Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

[bluebottle]

Attached is the most up-to-date guidelines available for police attending incidents involving bailiffs. It is published by Devon & Cornwall Police and dated 2010. An up-to-date forced entry policy document is in the process of being sought via HMCTS Data Access.

[bizzybob]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

It should certainly focus one or two tiny minds

[bluebottle]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

You wouldn't happen to be referring to a certain Phil Mitchell lookalike by any chance, BB? Or is it the Inebriated Primate who appears to swing from thread to thread?

On a more serious note, a case in South East Cornwall involving a Marston bailiff named Carlton was thrown out by magistrates after Carlton made allegations against an alleged debtor who was already paying their fine by Attachment of Benefits Order. Apparently, Their Worships were not happy with the actions of the police and CPS in the matter or Carlton's either. I understand the alleged debtor is now considering legal action.

[bizzybob]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

You wouldn't happen to be referring to a certain Phil Mitchell lookalike by any chance, BB? Or is it the Inebriated Primate who appears to swing from thread to thread?

On a more serious note, a case in South East Cornwall involving a Marston bailiff named Carlton was thrown out by magistrates after Carlton made allegations against an alleged debtor who was already paying their fine by Attachment of Benefits Order. Apparently, Their Worships were not happy with the actions of the police and CPS in the matter or Carlton's either. I understand the alleged debtor is now considering legal action.

I wonder how many vulnerable debtors paying by attachment, or even people who have paid up within the timescales, have been subjected to a visit and pressure to pay by Marstons, or even had goods taken and sold as a result of a HMCS cock up where bailiffs were unlawfully or erroneously sent in?

Might be most interesting.

[bluebottle]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

In all cases, BB, HMCTS should be acutely aware of the Judicial Review of R -v- South Western Magistrates (on the application of Purnell). This confirms that where a defendant's means have not been examined, a fine cannot be imposed or enforced. Nothwithstanding, if a defendant, whilst they are paying an existing fine, incurs a further fine or fines, then the amount payable and the period of time allowed to pay must be adjusted.

HMCTS needs to urgently review the collection of unpaid magistrates court fines as it is clearly not working. If anything, it is becoming alarmingly clear that change agents are at work within HMCTS with the intention of bringing about the collapse of the court and justice system from within. The good and honest people who work within the courts and justice system need to be given the encouragement and support to identify, expose and remove these change agents, no matter how high up the management ladder they may be. These change agents represent a very real threat to justice and democracy. They must not be allowed to achieve their goal.

Once the process of removing the change agents is under way, steps need to be taken to terminate the contracts of ALL private companies involved in the courts and justice system (G4S, Reliance, Geo Amey, Serco (including Collectica), Marston Group (including Swift), Excel). It will be interesting to see how much taxpayers' money these corporate parasites have received and how much it would be if it were to be returned to in-house control. Recently, Avon & Somerset Police were told to put their custody service out to tender. However, they discovered the cheapest tender would cost the taxpayers of Avon & Somerset Police Area £600,000 a year more than if Avon & Somerset Police kept it in-house. Not surprisingly, Avon & Somerset Police have kept their custody service in-house.

[wales01man]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

As I said on a post earlier Fines should if not paid quick should be recovered by AOB or AOE easy eliminates bailiff problems?

[bluebottle]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

As I said on a post earlier Fines should if not paid quick should be recovered by AOB or AOE easy eliminates bailiff problems?

Exactly what Lord Denning proposed, Wales. And you're right, it would eliminate the need for private-sector bailiff companies.

[bizzybob]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

Exactly what Lord Denning proposed, Wales. And you're right, it would eliminate the need for private-sector bailiff companies.

Now one wonders why bailiffs still exist, as to those Change Agents, more examples of Common Purpose useful Idiots aka graduates at work./

[Amethyst]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

You wouldn't happen to be referring to a certain Phil Mitchell lookalike by any chance, BB? Or is it the Inebriated Primate who appears to swing from thread to thread?

