A man who was jailed after firing a replica gun at bailiffs in a row over an unpaid parking fine is trying to sue Southend Council for £288,000 in lost wages.Yes, because you see, if they hadn't sent the bailiffs in, he wouldn't have lost his temper, got arrested, been sacked, and…
You see, none of it’s really his fault!
David Sanderson, 44, from South Avenue, Southend, blames the council for sending bailiffs to his door who he claims acted illegally, forced their way into his home without the proper paperwork, and charging £396 on top of the £124 fine, which he says caused him to “flip” .*sigh*
The council says it will vigorously contest the case.Well, I’d hope so.
I’d also hope they don’t really have to, because the judge throws it out. But you never know…
Giving him a run for his money in the chutzpah stakes is prospective father of the year Stuart Whincup (unemployed father of five) who greeted the news his 14 year old daughter had been taken to hospital after collapsing at school having downed ecstasy and vodka thusly:
Mr Whincup has defended her actions and pulled his young daughter out of lessons - claiming it is not safe for her to return to the school because of 'peer-pressure.'
Mr Whincup, from Whaplode St Catherine, Lincs, said yesterday: 'It’s only partly her fault - since the school merged with another there’s not enough teachers to monitor all the pupils.
'They can’t keep an eye on them all,' he said, 'girls will be girls won’t they? She’s at that age.'There are no words, are there?
But wait! Maybe she’d been a perfect angel before being corrupted by the older k…
Oh:
'She has been accused of having cannabis before - but never anything like this.'Splendid!
We do not (will stand correction here) have vexatious litigants as such, but there is Abuse of Process and a judge can throw things out as being without merit.
ReplyDeleteDo have a molecule of sympathy here, baliffs are supposed to be licensed and have an order of the Court, properly signed (wet signature) and also be accompanied by a real copper. If they lack any of these, their actions are illegal and he was quite entitled to resist.
While I have little sympathy for any person who fires a weapon at others, and who deserves all he gets as a result, I think the issue of councils using debt collection agencies as quasi revenue generators needs examining.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Booker and Richard North have written on this issue and its pretty clear that councils, and debt collectors working for councils, are systematically overcharging debtors for their services. As the guy in the article said, a £124 fine suddenly becomes over £500 with 'costs'. People are charged massive amounts for letters sent, for visits that never occur etc. Councils themselves charge large amount just to send a letter detailing council tax arrears, way in excess of what it actually costs them, and contrary to the law, which states they may only recover costs 'reasonably incurred'.
The whole thing is an illegal scam that is costing the public billions of pounds.
In the case of the schoolgirl, what amuses me most is the repeated implication that - apart from the poor supervision by the school, of course - her plight can be blamed almost entirely on the unknown person who 'spiked her vodka'.
ReplyDeleteAs an example of 'someone else's fault', this surely takes some beating. Since Mr Whincup has four more children (and plenty of time on his hands), can we look forward to more of the same in years to come?
On the first case, there appears to be several elements to be looked at. First of all, Biker Bob is correct in that bailiffs are only lawfully allowed to act on the instructions of a court. Secondly, bailiffs have no power of forced entry and if told to go away, they are required to do so. Thirdly, Police will only attend to prevent a breach of the Peace and will not act on behalf of any bailiff, Council official or similar jobsworth. For someone to be a vexacious litigant, I understand they have to have initiated a number of obviously stupid and silly court actions, though am happy to be corrected on this. Finally, despite the, possibly unlawful, actions of the bailiffs, the act of producing a weapon to scare someone off should not be taken lightly - who would know, apart from the user, if the gun was a replica or not? In a perfect world, a King Solomon type would gather them all together, bailiffs, council officials and the householder and bang their heads together until they agreeed to act like sensible human beings, though this may take a long time. In closing, may I add that, for the benefit of Noggy and Melv, despite no Police officer attending on the initial visit, it's all their fault!
ReplyDeletePenseivat
Pense: I thought Baliffs had been given the right of forced entry in certain circumstances by the last government?
ReplyDeleteXX Robert the Biker said...
ReplyDeletePense: I thought Baliffs had been given the right of forced entry in certain circumstances by the last government? XX
I thought that for siezure of goods, to "pay" the fine, they had that anyway. Never had a lot to do with baliffs though, must admit.
FT: I know the laws were quite different fo a business where forced entry has always been on the cards, private dwellings were always a different kettle of fish (man's house is his castle type of thing). Never had much to do with the buggers myself but I would hate to think they could just push their way in without being resisted
ReplyDeleteRob and FT,
ReplyDeleteBailiffs act on behalf of official organisations or companies in the seizure of goods to pay off debts. They have to have a court order, produce a copy of the order, usually a warrant, if required as well as official identification. They are not allowed to make a forced entry, i.e. kicking open a locked door or pushing past someone in an open doorway. They are, however, allowed to enter premises, without causing damage or injury, such as through an open doorway or window. If, in attempting or making a forced entry, they cause damage or injury they can be prosecuted for criminal damage or assault. I have, in the past, attended incidents where 'a breach of the peace' was reported but they were usually caused by the bailiffs - though this was before they were fully licensed and any old thug would set up a debt collection agency and send 'the boys' round. One bailiff, to my great shame and disgust, was an ex CID officer who I had worked with and who was acting just inside the letter of the law. I don't know who was the more embarrassed when I nicked him for stepping outside that letter!
Penseivat
Having just read the above again, there is one thing I should clarify. If a bailiff has gained entry by peaceful means on the initial visit, i.e. being invited in or entering through an open door or window, then then CAN use force to gain entry on any seubsequent visit. If, however, entry is refused or not gained on the initial visit, they can not return and kick your door in! The basic premise is 'Don't let 'em in!' The Police can not, and will not, use force to gain entry on behalf of a bailiff.
ReplyDeletePenseivat
"...and a judge can throw things out as being without merit."
ReplyDeleteLet's hope he draws one of the few remaining ones with all their marbles then!
"...I think the issue of councils using debt collection agencies as quasi revenue generators needs examining."
Me too.
"As an example of 'someone else's fault', this surely takes some beating."
Yes, but I have the utmost confidence in our underclass. They'll top this, just be patient!
"For someone to be a vexacious litigant, I understand they have to have initiated a number of obviously stupid and silly court actions, though am happy to be corrected on this. "
ReplyDeleteNo, it appears that is the case. So unless this isn't his first...
"The basic premise is 'Don't let 'em in!'"
Good advice! Applies to RSPCA and TV Licencing too.