Thank you for your considered and detailed comment.
You make the point that you seem to be acting under advice from an enforcement company however the point is that that advice is not updated and/or incomplete
I’m fully aware of the Kofa case Sharon‘s appeal was against a charging order which is slightly different ( this doesn’t actually involve any bailiffs turning up on peoples doorsteps and therefore that matter was never considered and to make comparison between the two cases is incorrect ) and the case was not judged entirely upon its merits and generally lost because there was an alternative arena for her to take this complaint forward and therefore for you to use comments from this case to support your position is not entirely valid .
We have written within the last week to a bailiff company regarding this very matter and it would seem from the enquiry so far that they are keeping their enforcement offices ignorant and misleading them because if they told them the truth then their business model would collapse overnight and therefore for them to make any admission in this matter is business suicide.
If you turn up on a debtors doorstep for council tax with only an “authority to act“ then can you explain how this is sufficient in law bearing in mind the Leighton judgement?
There is a case in the courts right now on this very matter whereby a bailiff is being taken to court for a breach of multiple laws and one of them is the Leighton ruling. The Leighton ruling also removes any reasonable excuse that you believe that your actions are lawful and hence opens you up to a breach of the harassment act which is a criminal offence. Being a criminal and being a bailiff are obviously incompatible and you risk the loss of your £10,000 bailiff Bond.
The legal bonanza from this will be bigger than bank miss selling or emissions scandal.
You will note that some Bailiff companies have recently changed hands and that is because they can see the writing on the wall in the industry and you would be wise to consider whether this is a sustainable career in the meantime. it will not be too long until someone is actually arrested for this.
In closing I would ask you to explain why the court awarded Wayne Leighton £4000 if the bailiff didn’t do anything wrong?
The Leighton judgment precedents, when combined with the Lloyds Banking Group criminal appeals court judgment precedents, deem fraudulent trading by local governments, by the hijacking of magistrates, as a jailable crime https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/369.html That is not for discussion or debate, but for enforcement of mass remedy for all victims of Liability Orders
I appreciate your references to the LEIGHTON vs BRISTOW & SUTOR case on 20th September 2023 where the Judge ruled in favour of the debtor and stipulated that to comply with Schedule 12 paragraph 26 of the Tribunal Courts and enforcement Act 2007, the creditor must provide up on request, of which this is a written request, a copy of the Court Order they are relying on to levy distress in this matter. That being said, our instruction as Certificated Enforcement Agents has never been altered and there has been a more recent court case which progressed in relation to identical reasons which was ruled in favour of the creditor. You may wish to familiarise yourself with the Kofa v Oldham MBC High Court of Justice which was heard on 20th March 2024 and available for public scrutiny. In this instance, the Judge stipulated: -
“The 1992 Regulations do not require a “court-issued” order. They did include a requirement of that kind, until an express amendment in 2003. I have been shown no provision of the 1992 Act which requires a court-issued order. Regulation 34(6) provides that the magistrates’ court will “make the order”. Rule 115 specifically excludes liability orders from the general duty to serve orders. Regulation 50 (charging orders) speaks of whether a liability order has been “made”. So do other regulations: eg. regulation 49(1) (insolvency); and regulation 54(4) (joint liability). I have been shown no provision which requires an entry in the court record, to be sent or served on person against whom a liability order is made or enforced, or to be produced to the county court for the purposes of a charging order.”
These Liability Orders will not be returned to the Local Authority and the debt will remain with us until it has been through our entire procedure, during which time associated fees may be incurred.
This is the same scripted reply used by many bailiffs and it is wrong on numerous accounts and wilfully misrepresents the Kofa judgement.
The judgement doesn’t actually say what you have quoted so I would urge you to go back and read it and quote it properly in the context but it was made.
In the meantime I’ve got a question for you.
You seem to be claiming that you are allowed to visit people without any proof from the court so please explain why the judge ruled in favour of Leighton against Bristow and Sutor?
It is obvious to everybody that the bailiff did not turn up with a court issued order and that is the reason why you seem to be trying to say that black is white in this respect and you have failed to deal with the basic reason for the judgement and just skirt around it quoting irrelevant nonsense.
So carry on and unlawfully harassing people and you will be sued just like Bristow and Sutor were.
Furthermore please tell me how the court can authorise you when it knows you are unable to comply with section 26 of the tribunal courts and enforcement act?
Could you get in touch please. I need to see the court documents to which you refer (I've tried searching on the 'Courts and Tribunal Judiciary' for J90SA002 (as quoted above) and couldn't find it - perhaps it hasn't been published yet, the judgement only having been made on 23th December 2023).
If this ruling is only regarding council tax judgements, brilliant news though it is, it doesn't end the use of bailiffs for this purpose completely (ie regarding non-payment of parking tickets, ULEZ, etc) - which is my ultimate goal. Please contact me at temporaryemail1@kangaconsulting.co.uk (in the first instance, I'll give you my 'real' email address later) so we can discuss.
Please note that Bristol & Sutor are the bailiffs who have visited my home on numerous occasions.
Splendid news! What great symbolism for the Winter Solstice! Could this be the start of taking down all the satanic mills in Blighty? I fervently do hope so!!
Thank you for your considered and detailed comment.
