Council and Bailiffs get it wrong AGAIN!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Two questions for the experts:

 

Were those bailiffs actually breaking the law, as they apparently did NOT actually have a valid reason to be there, whatever paper they had?

 

 

Is there NOT positive confirmation on the day of (or before) the visit, not passive assumption and some belief its not their problem?

 

It would seem that Tobyjug , Coughdrop and Mikeymack are concerned that the above two questions remain unanswered by the forums 'experts'. It is also unfortunate that Mikeymack is inflaming the position by making frequent 'mocking' comments on another forum. This will not encourage posters to participate on this thread.

 

Yesterday, I started another thread in the discussion part of the forum (link below).

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?466159-Bailiffs-evict-teacher-from-her-quaint-cottage....another-one-with-links-to-FMoTL.(10-Viewing)-nbsp

 

What makes that thread more easy to discuss is that there is a significant amount of background information available including the following:

 

Press article in the Mirror.

 

Additional more detailed press article (Thameside Reporter).

 

Three YouTube videos taken at the time of the eviction (I posted a link to one of them).

 

A copy of the Writ of Possession is available.

 

The property owner (Mrs Patel) gave an interview which is featured on YouTube

 

Detailed online report regarding the background to the legal case.

 

In relation to this particular thread of Mikelymack's the only information available is a very short press article. No additional background information is available. It was with this is mind that I made the following comment:

 

As is always the case with these press articles, only limited information is given. It is this lack of information that leads us all to make assumptions (which may be right or wrong).

 

Encouragement to continue discussing the short press article was not helped by one poster (Schindler) replying to my above comment by inferring that I was 'sticking up for the bailiffs'.

 

I will address the two questions raised by Tobyjug in a separate post.

[tobyjugg2]

I think there is little justification for deleting relevant and meaningful posts on CAG in response to posts by anyone on other forums.

Doing so demeans this forum, not any poster.

 

Regarding the observation that you stick up for bailiffs, I think your posts generally speak for themselves.

 

I have also been 'accused' here of stances that I didn't hold, as well as some I do. It happens quite a lot on forums.

[tobyjugg2]

Oh - there is no point responding BA while the reasonable questions in this thread remain censored as it would seem clear that any challenge to the content of your posts, however justified, will be censored.

 

Makes a mockery of your posts really in my view - I would be even more offended if I were you.

[Peterbard]

I think there is little justification for deleting relevant and meaningful posts on CAG in response to posts by anyone on other forums.

Doing so demeans this forum, not any poster.

 

Regarding the observation that you stick up for bailiffs, I think your posts generally speak for themselves.

 

.

 

This is why these threads are not worth contributing to, whatsoever you say, if it does not agree with the mob it will because you are on the side of the bailiff.

[tobyjugg2]

This is why these threads are not worth contributing to,

 

The first bit at least is quite correct.

A censored thread intended only to promote any specific viewpoint is unworthy of comment or reading.

 

The claims on other forums and review sites regarding this area on CAG would clearly seem to be true.

 

unsubscribed

[Bailiff Advice]

For any new visitors to the forum, the short press article can be read here:

 

http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news...nd-hammer.aspx

 

On the forum we are not permitted to copy the article in full. The following is an extract:

 

 

Justin Espie, prosecuting, said on April 7, three civil enforcement officers turned up at Dockerill’s house, informing him of unpaid tax bills.

 

He said he had paid the debt, but the officers insisted his car would be seized.

 

The defendant returned to the house and came out in possession of a hatchet axe, telling the officers to get off his property.

 

Officers said Dockerill became aggressive and ushered the officers to the gate, at one point raising the weapon above his shoulder.

 

Mr Espie said the officers feared for their safety and a small scuffle ensued when they managed to disarm the defendant.

 

He went back into his house, stepped out with a hammer by his side, before he waited on the porch for police to arrive.

 

Paul Inns, defending, told Welshpool Magistrates Court Dockerill was of good character with no previous convictions.

 

He informed magistrates his client suffered with Asperger’s and officers turned up banging on the door at 6am, refusing to show any ID. Dockerill attempted to find information showing he had paid the bills, before the situation escalated.

 

The next day, he was on the phone to the council when officers returned to seize items.

 

However he passed the phone to officers, who agreed a mistake had been made by the county council, and the matter was dealt with.

 

As mentioned earlier, there is no background information regarding this case at all and we have no idea whatsoever what 'mistake' had been made by the county council. Crucially, we do not know when the debtor made payment It is presumed, that payment had been made to the council...but again, we do not know.

 

Given the extremely limited amount of information, I was very surprised indeed to read the following comments by posters on here:

 

 

'Shouldn't they also have left the property if they feared for their safety and called the police? They didn't'.

 

'Council officials and the EA's need investigating, and retraining or sacking imho'

 

'I wouldn't risk waiting a few hours for the police to attend'

 

'Are they being investigated by their regulating body'?

 

'There appears to be a failure by the powers that be to carry out their job properly'

 

'Proper oversight and ensuring standards are met appear to be completely lacking for these EA/bailiffs'

 

Finally, in relation to the judges/magistrate one poster stated this:

 

'Often they help LIP's by asking probing questions themselves, but it appears, from the little we know, this was not the case'.

