Reporting A Bailiff Using Form EAC2

[John The Baptist]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the other serial misunderstander, Sheila Harding steps in with her own brand ofdrivel and nonsense.

For the avoidance of doubt, Sheila Harding knows nothing about EAC2s and has never been involved in one. An example of Harding's stupidity, ignorance and naivety regarding EAC2 complaints can be seen on her own website in which she claims:

A complaint to the County Court about a bailiff/enforcement agent should always be a last resort.

This is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever read. If a person believes that a bailiff is not fit to hold a certificate then complaining to the court should be the first resort. Harding appears to have completely misunderstood the reason for EAC2s and has gotten herself all confused by the word "complaint". In this instance the word "complaint" is very misleading because an EAC2 is not really a complaint at all. It is a request to the court to take away the bailiff's certificate. Harding doesn't seem to understand that an EAC2 is completey different to normal complaints to agencies and creditors. Harding further misleads readers of her website by telling them that they should try to resolve the matter with an agency before going to court. Finally, Harding claims that having costs awarded in failed EAC2s is a "real possibility". Harding appears to have based this theory on reading posts made on the internet in which she is not privy to the full facts. The system is designed to ensure that costs are not going to build up if it is avoidable and only in the very small percentage of matters when there has been SERIOUS abuse of the courts process will costs be awarded.


Harding further states:

judges tasked with deciding EAC2 complaints,(of which there are very few by the way) will NOT reject the complaint if it is not on the specified form

This is something that Harding has made up. She has no idea why some complaints are allowed to continue on non prescribed forms. Furthermore, it is at the judges discrection as to whether the complaint may proceed if it is submitted on a non prescribed form.


Then we have this gem:

it was usual to hear Courts requesting a personal hearing as opposed to making a decision ‘on paper’ (so to speak).

This is also absolute nonsense and appears to have been made up. I know of several complaints that have been dealt with before a hearing. Sometimes, the matter was thrown out at that point and other times, the matter was not deemed serious enough to proceed to a full blown hearing. However, the judges recommended further action to be taken such as additional training etc. Harding has never mentioned this before, prior to reading about the option on this thread and it is Harding, NOT the judges who have failed to understand the procedure. To suggest that Judges aren't aware of the relevant legislation when considering complaints is ridiculous.


I've saved the best bit for last:

If the court reject the complaint ‘by letter’ and without a personal hearing being called, there is NO route to appeal. This was one of the points decided in the High Court around a week ago

Worryingly, Harding doesn't even understand the situation regarding appeals and seems to think that the issue was "decided" a week ago. This of course is not the case and Regulation 9(9) of The Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014 prescribes that no appeal lies against the dismissal of a complaint either considered by a judge on his own or at a full blown hearing.


If Sheila Harding really thinks that judges are not able to find, read and understand Regulation 9 of the Certification Regs when tasked with considering a complaint then she is even more stupid than I thought she was. We're not talking about the Peter Bardsleys of this world here, we are talking about judges involved in the certification of enforcement agents. Is Harding really suggesting that these judges weren't aware of the relevant legislation?

[John The Baptist]

And still Bardsley continues with his buffoonery.

Bardsley - a few things for you to consider (if indeed you are able to do so);

1. Writing to a court to consider a certain action IS NOT complaining, nor can it be deemed to be so. There is no harm and no danger in doing so - If it stops someone instigating a complaint that is doomed to fail then so much the better.

2. Your mistress, Sheila Harding has also previously suggested that people with minor grievences take this course of action. It was she who I got the idea from as it is one of the few things that I think she got right. So before you wet those Y fronts again, make sure you know where the idea originated from.

3. Even if the note to the judge was deemed a complaint, it would be that minor that it would be thrown out at the first step, way before a hearing has taken place. Furthermore, the person who writes the note can point out at that stage that the intention was not to make an EAC2 complaint.

4. Despite what you have read on the internet, no genuine complaint carries the risk of costs being awarded so even if the note was considered as a complaint, nothing would come of it.

