There is a high profile case that Harding is currently getting her grubby knickers in a twist about, despite her knowing nothing about the case. For instance, Harding isn't aware that two hearings took place, so it was not an innocent letter that was taken to be an EAC2 without the debtors consent. The debtor had ample time to withdraw before the second hearing. The debtor also made high profile internet posts, encouraging others to attend the bailiff's renewal hearing to "put a stop to this scumbag committing further crimenal[sic] offences" Harding's lies and distortions have somehow tried to make out that the poor debtor didn't know that he was making a complaint and that he was being "advised" by others, myself included. This proves beyond doubt that the woman cannot be trusted.
Before continuing, it is important to be aware of CPR 84.20(4) and CPR 84.20(5):
So unless there are no reasonable grounds AND it amounts to an abuse of process, there can be no costs awarded.(4) The complainant is not liable for any costs incurred by the certificated person in responding to the complaint, unless paragraph (5) applies.
(5) The court may order the complainant to pay such costs as it considers reasonable if it is satisfied that 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, if we refer to the explanatory memorandum for The Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014, we will see the following at paragraph 7.4:
This further protects complainants from the risk of a costs order. If the judge decides at an early stage that a full blown hearing is not required, he can make a decision without the need to hold one. I have one such decision in my possession whereby the judge did exactly that and whilst he was critical of both the bailiff and his employers, he did not revoke the certificate but recommended that the employer gave the bailiff further training on what he can and cannot take control of.At present, a complaint about an enforcement agent can be made to the court if the
enforcement agent has acted in a way that calls into question whether they are a fit and
proper person. However, this process has not always been used for this purpose and has in
some cases turned into unnecessarily lengthy litigation, with the associated costs
involved, over matters of procedure or fees which have separate complaint provisions.
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.
If applied correctly, a debtor/complainant is perfectly entitled to instigate an EAC2 if (s)he wishes. Contrary to the usual idiotic nonsense from both Harding and Dodgeball, the complainant will not suffer a costs order unless it can be shown that the complaint has been malicious, pursuant to CPR 84.20(5).