NEVER PAY A BAILIFF AT YOUR DOOR........Read on!!!!!! The reason you never, ever ever get shown a copy of the court issued warrant is not, as the bailiff says, that he does not have to show you it – in fact he does have to show you it. The law says under Part 52.8(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 the bailiff has to show the warrant on demand to the debtor and is supported by the judgement of Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011] The real reason is this. The bailiff is only allowed to collect the amount of money shown on the court order when he comes to make the levy. That is all the claim went in for and that is all the court will order to be levied. He is not permitted to add his fees to the document and collect those fees on the levy. To do so would be to alter a legal document. Naughty naughty! If his fees were obligatory then the court would add them to the court order. They do not because they are not. His fees are a just another civil claim that he must put through county court if he wants to collect them when you do not pay them. They are no more than an unsubstantiated claim in the private and, like any such claim, he must obtain an order of the court to enforce payment. You are not obliged to pay them on demand. When he gets the lawful/legal order of the court, complete with obligatory wet signature, he does not come to your door and show you it or even a copy of it – as he claims to be doing – he is showing you a computer printed warrant of execution done in the office with his name printed on it. No wet signature from the court and no truthful, court appointed amount to be levied. On this printout, composed by the company itself, he puts the relevant and necessary details from the court then adds his own fees as though those fees were part of the court order itself. They are not. They are no more than his unsubstantiated claim for money from you. If he showed you the original, or even a photocopy, it would show only the amount the court ordered. In the current case I am sitting in on, that amount is £45. That is all the man is ordered to pay by the court – not £345. £300 is the bailiff fees. To get his fees lawfully/legally, he would have to make a Part 7 claim in court, go through the usual claim process, get an order of the court to enforce the debt and, hey presto, he is back to square one - at your door being told he has had his implied right of access removed and he must get off the Property. Delicious. So, he gets a court warrant, extracts the relevant details of court name, amount and so on, then he adds his fees, prints out his own warrant with his name at the bottom and presents the fraudulent article as a court order for the now revised amount. It has been a wonderfully clever ploy but the game is up. see “The constable must check the bailiffs certificate and his warrant, and if he is unable to show both documents then the constable is required to place the person under arrest for committing an offence under Section 125b of the County Courts Act 1984 or Section 78(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, as he is required to carry them in an intelligible form when attending a debtors address. Bullers Case [1587] 1 Leonard 50 or Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011] HHJ Holman, Bolton county court, June 2011.” “Seizing goods just to pay the fees of distraint is wrongful, Nargett v Nias [1859] 1 E&E 439 ” These provisions , are in section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 , It must be a genuine document – the one the court issued and not the moody printout from their office. You can write to the court and ask for a copy of the warrant and if it differs from the one presented then you have a case for fraud. When the cops attend, as they always do, this is what you show them and require them to do their duty. Good idea to film it for evidence when you make the claim for fraud and demand compensation. Additionally, and youll love this . . . . . . . . :grin: Magistrates Court fines. There is no direct contractual relationship on defaulters and the enforcement company, and the company bears the risk of running the service if he is unable to recover the fine. Elias, LJ presiding in JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8. :ouch: So, its a Part 7 Claim, then, if they want their fees. :thinks: Bailiffs cannot sue you for his fees if you pay the debt directly to the creditor or authority: JBW Enforcement Ltd v City of Westminster [2009] EWHC 2697 (QB) :puzz: I wonder if I should default for a while then, after the bailiff comes round a few times, go and pay the debt? :giggle: Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 2073 (L.18) COUNTY COURTS The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 Enforcement of specified debts 7. (1) The authority shall insert or indorse in or upon every warrant of execution issued by it the total amount to be levied, exclusive of the fees for its execution. So, if you still have one of the moody letters sent to you by a bailiff keep it. It is evidence of the fraud. It is a confession. And the right of forced entry under the DVCV Act - bollocks is what that is. And from our on board constable there is this; The bailiff company has to return the Warrant back to court in 90 days regardless whether they have been able to execute it and the court will progress the case to the next step - issue you a summons and you attend and ask the magistrate to re-list your case for you to make your defence. Until Parliament gives contrary approval, a bailiff not in possession of the (genuine) distress warrant cannot force entry and if a police officer assists the bailiff making a forced entry, coerces a person to allow a bailiff into a building, or breaking entry, then the police force is liable for everything that follows. That is, until a court makes a finding of fact to the contrary. So far, claims against police forces are settled out of court with undisclosed sums of money changing hands. Examples of police malfeasance can include any of the following: Unwilling to listen to you even though you believed what the bailiff was doing is unlawful You were threatened with arrest for obstruction if you continued to remonstrate You asked to see the bailiffs