Marstons assault

[Petal]

On Monday a bailiff from Marstons put his foot in my door as I was leaving to take daughter to school, he asked for my husband. My husband was a work but he wouldn't leave! I held the door so he couldn't step in and started recording him on my phone. He was after a speeding ticket fine that my husband had but knew nothing about as any correspondence for the car goes to the garage (We had no idea about that until this bailiff turned up). I kept refusing for the bailiff to come in but he kept trying to push the door with his foot, I told him I was not the debtor so to leave. He called the police, the police backed him up and told me I would be arrested for obstructing him even though they stood and witnessed him pushing me! I'm pretty sure he had a fake warrant (I have a photo). My husband who was at work an hour away phoned the court and asked for a statutory declaration hearing which was granted I told both the bailiff and the police this but the bailiff continued to push me and my son out of the way while my 10 year daughter was sat crying watching! He managed to physically push me and my son out of the way while the police watched. He then trashed my house, my whole bedroom was emptied onto my bed and floor including underwear and other personal items! He took my daughter's tv out of her room and broke the stand! He chucked a table top freezer on to my table denting it! He gathered thousands of pounds worth of stuff that was mine, my children's and family members that didn't belong to my husband and destroyed my home in the process for what he said was for £600! We looked like we had been burgled! We have video and photo evidence of this! All this time I was asking him to phone his office about the statutory declaration hearing but he refused until his office eventually phoned him and he just left without saying anything and the police just followed!! He turned up at 8.20am and left at 10.45am. Please tell me there's something I can do about this disgusting behaviour that myself and my children had to go through?

[zeke]

DO NOT go to a Statutory declaration hearing! They will revoke it there and then and reinstate bailiffs. Its a trick they play on you to fess up to the conviction without the prosecutor giving the information giving rise to the conviction. This article explains the correct procedure to revoke a conviction: https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Co ... ation.html and read the "heads-up" warning.

You need to take photos of the damage because the bailiff called police so he can commit a distraction burglary. If you look over your house again, you may find money and jewellery stolen: This article explains how police are involved in distraction burglaries. It is unknown whether the police know they are being used in a distraction burglary. https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Je ... liffs.html

Reclaiming your damages is made in a county court against the bailiff at his bailiff company address. You cannot name the bailiff company in this case because paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 does not name a bailiff company as a "related party".

Putting his boot into the door and applying force to you is now illegal since 2016. The law allowing force against people for collecting court fines and HMRC was repealed and I played a hand in persuading Parliament in stopping the use of violence of any kind against people. The law as it stands is:



Provision 24 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

24(1)The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.
(2)A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons

See if this list offers any further remedies.

https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Ba ... Sheet.html

[Petal]

How is it a trick my husband is caught on camera speeding so of course he has to admit to that! That's not the issue, the issue is that we knew nothing about it because the garage my husband has his car finance with has put their business address as my husbands address so they get all correspondence about the car and they haven't been forwarding the post on! Obviously that's something else we need to deal with. The court has told him that there's a chance the fine will be wiped altogether as he didn't know about it so may get to do the speed awareness course instead! But even if they stick with the fine it will be the original amount without the bailiffs fees which is fine by us.

I've cleaned my whole house and nothing is missing so he hasn't taken anything so that's not an issue either.

I just don't want this to happen to someone else so want to know the best way to make an official complaint against the bailiff for assault, unlawful entry and criminal damage and also for the police allowing it all to happen while they stood and watched.

[Petal]

Oh and I have plenty of photos and videos of during the whole ordeal and the aftermath.

[zeke]

Have a read of my original reply. The trick is in getting your husband to attend a “statutory declaration hearing”. That is not what the law says.

From 13 April 2015, section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 introduced a new procedure for summary-only non-imprisonable offences.

They should give your husband a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJP Notice) asking you to enter a plea. If he enters a plea, it revokes his statutory declaration.

Before deciding a plea, he had a right to examine the information giving rise to the original conviction. They should enclose it with the SJP Notice. It is not, then ask for it because the prosecution has burden of proof. If they give no information, then return the SJP Notice stating the information provided is insufficient information to enable him to decide a plea, and therefore the statutory declaration stands.

