Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by veryannoyed

No, a bailiff cannot seize anything that he cannot prove you own. Of course, they will no doubt try the "you prove it isn't yours madam", but I don't believe that to be lawful.

If the vehicle is subject to a HP agreement, then they can't take it in anycase (other than for an outstanding debt of the HP agreement on the same vehicle)

Similarly if your TV is on HP, they can't take that.

Also they are not allowed to take essential items - these are things like your washing machine, bed, clothes etc.

Also they can't take essential items of your trade - for instance tools that are required for your job.

In fact there isn't really much they can legally take when it boils down to it!

There is a good leaflet available from your local county court which is intended for people who are trying to enforce judgements - it gives a good detail of when exactly a bailiff will be able to seize goods from a debtor - after you've read this you will be a LOT better informed and 100% less worried about a bailiff visit I can assure you!

I now consider a bailiff's visit 'sport' - I love quoting all the 'you can't take this because' at them and then telling them to firk off empty handed... most of them are pig-ignorant thugs and have absolutely no comprehension of the laws under which they are working. A little knowledge on your part is a HUUUUUGE weapon against them!

Oh, another tip I find works extremely well, constantly ask them exactly "what piece of legislation are you quoting as your right to seize goods" ... they usually reply with "we have a right" and then you again repeat and keep repeating your original question. I have yet to meet a single debt collector or bailiff who has been able to quote ANY law back to me... most of them give up when you are unrelenting in this way - not because they feel threatened, I suspect, but more because they realise you are not stupid and are not going to give in like the average Joe. At the end of the day they just move on to the next poor sod on their clipboard who isn't so clued up and is much easier to dupe out of all their possessions for some trivial little bill.

**the views expressed above are mine only and the word "allegedly" should probably be sprinkled all over the place, naturally**

Lastly, always remember they cannot forcefully take anything - you HAVE to let them gain peaceful entry. If you never let them into the house, they can never take anything.

Don't have nightmares... get a pointy stick

A little knowledge is also dangerous. I think you need to appreciate the relevant and copious case law which means the bailiff can reasonably presume any goods in your possession belong to you. It is up to you (or the true owner) to prove goods are exempt, not the bailiff. If you rely on the belief that the bailiff has to seek out evidence of ownership, you will lose your goods. It is also no good relying on a set of rules for seizure following a county court judgment. The rules are different and what may or may not be seized depends on the warrant type. A pointy stick won't help much either. By the way, I'n not stating these points just to argue one side against the other, I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

[veryannoyed]

So which piece of legislation then catagorically states that a bailiff does not have to prove ownership of the goods he is seizing? I have asked this question of bailiffs before, and not one has even been able to tell me.

Again, I am not arguing for the sake of it, I genuinley would like to know! - simply it is not easy for a homeowner to prove they do actually own, or don't own in this case, many things in their home. How many of us keep receipts for everything after all? ... it is quite easy to show that things are on HP - from the HP statements, or possibly from bank statements showing payments going to the HP company, for example. Obviously car ownership is easy to prove via a V5 logbook...

Oh, and I did say "most" bailiffs are pig-ignorant thugs - in my experience and opinion I never said all! - clearly you at least have some idea what you are talking about, which I why I hope you may be able to answer this point to the benefit of everyone who faces the often very traumatic experience of a bailiff visit.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by veryannoyed

So which piece of legislation then catagorically states that a bailiff does not have to prove ownership of the goods he is seizing? I have asked this question of bailiffs before, and not one has even been able to tell me.

Again, I am not arguing for the sake of it, I genuinley would like to know! - simply it is not easy for a homeowner to prove they do actually own, or don't own in this case, many things in their home. How many of us keep receipts for everything after all? ... it is quite easy to show that things are on HP - from the HP statements, or possibly from bank statements showing payments going to the HP company, for example. Obviously car ownership is easy to prove via a V5 logbook...

Oh, and I did say "most" bailiffs are pig-ignorant thugs - in my experience and opinion I never said all! - clearly you at least have some idea what you are talking about, which I why I hope you may be able to answer this point to the benefit of everyone who faces the often very traumatic experience of a bailiff visit.

