JBW the Fraudsters

Post Reply
alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#1 JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Jun 2015 19:46

So sorry its quite long-winded, but this is 18months of me fighting JBW and CIVEA. I will do my best to enlighten you about my experiences with JBW. Hopefully you can advise me on my best steps to take next.

My case goes back to Aug 2013, yes i've been fighting them for that long... and am STILL fighting them. The debt came from 'Transport For London' for an unpaid London congestion charge (£10), didnt pay at the time as I believed my vehicle, a low emissions vehicle running on LPG gas, to be exempt from the congestion charge. As I fought the charge and tried to prove the vehicles exemption, the charge increased to £187... at this point the debt was passed on to JBW.

First letter received around 8th August 2013, charged £13.44 including VAT. Stupidly I didnt pay much notice to this first letter as I had never dealt with bailiffs before and I didnt have the money to pay them anyhow.

A few weeks later, a couple of days after 28th August 2013, I receive another letter. Letter says that a bailiff had recently called but no-one home. At the time I thought this slightly odd as my mother, whos house it is, is disabled and very rarely leaves the property. My mother confirmed she'd been at home all week and specifically the day in question and confirmed no-one had called or posted any notices through the door. JBW charged £68.40 including VAT for this apparent "visit".

So after the letter informing me of the bailiffs first "visit", i'm waiting, expecting a bailiff to show up anytime, where i'd expected us to reach an agreement. Two weeks later, a couple of days after 13th September 2013, I receive another letter. Letter again says a bailiff called but no-one was home. Again, I check with my mother she confirms she'd not left the house, she was home, no-one had called and no notice posted through the door informing us of a bailiff visit. JBW charged £72 for this second apparent "visit".

A few days later, Friday 20th September 2013, my first payday, and the first time I was able to offer JBW any money. With the debt at £340, I called JBW to try to arrange payment, but was flat out refused. I thought my offer of " some on the day and the rest in a few weeks" to be a fair offer, JBW however didn't agree. They refused my fair offer on the grounds that I had taken too long (about 6 wks at this point) to contact them, therefore did not qualify for a payment plan. I have a transcript of the conversation and proof of myself explaining to JBW that I didnt have the money to make full payment on the day, which they were requesting. I also asked JBW what my options going forward were, but they were completely unwilling to advise me in anyway or meet me half-way... I can only see this as a tactic to drag out the debt for longer, which would result in more charges and more money in the pocket of JBW. I also asked JBW for more time, which for some reason is not on the copy of the transcript I later received.

Apparently on 30th September 2013, JBW made a third "visit". However, I received no knock at the door, no notice pushed through the letter-box and unlike the other two apparent "visits", no letter through the mail a few days later informing me of a "visit". The first time I was ever aware of this "visits" was after i'd made a 'Subject Access Request' a few months later in February 2014. A letter received around the 4th October 2013 has no mention of a recent visit, but just informs me they have instructed their ANPR vehicle to attend my address.

16th October 2013, I finally get the bailiff Mr Craig Fishwick at the door, informing me I now owed £627. He told me if I didnt pay up immediately a truck which was already on its way would be taking my van, and that if it did i'd be liable for those fees too. I didnt know at the time but this was a clear misuse of powers and disregard for industry rules as the vehicle, a white Citroen Berlingo van with sign writing, is quite clearly a work vehicle. I did challenge Mr Fishwick about the cost, and asked how he could condone taking a van worth around £3,000 at the time, to satisfy a £627 debt. Which I now know was a case of "Excessive Levying", and more disregard for industry rules. Mr Fishwick who i'd now allowed into the property, which I did not have to do, avoided answering the question by asking me 'why I hadn't paid?', I told him i'd tried to arrange payment some weeks earlier but was point-blank refused a short payment plan.
We briefly spoke some more, and with the fear of losing my vehicle completely and being unable to earn a living at all. As a courier my van is my main tool of work and my main use of income. So, under duress I reluctantly made a payment of £500, with an agreement to pay to pay £127 within 9 days. Which I found surprisingly odd as I was refused a payment-plan some weeks previous with the debt at around £340 but now later on with the debt at £627, I was granted a short payment-plan. The £500 I paid was not expendable income, as at the time I was on a very low income and also in heavy debt. The £500 was rent money, food money and money to pay for some needed repairs on the van itself. I paid the remaining balance within the 9 days, and with card charges etc paid a total of £630.04. The fees for the visit on the day alone were £210. Listed as £175+VAT of £35 for an ATR fee... even though no tow-truck arrived and no previous levy on any goods had previously been made as this was my first time meeting the bailiff.

