Reporting A Bailiff Using Form EAC2

[Spankymonkey]

Does anyone have experience of using the EAC2 procedure to report the fitness of an individual to hold a certificate? It's clear to me that is not to be used as a means of complaining about a bailiff, but where you think a bailiff has exceeded his authority and is in all likelihood doing it to others. However, the possibility that costs could be awarded to the bailiff if your report is not upheld is very discouraging. Do you have to turn up at the hearing? And just how likely is it that the bailiff will win his costs if you lose?

[zeke]

You don't need to turn up at an EAC2 hearing. The legal profession prefers litigation because costs can be awarded for any party whereas an EAC2 only the bailiff gets costs if the complaint is dismissed.

If you want a remedy under £10,000 then the small claims track is safer because its insular against costs and it racks up a bill for the bailiff encouraging early settlement, and suing the council jointly adds pressure on the bailiff company to capitulate. http://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Tak ... Court.html

If the complaint is a criminal one, e.g. sex, violence, fraud, then a criminal complaint is better but has a high burden of proof http://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Pro ... iliff.html

[John The Baptist]

It is unlikely that a bailiff will win his costs, PROVIDED that you do not lie to the court about what has happened and you do not abuse the EAC2 process by making a vexatious claim or one that is doomed to fail.

There is an onus on the courts to filter complaints so that only the most serious escalate into a full blown hearing.

You would need to attend the hearing if it progressed that far.

I'd be happy to help you if you are convinced that you have a strong complaint. What are your reasons for complaining? What has the bailiff done that you consider so serious? Don't mention the company or anything else that can link it to your case, just tell me what the bailiff has done wrong.

[zeke]

The only recent complaints I'd done involved costs against the complaint, but that was overturned because the judge failed to notice the complaint was not filed on the prescribed form, therefore did not qualify as an EAC2 complaint hearing and the rules governing them. That was a demonstration on the willingness of judges to prejudice a complainant.

The legal profession, if pressed by a client to make an EAC2 will pursue the council and have them file the EAC2. Judges are less willing to order against taxpayer money.

[John The Baptist]

Not filing on the prescribed form is not an argument to render the complaint invalid. It is really clutching at straws to allow a full blown hearing to take place in which you are quite happy to see a bailiff lose his certificate (and as a consequence, be deprived of his ability to earn a living) and then claim the hearing wasn't valid when you lose and end up paying costs.

[zeke]

The bailiff is not deprived to earn a living because he can work in other areas of security and enforcement. Without a certificate, the only limitation is he cannot take control of goods or handle money under an enforcement power.

[Spankymonkey]

Bailiff turned up at a property the debtor did not live at. The Agency later claimed bailiff was 'following up a line of enquiry'. The name and address on the warrant (which was never shown at the door, but subsequently viewed by the police) had a different name and address to that of the innocent occupant who had never been in debt in his life and had never even heard of the debtor. Bailiff threatened to get a locksmith if the occupier didn't allow him in. Wouldn't listen to occupier's protests that he was not the person he was looking for. Bailiff then walked in uninvited and searched the property for ID. Noted it and then left.

The occupant is vulnerable, suffering from mental health issues. Police, as always, refuse to do anything. They do however get the Enforcement agency to email the warrant and the police forward on a statement to the victim saying that the name and address were admittedly different on the warrant, but the Bailiff is allowed to do whatever he wants to follow up a line of enquiry.

Thinking of suing the company the bailiff works for plus the creditor, but using the EAC2 to have the bailiff's licence taken away. I don't want to use the EAC2 as a separate method of suing the bailiff for trespass. Even if the small claims court were to be used to sue for trespass, there is a possibility the case would not be heard there and shifted to the fast track for full trial. Don't want that either.

Problem is, have no idea who the creditor is as the police have not forwarded on a copy of the warrant and are being obstructive. Subject Access will probably fail because the name on the warrant is not that of the complainant. Might need a court order to get a copy of the warrant. However, I suspect, due to the bailiffs arrogant attitude, the debt could be a magistrates fine. Without seeing the paperwork, which is being denied, have no idea.

