Bailiff forces entry after poster advised to commit perjury
A couple of weeks ago, a poster went to BHF for help with a TV license fine. The opening post said the following:
Hi guys need some urgent help pls. I had a tv licencing fine which wasnt paid as I left my partner and has nothing to my name so couldnt pay it.
My neighbour gave me a letter from them she was on holiday as it was posted to hers. So i rang em to make a weekly arrangement and she told me no as I had gone over by 1 day!!!
The guy came knocking on mondag at 7.00 and i didnt open the door. He came again yesterday and he was knocking on my neighbours doors. 1 of the neighbours rang my husband and told him. I was at an appointment no one was at home but apparently he was here for nearly 2 hours. My husband (we reconsiled a few weeks back) rang him and he goes hes going to come back with a locksmith and break in and take stuff if its not paid. So my husband told him come on friday and he’ll see what he can do. We cant afford nearly £800.00. I have a car outside and its not mine, a friends parked it outside as I have space, not registered to me or nething and he posted a letter stating he’s taken control of the car and will contact police if we use it. We cant use it as it’s not ours and we dont even have a key for it.
Can he break in on friday? I know hes going to come at 6.00 and start knocking and he’s not going away if he was outside for 2 hours yesterday, we cant pay him £800.00
Any advice will be apprecaited. He was really nasty to my husband on the phone. I was genuinely at the job centre and no1 was even home, i have a 2 year old, and a 9 month at home, noway they were going to stay quiet.
I have 4 children and we’re really stuggling. I admit i dis tell the court when i got the letter I will pay weekly but my circumstances changed.
It is quite obvious from the above that the poster was not only fully aware of the fine, she had even promised a weekly payment to the court. See below how she admitted to having signed a letter admitting to not having a license.
Jason then posts a template for her to do a statutory declaration. His usual template contains the following wording:
I: [NAME] residing at [ADDRESS AND POSTCODE] and my date of birth is 01/01/1980
DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT:
I was unaware that I had been convicted of a crime until I received a document from a [bailiff company/the DVLA] on [DATE] and I hereby make this solemn declaration by obligation under section 14(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to bring this fact to the attention of a designated officer of the court within 21 days of becoming aware [of my entitlement to make this declaration].
I further make this solemn declaration under Section 7 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 believing the same to be true.
This document is delivered addressed to the designated officer of the court by Royal Mail recorded delivery service pursuant to section 14(1)(2) of the MCA 1980.
DECLARED AT: ________________________ (place)
Can anyone spot the obvious problem with this? The poster has openly admitted that she was fully aware of the TV license fine, not only did she sign a letter admitting to not having a license, she also contacted the court with a repayment offer, yet she is *solemnly declaring* that she was unaware of having been convicted of anything.
Now let’s take a look at the Perjury Act 1911:
5 False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.
If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—
(a) in a statutory declaration; or
….
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
While this poster may not have knowingly and wilfully made a false statement because she was just blindly following Jason’s advice, the court may well take a different view. Advice like this is extremely irresponsible and dangerous. The poster could find herself with another conviction, another fine and, potentially, even doing time in prison.
Furthermore, the EAs returned with a locksmith and forced entry. The poster thought they needed the court’s permission to do that, obviously she wasn’t told that bailiffs are allowed to force entry when collecting court fines without further permissions. Note how Jason then turns the tables and advises to take photos and document everything for a future action for damages. What action? The agents acted within their powers. Still Jason refuses to mention this fact when she asks, once more, whether they’d need permission to break in.
Note how, on post 33, she says she wrote to the court about her situation and also attached “the letter”. That would be the statutory declaration. The court would find it rather puzzling if someone wrote to them saying they can’t pay their fine because of their circumstances while also attaching a statutory declaration claiming not to have any knowledge of the fine…
Jason ignores all this and asks when the SD was sworn in, there isn’t any evidence that it was, the poster may well have thought it was just another letter. So we have someone whose locks have been drilled, facing extra locksmith’s charges, a potential conviction for perjury with its associated fine leading to another enforcement action…
Leave a Reply
60 Comments on "Bailiff forces entry after poster advised to commit perjury"
It seems that the OP in this matter has problems remembering what she has posted & where. She is blaming Milo/Sheila for disclosing some Council Tax Issues that were mentioned in “private”:
#167 Re: MARSTONS Coming back to
collect full payment or break locks
HELP
by Anamsey » 22 Apr 2017 10:31
I was assured by milo none of my details would be passed to anyone, shes
posted it on the net!!! No one and i mean no one knew about my council tax
and it wasn’t really an issue, got letter, rung them, explained my situation
and they accepted my payments which i am very very grateful for.