Being unhappy with the treatment I received, I began researching and looking into bailiff and bailiff rules etc. From what I could tell JBW and Mr Fishwick were in breach of quite a few industry rules and regulations. I believed these bailiffs to be guilty of what I now know to be known as "phantom visits", misuse of powers, excessive levying/attempted excessive levying, and over-charging of fees. As I was completely unhappy with JBW, I made a 'Subject Access Request', which I received in February 2014. The main reason for the SAR was so I could actually have some evidence of the disputed visits and copies of any notifications they had so say posted through the letter-box during these visits. I also wanted a copy of the telephone call from 20th September 2013, so i'd have proof of my attempt to pay, though to this day I do not believe the transcript I received is the full conversation.

When I received the SAR, it contained mainly account jargon, a copy of the first letter sent and a transcript of the conversation i'd specifically asked for. It did not include copies of all letters sent by JBW, mailed or hand-posted, and it did not provide clear evidence of the disputed visits, such as a photo of the property etc. They did provide very "weak" evidence of the first two disputed visits, in the form of a GPS print-out apparently showing the bailiff in my area. I cannot see how this proves they attended the address, so informed them I was not willing to accept this as proof of a visit. I informed them as a courier, it is standard for myself to leave a calling-card and take a picture of the property and the properties front door as proof of my visit if nobody is home.

I then made an official complaint in writing to JBW requesting full refund, as expected this was not upheld. I then made an official complaint in writing to the CIVEA, as I believed this to be the next best step. The CIVEA chose to ignore the facts of my case, informed me everything was above board and legal, and again refused to uphold my complaint. I now know any complaint to the CIVEA would've been a complete waste of time as was the case with my complaint, as I now believe the CIVEA to work closely alongside the bailiffs they are meant to be overseeing.
With my refusal letter from the CIVEA, I also received a copy of a letter from JBW to the CIVEA explaining some of their points in my case. Like JBW defending their actions in regards to threats to seize a vehicle needed for work. They stated that there was no other item of value available to the bailiff to seize to cover the debt, therefore a seizure of a work van would have been allowed. This is complete nonsense, as I had allowed the bailiff into the property. So he was in a position to seize or make note of many other items that would have more than covered the debt. Not to mention, even if I hadn't allowed bailiff Mr Fishwick into the property on the day, their were still items on the outside of the property that would have more than covered the debt. Items such as 2 bikes, garden furniture, exercise equipment, garden heaters and an expensive BBQ. All located at the rear garden, which is not closed off or fenced off in any way and is completely open and accessible to anyone on foot. If the bailiff had in fact attended the property on the dates of the disputed visits and made a good solid effort to contact somebody at the property during those visits, then he'd have been fully aware of these items.
JBW also stated that the "onus" to prove a vehicle is needed for work lies on the customer. I dont see how the onus should be on a customer whos never dealt with bailiffs before, to be aware of industry rules and regulations. It is my belief that a bailiff working within an industry, should be the one to satisfy himself that what he is doing is within the rules of that industry. Even if I did not inform the bailiff the vehicle was a work vehicle, it is quite clear and obvious from the vehicles appearance (a white van with sign-writing), that it is in fact a vehicle which is used mainly for work purposes.