You need to take a few days off Bardsley. Why not go to Blackpool to visit Blackpool Bard?

[John The Baptist]

Regrettably, Sheila Harding does not know when to stop and is continuing to provide misinformation:

Good post Schedule One.

It was not a good post. You and your lackeys regularly refer to Nigel as my master (despite me knowing more about enforcement than both Nigel and yourself). Why not refer to you as Bardsley's mistress? What is the difference? Bardsley then comes out with one of his favourite insults "yob" and then finally (not for the first time), denies himself. What exactly is "good" about the post? The man is a sad clown who is housebound. He spent the entire day yesterday behind his keyboard, posting absolute nonsense because he has nothing better to do in his shitty little life. The post was just designed to be argumentative and insulting, just like every other post he makes. He brings absolutely nothing to the table in terms of help and advice.

...that costs COULD be imposed against the debtor in two instances:

(A) No reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate.
(B) Amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

No Harding, you fool. There are not two instances - There is only one and that is if BOTH A & B are satisfied.

Prior to 2014, there were many reports of costs orders being imposed

And post 2014 both you and that imbecile Bardsley are still reporting and scarmongering regarding costs orders being imposed, despite the fact that legislation is laid out now to protect both debtors and EAs from unnecessary costs.

that a copy of the letter would be sent to the court NOT as a ‘Form 4’ complaint, but as a letter to be kept on the court file to be considered by the court when the bailiffs certificate was due for renewal.

And that is exactly what I recommended to a debtor on CAG who clearly had no grounds to instigate an EAC2. However, your moronic friend thinks that despite it stating clearly that it not a complaint, a judge could consider it a complaint if he wants to. Why in God's name would a judge want to do that? Could he also consider it to be a claim for damages? The suggestion is ridiculous and childish and not even worth responding to.

In the first instance, the suggestion was made...

You regularly posted about it on CAG. That is where I got the idea from.

I was actually present (as an observer) at a Form 4 hearing at Northampton County Court in 2013 when the judge referred to there being 3 ‘letters of complaint’ on the file regarding the individual bailiff

Exactly - And nothing has changed since 2013 has it? These letters can still be sent in. They won't be considered complaints and they will remain on file until the bailiffs next application for renewal is heard. As I stated previously, it is one of the very few things that I agree with you about.

The position is not the same now as it was then

Of course it is you absolute weapon. To quote our friend Wesley, please provide evidence of why the position is not the same. The purpose of the letter is to rest on the bailiff's file just as it was pre-2014. Stop being an idiot and think about what you are posting. Please clarify what possible harm you think a letter could do if a complaint was not realistic and the debtor is adamant that a complaint should be instigated. Surely as a so called advisor, you will have dealt with many people who have been determined to instigate complaints, even though they are very minor scenarios. Giving them a carrot like writing a letter is often enough to pacify them whereas simply stating that they won't succeed usually falls on deaf ears.

the Westbrook case is a prime example. An absolute disaster from start to finish.

What you know about that case could be written on the back of a postage stamp - Just like what you know about EAC2s could. You didn't even know that complaints can be dealt with, without a hearing until you read my comments on this thread. No EAC2 will have costs ordered unless in the very small number of cases where complainants have satisfied BOTH limbs of CPR84.20(5).

Now stop posting about things that you know nothing about. You only serve to show yourself up to be the clueless fool that most people know you are.

[John The Baptist]

Unbelievable:

I have ensured that ALL enforcement companies (and many local authorities) have received my Fact Sheet regarding the excellent LGO decision (London Borough of Ealing) in relation to ‘Part 85’ claims. It is worthy of a read:

That's it then - Enforcement has been revolutionised and all enforcement agencies are now operating in accordance with Harding's "fact sheet".

I assist many people with ‘immobilised vehicles’ or ‘Part 85’ claims

Funny that because not so long ago, you didn't even know the correct procedure for these claims. You thought a "well drafted letter" was required.

For someone who spent the past week carrying on your rituals regarding Nigel's fantasies, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. You are just as big a fantasist as Nigel is, as is Bardsley, with his claims of being a university educated property magnate. You're all as bad as each other and all of you try to pretend to be something that you are not on the internet.