She did tell her Council Tax issues elsewhere @ http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?82059-Council-tax-for-old-address-bailiffs
Whatever she may think I am not & never have been Milo or Sheila.
Since the bailiff forced entry before the question was ever even raised on LB ???
Jason said :
The victim was a court fine defaulter, but this morning, the proceedings and the fine are a nullity. The victim claims damages for breaking entry. We will be handing over our file to the law firm and to the police investigating a burglary committed by a person trading as an unaccompanied bailiff without an enforcement certificate.”
I wonder how this is going for them ?
Recent posts indicate that a hearing has been listed for May. That means the proceedings and fine are not a nullity. The case hasn’t been heard yet. Even if the conviction was “quashed” as Jason loves to say, the bailiffs would still have acted lawfully under a warrant at the time they broke entry. They would have no way of knowing that the debtor would be filing a SD and that it would be accepted at a future date. Perhaps bailiff companies should consider investing in time machines…
As they were acting lawfully, there was no burglary to investigate, and this is probably the millionth time the police get a similar report. As we all know, an uncertificated person can accompany a certificated bailiff, just like an unlicensed paralegal can work under the supervision of an authorised solicitor, or an individual without a consumer credit license can work for a financial institution who is licensed.
The only damages I can see are inside Jason’s brain, or he wouldn’t be making statements like that.
The more she posts, the deeper the hole.
Surely, if she had other debts, then if Milo did inform the enforcement company (which she certainly should have done), it would have demonstrated to them that her financial circumstances were dire and that could only be of assistance to Amansey.
Jason indulging in a bit of role reversal.
I would say 90% of advice given by him is based on misinterpreted or ignored law.
Every order issued by the court will contain a warning about ignoring the communication , advice about obtaining advice and details of recognised advice agencies, she had lots of time to do this.
Section14 gives three weeks to issue a SD from when she found out about it , if the op contacts the court ,(which she apparently did), the court office will advise her of her options. As it was, she was given a very generous payment arrangement, which she never made one single payment on.
As said she is given 21 days after she found out about the fine, it has now been 5 months.
It is up-to the court what they do now. The fact that a hearing has been ordered is not necessarily a good sign, as the matter of the delay can be decided without one.
I would repeat Milos advice to the OP, in that discussing this on an open forum at this stage is not a good idea. A serious advocate would never permit it as it may damage your case.
#62 Re: Marstons (Connectica?) Visit
Quote
Post by jasonDWB » 22 Apr 2017 16:42
We are dissecting the law to find the requirement for debtors to pay the schedule of enforcement stage fees.
At the moment, the schedule of enforcement stage fees is just that.
It was discovered when a lawyer was preparing a fee recovery claim.
Jason has officially lost it.
He is also recommending to injunct or to do a chargeback. His DWB page regarding chargebacks advised not telling the bank anything about bailiffs. He even said you could take your bank to court if they refused! Where does it all end?
Isn’t that fraud ?
Sounds like it, and you’d be making it worse if you were to report the unwanted transaction to the police as advised here: http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/bailiffs-and-chargeback.htm
This one’s even better: http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/postponed-chargeback.htm
Really?
Yes indeed, Jason seems to think that an out of time application under section 14 will just make the previous judgment void, it is not so. If you think about it , it cannot be so.
this from the relavant CPR
[Note. Under sections 14 and 16E of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, proceedings which begin
with a summons, requisition or single justice procedure notice will become void if the defendant,
at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory declaration that he or she did not know of
them until a date after the trial began.
Under section 14(3) or section 16E(9) of the 1980 Act, the court which decides whether or not to
extend the time limit for serving a declaration under this rule may comprise a single justice.
