Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[peterbard]

(under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act).
I know the section you refer to exists but i cannot find it in the act could you help.

(Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!)
Do i sense a bit of conscience breaking through.

Seriously I think your imput in this thead has been invaluable and given many of us a clearer understanding of what we are up against .

Peter

[Recycler]

Originally Posted by Number6

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:

'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

'The powers of forced entry in Schedule 11 of the draft Bill will not apply to all cases. Section 47 of the draft Bill does not abolish common law powers of entry and Schedule 12 does not abolish the liberal power of forced entry by bailiffs in Schedule 4A, paragraph 3, of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (which was created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004).'

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by peterbard

(under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act).
I know the section you refer to exists but i cannot find it in the act could you help.

(Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!)
Do i sense a bit of conscience breaking through.

Seriously I think your imput in this thead has been invaluable and given many of us a clearer understanding of what we are up against .

Peter

Schedule 4. Section 4 provides bailiffs with the authority to enter and search any premises for goods and Section 5, gives the authority to use reasonable force. Of course, the DVCV Act only applies to unpaid fines etc not parking penalties or council tax.

[Number6]

Originally Posted by Recycler

'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

'The powers of forced entry in Schedule 11 of the draft Bill will not apply to all cases. Section 47 of the draft Bill does not abolish common law powers of entry and Schedule 12 does not abolish the liberal power of forced entry by bailiffs in Schedule 4A, paragraph 3, of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (which was created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004).'

Thanks for that information Recycler.

I need to do some more reading methinks!

Pete

[Number6]

Originally Posted by Recycler

[size=2] 'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

It looks like a case of Ms Harman being "economical with the truth".

S 45(5) of the Draft Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill appears to exempt any enforcement agent working for a county or district council under Section 125A of the magistrates Courts Act 1980 and subsequently the Magistrates' Courts (Civilian Fine Enforcement Officers) (No. 2) Rules 1990:

3.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (2) of section 125 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980[4] (warrants) and subsection (2) (a) of section 136 of that Act (committal to custody overnight at police station for non-payment of sum adjudged by conviction)—

(a) local authorities, police authorities and magistrates' courts committees are authorities of a prescribed class; and

(b) a person employed by any such authority is authorised in the prescribed manner to execute warrants to which those sections apply within the area for which the authority in question performs its functions if he has been issued by or on behalf of the authority by which he is employed with an authorisation in writing in that behalf in a form suitable for identifying him to persons with whom he deals as a person so authorised.

(2) In paragraph (1) above, "local authorities" means—
(a) a district council,
(b) a London borough council, and
(c) a county council.

So as you rightly state Recycler any bailiff collecting unpaid Council Tax or parking fines will be exempt from certification under this Bill.

Another letter to my MP is called for now.

Pete

[Herbie]

This question for blfuk1

It is certainly good to have your views on these pages and I am very interested in your comments that the bailiffs role is:

"to enforce a warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money..... otherwise we would be debt collectors".

Having obtained various contracts between local authorities and their various bailiff companies, I have just been reading 6 of them.....and in 4 of these it clearly states the following:

"The Bailiffs initial contact with the debtor will be with the intention of obtaining immediate full payment.......only where this is not possible etc, etc.

Regardless of what the law actually says, it is the case that a bailiff will be coming to your home to collect money...even the local authorities are of this view, and more of a worry of course is the fact that just reading into the wording of these contratcs, I cannot see how the bailiff could possibly argue that he is not a DEBT COLLECTOR. Another problem of course with this being the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence !!!!!

[blfuk1]

So as you rightly state Recycler any bailiff collecting unpaid Council Tax or parking fines will be exempt from certification under this Bill.
Not so! The proposals mean that any directly employed bailiffs of the noted authorities will be exempt such as directly employed bailiffs working for an in-house bailiff team of a local authority and directly employed civilian enforcement officers of magistrates' courts, as well of course, as the county court bailiffs. Private bailiffs will be the only ones requiring a certificate, which in any event is a bit of a double standard. Why shouldn't everyone who does the same job be regulated, if that what they think a certificate achieves, in the same way?

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by Herbie

This question for blfuk1

It is certainly good to have your views on these pages and I am very interested in your comments that the bailiffs role is:

"to enforce a warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money..... otherwise we would be debt collectors".

Having obtained various contracts between local authorities and their various bailiff companies, I have just been reading 6 of them.....and in 4 of these it clearly states the following:

"The Bailiffs initial contact with the debtor will be with the intention of obtaining immediate full payment.......only where this is not possible etc, etc.

Regardless of what the law actually says, it is the case that a bailiff will be coming to your home to collect money...even the local authorities are of this view, and more of a worry of course is the fact that just reading into the wording of these contratcs, I cannot see how the bailiff could possibly argue that he is not a DEBT COLLECTOR. Another problem of course with this being the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence !!!!!

Incorrect. Only those four, and possibly other local authorities, are of the view that the prime purpose of the bailiff is to collect money. The law is quite clear that the function of a bailiff is to seize goods. No matter what a local authority may put in its contract specification, it cannot change the purpose of a warrant. If we were just collecting debts, then we wouldn't need a warrant, would we? As for a consumer credit licence, bailiffs do NOT need one unless they are collecting debts arising from a consumer credit agreement. Council tax, business rates, parking penalties, income tax, VAT, commercial rent and fines are most certainly not debts arising from consumer credit agreements. You can of course check this with your local trading standards!

[TideTurner]

blfuk1 - sorry to p!ss on your bonfire - but you have no more rights than the common man. If you attempted to gain access to my premises by 'REASONABLE FORCE' or through a window you would exit by same. When you go to a prospective 'client' are you given a job sheet? Do you know what you're going to? Are your employers looking after your better interests? Not just bailiffs, but most people will defend their castle against anybody.

Looking at previous posts, you tend to repeat yourself, as if you try to justify what you do.

Do you have any knowledge of the debtor or debt prior to attendance?

How many illegal charges have you helped apply? Now you know these charges are illegal and unfair, will you attempt to get the goods back for these people?

I was a bit surprised to blf1 has not made any comments on my thread certification ceremony as he usually trashes what i have said about bailiffs ? I believe that there may double standards involved. We do not know how and what tactics if any are used by blf1. Also even though he is helping people on this site what his actions are against the diffrent situation/s he comes along. Will he dart for an open door. Will try and get in through an open window ? A cat flap just big enough for hime to squeeze in or Is he as helpful when at work. No disrespect but somethings that people know can be done cannot be published on this site that are legal but morally people say it is illegal. Hence when advising someone i am usually tearing my hair out when they ask questions like : Are you sure ? But he told me ! They told me the law says and so on. Any way good night folks and i will wake up nice and fresh in the morning.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by TideTurner

blfuk1 - sorry to p!ss on your bonfire - but you have no more rights than the common man. If you attempted to gain access to my premises by 'REASONABLE FORCE' or through a window you would exit by same. When you go to a prospective 'client' are you given a job sheet? Do you know what you're going to? Are your employers looking after your better interests? Not just bailiffs, but most people will defend their castle against anybody.

Looking at previous posts, you tend to repeat yourself, as if you try to justify what you do.

Do you have any knowledge of the debtor or debt prior to attendance?

How many illegal charges have you helped apply? Now you know these charges are illegal and unfair, will you attempt to get the goods back for these people?

You have posed several questions but your posting is a little disjointed and difficult to follow. I only act only upon warrants and orders which have been issued by or through a court of law. I therefore have precise knowledge of the debt which the court has decided must be paid. Unless the debtor is a 'regular', then I have no prior knowledge of the debtor until I knock on the door.

I am not an employee but an employer and my employees' health and safety is a prime concern which is why they are fully trained to undertake the tasks I give them. I have never applied an illegal charge and where the charge is not a statutory charge as decided by statute, I apply fair charges for 'reasonable' costs.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by HUSBANDKHAN

I was a bit surprised to blf1 has not made any comments on my thread certification ceremony as he usually trashes what i have said about bailiffs ? I believe that there may double standards involved. We do not know how and what tactics if any are used by blf1. Also even though he is helping people on this site what his actions are against the diffrent situation/s he comes along. Will he dart for an open door. Will try and get in through an open window ? A cat flap just big enough for hime to squeeze in or Is he as helpful when at work. No disrespect but somethings that people know can be done cannot be published on this site that are legal but morally people say it is illegal. Hence when advising someone i am usually tearing my hair out when they ask questions like : Are you sure ? But he told me ! They told me the law says and so on. Any way good night folks and i will wake up nice and fresh in the morning.

Dear Husbandkhan. You appear to have as much expereince of receiving bailiffs as I do in despatching them! Whatever I say on this site is entirely the way I and my bailiffs conduct themselves in reality. As I am unidentified, then what purpose would be served in making out I am different here than in reality. My posts are intended only to inform others of important issues as far as they are concerned. If my posts are not helpful you can always ignore them.

For the record I have never squeezed through a cat flap but will enter a property by any lawful means in order to seize goods if required.

By the way, I have not ignored your post on certification but there's not much to say about your posting information from a publically available newspaper - is there? The reason the notices are required by law is to give people the opportunity to submit valid objections regarding a certification application. The system clearly works because you have been made aware of theose applications and been given that opportunity.

[i_spam]

So erm why dont you name your company so we know what is what judging by your posts. How do know you are an employee rather than an employer ?

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by i_spam

So erm why dont you name your company so we know what is what judging by your posts. How do know you are an employee rather than an employer ?

You don't. And that's the beauty of an anonymous system whereby we can all talk openly without fear of some unhinged individual behaving in, well, an uncivilised manner. I use the same protection that I imagine you have sought in not using your full name and posting your address and telephone numbers. If you see my posts as confrontational rather than helpful, stop reading them. In return I'll refrain from posting any advice in response to your questions.

He is a fool who looks for a notch in a saw. Yiddish Proverb

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by blfuk1

Dear Husbandkhan. You appear to have as much expereince of receiving bailiffs as I do in despatching them! Whatever I say on this site is entirely the way I and my bailiffs conduct themselves in reality. As I am unidentified, then what purpose would be served in making out I am different here than in reality. My posts are intended only to inform others of important issues as far as they are concerned. If my posts are not helpful you can always ignore them.

For the record I have never squeezed through a cat flap but will enter a property by any lawful means in order to seize goods if required.

By the way, I have not ignored your post on certification but there's not much to say about your posting information from a publically available newspaper - is there? The reason the notices are required by law is to give people the opportunity to submit valid objections regarding a certification application. The system clearly works because you have been made aware of theose applications and been given that opportunity.

So you do want a piece of the Terminator if so bring it on by the time I've finished with you parasite your be squashed in the gutter