Also in the reply I received from CIVEA, they mentioned they had received a copy of a photograph from JBW of my property, which confirms the visit for 13th September 2013. This was the first i'd heard of any photograph, as it was not included in my 'Subject Access Request", so I requested the photo from The CIVEA. When I received the photo, it did not include a picture of my property as stated, but instead just shows the street and a few other vehicles.

Last month (May 2015), I again wrote to JBW informing them i'd received a copy of the photograph and that the photograph did not show the property like they were claiming. I again requested copies of all letters sent to me by JBW, and the photographs from the other two "visits" dated 28/8/13 and 30/9/13, since these documents were not included in the SAR like i'd expected them to be.

JBW seemed to ignore this request as i'd had no response after three weeks, so I have again this week (June 2015) requested for a third time, copies of all the missing documents and evidence of work done.... I wait with eager anticipation.

below is a breakdown of fees -

Debt - £187.00 - 7/8/13
Letter Fee - £13.44 (£11.20+VAT £2.24) - 8/8/13
ATL Fee - £68.40 ( £57.00+VAT £11.40) - 28/8/13
ATL Fee - £72.00 (£60.00+VAT £12.00) - 13/9/13
ATL Fee - £76.80 (£64.00+VAT £12.80) - 30/9/13
ATR Fee - £210.00 (£175.00+VAT £35.00) - 16/10/13
Debit card Fee - £1.20 (£1.00+VAT £0.20) - 16/10/13
Debit card Fee - £1.20 (£1.00+VAT £0.20) - 24/10/13

TOTAL - £630.04


I hope this wasn't too drawn out for you and I really hope someone on here can offer me some much needed advise on where to go next. I am not going to leave this alone as I believe these bailiffs to have acted fraudulently. This is not just a case of £630, JBWs actions have cost me around £8,000 in lost income alone, plus then you have compensation for causing further unnecessary hardship, and stress & anxiety. I have visited the Doctor on numerous occasions and even hospital thanks to this case and the stress it has caused me. Then you have 18 months worth of research, fact-finding and the typing and sending of emails and letters etc.

Thanks for reading!!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#2 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Jun 2015 21:17

Just do a fee recovery on all the ATL fees and card fees, because the bailiff is unable to show disbursement giving rise to them. They have been charged to make a profit for the company.

As for losses, you might have a claim under the 1977 Torts Act because it was a trade vehicle. Your medical issues caused are redressed by making a personal injury claim. Your 18 months research is also recoverable. Wasting your time with CIVEA, it's a company not a regulator.

This article gives a summary of the procedure for bringing a claim in the small claims court. recover it from TFL. They are liable for its enforcement agents. Keep JBW out of the loop. TFL can deal with them later. Keep your claim under £10k. They pay their legal fees win or lose. Consider asking for damages for the attitude of JBW in their handling of their complaint. Paragrapgsx35-37 of the judgment of HUNTRESS SEARCH LTD v CANAPEUM LTD [2010] EWHC 1270 (QB),

If JBW did not comply with a SAR then have the ICO give an enforcement notice under section 40 of the data protection act or pay a penalty of £5k through a county court on a firm N1.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#3 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Jun 2015 21:33

Thanks very much for the reply and the advise.

yep, you're exactly right... CIVEA complete waste of time. Wish i'd have known that before wasting months complaining to them.

If I wanted to claim for more than £10K, say £16-17k.. would I face a lot more obstacles than just filing for £10k in the smalls claims court?

Thanks again!!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#4 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Jun 2015 21:41

If your claim is more that 10k then you cannot use the small claims track and afford the protection from being made liable for the defendants solicitors fees if you lose. Otherwise you get everything dress threat letters of "costs" and all that nonsense,
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#5 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Andy » 16 Jun 2015 21:50

Claims upward of £10,000 to £25,000 are handled in the fast track but you could be liable for all their costs. Small claims track is the way to go, the Judge is not allowed to order you to pay costs.
2nd Year University Law Student.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#6 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Jun 2015 22:13

Appreciate the info.

From other posts it appears you guys offer some level of legal representation for a fee... or have I got that wrong? Or do you recommend I just file a claim against TFL in the small claims court and attend alone with my evidence?

