Jacobs - Bailiff obstruction case thrown out by Judge

Post Reply
User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 1306
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#1 Jacobs - Bailiff obstruction case thrown out by Judge

Post by jasonDWB » 28 Jul 2016 16:36

A judge sitting at court number 4 at Halton Magistrates Court today 28 July 2016, stopped the proceedings against my client accused of obstructing a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

He said the bailiff, Steven Hollands has "told too many lies" and the trial could not continue. He discharged the suspect without the solicitor even having to deliver the defence.

The bailiff on the stand told the court had a warrant of execution as well as a warrant of control. He continued saying he can take control of goods anywhere in England and Wales, and "the warrant was for his benefit" [sic]

Mr Holland attempted to take control of a vehicle situated on another persons allocated parking space. The judge made a finding that Mr. Holland was not acting lawfully.

Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 reads;

  • (6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

    • (a)usually lives, or

      (b)carries on a trade or business.



The allocated parking space the car was situated was neither of these, and therefore Mr. Holland was not acting lawfully.


Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 reads;

  • 68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.
[/i]


My client was also accused of assaulting a police officer, but the accusing officer was filmed by a bystander and the video showed the officer assaulting my client by attacking him from behind.

He has been awarded costs.

The cleared defendant is deciding whether to bring civil proceedings against the police force and against Jacobs for taking the unlawful action under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12.


The noteworthy aspect of this case is enforcement fails when a bailiff takes control of a vehicle parked on neighbours allocated parking space.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 1000714
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Jacobs - Bailiff obstruction case thrown out by Judge

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2016 18:15

It seems that EA's are being trained to believe that a WOC allows them to roll up at any old address to execute it.

They seem to rely on sch12 (11)(a):
  • 11(1) Subject to paragraphs 9 and 10 and to any other enactment under which goods are protected, an enforcement agent—

    (a) may take control of goods anywhere in England and Wales;
However, they 'carelessly' forget that (11) is subject to p(9)&(10):
  • 9 An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are—

    (a) on premises that he has power to enter under this Schedule
The correct interpretation is that a WOC can state any address in E&W and the power of the WOC is restricted to the stated address.

So come on Sheila and Chimp, where is the outrage in EAs misinterpreting this part?
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests