PCN's dimissed in Guildford county court followed by DCBL visit

[John The Baptist]

they are now stating I must wait 5 working days for a response. They are refusing to confirm if this response will include the proof of postage.

It means the bailiff company fails to comply with 7.3.

After the claim is brought, defendant bailiff company cannot produce the certificate because they should have done so before the proceedings.

You might want to familiarise yourself with DCBLs complaint procedure. After the 5 days to respond, they allow themselves a further 28 days to investigate and a further 28 days after that for the inevitable appeals

[dannny]

Like I said before, I couldnt live with myself if I hadnt at least tried to stop Gary from acting as if he is above the law and mistreating debtors. I will speak with my legal advisors and explore the potential to take it to a EAC2 hearing.

[dannny]

That's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You had much experience with EAC2s? Are you aware that you can end up several thousand pounds out of pocket if you lose one?

From what I am reading I would only be liable for costs if I provide "no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate" and the court sees it as an abuse of process. What you are saying is quite misleading.

[John The Baptist]

That's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You had much experience with EAC2s? Are you aware that you can end up several thousand pounds out of pocket if you lose one?

From what I am reading I would only be liable for costs if I provide "no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate" and the court sees it as an abuse of process. What you are saying is quite misleading.

So what are you saying are your reasonable grounds to ask a judge to deprive Gary of his ability to earn a living?

EAC2s never succeed, even when the bailiff has behaved badly. I can never understand why anyone would want to start this process when there is absolutely nothing to gain, little to no hope of succeeding and a hefty costs order to lose.

[dannny]

No thats not what Im saying. Its not about "winning" and having his certificate taken away. If Gary or anyone else for that matter is operating outside of the rules they should be held to account. Whether or not that means his certificate is taken away entirely, temporarily so he can be retrained or not at all is not for myself to decide.

[zeke]

Lets see what Dannys grounds that Gary is unfit to have a certificate and we'll tell you if its EAC2 material.

Remember, any comments must be backed up with evidence. For example, you cant accuse anyone of an offence without evidence of the charge or the conviction.

Apart from that. If you want to hit a bailiff here it hurts, then hit them in the pocket. They not only pay you but they ay your solicitor's fees, plus they have to report it to their indemnity insurer regardless they claim on their policy.

A detailed assessment is always a quick and painless.

[dannny]

I dont think it would be appropriate to go into this further. I will be speaking with my legal advisers and exploring the potential to take it to an EAC2 hearing.

[zeke]

Please approach this with caution.

[dannny]

DCBL have finally replied to my several requests for a copy of the proof of postage this afternoon with the following email from their compliance manager. I am going to assume this does not satisfy section 7.3 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007???

Dear Sirs, Further to several phone calls and emails to DCBL today regarding proof of postage, for I presume, Notice of Enforcement. Notices were sent on 29th March 2018 to two addresses in full accordance with governing Regulation. Notices are sent pursuant to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 on the date above to:

XXXX And: XXXX

The Notices were sent by first class post, and in accordance with s7 Interpretation Act is deemed served in the ‘ordinary course of the post’ which pursuant to CPR 6.26 is the second day after posting. The Notices were deemed served therefore by 2nd April 2018. DCBL keep records of Notices being posted out on a daily basis and these are collected by the postman who signs for collection. Governing Regulation requires no special or recorded delivery methods for Notices in exactly the same manner as the Courts.

No attachment. It starting to feel like they are giving me the run around

[zeke]

The law doesn't require the bailiff to send a notice by recorded delivery.

You can start a detailed assessment. I recommend having a solicitor go on the record first because that starts racking up fees.



If you want me to draft your detailed assessment, then I am back on Thursday. I need:

• The writ - if you have it, otherwise the judgment order - the N24 (I don't need both) showing the claim amount and date. If you have neither then I can obtain it but the charge is passed on as costs.
  
  The screenshot of your letter asking for the 7.3 compliance, and
  
  The screenshot of their emailed reply (not a copy/paste of the text).
  
  Whether a bailiff took control of YOUR goods (YES or NO).
  
  Date the bailiff took money.
  
  Amount taken.
  
  Bank statement, or documents proving flow of money to the bailiff, or if cash, a witness statement.

Once I have determined you have a case, I'll pass the case to a solicitor who will take formal instructions from you and file the application at the High Court in London.

I do not charge you a fee because I am paid by the solicitor's firm.

[Syd Snitkin]

Reply and tell them what Gaz said on here:

NOE's are sometimes sent to multiple addresses. We MUST be able to confirm that the notice has been sent to justify further enforcement. That's why the office keep a proof of postage should it be questioned.

Ask for a copy of this proof of postage. They must have one cos Gaz says they do.

[dannny]

The law doesn't require the bailiff to send a notice by recorded delivery.