If they summon him to attend a “statutory declaration hearing” (There is no such thing in rules of Court), before entering a plea, demand to see the following before entering a plea.

• Date of the alleged offence
  
  The written charge document showing the date of issue
  
  The date they issued the SJP Notice
  
  The information or evidence the prosecution relies on to bring the charge
  
  Confirmation the SJP Notice and the Charge document dates are less than 6 months ago.

Until they produce, enter not guilty.

You may well have a claim against the bailiff for damage to your property. Contact me if you would like to be referred to a specialist law firm who can bring proceedings against malfeasant public officials.

You have video and pictures. Make the bailiff produce his bodycam footage and see if it marries up with yours. If it doesn't then you have plenty of redress. Free Template

Make the bailiff produce his ID and authority to enter the property: Free Template

[Syd Snitkin]

What Shedule12 is trying to say is rather than attend the court for the statutory declaration (SD) your husband should send it to the court by registered post (getting a signature). The SD must state why he didn't receive the speeding notices (eg went to a different address). State that had he been aware of the offence and acknowledged he was guilty he would have responded without delay.

The SD can witnessed at any solicitor for about £5, no appointment is needed, just tell the receptionist you need a SD witnessed. If he's already attended the court for the SD then obviously you don't need to do any of that.

In regards to the bailiff's actions you need to complain to the court as they remain liable for his actions. The foot in the door is not allowed, nor is force against the person. Removing goods from a child's room is also not permitted and he must ensure he causes no unnecessary damage. If you have this on camera then you can either suggest compensation from the court or start a civil action against all parties.

In addition, a complaint to the Station Inspector at your Police station should be made regarding his officers compliance in allowing the bailiff to act unlawfully.

[pcn]

yeh a marstons bailiff shoulder charged me to get threw door. but i saw him turn body cam off so i kicked him rights in the balls took his breath away. i got locked up for couple of hours but not guilty they couldnt produce body cam evidence so they ever turned up at court. not nice people at all young kids in house aswell

[zeke]

If you have been cleared, you can apply for damages.

From July 22 bailiffs cannot turn off bodycam. If they do then any action that relies on it is defeated.

Only this morning a Marston bailiff had no camera and was body slammed by the lady he was attending on. The bailiff applied force to the door and picked a fight with a debtor who was half his size.

[pcn]

was 2 or 3 year ago paid fine direct to court . so they thought they.d collect fees lol good job i was wide awake big butch fella soon got brought down to earth with my work boots on lo

[power of print]

Schedule 12 says "From July 22 bailiffs cannot turn off bodycam. If they do then any action that relies on it is defeated." What happened on 22 July other than the MOJ making a statement that they intended to make it compulsory for Bailiffs to wear video cameras. I believe it is also posted on a website called "National Bailiff Advice" that as of 22 July it is now compulsory for Bailiffs to wear video cameras.

https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Bo ... liffs.html

I was not aware that a press statement of intent to legislate is now considered legislation itself. Don't know why this hasn't been thought of before. Saves a lot of time on consultation and white papers, debates and readings in the House of Commons, passing it up to the Lords, etc etc. Just make a press release and it passes into law. If that is not the case, can anyone please supply a link to the legislation that was passed on 22 July in relation to compelling bailiffs to wear video cameras following the MOJ press statement ? It must be out there somewhere for National Bailiff Advice, a publication of such renown for giving only correct and factual information to say it is.

I cannot find any record in Hansard, but can find this, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103356. It must be me, and I look foward to bookmarking the link to the new regulations.

Thanks in anticipation.

[zeke]

The website only says the government, the Ministry of Justice, wants it to be compulsory for bailiffs to wear body cams. It doesn't say there is legislation.

The MOJ completed its review of the 2014 reforms earlier this year which highlighted a need for bailiffs to wear body-worn cameras.

While it's not legislated yet, that doesn't mean to so it won't be. The review discovered that bailiffs object to being filmed by debtors and bystanders, so bailiff companies introduced methodologies in bailiff training to help them avoid being filmed or being caught by TV crews.

The similarity in each bailiff company's training material indicates the material originates from a common source.