I understand I should contact TFL first to give them a chance to offer compensation before any court action?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#7 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Jun 2015 10:42

We only introduce you to solicitors if representation is needed, otherwise a McKenzie friend to go with you to court.

If you keep your claim in the small claims track (under £10k), then you don't need a solicitor. Just a well drafted claim and we can do that - which includes a letter before action to give an opportunity to pay you what they owe.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#8 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Jun 2015 16:42

Ok.

I am now waiting for the documents which should have been in the SAR. Once i've received those then I will contact TFL.

I'll keep you guys updated and ask the next best step once I am in possession of all documentation, if thats ok.

Thank you!

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#9 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Jul 2015 19:25

Finally received a reply today, after only 2 months of waiting for my requested documentation.

They are unwilling to send me the requested documents since they have already sent me them at the time they were requesting payment (2013)... despite me telling them i'd not received any notifications pushed through the door during any visit. And despite me already having made a 'subject access request', and paying £10 for the documents, so i'd have all documents to build my case.

And get this... they do not have a GPS record to send me as proof for a "visit", which so say happened on 30th sept 2013.

Oh but "the bailiffs notes tell us he was there". I have had ZERO evidence whatsoever of a visit on this date, despite numerous requests for evidence by myself.

Should I now assume they have no evidence for the visit, and this itself is proof of a "phantom visit" and push forward with prosecuting JBW for fraud?

My next step is now to go to the 'TFL'.

Thanks!!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Jul 2015 19:48

If the visit didn't happen then it's not owed. If you have paid it then you reclaim it from the creditor. You need to be watertight in your edidenve because a court will take a bailiffs word for it over yours. Make a sworn statement and that moves the balance of probability into your favour.

A prosecution has a much higher burden of proof. You need to have a witness present at the address or a CCTV system proving there was no attendance on the date and time the bailiff attests. I find with private clients that simple cctv systems from Maplins are becoming commonplace and catching out unwitting bailiffs.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#11 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Jul 2015 20:40

The thing is.... all 3 visits before the bailiff saw the van on the drive at the 4th visit, are basically "phantom visits". My mother whos address it is, is disabled, she very rarely leaves the property. She assures me she was home on all 3 days, and that no bailiff called. This is backed up by the fact no notification was pushed through the door. When I challenged them for evidence of visits, they provided weak evidence in the form of GPS records for the first 2, and as ive just mentioned are unable to provide GPS record for the 3rd. when I recently made the request for all documents, I also asked that the bailiff involved make a 'sworn statement' giving his version of events regarding my case. Surprise surprise, no 'sworn statement' and not even a mention of it. They've basically ignored that request altogether. Both my mother and myself are both more than willing to make a 'sworn statement'.

Its going to be fairly difficult for me to prove he didnt attend the property. Surely the onus is on them to prove he did, since hes the one charging me for the work.

Not only that, but from what I can tell the fees are not inline with industry guidelines... plus hes charged me an ATR fee on the 4th visit, despite no levy on goods ever being made as the 4th "visit" was our first meeting. Ive included a breakdown of fees in my original post.

The bailiff is also guilty of misuse of power by threatening to take a vehicle clearly marked as a work vehicle.. Therefore causing the payment to be made under duress.. and also, excessive levying/attempted excessive levying. When I challenged JBW about this, their defense was that there was no other items of value available to the bailiff... again this is more BS, as i'd allowed the bailiff into the property. Even if I hadn't, there were items on the outside of the property worth way more than the debt.

Do you think my best bet is to request refund from TFL, then seek a solicitor for damages if I am successful with the refund... or speak to solicitor right away?

thanks

thanks

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#12 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Jul 2015 21:26

ATR fees are old rules and were easy to reclaim. The bailiff was unable to show who he paid the disbursements to.

If this small claims track, each party will have to pay their own solicitors fees regardless the outcome. If you do a recovery from TKF then the worst is you lose your court fee.

