Accept bailiff compensation or push for more/court?

I have a monstrous complaint against Marstons including GDPR breach, unlawful discrimination, ill treatment under equality act, threatening words, intimidation, harassment basically everything a bailiff shouldn't do!!!

I have a Blue Badge for anxiety, they clamped a vehicle despite been shown a blue badge for evidence. I repeatedly told him I was vulnerable due to anxiety, he stated the blue badge can only be given for a physical disability. He spoke to his mate on the phone who said the same, they are both wrong and I proved this to them. He told my my anxiety doesn't change a thing. Said many things about anxiety clearly doesn't stop me from going out, working and having a nice car with private reg,
and said as I take medication the anxiety is under control so not an issue. Absolutely incredulous ill-informed sweeping statements made about my anxiety.l which are defined as harassment under Equality Act. I have long term anxiety so I'm protected under disability section of Equality Act.

His mate contacted a bailiff who 'works for another company', bailiff sent my documents to these peoples personal phones and conducted calls on loudspeaker in his car that was audible from the house so GDPR and intimidation. When he accepted he had to remove the clamp after duscussing with other bailiffs and shating my documents from GP etc, I was pressured into making a payment to prevent further action, he threatened to enter the property if I put a complaint in so was obstructive to a complaint and intimidating.

He knew that only my under 10 year old child was inside the house alone yet still tried to enter the house (the door was locked but he tried it anyway knowing they were inside and I was outside).

The car is on finance and has no equity yet there is currently a levy on it (though no clamp now).

Failed to provide his full name when asked. Wouldn't give his Supervisors name who we believe was actually his Bailiff mate who he had tried to pitch to me as the one telling him he could carry on recivery as I was 'playing the game' and definitely didnt have a blue badge for anxiety (wrong!!!). No name legible in signature and not printed in documents.

They broke about 25 of the points on the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards and I can evidence them all.

SAR was put in but refused (updates I'm thread to follow chronologicallly) and I have recordings myself which he was aware I was making.

The paperwork was completely blank with no information filled in. Even on the sticker placed on windscreen the agent has only put his number in the 'name' section and signature is a squiggle.

The Enforcement Officers company are being unsurprisingly obstructive in providing DSAR Bodycam footage as I 'do not appear in it' according to tgem. My partner does as they acted on my behalf providing documents and facilitating conversations between me and the EO via telephone as I was not home. My voice will be on that footage as well as my vehicle registration number and discussion of my medical issues


I pushed back to say that my voice and personal info is recorded on the bodycam and possibly sighting of my paper documents handed over by my partner. They refute this so I have done an additional complaint to the EO compant regarding this in line with ICO guidelines ahead of complaining to the ICO.

My partner put in their own DSAR now and we have both given permission for our information to be shared with the other. I have also notified them that they should back up the footage and ensure it is not deleted as it may be requested as evidence if I have to proceed to an ICO complaint.
I have quoted another website below, so if they fail to provide the recording this would only ever discount their own defence anyway.

'If the bailiff refuses to give the recording.

Keep their response letter and give it in evidence.

When you bring proceedings, which the bodycam recording could prove your claim, you make an application on a court form N244 (without notice) to apply for an "unless order" under CPR 31.12

The order requires the bailiff company within 14 days make over the recording, alternatively, the respondent's defence statement is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c)

They still played silly beggars after their 2 stage complaints process so the complaint was escalated to LGO and ICO. Their two separate responses to my complaint (initial response and then response after a Stage 2 Review) actually contradicted each other.

Response 1 agreed the bailiff tried to enter the house and tried to obstruct a complaint. Response 2 said the bailiff didnt try to enter the house and was helpful with how to make a complaint! Beggars belief

28th May 2024, 13:40:PM
Interesting email today after my claims being rebuffed by the same person previously. Still awaiting allocation with LGO. I received, without any explanation, a refund of the money I had paid the bailiff about a month ago and have carried out no further Comms yet received this

"
I write further to my email of XX April 2024.

I have provided feedback and asked for re training for the enforcement agent who visited your address on 3 March 2024.