 

 

Once again, I will happy respond to each comment.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Given the extremely limited amount of information, I was very surprised indeed to read the following comments by posters on here:

 

 

'Shouldn't they also have left the property if they feared for their safety and called the police? They didn't'.

 

'Council officials and the EA's need investigating, and retraining or sacking imho'

 

'I wouldn't risk waiting a few hours for the police to attend'

 

'Are they being investigated by their regulating body'?

 

'There appears to be a failure by the powers that be to carry out their job properly'

 

'Proper oversight and ensuring standards are met appear to be completely lacking for these EA/bailiffs'

 

Finally, in relation to the judges/magistrate one poster stated this:

 

'Often they help LIP's by asking probing questions themselves, but it appears, from the little we know, this was not the case'.

 

 

Once again, I will happy respond to each comment.

 

 

'Shouldn't they also have left the property if they feared for their safety and called the police? They didn't'.

 

You have no idea whether the enforcement agent left the property and even less idea as to who called the police.

 

 

'Council officials and the EA's need investigating, and retraining or sacking imho'

 

I would agree that the council should investigate.

 

 

'I wouldn't risk waiting a few hours for the police to attend'

 

The article does mention anything at all about the length of time that it took for them to arrive. It would however be obvious that if a call had been made regarding a debtor having an offensive weapon that police would arrive very quickly.

 

 

'Are they being investigated by their regulating body'?

 

I cannot see that anyone of the forum would know the answer to this. We do not even know what firm of enforcement agents were involved !!

 

 

'There appears to be a failure by the powers that be to carry out their job properly'

 

I would disagree. The enforcement agent is instructed to enforce a warrant/liability order. It is not his job to go 'behind' the warrant. It is for the local authority to recall the account if there has been a mistake made.

 

 

'Proper oversight and ensuring standards are met appear to be completely lacking for these EA/bailiffs'

 

See the above answer.

 

 

'Often they (the Judge/Magistrate's) help LIP's by asking probing questions themselves, but it appears, from the little we know, this was not the case'.

 

The article makes very clear that the debtor was not a Litigant in Person (LIP). He was represented by a solicitor.

 

 

PS:

 

Unless further background information comes to light, I cannot see that I can make any further comments.

[Coughdrop]

I appreciate your opinions on the above questions. I think the censorship of 'free speech' which was in no way provocative on this thread is very sad though. I respect the site team's mandate to 'moderate' as they see fit, but it is beginning to become quite overbearing.

 

The posts made here were totally reasonable in my opinion, and censoring them inhibits our ability to discuss points of interest, and to improve the knowledge and understanding of some of the people here. A discussion area should, I would have thought, allow erm...... discussion. It isn't being allowed in this case, and as long as only certain things are considered 'fair game' for discussion, this section of the site has little point as it reflects only what is considered acceptable by various members of the site team, thus actually reflecting only their views, as anything else, however reasonable, is removed.

 

I know they have a hard job to do, and work very long hours doing a thankless task. I would, totally respectfully, suggest that in a discussion area, they should allow a little more leniency, as long as there is no personal insult, side-swiping, etc.....

[Andyorch]

Only 9 posts have been unapproved from this thread.....none contain anything constructive to the discussion in hand and are merely referring to moderation/why as my post been removed or personal insults/sideswipes on each other.

 

Of the 9 only one from yourself Coughdrop...so I am at a loss to what you refer to above.

 

Andyorch

[Peterbard]

Jusrt to clarify, complaints were made by me because of posters insistence that i reply to the arguments, now i do not feel that other member should be subject to this kind of behaviors and i personally will not respond to it.

 

The points raised are nothing more than those raised tens if not hundreds of times on here and to me at least, are boring and trite. I find them of no interest to put it plainly.

 

So where i am sure the forum sill indulge your rights to free speech, p[lese leave me out of the discussion, i will contribute only if and when i chose to.

 

Ta

[Coughdrop]

Dodgeball,

 

This is not any sort of attack on you. However what you have written below is utter rubbish. The hypocrisy, also proven in the two links, is staggering. I'd point this out to any poster, not just you.

 

Jusrt to clarify, complaints were made by me because of posters insistence that i reply to the arguments, now i do not feel that other member should be subject to this kind of behaviors and i personally will not respond to it.

 

Really?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465256-Warrants-of-Control-(Parking)-Discussion-thread&p=4914557&viewfull=1#post4914557

 

and this:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465256-Warrants-of-Control-(Parking)-Discussion-thread&p=4914573&viewfull=1#post4914573

 

All despite Fair Parking stating he had no intention of replying! As I said, the hypocrisy is staggering.

 

For the record I reported your post as I felt it unfair towards Fair Parking, but it was allowed to remain, so obviously felt to be fair.

[Peterbard]

Yes really, FP was already commenting on the subject on a user thread, i merely wanted the conversation shifted into discussion. I was not discussing your debt avoidance ideas at any point, nor do I wish to do so. Like you he refuses to discuss these potty ideas in the right place, for some reason he would rather troll another member thread.

[Andyorch]

Now that is clarified can we get back to the thread topic........

[Peterbard]

HI

I will not be, as said, however i notice that BA answered the critical points in one word, which i thought was overkill

TBH.

 

Also it is difficult to answer this point because in the case refereed to the bailiffs did not "get it wrong" as far as we know.

[Mr.P]

Thread closed temporarily as the 'discussion' has diverged from the original topic.