When the MOJ emailed stakeholders about introducing compulsory body cams, advice groups and law firms involved in bailiff related matters updated their policies and documentation for giving advice or bringing an action involving a bailiff unable to show body cam footage.

Another example of MOJ guidelines being used in legal proceedings is solicitor applying for an injunction to recover a client’s car clamped while it is on hire-purchase. The regulations place no responsibility on the bailiff to check whether the car is the goods of the debtor, so the Local Government Ombudsman published a report on 29 November 2012 which predates the 2014 regulations, came into effect and states: We consider that bailiffs should: check the vehicle belongs to the debtor before removing it.

This sets a good example where bailiffs got round it by clamping a hire-purchase car without removing it. Therefore, the legal profession exhibits the LGO report as evidence the bailiff knew the car was not the goods of the debtor, and defeating their defence when challenging an order to pay the costs and damages of the hirer or the car.

With body cams, the debtor cannot make an unsupported allegation, for example. A bailiff putting his foot into the door to stop it being closed. The footage proves the allegation, however, if the footage is absent, then the court can decide on balance whether the allegation is true because the bailiff could have taken steps to protect himself from that allegation.

Camera footage assists a court deciding a claim for damage to vehicles, whether the damage is pre-existing immediately before the bailiff took control of it. Absent footage lays the bailiff wide open for claims, and from experience, expensive cars rack up a big bill, likewise a bailiff company not forthcoming with footage until after a claim has been filed at court. The court recognises the bailiff company should be cooperative rather than combative.

I have personally seen video footage taken of bailiffs showing one picking up and throwing a dining room chair at the person filming. A police officer lying about the address on a bailiffs liability order then being shown the address is wrong. A police officer snatching a mobile phone from a bystander, and a bailiff pulling over upright rolls of carpet damaging furniture. All those cases could never have been proved without video.

[power of print]

Good to see that National Bailiff Advice has corrected its erroneous claim that the government had made body worn video compulsory for bailiffs WEF 22 July.

An emphtic assertion of that nature from such an "Authoratitive" source such as National Bailiff Advice could well have resulted in some unfortunate individual being on the wrong end of civil litigation having filed a complaint against a bailiff for breaching Government Regulations, where no such regulation exists.

I for one look forward to the introduction of such a regulation and firmly believe it will be a benefit to all concerned.

In Schedule 12's final paragraph in their comment they mention some genuinely disturbing events. Can Schedule 12 also let us in on the progress of the police investigations that surely must have flowed from their sighting of ( judging from their description ), were clearly criminal acts ? Assault, Malfeasance in Public office, Criminal Damage. With such clear and unequivocal evidence as to that which is alluded, I don't think it would take Kavanagh QC to prosecute them successfully .

[zeke]

Following requests by law firms receiving work, the cases and their findings are not put on internet discussion forums. A jealous individual gets rattled.

In any case, the video evidence doesn't belong to me.

A company called Brinkworth landed Channel 5 substantial damages because it used video material for gain without the subjects permission.

National Bailiff Advice is not entertainment. It gives free advice bridging the gap created by charity debt advice services. Most clients opt out of publicity, while the few that choose publicity are shown how to approach the media, and those cases become public knowledge. It is a first port of call for journalists wanting a bailiff story.

One of its free services generates over two dozen Section 14 templates a week. That amounts to saving the general public almost £7500 in bailiffs fees every week without me lifting a finger, and that figure doesn't include the fines made invalid.

Police are averse to investigating bailiff crime, but their ability to bring suspects to justice was well demonstrated when an off-duty police officer of rank become a victim of non-compliant bailiff action. The relationship between Claire Sandrook and DCBL ended because an errant DCBL bailiff picked on the wrong person.

[power of print]

The question posed was not a request to be entertained. There is nothing remotely entaining about non compliant bailiff action, and to suggest there is would be as erroneous as posting on a website that a press release by a Government department has circumvented the legaslative parlimentry process and has passed into law.

Nonetheless I thank Section 12 for taking tome to answer, however a simple " Sorry the matters are Sub Judice " would have been sufficient. There really was no need for the off topic trumpet blowing!

Keep up the good work, and as my old classics teacher used to say " Quid Vultis Videre Verum ".