Following this, I would also like to offer you compensation of £250 for any upset and inconvenience felt during the enforcement process.

If you would like to accept this in resolution of your complaint, please can you provide me with your bank account reference, sort code and name as it appears on your bank statement.

Your feedback is important to us and allows us to improve our training program."

Then TfL who had intructed Marstons sent this:

The activities of the enforcement companies we use are regulated by legislation and through their contracts with us, and we take all complaints about the actions of their Enforcement Agents (EA) very seriously. I can confirm that there are processes in place to ensure that cases are referred by EAs if there is evidence to suggest that a customer is in any way vulnerable. While this does not mean that a penalty charge will be cancelled, consideration will be given to the action taken and, where appropriate, the possibility of arranging a payment plan. Marstons Group Ltd has confirmed that you made reference to your health and your personal circumstances during the visit and that the EA was provided evidence to enable them to assess your case further as a result of this. Although the EA did not wish to appear to doubt what you were telling him, it is standard practice to request evidence to substantiate such claims. This is to prevent abuse of the process and ensure that all mitigating circumstances are properly considered.
Upon reviewing the footage from the EA body camera, I would like to offer my sincere apologies for the way in which the matter was handled. The level of service you received certainly did not meet the high standard we expect from our contracted enforcement companies.

I can confirm that we have cancelled the above mentioned PCN and in acknowledgement of the time you have spent trying to resolve this matter, Marstons Group have arranged for a goodwill payment for the sum of £250.00 to be issued to you.

The complaint:




Dear Sir/Madam,

Reference: xxxxx


I would like to make a complaint against your company and the Enforcement Agent which you sent to attend my home on xxxx at 8.40am who provided his details only as ‘Liam 9xxxx(redacted)’.



The bailiff spoke to my husband who asked if I was in, my husband (A) said no and the bailiff explained that he is clamping the car.



I spoke to the bailiff him via my husband’s phone while he sat in his van and I told him immediately after he explained why he was there that I am vulnerable due to a mental health condition and that I have a Blue Badge and am able to provide medical evidence and that as I am vulnerable he has to make allowances for that. He stated that the car isn’t on disabled tax or mobility so it doesn’t affect recovery, I informed him that he is missing the point that I am vulnerable and my blue badge is for anxiety and the blue badge is evidence of my vulnerability. Again he told me that it doesn’t change anything as I can work and pay my bills and lots of people tell him they have mental health problems to try and stop action. I told him that may be the case but it doesn’t change the way he should treat ME and that I can provide several items of evidence. I told him that I needed the car due to my anxiety and that it was also essential for wellbeing and work.



I also informed him that the car was financed and he told me ‘it doesn’t matter as long as it has £500 equity’. I told him it did not have equity as I still owe more on it than it is worth and he informed me that he was waiting on a HPI check to come back and that he has 2 hours legally that he has to give me before he takes the car, I told him I could show it didn’t have equity and he did not take me up on this offer.





My husband A showed the bailiff my Blue Badge. Despite all of the above information, he disregarded the information and insisted recovery would continue until he eventually stated that he would check with his Supervisor.



Bailiffs should not seize a vehicle displaying a valid disabled person’s badge - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/bailiffs/



He agreed that he would speak to his Supervisor and let me know what they advise. A went into the house to try and find more of my documents that evidence my diagnosed anxiety.



During this time, the bailiff made a call in his vehicle using hands free mode which A stated was audible from the house. A made a recording in the house to demonstrate that the call could be heard from within the property therefore this is the first instance that demonstrates a break of GDPR as passers-by and neighbours were able to hear my personal information. I believe this was also an attempt to shame and intimidate us into making a payment and is a breach of HCMTS rules Causing Intential Alarm, Distress or Harassment to Another under the Public Order Act 1986.



