Bailiffs, Councils and the Fraud Act 2006

[FunnyMan]

I am new to this forum so please forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere (I have done a preliminary check and could not find reference to it).

 

It would appear to me that in many of the cases of overcharging by bailiffs, etc., in regard to Council Tax, etc., that bailiffs, bailiff companies, and indeed the local authority they are agents for are clearly committing fraud as defined by the new 'Fraud Act 2006'. As such any case of overcharging or misrepresentation should be reported to the police and the police must investigate each and every complaint.

 

Here are some links concerning the 'Fraud Act 2006'.

 

Fraud Act 2006

 

Fraud Act 2006 - WikiCrimeLine

 

All the previous different types of fraud have now been enrolled in one single offence. Fraud can now be considered under the following 3 headings:

• Fraud by false representation
  
• Fraud by failing to disclose informatiom
  
• Fraud by abuse of position

It seems that clearly the requirements to prove a case of fraud as under the 'Fraud Act 2006' is evident in many cases on this forum.

 

Opinions of other members here would be much appreciated.

[sillygirl1]

I would say that their behaviour covers all three

 

Fraud by False Representation - could easily cover inflating their charges and claiming for calls not made and misleading about their 'rights'

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information - again covered by not listing charges properly

 

Fraud by abuse of position - they, like the DCA's think they are the only people who 'know the law and rights' and carry out work in a manner which if they were properly certified and independently scrutinised would cause the certificates to be promptly withdrawn

 

However the police don't really want to help, it would possibly take a group action against individual councils and the companies they use (mine was Merton Council and MC2).

[Guest Herbie]

FUNNYMAN

 

Well done !! I will answer your point later today, but yes you are right.

 

 

 

FRAUD ACT 2006 AND UNCERTIFICATED BAILIFF'S

 

As most us on on this site know, the government is pursuing through parliament the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Bill which proposes under Part 3 to introduce tough new powers to bailiff's: notably the right to force entry into your home, use force if need be....and invite a third party onto the premises to assist !!!

 

Despite so much opposition from many organisations including Peter Bard and our company, the governement needs to ensure that BEFORE introducing this part of the bill, that bailiff's are first certificated and far better regulated.

 

It was our company that made the discovery using Freedom of Information that there were just 1,480 Certificated Bailiffs working within the bailiff industry. Two weeks ago the Governement finally confirmed my figures ( sorry I was out by around 20 bailiffs') .

 

We should all be thankful that we have the support of Lord Lucas, who has put some very difficult questions to Baroness Ashton on the matter of the TCE Bill and bailiff's in general.

 

So as to ensure that we do not have an extremely long post here, I will provide Baroness Ashton's answers throughout the day.

 

 

 

LORD LUCAS( CONSERVATIVE) ASKED HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a CERTIFICATED BAILIFF, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of SECTIONS 1 to 5 of the FRAUD ACT 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTAL (MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE) replied:

 

THE FRAUD ACT 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a CERTIFICATED BAILIFF , but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section.

 

It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[Saffronflowers]

Herbie - I believe that bailiffs have fraudulently received money from myself. They state that they levied goods on a certain date, I never received the info, subsequently have done and the goods - a car - they state on a bit of paper was not even in existance it had been scrapped to a DVLA scrap yard on the 29-01-07. Yes, I know that I can now get my money back, but is it worth my while creating a case for court.

 

SFx

[Guest Herbie]

Did you get the name of the bailiff to check as to whether or not he is Certificated. No names on the site please but PM me and I will run a check for you.

 

Your case seems very clear cut. There are 2 things that you can do. The first is to use a simple court form to make an official complaint about the bailiff, which can have serious implications for him, or you can write a letter before action to the bailiff company outlining the facts and requesting that they refunds the charges to you. Wait for their response to see what defence they are going to put up before taking your next move.

 

The most important point is that if the bailiff has levied....as he has said that he did...then by law he must be certificated. This needs to be the first query. We can provide you a template letter of you require. PM me with details.

[Guest Herbie]

THE FRAUD ACT 2006.....PART TWO.

 

 

 

Lord Lucas (Conservative) |

asked Her Majesty's Government:

 

Whether BAILIFFS who illegally obtain entry to a debtor's premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Minister of State, Home Office) |

 

The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for BAILIFF'S is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a BAILIFF illegally obtains entry to a debtor's premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

 

 

PART 3 LATER.......

[Guest Herbie]

FRAUD ACT 2006. PART 3.

 

Sorry everyone I did promise Part 3 of this yesterday, For new viewers, see Parts ! & 2 above.

 

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

asked Her Majesty's Government:

 

 

Whether a BAILIFF who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Minister of State, Home Office

 

A BAILIFF or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

 

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss.