You make the point that you seem to be acting under advice from an enforcement company however the point is that that advice is not updated and/or incomplete
I’m fully aware of the Kofa case Sharon‘s appeal was against a charging order which is slightly different ( this doesn’t actually involve any bailiffs turning up on peoples doorsteps and therefore that matter was never considered and to make comparison between the two cases is incorrect ) and the case was not judged entirely upon its merits and generally lost because there was an alternative arena for her to take this complaint forward and therefore for you to use comments from this case to support your position is not entirely valid .
We have written within the last week to a bailiff company regarding this very matter and it would seem from the enquiry so far that they are keeping their enforcement offices ignorant and misleading them because if they told them the truth then their business model would collapse overnight and therefore for them to make any admission in this matter is business suicide.
If you turn up on a debtors doorstep for council tax with only an “authority to act“ then can you explain how this is sufficient in law bearing in mind the Leighton judgement?
There is a case in the courts right now on this very matter whereby a bailiff is being taken to court for a breach of multiple laws and one of them is the Leighton ruling. The Leighton ruling also removes any reasonable excuse that you believe that your actions are lawful and hence opens you up to a breach of the harassment act which is a criminal offence. Being a criminal and being a bailiff are obviously incompatible and you risk the loss of your £10,000 bailiff Bond.
The legal bonanza from this will be bigger than bank miss selling or emissions scandal.
You will note that some Bailiff companies have recently changed hands and that is because they can see the writing on the wall in the industry and you would be wise to consider whether this is a sustainable career in the meantime. it will not be too long until someone is actually arrested for this.
In closing I would ask you to explain why the court awarded Wayne Leighton £4000 if the bailiff didn’t do anything wrong?
The Leighton judgment precedents, when combined with the Lloyds Banking Group criminal appeals court judgment precedents, deem fraudulent trading by local governments, by the hijacking of magistrates, as a jailable crime https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/369.html That is not for discussion or debate, but for enforcement of mass remedy for all victims of Liability Orders
This is my response to using this case:
I appreciate your references to the LEIGHTON vs BRISTOW & SUTOR case on 20th September 2023 where the Judge ruled in favour of the debtor and stipulated that to comply with Schedule 12 paragraph 26 of the Tribunal Courts and enforcement Act 2007, the creditor must provide up on request, of which this is a written request, a copy of the Court Order they are relying on to levy distress in this matter. That being said, our instruction as Certificated Enforcement Agents has never been altered and there has been a more recent court case which progressed in relation to identical reasons which was ruled in favour of the creditor. You may wish to familiarise yourself with the Kofa v Oldham MBC High Court of Justice which was heard on 20th March 2024 and available for public scrutiny. In this instance, the Judge stipulated: -
“The 1992 Regulations do not require a “court-issued” order. They did include a requirement of that kind, until an express amendment in 2003. I have been shown no provision of the 1992 Act which requires a court-issued order. Regulation 34(6) provides that the magistrates’ court will “make the order”. Rule 115 specifically excludes liability orders from the general duty to serve orders. Regulation 50 (charging orders) speaks of whether a liability order has been “made”. So do other regulations: eg. regulation 49(1) (insolvency); and regulation 54(4) (joint liability). I have been shown no provision which requires an entry in the court record, to be sent or served on person against whom a liability order is made or enforced, or to be produced to the county court for the purposes of a charging order.”
These Liability Orders will not be returned to the Local Authority and the debt will remain with us until it has been through our entire procedure, during which time associated fees may be incurred.
This is the same scripted reply used by many bailiffs and it is wrong on numerous accounts and wilfully misrepresents the Kofa judgement.
The judgement doesn’t actually say what you have quoted so I would urge you to go back and read it and quote it properly in the context but it was made.
In the meantime I’ve got a question for you.
You seem to be claiming that you are allowed to visit people without any proof from the court so please explain why the judge ruled in favour of Leighton against Bristow and Sutor?
It is obvious to everybody that the bailiff did not turn up with a court issued order and that is the reason why you seem to be trying to say that black is white in this respect and you have failed to deal with the basic reason for the judgement and just skirt around it quoting irrelevant nonsense.
So carry on and unlawfully harassing people and you will be sued just like Bristow and Sutor were.
Furthermore please tell me how the court can authorise you when it knows you are unable to comply with section 26 of the tribunal courts and enforcement act?
We are coming for your bonds…
Could you get in touch please. I need to see the court documents to which you refer (I've tried searching on the 'Courts and Tribunal Judiciary' for J90SA002 (as quoted above) and couldn't find it - perhaps it hasn't been published yet, the judgement only having been made on 23th December 2023).
If this ruling is only regarding council tax judgements, brilliant news though it is, it doesn't end the use of bailiffs for this purpose completely (ie regarding non-payment of parking tickets, ULEZ, etc) - which is my ultimate goal. Please contact me at temporaryemail1@kangaconsulting.co.uk (in the first instance, I'll give you my 'real' email address later) so we can discuss.
Please note that Bristol & Sutor are the bailiffs who have visited my home on numerous occasions.
Many thanks and Happy New Year!
Splendid news! What great symbolism for the Winter Solstice! Could this be the start of taking down all the satanic mills in Blighty? I fervently do hope so!!