If you bring a claim for damages then secton 3 of the Torts Act provides this so long as you can quantify those losses claimed. It can be done by a Loss Adjuster (accountant can do that) and that leaves no discretion on the court to decide the outcome of your claim. You award is a statutory one rather than a discretionary one.

Bottom line is you need EVIDENCE to support your claim. If you can do that, the sky is the limit as far as the claim amount goes. It can even include damage to your business reputation -provided you have an accountant adjust it. The accountants fee is also recoverable.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#13 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 10 Jul 2015 00:03

So you think I have a case with regards to the ATR fee not being lawful? And I could get that refunded on the grounds that No levy was previously made. And if the bailiff is unable to prove who he paid... ie no one, as no tow-truck was ever present at any time??

I'm thinking small claims court. Claim the max £10k. For loss of earnings, damage to reputation, stress, anxiety and causing unnecessary hardship and also for my time spent fighting this.

Am I right then in thinking, that them being unable to prove the visit on 30/9/13 ever took place, is enough evidence for me to push forward with a claim for at "phantom visit"? I have read todays response from them again, and they quite funnily seem to be trying to pass off a photo from a previous visit as evidence for the visit on 30/9/13.
That mixed with the fact they are unwilling to provide me with all the documentation ive requested and that they seem unwilling to provide a 'sworn statement' from the bailiff, where myself am more than willing... Surely these few facts would work in my favour?

thanks!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#14 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 10 Jul 2015 08:05

You can only ask the court to order a refund. You need to ask TFL to pay you first and give your evidence before starting your claim.

No levy on goods is evidence the baiiff is unable to show where his disbursements were paid in connection with attending to remove the goods.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#15 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 13 Mar 2016 01:05

ok, its been a while... but as advised by Jason, I took my complaint to TFL, who originally sent JBW to collect from me. After waiting 7 months, I finally got their reply today. Same crap as with JBW & the CIVEA, they completely ignored my points and instead gave me a full description of the history of the debt - like I didnt already know!! I am now done with asking, I am ready to take these thieves to court.

I am quite confident I have JBW bang to rights for the following offences and national standards;

- Charging for phantom visits.
- Charging an ATR fee, when no truck was needed or even called. And when no previous levy had been made.
- Misuse of powers and making false statements. Stating a van clearly signed as a work vehicle could & would be seized.
- Causing a payment to be made under duress after making false statements.
- Seizing a vehicle clearly signed up as a work vehicle.
- Leaving no notice after apparently seizing a vehicle.
- Excessive levying. Van was worth five times the actual debt at the time.
- Charging fees not inline with industry guidelines.
- Charging VAT on bailiffs fees.
- Charging card fees.
- Advanced fee fraud.
- Failing to provide evidence of work done, even after a 'Subject Access Request' being made.
- Failing to provide a satisfactory 'Subject Access Request' when requested.
- Seizing a work vehicle, when other items to cover the debt were available (i'd allowed him into the property).

I am sure there are more examples I may have missed, which a professional would notice.

I am now eager to move my complaint forward to the courts. However, I am a little hesitant to go it alone, as I have never been to court before.

I am very keen for Jason and/or his team to view my case and give their professional opinion. With a view to perhaps taking my case and representing me fully in the courts on a 'no win no fee' basis.

If the full damages were awarded in favour, damages including for - Bailiff Fees & charges, loss of earnings, work done over the last 2.5 yrs, stress & causing unnecessary hardship, my others costs incurred, 8% interest. This case could potentially be worth +£20,000.

I look forward to hearing from you Jason, and I am more than happy to pay the telephone consultation to get us going.

Thanks
Alan

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#16 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 13 Mar 2016 01:28

PS - I also have JBW admitting in writing that they have NO evidence for one of the visits they have charged for

Hope to hear from you

Thanks
Alan

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#17 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 13 Mar 2016 08:46

To start work and see if you claim can be passed to a solicitor for litigation. Set up a telephone consultation (£35).