There are a number of relevant pieces of case law stretching back over a hundred years or more. One fairly commonly quoted piece is Gonsky v Durrell, 1918, in which case it was stated that the onus of proof was on the debtor to show that goods were exempt from seizure. Other cases include Observer Ltd v Gordon, 1983 which made it clear that it was not reasonable to expect bailiffs to make enquiries as to ownership of goods. This follows the long established principle that a bailiff may seize that which he has reasonable cause to believe belongs to the debtor. In Fox, 1948 this was stated in terms that it was reasonable to believe a person owned that which was in their possession A word of caution regarding ownership of cars. Registration of a vehicle does not prove ownership. I for one would not accept it as evidence.

[veryannoyed]

Ok - so you (that's the bailiff industry, not you personally!) are relying on odd bits of case law, not any statute law or anything that the general public have easy access to in order to check their legal rights?

Disregarding the fact you are a bailiff and I am an ordinary Joe, do you honestly think this is fair?

Of course we all agree there is the need for some ultimate method of gaining payment from debtors who simply refuse to pay genuine debts that are not in dispute, I don't think anyone would question that. But most also agree the current system is very very flawed, to say the least. The recent TV expose highlighted this in very graphic examples (and yes, we all also accept these were obviously the most dramatic examples otherwise they wouldn't have made good TV!)

I really think that alongside the usual "a bailiff will visit you on X date" letter, there should be a leaflet, in plain engligh, explaining exactly what the laws mean and exactly what the bailiff can or can't seize (should the homeowner decide to let him in in the first place). If there is an actual law that states the onus of proof of ownership of items is on the debtor, then it should explain what forms of proof are acceptable evidence to a bailiff to prove the debtor doesn't own them - for example you state a V5 in someone else's name would not be proof enough that a debtor didn't own the car parked on their drive.

[willj010]

Very interesting information on what the Local Authority bully boy baliffs can take or not take. They threatened to take my car which was subject to a HP agreement, and said they were sending for a tow truck then and there, resulting in me conducting a Starsky and Hutch style reverse manouvre through my neighbours garden and spending the entire evening clearing out the garage to prevent that from happening. I wish I had known this then.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by veryannoyed

Ok - so you (that's the bailiff industry, not you personally!) are relying on odd bits of case law, not any statute law or anything that the general public have easy access to in order to check their legal rights?

Disregarding the fact you are a bailiff and I am an ordinary Joe, do you honestly think this is fair?

Of course we all agree there is the need for some ultimate method of gaining payment from debtors who simply refuse to pay genuine debts that are not in dispute, I don't think anyone would question that. But most also agree the current system is very very flawed, to say the least. The recent TV expose highlighted this in very graphic examples (and yes, we all also accept these were obviously the most dramatic examples otherwise they wouldn't have made good TV!)

I really think that alongside the usual "a bailiff will visit you on X date" letter, there should be a leaflet, in plain engligh, explaining exactly what the laws mean and exactly what the bailiff can or can't seize (should the homeowner decide to let him in in the first place). If there is an actual law that states the onus of proof of ownership of items is on the debtor, then it should explain what forms of proof are acceptable evidence to a bailiff to prove the debtor doesn't own them - for example you state a V5 in someone else's name would not be proof enough that a debtor didn't own the car parked on their drive.

Firstly, case law IS law and available to anyone who cares to research it. This site has previously mentioned publications to assist debtors such as those of John Kruse from the Advice Sector. Second, there are many organisations to assist those in genuine difficulty such as Citizens Advice, whose staff should be aware of what bailiffs can and can't do. Finally, as we could obviously go back and forth forever on this, it is irrelevant whether I consider the laws, regulations and rules to be fair or not. I did not create them but have to work within them and equally to their extent.

[peterbard]

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by peterbard

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

My conscience is in good shape due to the part I play in collecting billions of pounds of state debt which would otherwise cost everyone who does pay a lot more and due to the fact that I, and many others like me, identify debtors who simply don't want to pay from those who simply can't. As far as the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society go, I play my part in identifying them to those that should know but didn't and assisting them in facing the problems they have not been able to face. I think you must be referring to the minority of bailiffs who like the minority in every walk of life, enjoy abusing the authority our democratic society has vested in them. But thanks for asking anyway!