After the bailiff called the person that he claimed to be his Supervisor, the bailiff stated that the Supervisor said that because I take medication for my anxiety it is managed and so not a consideration and that he can continue because the car is not Disabled Taxed or Mobility. He said he could ask the Supervisor if he would call me. The bailiff stated that anxiety doesn’t affect me paying my bills, I told him ‘no but it changes how you have to deal with me’, he could not grasp this stating “you can go out, you can go out to work and drive your car with your personal number plate, I have mental health issues too but I go to work and I pay my bills”. He had made several other comments like this throughout the conversation which were derogatory and demeaning. At this point, I was completely taken aback at this and asked him if I could record the call, he stated I could from this point and told me if I had recorded before then he didn’t give permission earlier, I informed him I hadn’t done this and was only just downloading an app to do so as we speak.



These words were harassment and victimisation constituting unlawful indiscrimination and demonstrated the failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Under the Equality Act 2010 I am protected from disability discrimination as a result of my impairment caused by anxiety. It was completely clear that the bailiff discriminated against me with mental health issues and could not understand that I could have a disability arising from mental health and still work and ‘drive a car with a personalised plate’.



‘Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010
You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities’ - https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

‘If you are disabled or have a long-term health condition, you’re protected from discrimination if your impairment meets the Equality Act’s definition of disability.

The Equality Act says you’re disabled if:

you have a physical or mental impairment
the impairment has a substantial and long-term effect on your everyday activities - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/check-if-youre-protected-from-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20disabled%20or,a%20physical%20or%20mental%20impairment
Step 1: Check if you have an impairment
An impairment can be any physical or mental health condition. You can also have an impairment if there are any physical or mental abilities that you struggle with more compared to most people. For example, an impairment could be difficulty focusing, communicating, sleeping or hearing.

You might have an impairment even if you don’t see yourself as disabled, for example if:…

you experience low mood, anxiety or phobias…
Your impairment is considered a disability under the Equality Act if it makes it harder for you to do everyday activities.

….Step 2: Check if your impairment makes everyday activities harder
Your impairment is usually considered a disability under the Equality Act if it makes it harder for you to do everyday activities. Everyday activities can be anything you generally need to do regularly to live well, for example washing, communicating or using transport.

Your impairment doesn’t have to stop you doing activities completely, but it must have more than a small effect on your abilities. The Equality Act calls this a ‘substantial’ effect…

If you use medicine, treatment or assistive technology
The Equality Act says you should look at the effect of your impairment if you didn't use medicine, treatment or assistive technology….

If your impairment would make things harder for you without any medicine, treatment or assistive technology, you might be disabled under the Equality Act…

If you think you’re disabled under the Equality Act
It’s unlawful for employers, businesses and service providers to treat you unfairly - this includes refusing to make reasonable adjustments…

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/check-if-youre-protected-from-discrimination/what-counts-as-disability/
Later in that discussion I asked for the Supervisor to call me as the bailiff had previously offered and he said that the Supervisor wasn’t working today. When pressed on this, A said that ‘you said your Supervisor doesn’t work on a Sunday but you have spoken to him therefore he is working on a Sunday so we just need his name and number so we can talk to him or he can call us’. At this Point, the bailiff got into his car and locked his door and A asked ‘will you not talk to me about it?’ and the bailiff wouldn’t reply. A went away and spoke to me on the phone explaining that he doesn’t think that the person the bailiff has spoken to is his Supervisor and that he has seen the name on his screen on the hands free as ‘Matty S’ and heard him call the person Matty. The bailiff was listening and wound his window down and said “you need to get your facts right”. A asked again “did you speak to your Supervisor?” the bailiff replied “yes and then he had called his colleague Matty S”. A asked “is Matty S your Supervisor?”, the bailiff stated “No but he has been in the business 20 years and knows what he is talking about”.



He made several phone calls during his visit to a ‘Matty S’ who A heard stating that “a Blue Badge is only for wheel chair users - you don’t get a Blue Badge unless you have something physical wrong with you, 100% (certain)” and told the bailiff that “she is playing the game” which further added to the harassment and discrimination. A explained that they “have got to stop saying that because you are going to open up a can of worms for yourself” and the bailiff said ’what do you mean by open a can of worms?’. A reiterated its not just physical issues that are classed as a disability and stating otherwise makes them vulnerable to litigation. A returned to the house and took out further evidence, the first being the application form for a blue Badge which states ‘A badge can be awarded to any individual who has an enduring and substantial disability which causes them to……Experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress….’. A then explained the circumstances of which my Blue Badge was issued regarding my anxiety and travel, the bailiff said that this was completely new information to him (that he did not know that a Blue Badge could be issued for anxiety and is classed as a disability).