On a more serious note, a case in South East Cornwall involving a Marston bailiff named Carlton was thrown out by magistrates after Carlton made allegations against an alleged debtor who was already paying their fine by Attachment of Benefits Order. Apparently, Their Worships were not happy with the actions of the police and CPS in the matter or Carlton's either. I understand the alleged debtor is now considering legal action.

Bluebottle - would you have an update on this case?

[bluebottle]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

Bluebottle - would you have an update on this case?

The latest I have, Amethyst, is that the guy who was accused by Carlton, is planning to sue Carlton, Marstons, CPS and the police.

It is my understanding the magistrates who were sitting at the preliminary hearing voiced a number of concerns about the prosecution case and, when the case returned to court for a full hearing, it became apparent the case should never have been brought in the first place and, not surprisingly, the magistrates dismissed the case with costs awarded in favour of the defendant.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

I wonder how many vulnerable debtors paying by attachment, or even people who have paid up within the timescales, have been subjected to a visit and pressure to pay by Marstons, or even had goods taken and sold as a result of a HMCS cock up where bailiffs were unlawfully or erroneously sent in?

Might be most interesting.

The real issue is the de-humanization of the process at HMCTS and the DWP.

If a debtor is in a payment arrangement through their benefits, if the benefits change the DWP does not transfer automatically liabilities from one benefit to the next, making the debtor an un-knowing defaulter, and the computer at HMCTS automatically prints a warrant which is then passed to the Collection Agency of choice for that region.

If a debtor is paying by "Allpay" paying card, they only need to be 24 hours late with a payment that again, computer at HMCTS Wherever prints the warrant and enforcement begins.

The really awfully stupid one is that if I need to pay HMCTS £20 per week, know that I will not be able to make payments for the next two weeks for whatever reason, to avoid going into arears I pay £60 today, as soon as I do not pay my £20 next week, BINGO! the computer prints the bloody warrant.

Even the most lawabiding, ethical and charitable Enforcement Agency would come under fire for these mistakes which are not of their making.

[bizzybob]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

Have to agree Sir Vere, but that still does not excvuse any undue duress the likes of Marston put on for say £5 owing before they add their fees., just as the do if they are enforcing a LO obtained for a penny that is now £400 due entirely to fees.

[bluebottle]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

The real issue is the de-humanization of the process at HMCTS and the DWP.

If a debtor is in a payment arrangement through their benefits, if the benefits change the DWP does not transfer automatically liabilities from one benefit to the next, making the debtor an un-knowing defaulter, and the computer at HMCTS automatically prints a warrant which is then passed to the Collection Agency of choice for that region.

If a debtor is paying by "Allpay" paying card, they only need to be 24 hours late with a payment that again, computer at HMCTS Wherever prints the warrant and enforcement begins.

The really awfully stupid one is that if I need to pay HMCTS £20 per week, know that I will not be able to make payments for the next two weeks for whatever reason, to avoid going into arears I pay £60 today, as soon as I do not pay my £20 next week, BINGO! the computer prints the bloody warrant.

Even the most lawabiding, ethical and charitable Enforcement Agency would come under fire for these mistakes which are not of their making.

In the case of R v South Western Magistrates (on the application of Purnell) the High Court slammed HMCTS's computer system as "not fit for purpose", along with the HMCTS Means Form. One would have thought having had the High Court condemn the computer system they were using, HMCTS would have done something to rectify its shortcomings. Clearly, they have not. It does make one wonder why.

[enquirer]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

Now one wonders why bailiffs still exist, as to those Change Agents, more examples of Common Purpose useful Idiots aka graduates at work.

Consider Capita, Atos, and all the other corporate monsters quietly taking over the state. Don't leave out all the multi-million pound bogus charities now being brought in to 'assist' the NHS, either.

Fascism = The Corporate State.

[enquirer]

Re: Police & Bailiffs and HMCTS Forced Entry Policy

In the case of R v South Western Magistrates (on the application of Purnell) the High Court slammed HMCTS's computer system as "not fit for purpose", along with the HMCTS Means Form. One would have thought having had the High Court condemn the computer system they were using, HMCTS would have done something to rectify its shortcomings. Clearly, they have not. It does make one wonder why.

The arrogance that comes with 'Leading beyond authority', perhaps.