EAC2 Complaints - The Facts

Post Reply
John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

EAC2 Complaints - The Facts

Post by John The Baptist » 10 Oct 2017 13:26

Over the past few years, there has been some absolutely appalling information given out on the internet over EAC2 complaints about bailiffs. Most of the inaccuracies have come from the queen of all drama queens, Sheila Harding. Not far behind her has come her faithful but equally clueless lackey "Dodgeball". For those who do not know, Dodgeball is semi-literate and regularly demonstrates a failure to be able to understand even the most simplest of internet posts. Very often entire threads are ruined because of the sheer volume of posts that it takes to explain to Dodgeball what is being said. Both are of the opinion that complaints are highly risky. Provided they are conducted sensibly and with good reason, they carry little risk. My own feeling is that they are not worth entering into because they never succeed and the complainant never stands to gain anything by complaining.

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):
(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
So unless there are no reasonable grounds AND it amounts to an abuse of process, there can be no costs awarded.

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:
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.
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.

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).
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: EAC2 Complaints - The Facts

Post by John The Baptist » 11 Oct 2017 10:03

There is perhaps one more thing to address regarding EAC2 complaints. It is in response to the idiot, Collin's drivel. For those who don't know, Colin is a bit of a troll who trawls the internet looking for people to criticise when they aren't afforded the right of response. He never tries to help people. Here is the idiot Collin's nonsense with my responses:
When you write letter of complaint, You have no influence on how it will be received
Correct. If you write a letter of COMPLAINT, it should be taken as such

If you are laying a complaint to the court about a bailiff and how they have done their job, Then you are questioning the bailiffs fitness to do the job
Nobody said otherwise. Are you Dodgeball in disguise?

I really don't see how the court can treat a complaint letter in any other way than an EAC2 complaint
Nor me, which is why I suggested a letter to the judge asking him to take into consideration the bailiffs actions, rather than a letter of complaint

Seeing what has happened to EAC2 complainants in the past i think it is a dangerous game to suggest to someone that it is the right path to follow
You're "seeing what has happened in the past" is basically believing the rubbish that Sheila Harding has spouted. What that woman knows about EAC2s could be written on the back of a postage stamp

Just my 2 cents
And it's not even worth that
As I have posted previously, a judge will determine the strength of a case PRIOR to assigning it to a full blown hearing. If it is not deemed appropriate or strong enough, the judge will deal with it there and then. Judges should only allocate hearings to those cases that are deemed serious enough to question a bailiff's right to hold a certificate. I know of no matters where this has not been the case.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

Post Reply