[peterbard]

You do it for the good of the state.
Where have i heard that before.
You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far.
I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't.
I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind.
Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by peterbard

You do it for the good of the state.
Where have i heard that before.
You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far.
I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't.
I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind.
Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

I appreciate you see bailiff action from one point of view as clearly I do from what can only be an oppossing view. I would argue that in all the years I have been a bailiff I have seen the majority of people I deal with as - would rather not pay as they'd prefer to pay for something else - category. With respect, as a bailiff my job is not to see who can and can't pay but who should and shouldn't be subject to bailiff action - the seizure of goods. Bailiffs are not there to collect money, as the creditor (be it a court or a council) has already tried that. My job is to seize goods. I can see that most people I deal with may not have the means to immediately pay to prevent a seizure but have goods which I can and should seize while leaving them with the basic needs. Like it or not, that's what a bailiff is there for - not to collect money. Often people magically find the money though I agree that in a not insignificant minority, they cannot find that money no matter what. It is to those whom I have a duty to assess as to whether goods should be removed or not. If someone is in dire straits and my seizure would worsen their situation beyond that which society has deemed acceptable, then I must and will withdraw and report those circumstances to the creditor. I don't decide who can and can't pay, I decide who should have goods removed and who shouldn't. That's my job not the creditor's. The courts have already decided whether someone should pay.

[Number6]

I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but I do want to restate my belief that siezure of goods in lieu of debts in the modern age is totally beyond the pale.

Why?

The bailiff system is an anachronism left over from the middle ages when goods and chattels = money. In other words a cow or a chair were worth exactly the same whether you exchanged them in barter for other goods or whether you sold them for cash. So, if someone owed a debt and refused to pay then it was probably fair enough to sieze goods to the same value as the debt.

This situation has not been current for at least 50 years. Goods today (unless it's antiques, or an original Renoir or a Lamborghini, etc) are next to worthless as a medium of barter. The average Joe's complete houseful of goods would probably fetch less than a grand at forced auction but probably cost 10 - 20 times that to buy.

It maybe wouldn't be quite so bad if the goods that were siezed were sold with some attempt to get a decent price for them, not sold to the lowest bidder, or to the bailifs uncle for peanuts. I've personally known cars worth thousands to be siezed and sold at auction for a few hundred quid.

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

Pete

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Number6

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

Pete

But What do you do when you are the poor average guy who's owed, and the other guy won't pay?

I have just posted another thread asking precisely this. I am in a situation of person v person, and the other one is refusing to pay me money owed. Why should I be out of pocket? What resource have I got if that person continues to refuse to pay even after a court order? What am I supposed to do?

Sorry, Pete, but there is a need for bailiffs, like there is a need for lenders who take higher risks, and garbage collectors. They're not popular and not many would do their job. But the clue is not in the man, it's in the profession, which needs to be seriously regulated. Our decent bailiffs on this forum would not disagree.

[Number6]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

But What do you do when you are the poor average guy who's owed, and the other guy won't pay?

I have just posted another thread asking precisely this. I am in a situation of person v person, and the other one is refusing to pay me money owed. Why should I be out of pocket? What resource have I got if that person continues to refuse to pay even after a court order? What am I supposed to do?

Sorry, Pete, but there is a need for bailiffs, like there is a need for lenders who take higher risks, and garbage collectors. They're not popular and not many would do their job. But the clue is not in the man, it's in the profession, which needs to be seriously regulated. Our decent bailiffs on this forum would not disagree.

BW

If there was a genuine demarcation line determined somehow between those that can't pay and those that won't pay then I'd be much happier. But this does not happen. Those that won't pay won't pay even if you send in the bailiffs, they'll have it sussed so that they'll have no siezeable goods - trust me on this. It's the ones that get into a mess and can't pay that have all the nice stuff that the bailiffs sieze and auction for pennies. You'll end up paying for an enforcement warrant and the bailiffs will report back that the debtor has no goods of value. so you'll be worse off, not better.

And the bailiff industry is about to be differently regulated. There is a Bill currently under discussion that, if passed will give bailiffs the right to force entry to your home and if needs be to use force in order to sieze goods. Is that a forward looking step to take? I don't think so.

Pete

[blfuk1]

Originally Posted by Number6

I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but I do want to restate my belief that siezure of goods in lieu of debts in the modern age is totally beyond the pale.

Why?

The bailiff system is an anachronism left over from the middle ages when goods and chattels = money. In other words a cow or a chair were worth exactly the same whet