[zeke]

The complaint is "entering without lawful authority" because the bailiff entered an address that was not on the enforcement power. There is no trespass remedy because the law identifies the bailiff as a trespasser with a "defect" in the warrant. Paragraph 66(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

I don't think an EAC2 is suitable because there has been no violence, sex offence or fraud involved. Had there been, then the bailiff's action would be bring media discredit to the council the bailiff is acting for, and the council makes the EAC2 complaint to clear its name.

If the claim is under £10,000 then its small claims track. It can only be transferred to another track if the claim is complex. One bailiff company Newlyn Plc, attempted this several times without success.

You might have an action against the police force for "dereliction of statutory duty", but that needs a solicitor experienced in police litigation and negotiation. You need to show how the police were negligent in failing to remove the non-compliant bailiff from the property and explain how the officers should have acted.

The bailiff failed to show the warrant, that is the authority to enter premises, and the law states the bailiff must show it to any person who appears to him to be in charge of the property. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Only the debtor can bring an action for redress under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Your redress is with the council because they acted in trespass, but the bailiff himself is protected by law from trespass liability. The damages is extended by the fact the bailiff was told to leave the property and he refused, but those damages are set by case law namely Lord Scarman in Morris vs. Beardmore [1981] in the House of Lords because the warrant with the wrong address proved the bailiff was not acting in the lawful execution of duty.

A copy of the warrant can be obtained from the police, but I've only done it working under the authority of a solicitor. Ask police on 101 for the procedure for an unrepresented person to obtain evidence held on police records.

[John The Baptist]

I don't think that a complaint would be appropriate. The law permits a bailiff to enter any premises that he believes that a debtor lives at.

There are no grounds to issue proceedings either, going by what you have posted. The bailiff appears to have entered peacefully and would possibly have asked the resident for ID before doing so.

He is not obliged to show the authority to enter unless he is asked to do so. Finally. Morris v Beardmore is not relevant now that new legislation is in place.

[zeke]

Morris Beardmore hasn't changed because the law is silent on creditors liability for trespass, only the bailiff is indemnified from a trespass liability.

[Syd Snitkin]

The complaint is "entering without lawful authority" because the bailiff entered an address that was not on the enforcement power.

Going by the OP's other thread, the address was the previous address for the debtor, so it will easily be argued it was reasonable to enter.

[zeke]

Then he can argue the address is wrong on the Notice of Enforcement and the bailiff entered without notice creating the liability for the council. This thread is posted in HCEO but if he can say the type of debt being enforced, we can show the regulations on applying for the enforcement power.

The council has redress from it bailiff for failure to give notice to the council the debtor was not living there and it can apply for a fresh warrant (CPR 75.7 if traffic debt) or a liability order amendment by reissuing a Final Notice or Reminder under reg 23 or 33 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

[John The Baptist]

Do you even know what the Morris case is about?

It involved a policeman and whether he could enter premises to carry out a breath test.

How in God's name can this be relevant in a case where a bailiff has entered premises lawfully by way of the Schedule 12 Procedure?

Morris was connected to access and rights of access when permission to enter was refused. Just because it contained the word "trespass " doesn't mean it is a blanket to throw over every aspect of the tort of trespass.

In this case, trespass has not occurred. The bailiff was entitled to enter lawfully. Even if he wasn't, he is protected by statut from the tort of trespass. This of course does not mean that you simply pass the accusation on to the creditor. This is just silly.

[Spankymonkey]

Thanks for some of the helpful opinions.

Unfortunately, there is no such tort as 'dereliction of statutory duty' and nor do the police have a duty of care to victims of trespass, or victims of crime in general, that would satisfy a claim in negligence or misfeasance. It would also seem somewhat unreasonable to sue the police for a negative act, but not sue the bailiffs for their positive act. Especially as I disagree with John the Baptists suggestion that no claim in trespass exists.

Firstly my earlier thread did not refer directly to the second thread as Syd Snitkin stated, and I can assure you the original debtor never lived or had lived at the property.

Secondly, by John's logic, a bailiff could enter a hundred homes in the same street, in the name of following up a line of enquiry, just to search it for proof of the debtor's occupancy. Not even the police have unrestricted rights to violate the public's privacy in this way. The suggestion that a bailiff is immune from trespass in totality (and the creditor too) by some creative reinterpretation of existing statutes, and that a victim who suffers this kind of intrusion has no remedy at civil law, is certainly not what the legislators would have intended when they drafted they most recent raft of statutes. And if by chance, your interpretation of the law is correct, then it would be incompatible with the occupants Article 8 rights of the ECHR, as well as far removed from anything that sounds like common sense.

