on there (one of whom purports to be a solicitor).

 

Every day people seeking 'help' on these Facebook pages lose their cars or end up paying bailiff fees that could have been avoided. This is all because those sites will not waver from their principle that debtors should not speak with a bailiff....should not negotiate a payment arrangement with a bailiff...or engage in any way with a bailiff to settle their debt. Instead, their belief is that by ignoring the bailiff the account will be returned back to the council or court and bailiff fees will be removed. They are proved wrong time and time again.

 

Yesterday a lady had to pay nearly £600 to retrieve her car from the bailiff pound after being given appalling 'advice' on the Beat the Bailiffs Facebook page and another case today looks likely to go the same way. A new thread is probably a good idea and I will consider this later.

[ploddertom]

The downside to running a thread on the various Facebook Beat the Bailiff pages is that the majority are closed Groups which means unless a member of the said Group you can't see what it says & don't really think a lot of copy & paste is a sensible idea.

[Peterbard]

Is it me or is there a resurgence of these daft ideas. They seemed to thankfully go quiet for a while now we seem back to square one with all the loony tunes ideas resurfacing.

[doggone it]

Is it me or is there a resurgence of these daft ideas. They seemed to thankfully go quiet for a while now we seem back to square one with all the loony tunes ideas resurfacing.

 

You are probably correct, having read some of those Facebook Groups previously there is a common theme running through them - wet ink signatures, Court Seals, for vulnerability just claiming without providing proof etc etc. They seem to attract a certain type of person and they try to run roughshod over those who are in need of help.

[Bailiff Advice]

You are probably correct, having read some of those Facebook Groups previously there is a common theme running through them - wet ink signatures, Court Seals, for vulnerability just claiming without providing proof etc etc. They seem to attract a certain type of person and they try to run roughshod over those who are in need of help.

 

The most common theme with these Facebook pages is to provide a 'sticking plaster solution".

 

Most of the sites are heavily linked to FMoTL and their overriding principle (even though it lands debtors with huge additional bailiff charges) is to ensure that a debtor NEVER speaks with a bailiff.....agrees a payment arrangement with a bailiff..... or make payment to their office. Instead, when for instance a vehicle has been clamped for an unpaid parking charge notice, the common 'sticking plaster solution' will be to encourage the debtor to complete an Out of Time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Despite the fact that the form provides that a person can be found guilty of perjury if they make an untrue statement the site rarely if ever asks any background information on the parking ticket. In the past couple of days there have been two dreadful cases.

 

Case One:

 

The debtor posted that her car had been clamped and that the bailiff required £394 (PCN debt £82, Compliance fee £75, Enforcement fee £235). Without any questions being asked, the site made an on line plea for 'volunteers' to attend the debtors property. Her address was published online together with a copy of the documentation left by the bailiff. The bailiffs name was also provided. Within minutes, one 'volunteer' confirmed that he was on his way to the debtors address. A simple google search of the 'volunteers' name will reveal that he is WELL KNOWN to Manchester Police.

 

The female solicitor on the Facebook site made all the arrangements for the Out of Time Application to be emailed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The solicitor asked the 'volunteer' to ensure that he film the events at the debtors home and that a copy of the film would be submitted with an EAC2 Complaint to the County Court !!!!

 

With most bailiff companies monitoring these sites on a daily basis it was not surprising to read that before the 'volunteer' arrived at the debtor home that a tow truck had arrived and removed the vehicle to the car pound. The car had been clamped for over two hour.

 

The debtor was distraught.

 

Only after the Out of Time witness statement had been submitted and the car removed did anyone bother asking about the background to the debt:

 

She CONFIRMED that she had received a Notice of Enforcement from Marston Group in September. She called the local authority in October and discovered that prior notices had been sent to a previous address. She was advised by the council that she needed to file an Out of Time witness statement and that if she did so, bailiff enforcement would cease. She was asked what had happened to her application. She CONFIRMED that she had not bothered submitting the forms. Almost two months later, her car had been clamped and removed.

 

As I am unable to view posts on Beat the Bailiff I have no idea what has happened to her car or what additional bailiff fees she has had to incur.

 

If it is the case that she has filed an EAC2 Complaint to the court then she should not be surprised if a cost order is made against her.

[Bailiff Advice]

Case number two

 

In this case the debtor had posted that her car had also been clamped. She confirmed that she has used the 'sticking paster' solution a few months back and had filed an Out of Time witness statement (as suggested by the Facebook posters in earlier posts). Not surprisingly, her application had been rejected over a month ago. She had not sought a 'review' of her application by filing an N244 and neither had she approached the bailiff company to make a repayment proposal.

 

Not surprisingly... when she posted that her car had been clamped.....nobody was willing to assist her

[ploddertom]

Those cases quoted smack of the "plaster stickers" having read information without taking the time to actually find out what was supposed to happen. There are a number of "ringleaders" who if questioned as to their intentions & advice gets you banned without being questioned and/or being accused of being a Bailiff.

[Bailiff Advice]

There are a number of "ringleaders" who if questioned as to their intentions & advice gets you banned without being questioned and/or being accused of being a Bailiff.