certificate or warrant but was told by the officers to stop stalling and time wasting They made you feel intimidated and like a criminal Caused you or another person an extreme amount of stress and since has had trouble sleeping They were totally in support of the bailiff without even checking if what he was doing was (consider a separate claim under the personal injury protocol). Caused you a great embarrassment with your neighbours The officer was rude and displayed aggressive behaviour towards you Failed to prevent a crime that was committed in the police officers presence You want a written apology and claim damages from the police force. It seems that the courts have (only) given the bailiffs the agreement that they can attach their fee of £85 to the original warrant of distress as an initial “administration fee” in addition to the state recognised and scheduled fees he may later try to collect from the debtor for enforcement of the court Warrant. This is just agreeing that the bailiff can add this to his claim on his final bill – which he is still obliged to prove in a county court action against us for non payment if he wants to collect. It is not a county court judgement and authority to collect. He just presents as that on his deceptive Notice. The issuing judge can not approve a civil claim for payment from the debtor. That is not in his jurisdiction and the following maxim applies: “A judge operating outside of his authority is not obeyed with impunity.” So it is no defence to say “That judge said I could do it!” if the judge had not the authority to authorise it. The magistrate does not have the authority. The bailiff also makes the issuing authority vicariously liable for any tort he works in collecting and that authority is liable on the claim. The deception, the act of fraud, is in the adding of that fee to the “amount” that “the court has directed us to collect.” Contrary to OFT Guidelines of not misleading the debtor. “It is the deception of semantics pure and simple, and by adding that admin fee to the moody warrant he presents at the door to make us think that he court is ordering us to pay that admin fee when it has not and can not, he deceives us. They cannot and they will not order that as they would open themselves to claim - and not only because of this Freedoms Act. He has no authority. It would be a serious crime to do so. Freedoms Act 2012 , Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 2073 (L.18) COUNTY COURTS The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 Enforcement of specified debts 7. (1) The authority shall insert or indorse in or upon every warrant of execution issued by it the total amount to be levied, exclusive of the fees for its execution. The court can not put us into a default contract with the bailiff that obliges us to pay that initial admin fee – or any fee. The magistrate issuing the Warrant of distress is not sitting in a county court in judgement of a case the bailiff has presented so cannot direct collection of his costs. Any magistrate who did direct collection of that fee would be liable on a claim for acting ultra vires on a matter not concerned with him or his inherent jurisdiction and would be guilty of an abuse of office; a section 4 fraud act, 2006 offence. “Magistrates Court fines. There is no direct contractual relationship on defaulters and the enforcement company. Elias, LJ presiding in JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8.” I do not believe that any county court judge would make an order for us to pay for a service we did not order any more than he could direct a cafe owner to make us pay the bill for some other diner. The agreement is between the courts and the bailiffs and they are not liable, by agreement with the bailiff, to cover bailiff costs. They do it at their own risk. The bailiff wants us to pay them and we are not directly contractually obliged to do so. For this reason I believe that any county court action against us for that payment would fail. Of necessity! We know that the bailiff may not distrain on goods simply to pay for his fees. “No man may be a judge in his own cause”, and the case of the bailiff is that we owe them for a service they performed for a 3rd party – at their own risk. He cannot just act as though his own claim is proven and come and take the money he claims! “Seizing goods just to pay the fees of distraint is wrongful, Nargett v Nias [1859] 1 E&E 439 ” is now in force (as of 1 October 2012 ) . These provisions , are in section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 , It is wrongful because to do so is to “judge his own cause” and grant himself judicial powers of enforcement in the absence of a properly court-ordered permission to collect! Would he collect on you without a warrant from the court? Hardly. Collecting on his fees without court authority is an act of subversion against the properly constituted legal system of the country. The bailiff is just a gambler, no more and no less. He is gambling that he can trick you with semantics, deceptively crafted documents, pressure and intimidating threat and get you to pay up on a contract you are not liable on. The costs of a county court action and the time it would take to get a judgement are prohibitively greater than his fees and, anyway, he almost certainly knows that he could never get the order of the court against you for enforcement of a contract with a 3rd party against whom he has no claim – by agreement. He made himself executor de son tort in a matter not his own and he must stand the risk of loss thereby. He has no claim to uphold in any court but is gambling on his deception and the fear and ignorance of the victim. He is obliged to operate in deception/fraud. Additionally, there are defects in the process he uses which are open to pursuit, complaint and counter claim. For example, they routinely break rules 2.2 b, 2.4 b, 2.4 f, 2.5, 2.6 h, 2.8 I, 2.8k, 2.10 a, 2.10 b, 2.12 d,e,f,g, and many more, of the OFT Guidelines There are defects in observing the Guidelines they are bound to obey. These are an opening for attack even without the fraud I say we can now show he is practising.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:31:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015