In any event the bailiff's purpose of entry is to seize goods. No provisions at law or standard conditions of a warrant gives them the power to enter an address just for the purposes of searching it for ID. That is all the bailiff entered the property for.

If the bailiff misuses a warrant or exceeds the authority attached to it, the warrant would cease to have effect, at least for the duration of the misuse.

Further to this, a bailiff who exceeds his authority cannot be said to be acting within the execution of his duty and would not be protected by either the warrant, the court or the powers of his office. No individual who holds public office is immune from trespass and it would be 'silly' to think that bailiffs have a special protection from torts that no other Englishman enjoys.

[John The Baptist]

It is not my logic, it is simply following what legislation states - You should try it, especially if you are considering an EAC2. As I stated originally, a claim that is doomed to fail could possibly expose the complainant to a costs order. In your case, legislation prescribes that a bailiff may enter any premises in England and Wales that he reasonably believes the debtor usually resides. In your case, the debtor WILL almost certainly be linked to the address and shows as either living there and/or having lived there. You know it and I know it. The bailiff hasn't taken some random 33 million to 1 pot shot that the debtor may be living there. Trying to be clever in these instances usually ends in tears.

There is no suggestion that the bailiff is immune from trespass - It is written in black and white. Of course it is what the legislators intended - They wouldn't have included it otherwise. I'm not entirely sure how the following can be interpreted in any other way:

"The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser."

Forget about any silly claims of case law - Morris or other. They are simply irrelevant. The above quote is what you need to follow.

As for having special protection - It is no different from a police officer arresting someone that he REASONABLY BELIEVES has committed an offence.

[zeke]

I don't know whether this discussion is a real case or hypothetical A couple of months ago the MOJ sent an email inviting stakeholders and members of the public to come forward with evidence of rogue bailiff activity. The submissions included a solicitor who exposed an innocent victim to a loss by falsely representing to a court how the law interacts between hire purchase vehicles and enforcement for the driver's debts. The same solicitor excused a bailiff company for the suicide of a young biker who was defrauded by nearly £1000 in bogus fees for a traffic debt. In my own submission, I asked for a complaints procedure outside EAC2 that allows for concerns to be reported without fear of oppressive threats of costs, and I understand this is being considered within the corridors of power.

[John The Baptist]

Nigel - There is a procedure for complaining about a bailiff - You may do so to either the creditor or the company that he works for.

If you want to question his fitness to hold a certificate, it has to be done in court. Contrary to the idiotic claims of morons elsewhere, genuine complaints do not carry the risk of costs. Legislation is very clear in that costs may only be awarded if the complaint:

(a) discloses no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate; and

(b) amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

Furthermore, before a full blown hearing, the matter should be considered by a judge. In the case being discussed on this thread, I would expect the case to be thrown out at this point thus protecting the complainant from the risk of costs.

[zeke]

Nigel - There is a procedure for complaining about a bailiff - You may do so to either the creditor or the company that he works for.

That isn't what the Ministry of Justice is looking for. It is aware the policy of having a company investigate itself is not working. Newlyn hire-purchase and Jerome Rogers demonstrate this.

If you want to question his fitness to hold a certificate, it has to be done in court.

That is not what the OP is asking. He asks about reporting a bailiff on an EAC2, and if there is cause to question the fitness of the bailiff, then EAC2 is the way to go. EAC2 complaints included a car thief, sex offender, and a money launderer.

Contrary to the idiotic claims of morons elsewhere, genuine complaints do not carry the risk of costs. Legislation is very clear in that costs may only be awarded if the complaint:

The MOJ appears to recognise that suppresses people coming forward with a genuine concern.

(a) discloses no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate; and

(b) amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

Furthermore, before a full blown hearing, the matter should be considered by a judge. In the case being discussed on this thread, I would expect the case to be thrown out at this point thus protecting the complainant from the risk of costs.

The MOJ has not brought into question the EAC2. It simply approached stakeholders to come forward with their concerns about rogue bailiffs. But the problem is not individual bailiffs, its bailiff companies improperly training and encouraging bailiffs to behave outside the scope of Schedule 12.