 

I have been banned for daring to make a simple suggestion. That was to suggest to somebody who had just received a Notice of Enforcement that she should approach the bailiff company to make a payment proposal and that this approach would avoid an enforcement fee of £235 being charged. Very sensible advice. The response from the daft 'Freemen' posters was hilarious. They went into immediate 'attack mode' accusing me that payments must never be made to a bailiff firm and that their advice is only aimed at getting the enforcement company to RETURN the warrant or account back to the council. Most odd really.

 

After all, in most cases....the account had been with the council or courts only about two weeks earlier !!!!!!

[Peterbard]

I have been viewing a forum where a clued up new member was immediately banned for correcting one of their"experts" when he gave wrong advice, re the age of a child under the TCE.

Someone with a degree of knowledge is not at all welcome in these places.

[colin11]

There is a lack of update on the case that Bailiff Advice is using, In the last couple of days

 

As you know, An Out of Time witness statement was submitted to the TEC, just before the car was taken

 

The Lady contacted the council, And updated with what they told her, This is what she said

 

Hi all, just letting you know, council has refused and they told me I have to deal with the bailiffs and make the full payment to get my car back. Or wait 6 weeks for a decision on the late witness

 

Also the same day, The bailiffs have written to her,she was told it would cost her £540 to get her car back, And if not, Her car will be auctioned on Dec 1st

[Ruleoflaw]

If you try to take the bee's honey, don't be so shocked if you're stung in consequence. If you complain about a bailiff to a judge, you're essentially taking away his bread and butter. It would require a high standard of proof for a start. The general rule is that the losing party pats court costs unless there is very reasons for not doing so. You should always start your complaints to the company's CEO and then to the Bailiffs association. I am not surprised that a solicitor would take a bailiff to court...as law is all solicitors know.. but do not seem to understand reasonability. People have little common sense it seems.

[Bailiff Advice]

There is a lack of update on the case that Bailiff Advice is using, In the last couple of days

 

Also the same day, The bailiffs have written to her,she was told it would cost her £540 to get her car back, And if not, Her car will be auctioned on Dec 1st

 

Thank you for the update. A point that needs to be made is that Marston's would not be able to auction a car whilst an Out of Time witness statement is being considered.

 

Interestingly, this morning I was reading through email questions that were submitted via my website overnight and one of them relates to this case and refers to my thread on here!!

 

The message was to let me know that the lady has picked up her car but had to pay closer to £600 to cover additional storage costs. The question to me was to ask whether she will get this money refunded when her Out of Time application is accepted. I have not as yet responded to the question but when I do, I will be advising that I would not be raising my hopes too much on the application being accepted. The vast majority of Out of Time witness statements that I assist with are accepted (although one was rejected earlier this month) but in the Beat the Bailiffs case, I would be surprised if it was accepted. Also, it is very likely that the application was not truthful.

 

After all, she knew in October that notices had gone to her previous address (when she called the council) and her failure to file a witness statement until almost two months later (and only then because her car was clamped) would lead the council to consider that it was likely that she did know about the ticket before September.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have been viewing a forum where a clued up new member was immediately banned for correcting one of their"experts" when he gave wrong advice,

Someone with a degree of knowledge is not at all welcome in these places.

 

It is actually much more serious than that. The sites in question do not want assistance from anyone who knows the regulations. Absolutely not.

 

A common theme with these Beat the Bailiff, Screw the Bailiff sites etc is that they are all loosely connected in one way or another to the FMoTL or Sovereign Citizen ideology and share the anti establishment mindset. Many have spent the past 18 months since the new regulations came out, pouring over every paragraph in the legislation in order to find the proverbial loophole that would allow a debtor to pay the creditor direct. This is their overriding aim...to use the 'sticking plaster solution' and to never suggest that payment is made to a bailiff.

 

By and large, most local authorities now have computer systems in place to deal with direct payments and will simply refer the payment straight over to the enforcement company.

[unclebulgaria67]

Clamping and removal of vehicles is apparently at an all time record high. I wonder why ? Could it be the new regulations ? Do they provide a greater financial incentive for enforcement companies ?

 

Here is an idea. Why not fit all vehicles with an electronic billing system for parking. This would be used whenever you parked in authorised car parks, but could also be used for other parking, where penalties could be applied to it by someone authorised. You then have automatic billing for parking and relevant penalties, which reduce the amount of enforcement required. It would mean councils and parking operators would get their revenues quicker in most cases.

[Bailiff Advice]

Clamping and removal of vehicles is apparently at an all time record high. I wonder why ? Could it be the new regulations ? Do they provide a greater financial incentive for enforcement companies ?.

 

The reason why so many vehicles are being clamped is more than likely due to the fact that bailiffs are now much more knowledgeable about the bailiff regulations and in particular, about section 13 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/ways-of-taking-control?view=plain

 

As you will see from the link, if a vehicle is located on a highway the legislation stipulates that the vehicle MUST be secured.

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)

 

To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

 

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

 

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

 

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.

[Peterbard]

)Yes indeed, vehicles can only be taken under control on a highway if they are clamped(or otherwise immobilised.(as I think mentioned before).

