Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by peterbard

simply by closing the door

Is anyone else getting sick of hearing this used in such a dissmissive fashion i saw this statement in the letter i recieved from Ms Harmen and it made me cringe.

Yes simply shutting the door gives us the right to exclude whosoever we like,and so it should.
How many people in how many wars have faught and died to give us that right.

MY Door My House I decide who enters it
Peter

Well said

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by tamadus

Thermometer,

ANYBODY trying to force entry into my home will be met with whatever force is needed to nullify the situation. I seem to recall our 'honourable Mr. Blair' saying a couple of years ago that we have a right to defend ourselves and our property.

I do not keep a hammer handy for such occasions, .

I keep both a hammer and a baseball bat behind the door and will use them if needed as I said before an Englishmans home is his castle.

[Number6]

As I've said several times already on this thread siezure of goods without the consent of the owner of the goods in lieu of payment of a civil debt CANNOT under any circumstances be justified today, and has not been justifiable IMO since medieval times.

Even in most criminal cases it cannot be justified. There are a huge number of "criminal fines" that in themselves are not justifiable especially when levied on those unable to afford them. Just look at the rapidly increasing number of ways that a local authority can "fine" a person; parking enforcement, dropping litter, putting the wrong type of rubbish out, putting too much rubbish out, not recycling enough, etc, etc. All of these are arbitrary "fines" subject to enforcement by bailiff action

In all of the wonderful arguments put forward by our bailiff posters I have not once seen a justification for:

a) Levying distress for a civil debt.

b) Why "fees" are taken before any contribution to the debt is made. All monies collected should go towards the debt and only after the debt is paid should the bailiff take their fees.

c) Why no attempt is made to get even a halfway fair price for goods that are siezed. The argument that they are sent to public auction simply doesn't wash; a proper independent valuation of the goods should be carried out and then the goods should not be sold for less than that valuation.

And of course, if no-one volunteered to be a bailiff the problem wouldn't exist anyway.

Pete

[MizzPiggy]

Hansard extracts from the discussion of the Bailiff Bill.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley and others have said.....

Bailiffs’ powers are already excessive and the Bill increases them. In neither House was there any mention of neither Semayne’s case in 1604 nor Lord Denning's judgment in Southam v Smout, in which he cited William Pitt the Elder, the first Earl of Chatham. He said that it was the classic passage on the principle that an Englishman’s house is his castle. In 1767, William Pitt said:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".

Neither the enforcement nor the creditors nor the advice sector were consulted, and no notice was given to the public. Even though the citizen has a right to refuse forced entry, 76 per cent of fines were collected. A substantial part of the balance was due to

29 Nov 2006 : Column 774

disproportionate fines that could not be paid in full; to fines that should have been reduced or remitteddue to a change of circumstances such as illness, unemployment or bankruptcy; and to fines directed to the wrong person or address which cannot be collected. Apparently, enforcement agencies are quite unable to read. I have been advising one enforcement agency that the person whom they are trying to pursue has not, to my knowledge, lived in my house for the past 20 years. It is quite unable to take this in, and continues to serve me with dark threats.
The reason given for allowing forced entry, as reported at col. 239 of the House of Lords Official Report for 2 November, was to enforce criminal penalties. We were not told that many of the criminal penalties involving fines were simply for petty shoplifting, truancy, having no TV licence, fare-dodging or having no tax disc on a car—offences very often fuelled by poverty. A parliamentary Question, answered on 20 July 2004, illustrates that all unemployment benefits are below the Government’s poverty threshold. They remain so. Magistrates’ courts are faced with fining the jobseeker’s allowance, of £45.50 a week, of unemployed single adults aged between 18 and 24. It is very likely that a social fund loan is being deducted from that allowance, at £10 a week, when the allowance is already at half the level of the Government’s poverty threshold. The fine is then deducted at £5 a week, leaving the person with £30.50. When it is not paid, a warrant is issued to the bailiff. We have created such poverty in this country that all fines for unemployed people, who are struggling to survive below the poverty line on state benefits, are disproportionate.

These days, "civil enforcement officers" is the official upmarket vernacular for bailiffs, which means that they have secret instructions from the Government about how to break into your home and seize your goods.

We must not think that the bailiffs are pursuing the bad boys. Bailiffs do not bother with the bad boys. They do not bother with people who have a string of unpaid parking fines—100, 200 or even a dozen—because they know they will not pay. They are cute; they know the rules and know that they will get away with it. Bailiffs go after the easy money. The only money they receive is what they get from the debtor. They do not get paid for doing the job by the person whose money they are collecting, so they go after the easy money.
The system in this country is almost unique in that the bailiffs are agents of the creditor rather than of

29 Nov 2006 : Column 780

the state. The Scots have it the other way round, which perhaps we should consider when we are looking at the more fundamental aspects of bailiff law. We certainly need proper protections for the vulnerable. In so many cases, people are pushed further into misery when, had we had a chance to take a reasonable look at their case, we would not have wished that to happen.

These and many more of the Hansard extracts are available from ours and other sites. It is interesting to note the comments made, it is what we stand for and monthly send our cases like the others to the house of Lords. A mans castle, whatever that may be, is his home.

Bailiffs and collections is an antiquated old law that has not grown up with the year 2000 we live in to be fair to which many judges are ruling in favour of the debtors and those that owe money for fees that are excessive, so it will change it is only a matter of time.

Alison

[JonCris]

Oh I do hope so Alison. As Number6 has already stated if we didn't have bailiffs we wouldn't have a problem.

Also I can't wait for the bodies to drop when they exercise their new powers in the collection of fines from the criminal classes

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by The Watchdog

Hansard extracts from the discussion of the Bailiff Bill.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley and others have said.....

Bailiffs’ powers are already excessive and the Bill increases them. In neither House was there any mention of neither Semayne’s case in 1604 nor Lord Denning's judgment in Southam v Smout, in which he cited William Pitt the Elder, the first Earl of Chatham. He said that it was the classic passage on the principle that an Englishman’s house is his castle. In 1767, William Pitt said:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".

Neither the enforcement nor the creditors nor the advice sector were consulted, and no notice was given to the public. Even though the citizen has a right to refuse forced entry, 76 per cent of fines were collected. A substantial part of the balance was due to

29 Nov 2006 : Column 774

disproportionate fines that could not be paid in full; to fines that should have been reduced or remitteddue to a change of circumstances such as illness, unemployment or bankruptcy; and to fines directed to the wrong person or address which cannot be collected. Apparently, enforcement agencies are quite unable to read. I have been advising one enforcement agency that the person whom they are trying to pursue has not, to my knowledge, lived in my house for the past 20 years. It is quite unable to take this in, and continues to serve me with dark threats.
The reason given for allowing forced entry, as reported at col. 239 of the House of Lords Official Report for 2 November, was to enforce criminal penalties. We were not told that many of the criminal penalties involving fines were simply for petty shoplifting, truancy, having no TV licence, fare-dodging or having no tax disc on a car—offences very often fuelled by poverty. A parliamentary Question, answered on 20 July 2004, illustrates that all unemployment benefits are below the Government’s poverty threshold. They remain so. Magistrates’ courts are faced with fining the jobseeker’s allowance, of £45.50 a week, of unemployed single adults aged between 18 and 24. It is very likely that a social fund loan is being deducted from that allowance, at £10 a week, when the allowance is already at half the level of the Government’s poverty threshold. The fine is then deducted at £5 a week, leaving the person with £30.50. When it is not paid, a warrant is issued to the bailiff. We have created such poverty in this country that all fines for unemployed people, who are struggling to survive below the poverty line on state benefits, are disproportionate.

These days, "civil enforcement officers" is the official upmarket vernacular for bailiffs, which means that they have secret instructions from the Government about how to break into your home and seize your goods.

We must not think that the bailiffs are pursuing the bad boys. Bailiffs do not bother with the bad boys. They do not bother with people who have a string of unpaid parking fines—100, 200 or even a dozen—because they know they will not pay. They are cute; they know the rules and know that they will get away with it. Bailiffs go after the easy money. The only money they receive is what they get from the debtor. They do not get paid for doing the job by the person whose money they are collecting, so they go after the easy money.
The system in this country is almost unique in that the bailiffs are agents of the creditor rather than of

29 Nov 2006 : Column 780

the state. The Scots have it the other way round, which perhaps we should consider when we are looking at the more fundamental aspects of bailiff law. We certainly need proper protections for the vulnerable. In so many cases, people are pushed further into misery when, had we had a chance to take a reasonable look at their case, we would not have wished that to happen.

These and many more of the Hansard extracts are available from ours and other sites. It is interesting to note the comments made, it is what we stand for and monthly send our cases like the others to the house of Lords. A mans castle, whatever that may be, is his home.

Bailiffs and collections is an antiquated old law that has not grown up with the year 2000 we live in to be fair to which many judges are ruling in favour of the debtors and those that owe money for fees that are excessive, so it will change it is only a matter of time.

Alison

Much of what you have noted was quoted weeks ago by No.6. As you have raised the same main point again, I will repeat (for the benefit of new 'readers') the response I made then - remembering of course that the issue was in relation to unpaid fines in the magistrates' courts:

Importantly, in Semayne's, the case was found against the Sheriff not because he broke into the plaintiff's house but because he gave no notice to enable the plaintiff to deal with the issue before using the King's power to force entry.

The current issue is that defendants have been able to avoid both distress and arrest by hiding behind their closed doors, which is why the DVCV Act was introduced and was provided with various failsafes - such as for criminal offences only. Bearing in mind that fines are punishments and not debts, it cannot be right that anyone can avoid a lawful punishment simply by refusing entry and ignoring the due process of law.

The concept of the DVCV Act provisions are that victims of crime should be able to see that justice is done by the imposition being fully implemented - even more crucial in cases where the defendant is ordered but refuses to pay compensation to the victim.

Lord Beaumont also argued that many of the criminal penalties involving fines were simply for petty shoplifting, truancy, having no TV licence, fare-dodging or having no tax disc on a car—offences very often fuelled by poverty. He makes an assumption without any basis in fact, that these ofences are often fuelled by poverty. Ridiculous! If you can't afford to tax a car, then you can't afford to run one and should take a bus. If you can't afford the fare, walk. Don't have a TV if you can't licence it.

Society makes rules for us all to follow. If we don't follow them we must face the consequences. As you cannot plead ignorance of the law, you cannot, equally, plead you could not afford to run a car in accordance with the law and so didn't bother with taxing your car - or for that matter insuring it. Would it be acceptable, if you can't afford a holiday abroad, to rob a pensioner of his or her savings to fund one?

It's all very well claiming a 17th century ruling should be upheld as it suits those (who misinterpret it) who wish to avoid taxes and fines by hiding behind their closed doors but to be even handed, perhaps we should un-repeal other laws of the age. For example, the petty shoplifting which the noble Lord seems to believe is a trifling issue would have earned the 17th century culprit the death penalty probably commuted to deportation.

If the magistrates impose a penalty then it should be paid. If a defendant refuses to permit access to his home, which access may well show there is nothing of value - or conversley that there are goods of value - then that process should be permitted to take place despite the defendant's protests.

Once that process of entry and search has revealed there are insufficient goods, then the matter can be referred back to the magistrates who can impose an alternative penalty for breaking the law - including the option then of a custodial sentence. If law breakers cannot be 'punished' as the law directs, then only anarchy remains.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Oh I do hope so Alison. As Number6 has already stated if we didn't have bailiffs we wouldn't have a problem.

Also I can't wait for the bodies to drop when they exercise their new powers in the collection of fines from the criminal classes

You might not have the problem of bailiffs, but you would have the problem of unpaid fines, taxes and penalties amounting to several hundred millions of pounds each year, which shortfall would rest with those who pay their taxes paying a lot extra to cover those that don't - just as we all all pay more for goods to cover increased insurances and shoplifting costs.

[Number6]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

You might not have the problem of bailiffs, but you would have the problem of unpaid fines, taxes and penalties amounting to several hundred millions of pounds each year, which shortfall would rest with those who pay their taxes paying a lot extra to cover those that don't - just as we all all pay more for goods to cover increased insurances and shoplifting costs.

Once more we have the continuing forcing of "it's all unpaid fines and penalties" argument.

No answers to the points I made in post #204 I see

Pete

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

You might not have the problem of bailiffs, but you would have the problem of unpaid fines, taxes and penalties amounting to several hundred millions of pounds each year, which shortfall would rest with those who pay their taxes paying a lot extra to cover those that don't - just as we all all pay more for goods to cover increased insurances and shoplifting costs.

Can you back your claims up with hard evidence.I agree with Number 6's point here.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by Number6

Once more we have the continuing forcing of "it's all unpaid fines and penalties" argument.

No answers to the points I made in post #204 I see

Pete

Sorry Pete - missed it!

Justification for:

a) Levying distress for a civil debt. In terms of what private bailiffs deal with and whether something is entitled a 'civil debt' or not, [private] certificated bailiffs only deal with taxes, fines and penalties. Remember that aside from parking penalties which are issued on authority from the County (civil) Court, council tax, fines, income tax etc, are all issued via the Magistrates' (criminal) Court.

Parking penalties are probably the most contentious as they are not seen as 'taxes' or 'fines', enforcement of which most reasonable people would not argue against. However, parking penalties before decriminalisation were parking 'offences' and dealt with by the Police and/or Traffic Wardens. I think it is justifiable to invoke a penalty when someone breaks a rule, regulation or law and further justifiable to enforce non-payment by the seizure of goods.

I imagine we will have to again agree to disagree on the issue as it is a simple matter of opinion whether you agree with a 'justification' or not - there's no hard and fast rule which says something is justifiable as it's totally subjective.

b) Why "fees" are taken before any contribution to the debt is made. All monies collected should go towards the debt and only after the debt is paid should the bailiff take their fees. Traditionally this is true in most types of bailiff work but never has been for the collection of fines. All monies recovered (in part) are first paid to the fine and then to bailiff fees.

However, in council tax for example, if someone begins paying by arrangement then due to a change of circumstances can pay no more and the bailiff returns the case as unenforceable, unless he takes his fees first, then he will get nothing. I don't suppose anyone here would agree to work for nothing! The issue is probably not that bailiffs take their fees for work done first but that, in some instances, the fees are excessive.

c) Why no attempt is made to get even a halfway fair price for goods that are siezed. The argument that they are sent to public auction simply doesn't wash; a proper independent valuation of the goods should be carried out and then the goods should not be sold for less than that valuation. The problem here is the law. For parking penalties, the law clearly states that goods seized must be sold at public auction. The bailiff has no choice. In other matters the bailiff is duty bound to obtain the best possible price which does not always mean placing something in a public auction.

But if alternative methods are used, the bailiff would have to claim advertising, insurance and other related costs in selling goods outside of auctions.

Any debtor is entitled to request (and pay for) an independant valuation. The problem is that seized goods must be sold and if no one is willing to pay the agreed value - what then; give up the enforcement and let the debtor off?

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

You might not have the problem of bailiffs, but you would have the problem of unpaid fines, taxes and penalties amounting to several hundred millions of pounds each year, which shortfall would rest with those who pay their taxes paying a lot extra to cover those that don't - just as we all all pay more for goods to cover increased insurances and shoplifting costs.

You ignore the fact that many of the so called fines have not come about as a result of due proccess but by a legislator who is prepared to ride roughshod over our civil liberties.

Someone somewhere in the not too distant future is going to have their home broken into by a bailiff because they didn't put the correct rubbish in the correct bin

& yes I am looking forward to the dropping of bodies. After all they don't have to do the job

[MizzPiggy]

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".

So what your saying is, that no matter what you have the right to invade into a mans kingdom? If they are obviously avoiding opening the door fine. However did you not note what else was stated throughout the hansard extracts to which is true.

These days, "civil enforcement officers" is the official upmarket vernacular for bailiffs, which means that they have secret instructions from the Government about how to break into your home and seize your goods.

We must not think that the bailiffs are pursuing the bad boys. Bailiffs do not bother with the bad boys. They do not bother with people who have a string of unpaid parking fines—100, 200 or even a dozen—because they know they will not pay. They are cute; they know the rules and know that they will get away with it. Bailiffs go after the easy money. The only money they receive is what they get from the debtor. They do not get paid for doing the job by the person whose money they are collecting, so they go after the easy money.

So the truth is the bad boys that owe the money that have the figures looking bad and evaid payment in full, the brunt is worn by the every day man. Why should people already in trouble financially pay your wages for attending? Double punishment? We pay for the right for you attend?

While you quote Bailiffs are used all over the world, this is correct, but factually and with research, there is not, and I repeat not one other country that the debtor pays the wages of his executioner.

A Magistrates Warrant states :

Distress Warrant: Notice of fine having been served on the defendant & default having been made in payment, you the authorised persons are hereby required to make distress of money & goods of the defendant (except the clothing & bedding of the defendant & family & tools, books vehicles or toher equipment which the accused personally needs to use in his employment, business or vocation (these exceptions shall not apply where the accused is a corporation) & if the amount stated above plus reasonable costs & charges of the making & keeping of the said distress, be not paid, then not earlier than the 6th day after the making of such distress, unless the defendant in writing consents to an earlier sale, to sell the goods & pay the proceeds of the said distress to the Justices Clerk & if no such or insufficient distress can be found to certify the same to the court.

A direct copy of Magistrates wording.

Note distress of money comes before the wording of goods. A mans castle does remain his home. I am sorry Bailiff UK but I will always dispute that you are there to collect on goods. It clearly in the first words of the warrant says distress of money. Then the goods if money is not possible.

Justify Bailiff fees of £500 in one visit, or £300 on top of the debt. Per hour not even Elton John earns that. Justify the bailiffs costs ON TOP of the Debt owed and perhaps we will all understand.

Lastly

If the magistrates impose a penalty then it should be paid. If a defendant refuses to permit access to his home, which access may well show there is nothing of value - or conversley that there are goods of value - then that process should be permitted to take place despite the defendant's protests.

What may be of worth to you and to another is different. Is a prayer mat worth money? Is a computer that is used for a childs school if they are blind and have brail keys on the board worth what to whom? What little left must a man have to be seen to have nothing that you would not take to settle a debt?

Alison

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by JonCris

You ignore the fact that many of the so called fines have not come about as a result of due proccess but by a legislator who is prepared to ride roughshod over our civil liberties.

Someone somewhere in the not too distant future is going to have their home broken into by a bailiff because they didn't put the correct rubbish in the correct bin

& yes I am looking forward to the dropping of bodies. After all they don't have to do the job

In other Western European countries they've been fining people for not using correct recycling procedures for years - and for spitting on the street and walking accross a road when the red man says don't!

I don't suppose policemen have to be policemen either and no-one likes them when you're caught slightly over the speed limit but call them when when they are victims of crime.

What do you mean by 'the dropping of bodies"? Is this some Class War slogan?