The Practice Direction sets out a form of declaration for use in connection with this rule.]
It i to be hoped that the OP will have the correct details on this application , as she may well have to repeat them in front of a judge.
There is more than just extending the time limit to serve it, isn’t it? Such as the small matter of her being aware of the fine back in January… The one thing she didn’t know about was the possibility of doing a SD, but then she didn’t have to, as she knew about the fine all along. The idea of the SD is to allow you a chance to defend yourself when you were convicted in your absence. In this case, what would her defence be? Going on about Milo giving details to the bailiff has no bearing on this issue whatsoever, that’s just her being used as a pawn in their much bigger game.
Making a statutory declaration is a serious business and people making a false declaration can, and will be sent to prison for perjury. Defendants should never be tempted to lie on a declaration.
In the case of Amnesty, the Statutory Declaration provide to her by her solicitor would have had the following specific wording as prescribed under the CrimPr rules:
1. I am the defendant named above.
2. I now know that the hearing in this case began on or about (date).
3. I found out about the case on (date) because: (Explain briefly how you found out.)
In the case of Amensey, in response to Question 2, she would have needed to state that the hearing began In October 2016 and in answer to Question 3, she would have needed to state something like this:
“I found out about the case on January xx 2017 when I telephoned xxx Magistrates Court after I received a Notice of Fine/Collection Order in the post requesting payment of £xx”
A Statutory Declaration must be served within ’21 days’ of ‘finding out’ about the case.
The court may consider a request to EXTEND the period beyond 21 days. For example; after ‘finding out’ about the case, a defendant may have suffered a serious illness……been taken into hospital….been imprisoned…been bereaved or out of the country for one reason or another etc, etc. In this respect, the Statutory Declaration requires that the defendant MUST provide an explanation as to why they have taken longer than 21 days to deliver it to the court. There is a separate area on the Statutory Declaration for this purpose.
It is very clear from the regulations that if a Statutory Declaration is served within 21 days that the case against them must immediately be listed for a NEW TRIAL.
However, this does not apply in cases where a Statutory Declaration is supported by a request to ‘EXTEND THE TIME’ for delivering the declaration. The Guidance Notes are most helpful in this respect as they make clear that before considering a Statutory Declaration, the Magistrate, District Judge or Justices Clerk must consider the request (for a time extension) and IF GRANTED ,they must provide their REASON for (allowing the extension) and sign and date the declaration accordingly.
The reason this post was made was precisely that, there is a risk of committing perjury when you make a false declaration, and the consequences can be serious, as the courts aim to discourage people from making false statements by imposing custodial sentences, as is the case with contempt of court. It was NOT intended to mock, judge or even criticise Anamsey, it just highlights that she was receiving the wrong advice. Yesterday she posted that the reason she went to Legal Beagles AFTER posting her thread on BHF was for precisely that: wrong advice…
There are times when people may try it on and succeed, however, they should always be warned of the pitfalls of taking that route and the consequences should things go wrong, so they can make an informed decision.This is where Jason’s advice always falls down. There may be times when his suggestions may have worked, i.e. paying the council directly and ditching the bailiff fees, applying for an injunction to prevent the sale of a vehicle, etc. but every case is different, and if you are going to suggest that course of action, it should come with a warning about what may happen if things go the other way. That’s never the case where he is involved.
A couple of days ago, he was advising to start proceedings against the bailiff and the MoJ, and even posted their full postal address!!! Even if the bailiff had acted completely outside the law, there would be no cause to take action against the MoJ. That would be like suing the FCA because your bank refused your PPI claim, simply because financial institutions are regulated by the FCA. Or the SRA if your solicitor rips you off, as they are authorised and regulated by that body. Mark Bowley was quick to jump in and say ” don’t start any action”. Jason couldn’t really make his case after that.
Is Anamsey so blind she can’t see the huge elephant in the room? Anyone can see that, even if Milo had not given her the right advice (which wasn’t the case), that pales into insignificance when seen against the advice given by Jason. First to make a false declaration, because she allegedly knew about the TV License issue, but not that she had been convicted, even though she made a repayment offer to the court. Then to bring proceedings against the EA and the MoJ!!!