[Bailiff Advice]

Those cases quoted smack of the "plaster stickers" having read information without taking the time to actually find out what was supposed to happen.

 

I have just been reading through a copy of a thread that was was sent to me a couple of hours ago that featured on the the Facebook page and a few days ago and where again the debtor has openly committed perjury in an Out of Time witness statement. She posted that the landlady of her previous address had given her a letter that had arrived from Equita bailiffs. She had not updated her records but nonetheless KNEW about the parking ticket !!!!

 

 

Debtor:

 

No.......

I obviously now remember getting the ticket and couldn't afford it at the time and just forgot

. Then I moved house. My old landlady brought this letter round today. So first I know of this kind of action.

 

 

Parking Ticket 'expert'

 

Lodge a TE7 and TE9 at the TEC (traffic enforcement centre) ...this can be done on line.....they will open it at 10am tomorrow...and it will be dealt with by 4pm.....

your gorunds for lodging are that you knew nothing about the ticket.

(option 1)

 

She confirmed that she had now emailed the forms to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Absolutely beggars belief.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have just been reading through a copy of a thread that was was sent to me a couple of hours ago that featured on the the Facebook page and a few days ago and where again the debtor has openly committed perjury in an Out of Time witness statement. She posted that the landlady of her previous address had given her a letter that had arrived from Equita bailiffs. She had not updated her records but nonetheless KNEW about the parking ticket !!!!

 

 

Debtor:

 

No.......

I obviously now remember getting the ticket and couldn't afford it at the time and just forgot

. Then I moved house. My old landlady brought this letter round today. So first I know of this kind of action.

 

 

Parking Ticket 'expert'

 

Lodge a TE7 and TE9 at the TEC (traffic enforcement centre) ...this can be done on line.....they will open it at 10am tomorrow...and it will be dealt with by 4pm.....

your gorunds for lodging are that you knew nothing about the ticket.

(option 1)

 

She confirmed that she had now emailed the forms to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

 

PS: Once again, this lady was told about making a formal complaint to the court about the bailiff and was told that she needs to use the form EAC2. Absolutely beggars belief.

[unclebulgaria67]

The advice should be about denying the opposition the chance to earn money. So these FMOTL type sites are offering advice which is against their philosophy.

 

This is yet another issue which is purely about making money and others trying to stop them. There cannot be any coincidence that motorists are facing more parking penalties, when local authorities are struggling financially.

[ploddertom]

Sorry to say but some of these people are going to have to find the hard way what happens. No doubt when it goes belly up then the "experts" will advise to file a County Court claim - as they will again claim there is no risk as to costs. No doubt this will also fail and when they engage the "experts" again then the chances are the comments & poster will be ignored or even banned. If they then try to source advice elsewhere - here for example - then they may not like the answers given that they were led up the garden path.

[Ruleoflaw]

The reason why so many vehicles are being clamped is more than likely due to the fact that bailiffs are now much more knowledgeable about the bailiff regulations and in particular, about section 13 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/ways-of-taking-control?view=plain

 

As you will see from the link, if a vehicle is located on a highway the legislation stipulates that the vehicle MUST be secured.

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)

 

To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

 

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

 

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

 

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.

 

 

I would be more interested in the ever evolving and ever developing case law for the Enforcement Act 2007's section 13, sub-section 1 & Sched. 12 (primary legislation), than I would be towards any use of Regulations (secondary legislation) by Bailiffs who are not legal experts. Common law, case law (interchangeable terms) is a source of the UK's constitution, albeit an un-written one, and binding precedents (higher court rulings) and the rules of statutory interpretation (by the judge) and Hansard (where Parliament's aims/ intent for the terms/ provisions/ sections of the 2007 Act is discussed by the Houses of Commons and Lords (scrutinised more so) having each examined it at least 2 twice, as the Bill later becomes statute, albeit once the Queen assents to it (the passing stage) is very important to understanding the application of said law and its context.

[Bailiff Advice]

The reason why so many vehicles are being clamped is more than likely due to the fact that bailiffs are now much more knowledgeable about the bailiff regulations and in particular, about section 13 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/ways-of-taking-control?view=plain

 

As you will see from the link, if a vehicle is located on a highway the legislation stipulates that the vehicle MUST be secured.

 

Ways of taking control

 

13(1)

 

To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—

(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;

 

(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;

 

©remove them and secure them elsewhere;

 

(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.

 

In my above post I referred to the legal position when a vehicle is located on a HIGHWAY (as opposed to any other location).

 

The relevant ACT of Parliament (in this case, section 13.1 to Schedule 12 of TCE ACT 2007) states that if the vehicle is found on a highway that it must be secured (on the highway).

 

In regards to HOW the vehicle must be secured, we need to read Regulation 18 (2) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. This section is entitled:

 

Securing goods of the debtor on a HIGHWAY

 

Once again, it is made clear here that unless the debtor voluntarily surrenders the keys to the enforcement agent that the agent must secure the vehicle with an immobilisation device. He has no option legal options.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/regulation/18/made?view=plain