And you still don't understand do you?

‘Part 85’ claims should be easy to resolve by nothing more than NEGOTIATION.

There is no facility to negotiate. Hard facts and evidence are what is required. You send in the evidence and await to see if the EA accepts it (which 99 times out of 100 will be the case if the claim is genuine. Even PFG has told you what is required in terms of evidence. How can you possibly negotiate with a company who state that they don't accept the evidence and that the person must now apply to the court? Do you send them a "Harding fact sheet" and ask that negotiations may take place? What is there to negotiate?

Is this woman for real?

[zeke]

Westbrook went on to win his case. The judgment was set aside and got all his money back. The bailiff company forgo the EAC2 costs.

There remains the question of his damages to be decided.

[John The Baptist]

This is a good one:

For the avoidance of doubt, unless it is an EAC2 complaint, I no longer advocate ‘writing a letter’ to the court and I haven’t done so for a few years.

But you advocate EAC2s as "a last resort"

You tell people to contact the creditor or the bailiff company first.

WHY?

Do you even understand the purpose of an EAC2? It is to remove the bailiff's certificate. So why, in God's name would somebody want to contact the creditor or the agency? Neither have the power to remove the certificate.

[John The Baptist]

Still the entertainment continues:

There is no further issue regarding EAC2, their argument was lost when costs were awarded.

What argument and what costs? Nobody claims that costs cannot be awarded. I am simply stating that provided there is a genuine grievance, a complaint may be made without the fear of costs being awarded.

Under the current legislation any correspondence going to a court regarding a bailiffs behaviour will be sent to the bailiff in question

What a ridiculous thing to come out with. Have you even read the current legislation?
First of all, there is a prescribed form to be filled out - It is not guaranteed that failure to use this form means that the matter will proceed. Furthermore, the COMPLAINT must satisfy Reg 9(3) of the Certification Regs:

(3) A complaint submitted under paragraph (1) must provide details of the matters complained of and explain the reason or reasons why the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate.

As any potential letter would (a) Not be a complaint and (b) Not ask for a certificate to be revoked, let alone give reasons for doing so.
Therefore, it could not possibly be considered to be a complaint. Hence, the risk of costs is 0%.

Both reports when returned, will be considered by a judge who will either let the complaint go to the next stage or the complaint is dismissed

Wrong again you clown. The problem with having no experience and relying on making it up as you go along is that you always expose yourself to being caught out - Just as you have done here. There is a third option: The judge can decide that there are measures or steps that should be taken but that he can do so without requiring a full blown hearing. For example, the judge can ask that the agent in question receives further training.

I am sure of BA says that it was different pre 2014, then that was the case

Is that like you being sure that the debtor's address isn't required to be placed on a writ/ Or that Thameside were correct when they replied to your FOI? You being sure of something is not really the greatest testament is it. Furthermore, as a self-proclaimed "expert" in all aspects of the law, you should know that nothing has changed since pre-2014. All you and/or Harding need do is show us why and how things have changed since pre-2014. As usual, you both swerve the question and carry on with your flaming. Sheila Harding has made mistake after mistake after mistake regarding EAC2s. She appears to be some kind of anti-parking campaigner who one day decided that she was an expert in bailiff matters. Take her away from her OOTs and she is way out of her depth. The time has long passed when anybody looks up to Sheila Harding. If Harding cares to explain why things are different now, I'll gladly listen. I have to say though, I'm not holding my breath.

In fact all we have done is sought to correct his many errors.

You cannot read or write properly, let alone correct anyone. Both you and Sheila Harding regularly display an appalling lack of understanding of what is written. In fact, I doubt that either of you are capable of correcting anyone, let alone someone like me, who has forgotten more about bailiffs than the pair of you will ever know.