Indeed, and then apparently she was in touch with the court, who granted a repayment arrangment. You would think she was aware of the fine at that juncture.
If the hearing has been relisted , then good luck to her, but she should think seriously how she pleads.
However she did not say it had been relisted, she said there was a hearing, this could just be to decide the OOT issue.
It would help if there was more info, perhaps she could put up the notice, she could of course redact any personal information from the text.
Did the notice say all enforcment action had been withdrawn ?
I deal with enquiries and applications for Statutory Declarations on a daily basis and I have been saying for a very long time, that Statutory Declarations (under the Mag Court Act 1980) must be supported by an indication as to how the defendant intends to plead and unfortunately, (and in particular with TV Licence fines), many people are getting themselves into dreadful trouble, and it is websites such as Dealing with Bailiffs and Bailiff Help Forum that are the root cause of this.
What these sites do not tell fine defaulters is that they WILL have to attend court in person as the case against them must be re-heard in as short a period of time and this new hearing is where problems arise.
Take the case of Anamsey:
On the BHF forum she has said that if she had known about the case last October, she would have attended court to defend herself ?? I am completely lost at this comment given that there is very little if anything for her to DEFEND given that all TV licence prosecutions follow a personal visit to the defaulters home and their signature on a ‘Prosecution Statement’. Does she now intend to say that she was not being honest on the statement? For her sake, I do hope not.
It is also evident from her prolific forums posts, that those people encouraging (and coaching her) to submit a Statutory Declaration 4 months AFTER she received a letter from the court, (presumably a Notice of Fine/Collection Order) are doing so for one reason and one reason only………and that is to help her EVADE PAYING BAILIFF FEES.
On her ‘Prosecution Statement’ she would have been required to indicate whether she was working or in receipt of benefits at the time of the TV Licence Enquiry Agent’s visit and as such, her income at that time would have been taken into consideration already when setting the ‘level of fine’. Also, on the ‘Prosecution Statement’, she would have confirmed that she had been guilty of viewing a TV without a valid licence so that take care of the subject of whether she was guilty or not guilty.
Her eventual court fine was in the region of around £350 and this figure would have INCLUDED the TV Licence Court Presenters costs of around £125 and Victims surcharge. In other words, her actual FINE was around £200 which is about right.
Anamsey by her own internet posts, knew of the court fine in January and despite the court accepting a payment arrangement from her for the MINIMUM amount allowed by law (£5 per week) for defaulters who are out of work or in receipt of benefits, she failed to make any payments whatsoever and sadly, she (assisted by others) is now looking to blame anyone but herself for the mess that she is in.
She has also said that she had ALREADY submitted a SD and was waiting to go to court and it was at this time that the bailiffs broke in, BEFORE she got the infamous PM on LB with Milo’s details. So the 6 visits she says she had, including the forced entry, would have been BEFORE Milo entered the picture Anamsey said earlier today that she had been given the wrong advice on BHF and that was her reason for going to LB. She also said the bailiff had read her posts on BHF and told her it was bad advice, remember when she posted about the bailiff being outside, it was BEFORE she got PMd about Milo.
She didn’t have to act on the PM and other people may have reported it to the site team but she decided to contact Milo instead for help. If she wanted Milo to help her with Marstons, it follows Milo would need to go backto Marstons with SOMETHING. You don’t contact someone to tell them nothing. All this about Marstons getting her details from Milo is garbage, they had already paid her numerous visits and broken into her house. Knowing their ilk, they would have been snooping around, looking for any tell-tale signs of anything of value. You only have to see Can’t Pay We’ll Take it Away, the way they look at paperwork and seemingly valueless objects, and how they manage to find car keys and insurance policies. They were inside her house without her being present, at least not all the time.
I see this post was made on the 10th of April, when she posted up her story about the break in. At that point she’d already been told to send the statutory declaration claiming not to be aware of the fine/conviction/prosecution/proceedings. Whatever you call it, she had contacted the court and make a payment arrangement. Hardly the actions of someone who knew nothing about it…