At some point, the bailiff showed A a screen to evidence that he has to recover the money in it’s entirety or cease goods and that the system hasn’t got the option to accept a payment plan and at some point the bailiff told A that if he seized my car I could use A’s car – to which a informed him that was not possible as he used his car for work too.



A produced further evidence to the bailiff; a letter from my GP that states I have Chronic Anxiety then the Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form. He took pictures of each item of evidence and asked if I could pay something so that he has something to negotiate with. I checked my bank balance and felt pressured into offering the £100 I had which was needed for household food. He was then heard on another call to the recipient Matty S stating “check your personal phone”. The sharing of my information in this way was an unauthorised disclosure of my personal data - https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/personal-data-breach/personal-data-breaches-a-guide/



During this call, A overheard Matty S state “cos you have evidence she is vulnerable, you need to remove the clamps”, then Liam (the Enforcement Agent) questioned “even though it’s Diesel tax and not Disability or Mobility car? I’ve been told it has to be those to not clamp” and Matty S said he had spoken to someone who works for a different company and ‘he knows his stuff’. This demonstrates a further potential breach of GDPR.



Approx. 10 minutes after Matty S told the bailiff to take the clamp off, the bailiff got out of his vehicle and could hear A talking to me on the phone stating that we have a 9 year old child in the house on their own currently and that the door is locked. The bailiff then asked ‘is the door locked?’ which A replied ‘yes’ and then the bailiff went to the door and attempted to open it despite knowing there was child in there alone.

The clamp remained on for approx. 15 mins after the bailiff had been advised to remove it by Matty S causing continued stress and intimidation.



When the clamp had been removed, we asked the bailiff to confirm his name, he gave his name only as Liam and a number. He did not provide a surname; this has made it difficult for me to check the Certified Bailiff Register.



When A asked for the Supervisors name and details, at first the bailiff said he would write it down. When he handed over paperwork, A again asked and he said ‘did I not write it down?’ and A said ‘no’. the bailiff then said he would ask if he can give those details out as he doesn’t want to break GDPR and then when asked again after agreeing to remove the clamp and do a payment plan he said “why do you need it? If any complaint you can come to me” and threatened that “if you’re doing a complaint the boss said he can come in to take goods rather than do the payment plan” which was an attempt to intimidate and obstruct us in making a compliant. A explained that he would like the details so that he can educate them and he said “we have updated it on the system”. I told A that he didn’t need to push on this further as I can raise this with the complaint.



The bailiff regularly reminded A that he has his camera on and A even asked at the end ‘this is all on camera for evidence, isn’t it?’ to which the bailiff confirmed it was.



On a separate document, I have requested these recordings under a Subject Access Request.



To summarise my complaint, I believe the bailiff and Marstons:



Unlawfully discriminated against me under the Equality Act 2010
Seized a vehicle displaying a valid disabled person’s badge
Breached HCMTS rules Causing Intential Alarm, Distress or Harassment to Another under the Public Order Act 1986
Acted unlawfully with:
threats to enter property if I made a complaint
Intimidation and obstruction to prevent a complaint
Intimidation to cause distress and pressure a payment
Harassment
Breached GDPR with an unauthorisd disclosure of my date to both another bailiff and this being passed onto a bailiff unconnected to Marstons
Improperly took control of a vehicle under finance and not outright owned by alleged debtor
Improperly seized a vehicle necessary of a vehicle clearly identifiable as required for the care and treatment of the disabled.
Failed to provide his full name verbally or legibly on documents
Attempted to enter a property knowing there was only a minor under 12 inside
Broke numerous points of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards as set out below.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d635aed915d269ba8a5a7/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf



Taking Control of Goods: National Standards



Professionalism and conduct of the enforcement agent:



19. Enforcement agents must act within the law at all times, including all legislation and observe all health and safety requirements in carrying out enforcement. They must maintain strict client confidentiality and comply with Data Protection legislation and, where appropriate, the Freedom of Information Act.