[Syd Snitkin]

That is the most telling sentence he has ever written:

I am sure of BA says that it was different pre 2014, then that was the case

There, in a nutshell, is the fawning stance he and a couple of others (thankfully a dwindling list) have with Sheila - if she says it's true then it must be and cannot be questioned. He has no desire to see whether it's correct or not, no willingness to check the accuracy... BA says it's correct. Thing is, even if he did try to research it himself, he'd look at the wrong legislation and completely fail to understand anything. That's why he simply nods when Sheila preaches.

[zeke]

BA as in British Airways, or is this something else?

[John The Baptist]

Brainless Arsehole?

Anyway Peter "Brains of a Chaffinch" Bardsley has just demonstrated what a lying, grubby little no mark he is and why he needs to be ignored.

He has just made (yet) another post denying himself but uses his favourite word (cesspit) which gives him away immediately.

One of Bardsley's biggest howlers was his quoting of Thamesides' response to a FOI. Bardsley quoted repealed legislation and when this was pointed out to him on here, Bardsley quickly posted again, stating that he knew all along and had posted "simply to gain a reaction"

Today, Bardsley has attempted to lie in order to re-write history. He has stated that he posted within 2 minutes on LB at 21.58 and 21.56. He claims that it would not have been possible for him to have read what was written and corrected himself within 2 minutes. I agree with him - I've seen how long it takes the cretin to write a basic post.

However, Bardsley is as thick as two short planks and has no memory whatsoever. He cannot remember what he posted 3 days ago, let alone what he posted 3 years ago. A moron like Bardsley should never attempt to lie like this because normal people with normal memories and normal inteligence will easily catch him out.

The true situation is that Bardsley posted his first misconception on CAG at 16.35. (post #1 in the link below). An hour later, he claimed that his "discovery" should be used to spark a useful and civilised debate". He seemed to think that his nonsense had upset us. Then at 18.11, he went a step further and posted the legislation that he was referring to, totally oblivious to the fact that it had been repealed. (post #3).

At 19.47, Sheila Harding joined in the thread and confirmed that Bardsley was correct. She even stated that she had told the LAs of this.

It was at this point that that it was pointed out to Bardsley that the legislation that he was relying on had been repealed.

At 19.51, Bardsley then stated that "we need to find out why Thameside had quoted repealed legislation"

All this took place way before the posts on LB were made.

I can only assume that the lying, moronic Bardsley made the same posts on LB so that he could use them to lie his way out of his buffoonery - Just as he has attempted to do today.

Bardsley is a scumbag. He is as thick as two short planks, has no intention of helping anyone and lurks on the internet solely to create conflict. He has no morals and will stoop to the lowest of depths, including lying at any cost to help his cause (whatever his cause may be).

He is a waste of space and has had all the oxygen from me that I'm prepared to give him. He can go back to sitting in his grotty slum whilst being on total ignore for me - That hurts him more than anything.

[Syd Snitkin]

He fought tooth and nail for bailiff fees to be included in an AOE order didn't he? At one point his argument was that because it was an 'order', fees can be added.

He absolutely would not accept that fees cannot be added to the order - only one enforcement method can be used at any one time. For the AOE to be in place, the bailiff's would need to be removed. If the bailiff's are removed, their fees are removed. Why he couldn't understand this simple concept was astounding.

[John The Baptist]

Here's the thread - I forgot to include the link in my last post:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... f-Earnings

[Syd Snitkin]

The thread has been heavily modded. I think I was 'iguanadon' on that one, signing up to point out he was quoting repealed legislation. He wants everyone to forget that he posted it on CAG before copy and pasting it on LB five hours later.

[zeke]

Here's the thread - I forgot to include the link in my last post:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... f-Earnings

He has a uni education. I didn't know that!

Sheila said: Cyberstalking is a criminal offence and each post that he and others are making is being carefully watched.

That is what she has been doing for the last three years. She knew all along it was an offence making 4 websites with over 3000 pages of content, attacking me and carefully watching. She even sent her fellow activist, Stephen Baker, to follow me around the High Court who was papped trying to sneak his way out the back door.

[John The Baptist]

3 years?

When she was conducting her “Happy Contrails” ritual last week, she was posting PDFs of posts of yours that she’d saved that are over 10 years old.

