More Marston Nightmares

[coppullcaveman1]

I am looking into wether my MP voted for or against the extended powers of bailiffs and enforcement officers as I type. My MP Lindsay Hoyle seems a thoroughly nice chap and makes all the right noises when you speak to him, but I need to know how he really acts on my behalf... he voted for the war in Iraq and against the inquiry on the war, he appears to have voted for a referendum on the Lisbon or EU treaty (which as we all know is a back door to a European constitution) but these issues dont tell me enough... I have contacted him and asked how he voted on the wider powers of entry, I await his response.

[coppullcaveman1]

My local Coppull Councillor is a complete ass, Mr. Ball is a serving magistrate and looks down on everyone , always a face in the paper etc, however you have given me an idea. Am just going to contact BBC Radio Lancashire to see if I can get some airtime for this issue, they do stream online too will post back later.

[coppullcaveman1]

Petition to: abandon plans to give bailiffs powers to use 'reasonable force' against those protecting their valuables. | Number10.gov.uk please sign the above petition on the Number 10 website, post it on your facebooks , msn, bebo, get the message out there. The last petition on this subject had a paltry 3000 signatures, use your networking to enlist more support

[hallowitch]

done

[coppullcaveman1]

Forget the petition it expires on 3rd July, these things are just to difficult to learn about, we need to make a concerted effort to get our voices heard. I`m all for marching around westminster

[tomtubby]

I am plese to hear that the Courts agreed to return the fines back to the court and CONSOLIDATE them.

It is a huge problem that the MOJ are in agreement to using uncertificated bailiffs to enforce these fines, in particular that there is so route of complaint to the courts and the bailiff knows it!!

Even though their Contract provides that ONLY certificated bailiffs are used to enforce these fines, apparently the MOJ amended the Contract as the bailiff companies argued that it can take a period of 6 months to train and eventually apply for the bailiff to be certificated !!

We understand that the bailiff MUST be certifictaed after this 6 months "grace" period.

I know that a letter is being prepared to be sent to the relevant Contracts Manager concerning your case.

[coppullcaveman1]

If the bailiff companies dont have the trained and certificated staff to run a contract then surely they have no business bidding for it in the first place ? Are there any remedies under data protection and fraud ? I suspect the fraud will go nowhere as the police and bailiffs seem to pee in the same pot ! (or at least the same shape of pot) and data protection... I just have not a clue though I did call the information commissioners office and told them what had happened , they told me it appears to contravene or be against principle 7 relating to unlawful disclosure however if I can get it proven that posting in such a prominent position in the centre of the village is deemed as publishing for public comsumption then the penalties can be more severe. (Publish as in publishing marraige banns is the posting in one place viewable by the public is it not ?
)
Having seen the pics Tomtubby, would you agree that we are in a prominent position , If mankind had decided to walk past my house they all could have read it in theory lol

[coppullcaveman1]

One point about the "Grace " period, is this from the date the contract was awarded or from when the trainee was hired ? as this will possibly make a difference when it comes to showing the company was acting as per the terms of the contract and one would assume if they are operating outside the terms of the contract then, the contract itself will become invalid thus invalidating the whole enforcement process ? just a thought .. I will admit it is an ill informed thought but until we start getting told in plain english where we stand we have to assume all things are possible ( except for Boris being Mayor of London of course ..... that would be too silly )

[hallowitch]

tomtubby posted this on an other thread an interesting read

APRIL 27th 2007.



Lord Lucas 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. [HL2743]


20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94




The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): 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.


Lord Lucas 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. [HL2744]



Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 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.


20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95




Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain 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. [HL2745]


Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is 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 himself 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.

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.

Lord Lucas 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. [HL2746]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs 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.

.

[coppullcaveman1]

Come on Hallowitch, lets trot off up Pendle hill and hex all the baggars, I have read the relevant sections of the fraud act but having it put into relevant context is fantastic, it sort of clears the muddy waters a bit.
BIG obstacle, the police ! Priorities , public interest etc, I suspect that because it is in the public interest it will not be in the Governments interest and therefore will not be persued. I am going to have a look at EU law regarding fraud, am I correct in thinking that EU law trumps UK law ?
I know nothing... never needed to until 29th of June

[Happy Contrails]

The law falls over because the police say bailiff crime is a civil matter and will not investigate any crime committed by a bailiff.