[John The Baptist]

That isn't what the Ministry of Justice is looking for. It is aware the policy of having a company investigate itself is not working.

Why would they possibly want a second complaints procedure? Would it be added to CPR 84? What sanctions could be imposed for less serious offences? A week suspension? An hour on the naughty step? The MoJ have specifically referenced complaints procedures and a requirement to have them in place for both creditors and agencies (see NS).

That is not what the OP is asking.

We're not talking about what the OP is asking. We are talking about your claim that you have asked for an alternative complaints procedure - Something that you now appear to be suggesting that the MoJ ae already considering.

EAC2 complaints included a car thief, sex offender, and a money launderer.

Do you mean uncorroborated claims made on the internet of the above?

The MOJ appears to recognise that suppresses people coming forward with a genuine concern.

How does it suppress people? It couldn't be clearer and if you read section 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the certification Regs, it is even written in black and white that the intention is for costly hearings to be avoided. The only problem has stemmed from drivel posted by El Thicko and El Sicko, stemming from their lack of understand of the EAC2 process. In real life, nobody is suppressed.

The MOJ has not brought into question the EAC2.

Where has it? The EAC2 procedure appears to be working perfectly well and in all (genuine) complaints, costs have not been awarded)

It simply approached stakeholders

But you aren't a stakeholder.

But the problem is not individual bailiffs, its bailiff companies improperly training

All bailiffs are required to achieve a Government recognised qualification before they may work on their own.

encouraging bailiffs to behave outside the scope of Schedule 12.

This is just another uncorroborated claim like the one about sex offenders and car thieves.

[zeke]

This was the press release, I'll let you make your own mind up: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crac ... e-bailiffs

Document: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... rm-web.pdf

[John The Baptist]

This is referring to the worst minority of bailiffs, the exact ones who need to be subject to EAC2s.

There is no reference to a secondary complaints procedure, nor should there be.

[zeke]

Nobody said about a secondary complaints procedure.

I recommended one that doesn't provide for bailiffs to suppress complaints with the threat of costs orders, akin to JCIO introduced in 2013.

It's not individual bailiffs that cross the line, its the bailiff companies. Remember Sheila complaining to the Beeb bad-mouthing me after the drive-by clamping report was broadcast.

[John The Baptist]

Nobody said about a secondary complaints procedure.

I recommended one that doesn't provide for bailiffs to suppress complaints with the threat of costs orders, akin to JCIO introduced in 2013.

It's not individual bailiffs that cross the line, its the bailiff companies. Remember Sheila complaining to the Beeb bad-mouthing me after the drive-by clamping report was broadcast.

There is provision made by the MoJ for complaints procedures to both creditor and agency. What more could the MoJ do? Who pays for this secondary procedure that you propose? I presume that you want an impartial investigator?

There is a risk of costs in place to stop silly complaints such as the one proposed by the OP in this case.

The bailiff did not just enter, he asked the bloke at the door for his ID first. Only when this was refused to be shown did the bailiff enter (lawfully) to search for ID. He was entitled to do this and needed to do so before taking control of goods. After all, a bailiff can only take control of goods of the debtor. There would have been uproars from the OP if the bailiff had taken control of goods before satisfying himself who owned them.

Furthermore, it is almost 99'99% certain that the debtor's name has shown up on a search of some description as being connected to the address in question. Of course that entitles the bailiff to reasonably believe that the address is relevant. After searching the premises, the bailiff satisfied himself that the debtor did not live there and that was the end of the matter.

Nothing to see here, move on and if the OP still wants to instigate an EAC2 then more the fool him.

[John The Baptist]

It is a matter of regret that the internet's resident semi-literate buffoon has failed to read and understand what is written in this thread. This is in part due to his complete lack of both knowledge and experience regarding EAC2s and their Form 4 predecessors.

At no point in this thread (or others) has anyone been urged to write to the court before a possible EAC2 complaint. This is sadly just Peter Bardsley demonstrating what Peter Bardsley does best, ie failing to read and understand what is written.

There has been some appaling information posted on the internet regarding EAC2 complaints and the biggest culprits of providing misinformation are Peter Bardsley and his fellow serial misunderstander, Sheila Harding.