I know but if I request a proof of postage for the NoE and they are not able to produce this, are they not failing 7.3? Or is this something they would only have to produce for the courts in a witness statement? Seems a bit easy for them to not send anything ever if they can simply send you an email equating to 'we promise we sent it'.

[John The Baptist]

The law doesn't require the bailiff to send a notice by recorded delivery.

I know but if I request a proof of postage for the NoE and they are not able to produce this, are they not failing 7.3? Or is this something they would only have to produce for the courts in a witness statement? Seems a bit easy for them to not send anything ever if they can simply send you an email equating to 'we promise we sent it'.

They don't have to provide proof of posting. 7.3 just states that the time should be recorded when the notice was given (when the notice is given, the time is the time that it was posted)

Are they claiming that they sent 2 notices, one to your previous address and one to your current address?

[Syd Snitkin]

I know but if I request a proof of postage for the NoE and they are not able to produce this, are they not failing 7.3? Or is this something they would only have to produce for the courts in a witness statement? Seems a bit easy for them to not send anything ever if they can simply send you an email equating to 'we promise we sent it'.

No, 7.3 can only come into play if they can't provide a record of the time it what given (ie posted). It doesn't need to be a proof of postage.

[Syd Snitkin]

^ duh, *time it was given*.

[dannny]

Are they claiming that they sent 2 notices, one to your previous address and one to your current address?

Yes that is what they are saying. Im slightly confused, if DCBL can simply state 'we sent it at this date and time' it seems like an easy escape from 7.3 in all situations.

[John The Baptist]

Are they claiming that they sent 2 notices, one to your previous address and one to your current address?

Yes that is what they are saying. Im slightly confused, if DCBL can simply state 'we sent it at this date and time' it seems like an easy escape from 7.3 in all situations.

7.3 is something Nigel is very big on. I'm not convinced it's that helpful.

As they said in their reply, they are not required to prove letters have been posted, just like the courts aren't.

They seem to be claiming that they've traced you to your new address before sending the notices. If so, why would they need to send it to your old address?

I don't believe that they did send notice to your current address. Firstly, you wouldn't have left the door open for Gary to walk in if you knew he was coming in advance. Secondly, you would have sent in the application at that point if you'd received notice.

[Syd Snitkin]

They need to provide a record of when they were sent, they can't just ask you to trust them.

I don't understand why they would send NOEs to 2 different addresses - if they had your new address then surely they'd just send one there.

[Syd Snitkin]

We're posting at the same time with the same info JTB. I'll let you carry on - got to take the dog for a walk anyway.

[dannny]

Oh well regardless of all of this mess I am still confident my N244 application to set aside the judgment will be successful. Gaz got it wrong and his office do not keep a record of any proof of postage of NoE's like he said they do.

[Syd Snitkin]

Of course they don't. A postman collecting a bundle of letters and signing for them means nothing if each one hasn't been checked. What's the betting that the office use the prepaid envelopes for all of their personal mail - eg greetings cards etc.

[John The Baptist]

Oh well regardless of all of this mess I am still confident my N244 application to set aside the judgment will be successful. Gaz got it wrong and his office do not keep a record of any proof of postage of NoE's like he said they do.

Write back asking for a copy of the notices, the date that they were instructed to act on behalf of the client and the date that they traced you. The answer to all of that should be funny.

Also write to the creditor, complaining about DCBL and ask them of the date that DCBL were instructed.

What is the date on the writ and what is the supposed dates on the notices?

[Poker man]

Write back asking for a copy of the notices, the date that they were instructed to act on behalf of the client and the date that they traced you. The answer to all of that should be funny.

Mark, why do people assume that we MUST jump through hoops to provide proof that the job has been done properly? If the courts demand it, the relevant documentation can be provided, otherwise there is nothing that says we MUST prove that the correct procedure has been followed. Debtors can make their complaints to the courts and we will respond to what the court orders, but the debtor takes the risk that they may be ordered to pay costs if they are found to be abusing the process, as the Westbrooks found out last year thanks to your help.

[Syd Snitkin]

I'm sure the courts would be delighted that you would take up their time by refusing to provide such simple information without them forcing you. Why should it need a court ordering you provide the debtor the info they request? This shows your petty minded attitude.

[John The Baptist]

Write back asking for a copy of the notices, the date that they were instructed to act on behalf of the client and the date that they traced you. The answer to all of that should be funny.

Mark, why do people assume that we MUST jump through hoops to provide proof that the job has been done properly? If the courts demand it, the relevant documentation can be provided, otherwise there is nothing that says we MUST prove that the correct procedure has been followed. Debtors can make their complaints to the courts and we will respond to what the court orders, but the debtor takes the risk that they may be ordered to pay costs if they are found to be abusing the process, as the Westbrooks found out last year thanks to your help.

Experience Gary.

I would be absolutely amazed if DCBL received instructions and then waited to send out a NoE until a search had been carried out to verify the debtors current address. I would be amazed if any bailiff company did - Nor should they be expected to. However, once it was discovered (from making an initial visit) that the debtor no longer lived at the address, the correct action would have been to have resent the NoE to the correct address.

If a debtor has not received notice, do you think that he should automatically jump straight into court proceedings? That is the kind of thing that Nigel would come out with.

2 days ago, you were claiming that Syd Thompson helped out in your EAC2, now you are claiming that I helped. I can assure you Gary that if I had helped out in that EAC2 complaint, I would not have called you a "peeping Tom pervert" and also Gary, there would have been no costs ordered against the complainant. If I had been involved in that complaint Gary, you would have been ordered to do the retraining that you so clearly need, as a very minimum.

I wouldn't believe all that you read on the internet Gary. You don't know my name and you don't know who helped in what case.

[John The Baptist]

I'm sure the courts would be delighted that you would take up their time by refusing to provide such simple information without them forcing you. Why should it need a court ordering you provide the debtor the info they request? This shows your petty minded attitude.

Yes, plus dear old Jan Holmes would be put out of a job.

[Poker man]

I believe you're Mark Bowley aka Tuco. Are you saying you're not that person?

[Syd Snitkin]

To be fair Gaz mate, your guesses at who's who ain't that clever is it? You believed I was Syd Thompson, a name I had to look up to see who that was. Gave us a good insight to your enemies though.

On a side note, should I stick with Syd or revert back to Pote?

[John The Baptist]

I believe you're Mark Bowley aka Tuco. Are you saying you're not that person?

I am not "Tuco" Gary. Sorry to piss in your chips and all of that.

I have never helped or encouraged an EAC2 (or Form 4) in my life either. If you'd bothered to read this thread properly, you would have seen that I actively discouraged Danny from instigating one as well.

[Poker man]

Imagine if you lived at an address where you paid your council tax and people kept knocking asking you to prove it. You may show your council tax bill to the first few people to prove it, but after a few days of it I'm sure you'd eventually get sick and tired. Eventually, you would stop jumping through hoops, knowing you're doing what you're supposed to do. If those people wanted to report you for not paying your council tax, that's up to them right? It doesn't mean you MUST keep showing it to everyone who knocks on your door because they demand to see it. After all, you've got other things to be getting on with that take priority. If the court said that you MUST show it to people upon request, you would have no choice, but until then, I'm sure you would just end up closing the door in their face.

[John The Baptist]

Actually Gaz, let's start your retraining tonight:

Section 23 NS:

23. Enforcement agents, for the purpose of taking control of goods shall, without the
use of unlawful force, gain access to the goods. The enforcement agent must
produce all relevant notices and documents, such as controlled goods
agreements, that are required by regulations or statute.

[Poker man]

I am not "Tuco" Gary. Sorry to piss in your chips and all of that.

I have never helped or encouraged an EAC2 (or Form 4) in my life either. If you'd bothered to read this thread properly, you would have seen that I actively discouraged Danny from instigating one as well.

I did notice that, but an EAC2 doesn't phase me at all, because I know I don't do anything to to justify it.

So it's just a coincidence that Tuco's account no longer exists and you happened to join this forum a matter of weeks later? I think you're him and I don't think there's anything you can say to convince me otherwise.

[Poker man]

Actually Gaz, let's start your retraining tonight:

Section 23 NS:

23. Enforcement agents, for the purpose of taking control of goods shall, without the
use of unlawful force, gain access to the goods. The enforcement agent must
produce all relevant notices and documents, such as controlled goods
agreements, that are required by regulations or statute.

I'm well aware what documentation I am required to provide. Proof of postage isn't one of them.

[John The Baptist]

I am not "Tuco" Gary. Sorry to piss in your chips and all of that.

I have never helped or encouraged an EAC2 (or Form 4) in my life either. If you'd bothered to read this thread properly, you would have seen that I actively discouraged Danny from instigating one as well.

I did notice that, but an EAC2 doesn't phase me at all, because I know I don't do anything to to justify it.

So it's just a coincidence that Tuco's account no longer exists and you happened to join this forum a matter of weeks later? I think you're him and I don't think there's anything you can say to convince me otherwise.

That's absolutely fine Gary. It makes no difference to me who you think I am and you are entitled to think whatever you like.

I accept that EAC2s should not phase you. A bailiff would have to be unbelievably stupid to do something to jeopardize his livelihood. I know you're not that stupid. I do think that on occasions though, you carry out actions that justify considering you for retraining.

[Poker man]

I accept that EAC2s should not phase you. A bailiff would have to be unbelievably stupid to do something to jeopardize his livelihood. I know you're not that stupid. I do think that on occasions though, you carry out actions that justify considering you for retraining.

Do you know what? I would welcome some further training as no one is the perfect agent. You may think that I'm just saying this for the benefit of my image, but without any official course dedicated to training agents in the matters of High Court Enforcement, I would welcome the introduction of such a course.