There is no politician willing to change to police policy in tackling bailiff crime, this leaves bailiffs with blank-cheque freedom rights to charge hundreds of pounds in unlawful fees.

[coppullcaveman1]

I have spoken to Lancashire Constabulary , they made no mention if civil law , they are going to take my statement tomorrow night but I am unsure how to make it sound as though its come from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Once I have my site up and Running I will plug and plug this site for all I am worth.
I have had to deal with the aftermath of reposessions and can see the obvious trauma inflicted, I am starting up in House Clearances under Aardvark House Clearances and I would love to be able to donate items for CAG to put on ebay or donate a portion of what the goods make a local auction on a regular basis,

[coppullcaveman1]

If I get a favourable reply to an email I have just sent is there anyone who would be prepared to go on TV to talk about bailiff malpractice and illegal activity ? Tomtubby would be brilliant lol. I`m not holding my breath and will probably not get anywhere but we can only try. If you are reading this Tracy, thankyou fot at least having a look and please look at some of the other threads on this forum. This is our only source of help.
Shaun

[T2upNorth]

Yes I would. PM for details

[tomtubby]

Originally Posted by hallowitch

tomtubby posted this on an other thread an interesting read

APRIL 27th 2007.



Lord Lucas 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. [HL2743]


20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94




The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): 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.


Lord Lucas 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. [HL2744]



Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 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.


20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95




Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain 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. [HL2745]


Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is 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 himself 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.

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.

Lord Lucas 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. [HL2746]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs 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.

.

I am glad that you kept this..... Well done !!!

[ambershadow]

Originally Posted by coppullcaveman1

If I get a favourable reply to an email I have just sent is there anyone who would be prepared to go on TV to talk about bailiff malpractice and illegal activity ? Tomtubby would be brilliant lol. I`m not holding my breath and will probably not get anywhere but we can only try. If you are reading this Tracy, thankyou fot at least having a look and please look at some of the other threads on this forum. This is our only source of help.
Shaun

Yes Definatley, they came to me twice and charge me extortionate fee's and made our lives hell from 5.30 in the morning.

[coppullcaveman1]

Having discovered that two of the warrants had expired and only the one for £120 fixed penalty was valid I cannot understand why or how they came to Levvy on £1209.00 or were my eyes playing me up ?

I really hope this is illegal as I intend to take this as far as possible

[gustavius rex]

l would be most willing to go on tv and tell the whole world my story. l did not only have to contend with the bailiff, but, with an assisting police as well. You are absolutely right when you say that the police is using the same pee pot as the bailiff. l am still not finished with my preparations due to the problems getting to the police and an acceptance that the bailiff acted unlawfully. lt's very difficult and takes a lot of time, but, hopefully persstance shall pay off.
Gustavius Rex

[coppullcaveman1]

I recieved a letter from Marston acknowledging my complaint, basically it says they will investigate thoroughly etc, etc, then it goes on to say if I decide I want it taken to court (ie sue them) and initiate litigation then the case will be closed and I will be informed that this is the case.

unortunately I cannot afford justice and paying for it is the only way you are going to get it.

I shall await the outcome of this internal investigation with caution and pessimism, they will be like the police, kick one and they all scream.
They will find nothing wrong with their procedures, even the posting in public view details of their visit along with the amount they were chasing and my wifes name.
I have been on touch with the Information commissioners office and they seem to be leaning towards my argument that our details were in fact "published" for public consumption in a prominently viewable place.

Marston group have no morals, they thrive on misery, and terrorise the poorest in society.
There is no longer any need for Bailiffs, we have attachment orders dont we ? Keep the bailiffs off the road and you have an environmentally friendly policy to boot.

[coppullcaveman1]

following a review of my diary of events on 29 June ( as opened this thread) I have re-booked an appointment to report the actions of these thugs from Marstons as a criminal matter.
I have further completed a report for the information commissioners office regarding data protection issues.
I will post back when the police say its not a criminal matter !