I had hoped that my post last year had educated this pair:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4805

Sadly, Bardsley has slept since then so will obviously not remember the post.

For clarity, a complaint should be considered by a judge PRIOR to any hearing and therefore PRIOR to any costs being incurred. This is shown clearly in the explanatory memorandum of the certification regs:

These Regulations provide the judge with the opportunity to dismiss, at an early stage and without significant costs having been generated, complaints which do not relate to an enforcement agent’s fitness to hold a certificate.

Sadly, as usual, Bardsley has posted about something he knows nothing about. This is further demonstrated by Bardsley's admission that he does not even know whether a judgement in an EAC2 can be appealed. Of course, anyone who knew anything about EAC2s would know that in these cases, there is no right of appeal.

[zeke]

On Wednesday, a Marston bailiff lost his certificate in an EAC2. Could this be related?

[John The Baptist]

I doubt it's related to this thread. The bailiff in this case has done nothing wrong to justify taking away his certificate.

It wouldn't surprise me if this case is actually that one discussed on CAG recently and highlighted by the anti-police activist "Crimebodge".

[zeke]

I've not followed CAG because its one person signing up names creating stories.

Which case is on crimebodge?

[John The Baptist]

It was the thread in which Bardsley claimed that an address is not a requirement to be entered onto a writ.

He then started to tie himself in knots by getting mixed up between the CivPR and the CrimPR.

Crimebodge is the person who posted the original video on YT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJbGqntQGk

[Syd Snitkin]

Apparently it was this board that got the CPRs mixed up, not him. I suppose it was also us that quoted from outdated an CPR. He now seems to think that someone on here has said the council decide whether to commit a debtor.

Good grief.

[John The Baptist]

Can you imagine what it must have been like for his mother? We only have to put up with his buffoonery for a few minutes a day on an internet forum. His mother would have had to deal with it on a 24 hour basis. It would send you over the edge. I'd wager the poor woman ended up a complete nervous wreck.

He quoted the CPR (meaning the CrimPR) and then suggested that it governed writs.

As for a council deciding whether to commit a debtor, that is just Peter Bardsley doing what Peter Bardsley does best and completely failing to read and understand what has been written. You'd have thought he would have learned his lesson after his "coercive" nonsense. As if a complete and utter thicko like Peter Bardsley can tell us anything about council tax recovery.

[Syd Snitkin]

Has anyone got an enigma machine?

. There has been some appalling information posted on the internet regarding EAC2 complaints and the biggest culprits of providing misinformation are Peter Bardsley and his fellow serial misundersta nonesence maybe, jusy gibberish.Where would this be Mark. you have been too near to Nigel.

I tried Google translate but I think I broke it.

[John The Baptist]

The level of misunderstanding is quite astonishing.

It isn't just one post. Every single post he's made today is absolute drivel that makes no sense.

His mind and brain (what little he had in the first place) are clearly on the way out. Pity really because it isn't quite as funny reading these type of posts as it was when he used to try to look like he was clever. Lately, he seems to have accepted that everyone knows that he's an imbecile and is just posting for postings sake. He makes no attempt to disguise his idiocy.

[Syd Snitkin]

I mean look at this madness. This board has said that the council can apply to the court for a warrant of committal. For some reason he says we're wrong and tries to correct us with:

once the EA reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates’ court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison.

Now, I don't know if he's drunk, ill or simply retarded, but he's trying to correct us by saying what we are already saying. Something has definitely happened to him - his idiocy, although obvious, was never this bad before. My guess is that he's had a stroke or an aneurysm that has destroyed any remaining traces of rationale. Someone needs to have a gentle word with him or Christine.

[John The Baptist]

I’ve suspected a stroke for a couple of weeks now.

He’s clearly lost what little marbles he had. It happened to somebody I once knew in almost identical circumstances.

It’s why I try not to respond to him when possible.

[zeke]

I think the EAC2 kicked off because a bailiff lost his ticket on Wednesday for clamping an exempt van for 2 months, and on camera, he raided a child bedroom with the 11-year old child present who became distressed when the bailiff interfered with his Xbox. The police did little more than telling the bailiff to "pack it in". The council has a £9k bill and no prizes where that will end up.