The woman clearly needs help of some description. She’s even been

[John The Baptist]

.... contacted by the police in the past regarding her behaviour online but still she continues.

How many times has she been asked to stop yet even up to last week, she was sticking the knife in on a daily basis whilst digging out posts from 10 years ago.

[zeke]

Its mental derangement or she is jealous. This thing is going up next year https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/ and it was bought out before I had even finished it.

I'll just have to build another one when my contract lapses in three years.

[John The Baptist]

Or maybe a combination of the two?

She's had another classic fail today:

Harding:

There is a ‘big deal’ I’m afraid. The provision allowing Jay to drive the Mercedes (on a third party basis), would only apply if he is not the OWNER of the car.

Jay:

My partner purchased the car

Harding:

As clear as mud I’m afraid. I’m not in the slightest bit surprised that the ‘Part 85’ claim has been rejected.

Oh really? How come your heroes at Newlyn didn't think it was clear as mud?


Harding:

Why in heavens name has the V5C (Log Book) not as yet been updated with Jay’s name !!!!!!!!

Errr Because the car was stolen - There was no log book when it was purchased - Jay has had to apply for a new log book to be issued.


Harding:

No, it is not a job outside a free help user group

Remind us again just how many times that you've been on your soap box and claimed that legal documents should not be drafted by laymen?


Harding:

A properly drafted Part 85 Claim needs to be put together with separate paragraphs including:

Evidence of ‘savings’ being withdrawn and from whose bank account

The P85 claim has already been submitted and turned down. The OP is on notice that the car is about to be sold. It is absolutely pointless sending in another claim to Marston with exactly the same evidence attached. Besides - If you possessed the ability to read at a higher standard than that of a 10 year old, you would know that the money came from cash transactions at work, not from a savings account.


Harding:

A copy of the Part 85 Claim should be sent to Marston’s with a request that confirmation be given that a copy of his claim will be sent to ALL creditors.

This is just ridiculous isn't it? You have just made that bit up haven't you? It is not for the debtor to request that the bailiffs adhere to CPR 85. Besides - For all you know, the bailiffs may have had permission to determine the authenticity of the evidence on behalf of the councils involved, either by way of the contracting out regs or by some other agreement. Whether the creditor has determined the evidence is irrelevant to the OP. He must only deal with the situation in front of him. If the creditor hasn't been consulted, it will help when costs fall to be considered at the P85 hearing.

[zeke]

Harding:

A copy of the Part 85 Claim should be sent to Marston’s with a request that confirmation be given that a copy of his claim will be sent to ALL creditors.

That is not right.

The law says when the bailiff has given the creditor the interpleader claim evidence and has responded without returning the goods or the 7 days have lapsed, the claimant can file the claim at court. Nothing in CPR85 says the claimant must tell the bailiff company.

[zeke]

Harding:

A properly drafted Part 85 Claim needs to be put together with separate paragraphs including:

Evidence of ‘savings’ being withdrawn and from whose bank account

The P85 claim has already been submitted and turned down. The OP is on notice that the car is about to be sold. It is absolutely pointless sending in another claim to Marston with exactly the same evidence attached. Besides - If you possessed the ability to read at a higher standard than that of a 10 year old, you would know that the money came from cash transactions at work, not from a savings account.

For a long time before you came along, I had been saying that Sheila doesn't bother to read the post before engaging the keyboard.

I now believe you are right, she cannot read them.

In any case, the discussions on this board are none of Sheila's concern. She is banned from this user group and forbidden from signing up new accounts. for good reason, insulting everyone, trolling other members, giving out wrong advice and now, making websites dictating the private lives of other members of this group.

[John The Baptist]

Nope - She certainly cannot read.

Here is what Sheila Harding seems to have trouble reading and understanding:

The car was paid for in cash and we can proof this as our businesses accept cash everyday.

So Harding, you have assumed that "savings" means a private bank account. The first thing you need to learn if you are going to venture into the big wide world of law is that you should never assume anything. It has been your downfall on many an occasion.

Also, hearsay kind of drivel like you write on your silly OOTs is of no use in a P85. Giving a story about why a V5 is not available is a waste of time because the bailiff will ignore it, just like the council ignored your silly story in those two failed OOts that you drafted last year. Stop telling people that well drafted letters will resolve legal issues. It is appalling information and extremely dangerous - As that poor lady discovered in the aforementioned OOT case.

An agency require evidence, hard evidence and nothing else. The best heart throb story in the world as to why a document cannot be produced will not succeed in these situations.

[Syd Snitkin]

Notice he did get Pote to admit ownership of the actionable disgusting fishy site.

Really? Did I? Where's that then? As far as I can see, I made three posts on the subject:

The blog is still there, as far as I know.

It hasn't gone anywhere. Feel free to post.

I wouldn't mind but Nigel can't seem to get it into his grey nut that although I wrote something on the blog once, it's not mine. FFS. Why does he think I can 'revive' it?

Funny how this bollox was also said by him at the time as well:

And of course we have discovered who PoteyPottyMouth is. Oh dear, is that a leak I hear?

That was 18 months ago - still waiting for the big reveal. and one for luck

[zeke]

Why would Sheila want to know who Pote is anyway?

It's none of her concern.

[Syd Snitkin]

You forget - she says she already knows what with me being an *ahem* ex-client.

Wonder if she was registered to process personal info at the time? I wonder which poor sod she did actually pull from her files? So many questions remain unanswered, such as the whereabouts of those OOTs she bleated about and whether she'll amend her advice on stat decs. Oh, and the secret to using a stat dec to quash three convictions going back up to eight years.

[John The Baptist]

She seems to be getting extremely angry over there. On today of all days as well. She's been waiting for today like a kid waits for Christmas.

She's had to re-read her PDF of Jay's case - Bless, she's tying herself into all sorts of knots:

and so did you.

Of course I didn't you absolute weapon. As you pasted later on, I enquired whether Jay could prove he had transfered funds from savings.

Harding now realises (after re-reading her PDF) that Jay can't prove a transfer of funds so she states:

Not good enough Jay and you run the risk of a Part 85 Claim being rejected.

Well done Harding. So when you advised Jay to write "a properly drafted" P85 with evidence of savings being withdrawn, you were wrong weren't you? Because having re-read the thread, you now understand that savings weren't withdrawn.

Don't worry Harding - I won't ask you for a reply. I know that you're hard as nails and would never admit to being wrong.

The obsession continues:

And I will be at the court at 9am when the doors open

She's traveled for 3 hours in the heat yesterday, stayed overnight in London last night, just to attend this hearing. And she claims that Nigel stalks her.

[John The Baptist]

Is Harding really at court?

She appears to have spent all morning carrying on with one of her sick rituals.

She really needs some form of help or counselling. This is not the behaviour of a normal woman who is approaching 70.

[Syd Snitkin]

Now, come on, she's only 66 and a half. Clickety-click, there goes me hip.

[Syd Snitkin]

You know, it really annoys me when someone says they'll be somewhere, then they don't show up.

[zeke]

Apparently, nobody turned up.

[John The Baptist]

Are you surprised? Who in their right frame of mind would want to attend a bankruptcy hearing that didn't concern them? Especially one that was being held so far away from home.

Only a complete madman (or woman) would be so seriously obsessed with Nigel and his affairs.

[Syd Snitkin]

Funny, I thought there was going to be live stream and everything. Mind you, with those old fellas, getting any sort of stream going is a victory.

[zeke]

It would have been a long way for me to travel to get there as well and I wouldn't have been given travel costs if I did.

There can be only one conclusion. Nominet's bankruptcy application is granted writing off everything.

They turned down an offer of payment for one last throw of the dice and they lost the whole lot.

I expect there is an angry solicitor with empty pockets.

Peter and Sheila's website causing that loss is still there and it was Peter's name and address that was being concealed caused Nominet to lose all that money. Under the law of Property Act 1925, Nominet may acquire the right to bring the action to recover it.