20. Enforcement agents must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their powers, qualifications, capacities, experience or abilities, including, but not restricted to;…



· Falsely implying or stating that a particular course of action will ensue before it is possible to know whether such action would be permissible

· Falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not



24. Debtors must not be pressed to make unrealistic offers and should be asked to consider carefully any offer they voluntarily make and where possible refer to free debt advice.



26. Enforcement agents must carry out their duties in a professional, calm and dignified manner. They must dress and speak appropriately and act with discretion and fairness.



27. Enforcement agents must not act in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor, either deliberately or negligently (that is to say through lack of care)



28. Enforcement agents must act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. They must not discriminate unfairly on any grounds including those of age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.



30. Where enforcement agents have identified vulnerable debtors or situations, they should alert the creditor and ensure they act in accordance with all relevant legislation.



Training and Certification



37. Enforcement agencies must ensure that all agents, employees and contractors are provided with appropriate training to ensure that they understand and are able to act, at all times, professionally and within the bounds of the relevant legislation. This training should be provided at the commencement of employment and at intervals afterwards to ensure that their knowledge is kept up to date.



38. Professional training/assessment should be to a standard that complies with relevant legislation.



39. Enforcement agencies must ensure that legislation restricting the enforcement activity to enforcement agents is complied with.



40. Enforcement agencies must ensure that all employees, contractors and agents will at all times act within the scope of current legislation, for example The Companies Act, HMRC provisions, Data Protection, Health and Safety, Equality, and Human Rights Act etc, and have an appropriate knowledge and understanding of it



42. Enforcement agents should be trained to recognise vulnerable debtors, to alert creditors where they have identified such debtors and when to withdraw from such a situation.



Complaints/Discipline



43. Enforcement agencies must operate complaints and disciplinary procedures with which their agents must be fully aware of.



44. The debtor should be able to easily find out how to make a complaint and obstacles should not be placed in their way.



47. The enforcement agent must make available details of their own and the creditor’s complaints procedure on request or when circumstances indicate it would be appropriate to do so.



64. Enforcement agents should not remove anything clearly identifiable as an item belonging to, or for the exclusive use of a child (person under the age of 16) or items clearly identifiable as required for the care and treatment of the disabled, elderly and seriously ill.



67. Enforcement agents should not take control or remove goods clearly belonging solely to a third party not responsible for the debt. Where a claim is made, the third party should be given clear instructions on the process required to recover their goods.



70. Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation. Therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern.



71. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.



72. Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 or is deemed to be vulnerable by the enforcement agent; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.



73. Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.



76. Enforcement agents should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately obvious.



77. Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case basis….

· people with a disability;…



I would like you to investigate this visit and acknowledge that a wide range of rules have been broken and confirm that the debt will have all charges removed and be returned to TfL and suitable compensation offered.



I am sure that you are already aware that the enforcement agents are acting on your behalf and that ultimately you are responsible, and accountable, for the enforcement agents acting on your behalf.

- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d635aed915d269ba8a5a7/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf



If you fail to resolve my complaint to my satisfaction, I will have no alternative but to take my complaint to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Civea, the ICO and HMCTS for such a gross failure....

Great stuff, its great to see a member doing such research. A few points you may also wish to consider;

1. Never accept their first offer ,personally i would reject a second as well.
   Its clear they know they have screwed up .
2. From memory with my only use of the equality act ,i believe compensation ranges between 900 - 9000 pounds.

3. I would also require indemnity insurance details ,not only the bailiff but Marstons ( tell them you will be informing their insurers of an impending claim)

4. Did they inform you they would be attending ( i may be wrong ,but i think they have to give 7 days notice) If they did take a look at the prevention from harassment act.It applies if it occures on 2 or more occasions (1 the letter 2 them turning up). Its not only a civil but also a criminal offence.
I would not give them bank details, let them bring cash or cheque.

This video is well worth a look regarding the PCN and other rights

https://youtu.be/aaH8lpTSWEY?si=N_16SXtv2XvXQu0w