In Ulan-Ude, bailiffs mistakenly broke into a young mother and took away equipment

In the capital of Buryatia, expensive household appliances were illegally confiscated from a young family.

As the Oktyabrsky District Court of Ulan-Ude established, a special group of bailiffs from the Oktyabrsky branch of the FSSP in Ulan-Ude mixed up the premises of a law-abiding citizen and a debtor. The man, who had been staying at the family’s house for a short time, for some reason indicated this address in addition to others. As a result, employees of the special group broke into the house of a young family and took away the expensive equipment of a citizen for other people’s debts. Nothing was explained to the woman with the child. She begged not to touch things, but they did not listen to her.

As a result, a vacuum cleaner, a microwave oven and two large TVs belonging to the family were confiscated in the house, reports “Number One”.

In order to give legitimacy to their actions, the brigade, after removing the equipment from the house, stopped two citizens on the street and asked them to sign documents stating that they were supposedly witnesses. They signed the papers on the seizure, although they themselves did not enter the house. One of the bailiffs, as the court established, not only did not take part in the seizure of property, but did not even sign the act, although her signature later somehow appeared on the documents.

“The court found that the inventory and seizure of property were made by the head of the department Pavlova, bailiffs Shagdurova, Balchinov. The act of seizure on behalf of the bailiff Dyrshikova was actually drawn up in the absence of the latter, ”the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court says.

Meanwhile, instead of an apology, the bailiffs wrote a complaint to the court against the family and succeeded in imposing a fine of 1,000 rubles, because she allegedly cursed, preventing the bailiffs from pulling a vacuum cleaner with TVs out of her house.

The decision of the court to impose a fine was challenged by the lawyer. In court, it was easy to prove that the family was not properly notified of the start of the court session. Which immediately “nullified” the earlier decision due to the absence of the defendant. In addition, the decision of the court was influenced by the fact that earlier it was possible to prove the illegality of the arrest of equipment from the Travkins. Accordingly, based on the situation, the citizen could well respond to the illegal actions of the bailiffs, without embarrassment in expressions.