 

It is also possible that, where a BAILIFF repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[StormWarrior]

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Which means 'don't expect this to be of any use to the average person, as the police will be too busy processing motoring convictions'!

[Guest Herbie]

Good point, you might be wrong. This act only became law on January 15th and I understand that there have been many enquiries being made to police.

 

So early days......

[Guest SWALEFOYER]

I would pm bailiffchaser as he has already been down this avenue with a bit of sucess.

[ScarletPimpernel]

A BAILIFF or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

 

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss.

 

It is also possible that, where a BAILIFF repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

 

Interesting. I wonder if banks and other financial institutions making penalty charges knowing that they are unlawful could also be committing offences under this Act?

[FunnyMan]

SP,

 

Quite plainly the wording under the Fraud Act 2006 would clearly cover banks, credit card companies, etc. who knowingly continue to make illegal charges as committing a fraud.

 

What is desperately needed here again is a test case. But obviously the executives/senior managers of the bank/credit card company are the ones, who in my opinion, would be liable to charges for they are the decision makers within the organizations concerned, and remember ignorance of the law is not a defence in law.

[The Watcher]

SP,

 

Quite plainly the wording under the Fraud Act 2006 would clearly cover banks, credit card companies, etc. who knowingly continue to make illegal charges as committing a fraud.

 

Which is exactly why they never let these cases get before a Judge ! They prevaricate for as long as possible and then settle at the last possible moment.

[pugsley]

interesting development thanks:D

[StormWarrior]

who knowingly continue to make illegal charges as committing a fraud.

 

The problem is that there is a difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'

[calvi36]

Hmmmmmmm I wonder! I think I would have a DCA bang to rights on this one. Tried to charge £20 court fees and £50.00 solicitors fees for sending me a bog standard letter when no action had been taken. They quickly backed down though. Have a peek at my post. Just wonder if it would be worth making a complaint to the police, if for nothing else then just to cause these idiots the same hassle they caused me.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed-broadband/85336-car-phone-hohouse-their.html

[Saffronflowers]

Sorry this his posts and pms make me very angry (sorry for the hijack) He PMed and said that he would take on my case for 50% of what I won back. MMMMMmmmm I have the pm if anyone would like to see it to verify my words - I also reported it.

 

This forum is not for posters to make money off of others

SFx

[demon_x_slash]

Sorry He PMed and said that he would take on my case for 50% of what I won back. MMMMMmmmm I have the pm if anyone would like to see it to verify my words - I also reported it.

This forum is not for posters to make money off of others

 

*raises one eyebrock in shock* *raises other eyebrow in more shock*

 

He is a bad man. If he's one of those sort of people then I don't agree with his membership of this site, just as the ambulance chasers get run off.

[demon_x_slash]

This is what the bailiffchaser has to say n his website

 

His website both scares and baffles me. So many colours, so many extraneous exclamation marks...

 

I think he is right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think he's a bit of a psycho. Isn't Free Speech wonderful?

[FunnyMan]

I have just visited the site mentioned above, and to say the least talk about not inspiring confidence would be an understatement!

 

SWALEFOYER you have spammed several threads with exactly the same post, and as the wording in your 'advert' is identical to that on the site mentioned above I take it you are 'bailiffchasser'!?!?

 

I would ask the mods and admins to remove these spammed posts by you, they do not discuss any point in the threads you spammed.

 

Oh, and by the way, why pay the bailiffs when you don't have to!

...................................

Thank you Mods and Admins for removing the post referred to in this post, much appreciated.

[Saffronflowers]

Sorry it was the grammer that worried me, and the I cant tell you how I do it - I am more than happy to tell the world, well maybe the readers of a couple of national newspapers next week!!

 

SFx

[demon_x_slash]

Beat ya to it, FunnyMan Yes, the 'I can't tell you how I do it' reeks of snake oil, tbh. I wonder if he's using templates from CAG? I'm just going to mentally call him Remora from now on; I can't stand those that profit from others' ignorance or misery.

 

'I can't tell you' indeed...

[Saffronflowers]

Demon shall I compelte that phrase for you - My Ar$e!!" - mods that is an irish phrase!!

 

Serious note I would help anyone, I felt genuine and I hope I do and I am so greatful for the advice and support that I have received.

 

Small concern I suspect that a licence may be needed to undertake such services - OFT - dealing with financial matters. I have to be licenced to work on debt at the CAB (oh and I dont get paid!!)

 

SFx

[demon_x_slash]

He'd have to have legal indemnity, surely?

[Saffronflowers]

Demon - what would we know, we are but meer mortals, oh and I am a girl!!!

 

SFx