Give all documentary evidence that will help the court determine the claim.

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/telephone.html

If your claim is solid then I can refer you to a specialist solicitor to engage TFL and JBW and progress your claim through the courts.

You can do the claim no-win no-fee or pay the solicitor the hourly rate.

I need to be certain your claim is solid because you recover all your solicitors costs from TFL.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#18 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 15 Mar 2016 07:10

Cna I ask, who should I be taking to court... The bailiff himself, the bailiff company JBW or the company who sent the bailiff Transport For London??

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#19 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Mar 2016 21:21

Its TFL that goes to court.

They can deal with JBW in their own time.

Dragging TFL through the courts is easier than a bailiff company.

TFL aren't bothered if they lose a few grand here & there. They just pass it on the bailiff company's liability insurer. The bailiff company is not a party to the proceedings so they cannot challenge the costs or my fees. That's why I appoint grade 1 £450+VAT solicitors on such cases. It's more money in my pocket for the least amount of work.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#20 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 15 Mar 2016 21:59

I'm slightly confused.. An online solicitor seems to think its the bailiff himself who I should be dragging to court. Though this will be hard, as all I have is his name and company (JBW), and there is no guarantee he even stills works there. I'd prefer if it was TFL.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#21 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 07:54

You don't take a bailiff company to court. The exception is for personal injury claims, and actions involving violence or criminal offences. You don't need to go to court for these. Solicitors will meet with the bailiffs solicitor and negotiate how much they pay, rather than lay a claim before a court.

Otherwise, even if the bailiff is at fault, it is always the creditor-principal that is liable.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#22 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 09:31

I wouldn't take the bailiff company to court... but I am being told its the bailiff himself as they are often self-employed "subbies", not always employed by the company anyway??

Also, you mention only where a criminal offence has occurred should I take the bailiff himself to court. But if I am alleging 'fraud', that would be a criminal offence, and mean taking the actual bailiff himself to court ??

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#23 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 11:09

Yes you can do that. You make a complaint before a magistrate under section 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

You don't make any money from this. A prosecution is just that. A Prosecution. You can only do that if the police has considered the complaint or say its a civil matter. The magistrates court has a power to order a police investigation and the CPS to prosecute it.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#24 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 11:15

ok, thank you for that.

I am thinking of taking my complaint to the Ombudsman, good move or waste of time?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#25 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 11:26

Waste of time. Its not binding.

I stopped using ombudsmen long ago. It just add another layer of complaints to traverse before reaching judgment day.

I don't even use bailiff companies complaints procedures either. I just let the creditor one opportunity to put it right then the NOA goes in, the clock starts and costs accrue. No nonsense.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#26 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 12:36

So you'd say my next best step is a 'final letter before action' to TFL... then court action?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#27 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 13:12

Yes. but don't give legal advice to TFL. let them seek their own.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#28 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 13:39

I am not qualified to give legal advice anyhow lol.

I will send the TFL the final letter before action, and I will give 10 days to reply but that is it, after that its court, I am fed up of asking now.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#29 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 15:18

Give them three days.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#30 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 18:03

Final letter sent!!

I'm assuming this wont have much of an effect, until they receive a letter from the court??

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#31 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 18:18

a solicitors notice of acting gets results. Otherwise they ignore everything right to the day of the trial. then mess you about outside court.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#32 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 18:31

How do they 'mess about' outside the courts?

I have looked but struggled to find a solicitor that deals with fraud in Bristol.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#33 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2016 21:23

There are very few solicitors willing to take on civil enforcement fraud cases.

Among those that do, they specialise in that field. Most of them source their business from my website, dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#34 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Mar 2016 23:27

Yes, most i've found seem to mainly deal with fraud defense.

Am I right in thinking you could arrange a solicitors 'Notice Of Action'? What would the fee for this be?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13272
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#35 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 08:26

I can't place a NOA unless proceedings are being brought.

There is a fee to start work but I only take on winnable cases. So the job is make your case a winnable one.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply