Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[Scott1976]

hmm MR Bailiff , just a question do u agree with bailiffs just turning up scaring the crap out young ladies into agreeing to pay more than they can afford just by saying im coming to take your goods away oh and not even giving notice of the visit and doing all this without being invited inside the dewelling?
not to mention the fact that ur fellow bailiff friends ALSO add charges beyond beliefe to the outstanding amount ( by the way this is council tax) and when the bailiff company is asked for a break down of charges several times ppl are just fobbed off with "it will be in the post" and as for ppl all of a sudden coming up with the money do u ever stop to think that they may barrow it just to pay u because there s*** scared?
Its because of this site that ppl now realise that bailiffs cant just walk in and do an inventory and that you are supposed to give notice.
sorry for the ramble but my partner was treated VERY badly by a Bailiff to which i paid the money and NOW KNOWS where he stands.

[Number6]

I wrote to my MP a few weeks ago regarding bailiffs and the proposed new legislation contained in the current government Bill entitled "Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill".

This bill, if it were to be enacted contains worrying clauses that would enable a bailiff (or enforcement agent as they are now referred to apparently) to forcibly enter private premises, and sieze goods using force if necessary in order to do so.

We are told that such forcible entry powers will only be used as a last resort but who defines last resort??

The reply that my MP has received from Harriet Harman at the DCA has been passed on to me and I reproduce it here in full:

Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

Department for
Constitutional Affairs
Justice, rights and democracy
T 020 7210 8683
F 020 7210 8620
E darren.tierney@dca.gsi.go v.uk
www.dca.gov.uk

********* MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Our ref: 206601-1 ‘ 2006

Number6, ***********************

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2006 to Alistair Darling MP and your further letter of 9 October 2006 to Lord Falconer, enclosing correspondence from your constituent Number6. Number6 is concerned about bailiff practices and measures that are contained in the draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. Both letters have been passed to me for reply as I have ministerial responsibility for the courts in England and Wales.

Current bailiff laws are complex and varied. These were looked at in detail as part of my Department’s Review of Enforcement, which was commissioned by the previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, in 1998 and completed in 2003. On the 25 July this year we published a draft bill, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill to effect changes to a range of enforcement laws, amongst other things.

One of the areas which received considerable interest during the consultation process was the issue of forcible entry to premises. The draft Bill contains proposals which would enable enforcement agents to force entry into debtors premises when enforcing a civil debt, to enable them to search for and seize goods, which can then be taken into control and if necessary removed and sold at auction to pay the debt. This power will only be used as a last resort and when specific judicial authority has been granted for forced entry to be used. Each individual case will be judged upon its own merits, and the criteria for granting forced entry will be strict. This will ensure compliance with Human Rights legislation.

The draft bill also contains provisions for introducing a single piece of bailiff law. This is intended to unify and rationalise the mix of legislation and common law that currently governs what bailiffs do and what they can charge for.

A new fee structure that is designed to support the principles of transparency, consistency and proportionality, is included in this programme of reform.

In addition, provisions are included for enhancing and extending the existing bailiff certification process. These provisions will strengthen existing requirements regarding training and understanding of the law, and extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector who take goods and sell them to recover a sum of money. The draft Bill is available via my Department’s website, the link to which is http://www.dca.gov.uk/Ieciist/tribenforce.htm

It will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

Realising that changes to primary legislation were required and that these would take some time to effect, my Department worked closely with creditors and the enforcement profession to produce the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. These standards, which were launched in April 2002, are intended for use by all enforcement agents, public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them and the major creditors who use them. The standards advise that appropriate discretion should be used when dealing with those who might be potentially vulnerable e.g. the elderly, people with a disability and single parent families. The standards also advise that Enforcement agents ensure that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgment is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

This publication, which is effectively a best practice guide and is not therefore legally binding, cannot, and is not, intended to replace legislation in the future. It is, rather, an opportunity and commitment from the profession (and creditors) to raise standards across the whole of the enforcement sector. The Standards have been widely endorsed, by, amongst others, the associations representing bailiffs.

Bailiffs are currently self-regulated and there are established procedures for lodging complaints against them that are independent of my Department. Information on these procedures can be found in the enclosed EX345 leaflet, titled About Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers.

The BBC programme referred to by Number6 showed bailiffs in the employ of Drakes Group Limited and CCS Enforcement Services apparently in breach of the proper procedures for executing warrants issued by Magistrates’ Courts. We take any allegations of impropriety very seriously and consequently, Her Majesty’s Courts Service an executive agency of my Department, has launched an immediate investigation into the issues raised. When the investigation is complete we will take the appropriate action.

I enclose a further copy of this letter and the EX345 Leaflet for you to send to Number6, should you wish to do so.

HARRIET HARMAN

Pete

[peterbard]

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.


I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could.
Peter

[Number6]

Originally Posted by peterbard

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.


I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could.
Peter

Cheeky sod!!

Pete

[peterbard]

He!He!

By The way i got the same letter back from Hariet as you did .
Particullarily liked the bit about refusing to open their door. I thought that was what doors were for so you had the option who you wanted to grant access to your property or otherwise.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by Scott1976

hmm MR Bailiff , just a question do u agree with bailiffs just turning up scaring the crap out young ladies into agreeing to pay more than they can afford just by saying im coming to take your goods away oh and not even giving notice of the visit and doing all this without being invited inside the dewelling?
not to mention the fact that ur fellow bailiff friends ALSO add charges beyond beliefe to the outstanding amount ( by the way this is council tax) and when the bailiff company is asked for a break down of charges several times ppl are just fobbed off with "it will be in the post" and as for ppl all of a sudden coming up with the money do u ever stop to think that they may barrow it just to pay u because there s*** scared?
Its because of this site that ppl now realise that bailiffs cant just walk in and do an inventory and that you are supposed to give notice.
sorry for the ramble but my partner was treated VERY badly by a Bailiff to which i paid the money and NOW KNOWS where he stands.

Bailiffs do not have to give notice regarding their intention to attend to seize goods for unpaid council tax. Their attendance will be to seize goods as directed (not to collect money) but the seizure can be prevented or delayed by agreeing to pay the outstanding council tax and appropriate fees. Bailiffs do not need to be invited into a dwelling in order to enter but must make a peacable entry - whether or not someone is there.This basically explains that I DO agree that bailiffs may do these things - as the law states they can. However, I do NOT agree that bailiffs can behave in a threatening manner (other than stating the fact that they ARE there to seize goods which in itself is a lawful threat), nor can they force their way in or overcharge beyond that which regulations state they can. I also agree that debtors have a right to know how much they have been charged and for precisely what. Clearly there are two ways of fulfilling one's obligations as a bailiff, the right way and the wrong way.

[Number6]

Originally Posted by peterbard

He!He!

By The way i got the same letter back from Hariet as you did .
Particullarily liked the bit about refusing to open their door. I thought that was what doors were for so you had the option who you wanted to grant access to your property or otherwise.

Sorry, what bit about doors?

Pete

[Number6]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

Bailiffs do not need to be invited into a dwelling in order to enter but must make a peacable entry - whether or not someone is there.

Herein lies one of the problems.

Peaceable entry means entering by invitation or through an already open door or window.

Now lets suppose a (less than scrupulous) bailiff arrives when no-one is at home and he just happens to slip and fall against the door whilst holding his credit card which then proceeds to slip into the gap between door and frame and just happens to slip the Yale lock... ( )

Bailiff then walks in and takes possession, walking or otherwise.

How can the poor householder then prove that the bailiff did not gain peacfull entry? They can't.

I have known this to happen.

A bailiff (accepting for the moment the premise that there should be such individuals in the first place) should never be able to lawfully enter premises if the owner / tenant is not there.

Pete

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by Number6

Herein lies one of the problems.

Peaceable entry means entering by invitation or through an already open door or window.

Now lets suppose a (less than scrupulous) bailiff arrives when no-one is at home and he just happens to slip and fall against the door whilst holding his credit card which then proceeds to slip into the gap between door and frame and just happens to slip the Yale lock... ( )

Bailiff then walks in and takes possession, walking or otherwise.

How can the poor householder then prove that the bailiff did not gain peacfull entry? They can't.

I have known this to happen.

A bailiff (accepting for the moment the premise that there should be such individuals in the first place) should never be able to lawfully enter premises if the owner / tenant is not there.

Pete

Peaceable entry means entering without the use of force and is slightly more extensive than you describe but, for the sake of debate, a reasonable enough description. Your scenario is however somewhat extreme and I have never personally known a bailiff to do as you suggest. Equally, my bailiffs have been faced with open doors, entered and found no-one in the house or outside in the garden and rather than remove goods, which they can of course lawfully do, have instead left a levy of the goods inside the house. This emphasises the fact that they can and have entered the property but at least gives the debtor an opportunity to pay before the goods are actually removed. Obviously there are individuals in all walks of life who break the rules like the occasional policeman who plants drugs to secure a conviction (allegedly!) but that does not mean that the power vested in all policemen is too great. Nor does it mean that all bailiffs are housebreakers or that all policeman create evidence to fit up the villains!

[Number6]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

Peaceable entry means entering without the use of force and is slightly more extensive than you describe but, for the sake of debate, a reasonable enough description. Your scenario is however somewhat extreme and I have never personally known a bailiff to do as you suggest. Equally, my bailiffs have been faced with open doors, entered and found no-one in the house or outside in the garden and rather than remove goods, which they can of course lawfully do, have instead left a levy of the goods inside the house. This emphasises the fact that they can and have entered the property but at least gives the debtor an opportunity to pay before the goods are actually removed. Obviously there are individuals in all walks of life who break the rules like the occasional policeman who plants drugs to secure a conviction (allegedly!) but that does not mean that the power vested in all policemen is too great. Nor does it mean that all bailiffs are housebreakers or that all policeman create evidence to fit up the villains!

Explain please, how is peacefull entry more extensive than I have described?

In any event, IMO lawful entry should not be possible if the debtor is not present, except in extreme criminal cases maybe, certainly not in furtherance of a civil matter.

Pete

[lookinforinfo]

Blf it may be your remit to seize goods rather than collect money, but I am
sure that the majority of bailiffs would far prefer to be paid cash or
by credit card. It is far quicker for you and much less of a trauma for debtors
than to see their possessions being taken away, knowing thet the replacement cost will be far in excess of what the levied goods can hope to achieve at auction.

[peterbard]

Originally Posted by Number6

Sorry, what bit about doors?

Pete

Sorry nimber 6 there seems to be a paragraph extra in my response it is inserted after your red highlighted bit it goes;

"The aim of the Government propsoals relating to enforcement is to ensure that people who cand afford to pay their judgment debt are not able to avoid doing so by refusing to open their door when an enforcement agent (bailiff) visits."
It goes on about only using this as a last resort and ensuring complience with the Human rights act and then continues with the following paragraph as per yours.

If you like i will PM you a complete copy together with my reply.

Peter

[Scott1976]

Heres one for u all to think about having cctv in my taxi with covert sound recording i am intitled under law to act within the law to threating behaviour, i have now added the same security to my home, i have the required signs up so if a bailiff comes to my door employing the same tactics as he did with my partner i will simply tell him , i feel threatened by his actions towards me which covers me by law to physically defend myself if i believe i am going to be attacked, which i will do in the future with bailiffs that give it large as it will all (video and audio) be recorded onto my DVR.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Blf it may be your remit to seize goods rather than collect money, but I am
sure that the majority of bailiffs would far prefer to be paid cash or
by credit card. It is far quicker for you and much less of a trauma for debtors
than to see their possessions being taken away, knowing thet the replacement cost will be far in excess of what the levied goods can hope to achieve at auction.

Most definately! But the point is we are tasked by warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money - otherwise we would be debt collectors which we are not. The problem is that many debtors don't understand why we wont accept £5 per month for £800 unpaid council tax and we try to explain that it does not matter (in law) that they cannot pay in full or within a short time as we are not there to collect money or make arrangements but to seize goods. Surely debtors have a right to know the purpose of a bailiff so they may deal with a situation appropriately rather than expect something which they are unlikely to get - a long term arrangement. That is not our purpose and why a court has decided that seizure of goods is the only remaining option. Citizens Advice are one of the biggest providers of false information often advising debtors to make an offer as we are apparently obliged to accept any offer made. When we don't it causes a lot of unnecessary problems and we are accused of being immovable and unreasonable. I recall an item in their Report Undue Distress which cited an example of a bailiff refusing what appeared to be a reasonable offer of payments for an unpaid fine when at the time it was not permissable to accept part payments on fines! It was full payment or removal of goods as clearly stated in the regulations.