tribunals, courts and enforcement bill

[lucidmumbler]

I've read that the right to refuse entry to bailiffs will be lost when this bill is put through. bailiffs will be able to enter any home using 'reasonable force' once they obtain a court order... anyone know more about this?

[caledfwlch]

just seen stuff about this. It seems bailiffs will be given the right to burst in on you, rabbit punch you to the floor to stop you intefering (there seems to be provisions allowing physical force against debtors) then take EVERYTHING including your pets and to pat you down for any cash your carrying.

Oh and the Police service we pay for will be obliged to assist the bailiff in doing these things.

and we are a civilised nation how?

I hope any government minister that votes for this will suffer a terrible family tragedy. Its not often I wish ill like that on people, but this bill is one step to far into fascism. People in civilised democratic states do not sit at home cowering at the sound of engines outside, in fear that violent thugs will burst in and essentially steal their lives.

I can see Personal bankruptcy absolutely skyrocketing - the tight restrictions of being a bankrupt for 5 years seem somewhat amenable compared to the alternative...

[veryannoyed]

I can see the use of firearms in self defence skyrocketing... I can also see the smug grin of all those idiots who voted for Blair begin to fade... how far are you going to let him go down the police state route? - while you're at it you might as well go for full communism and just hand Blair everything you've got and be done with it...

[lucidmumbler]

I agree - it's a smack in the face to freedom. this bill truly stinks. I'm shocked how little media coverage it's been given - and the bill seems pretty much good to go just as soon as parliamentary time allows.

the main bone of contention is that there is nothing substantial in the bill to ensure a code of conduct amongst bailiffs. a missed opportunity if ever there was one.

but everywhere I've looked makes no mention of the undermining of human rights. the idea that some heavies can come barging into a family home and snatch whatever they see fit has to come across as fundamentally wrong to anyone, surely. and what is this reasonable force malarky? no one seems able to define it. does it mean they can push a door with a force greater than that exerted on the other side? smash windows? holy macaroni this is bad. it'll get to a point where squatters have more protective rights.

when this finally comes to a vote, I'll watch with great interest who votes for and against. instinctively I imagine this would be popular with Tories, not all of them necessarily, but hey, this gives greater oppressive powers over the poor and vulnerable members of society, so it's gonna be thumbs up for many I bet. it may be the first Tory-slanted bill before they even wrestle back power (and god help us all if that should ever happen).

i see trouble on the horizon...

If you read the white paper that predates this once this is place we will have many new rights and for the first time will not be useing law tha is 800 years old, I for one look forward to it.

This one will make a real difference to the people of this forum.

Payment by Instalments

262. We propose that the law should be changed to provide all licensed enforcement agents with the capability to offer the debtor the option of repayment by instalments, or to accept an offer by the debtor to pay by instalments, if such an action is agreed by the creditor. The enforcement agent will not be obliged or compelled to make or accept such an offer unless at the behest of the creditor. In such circumstances, the amount to be repaid will be the debt, the fees incurred up to the point at which the offer is made, and the fee attaching to payment by instalments. In this context, enforcement agents will not be acting as proxy debt collectors, but offering or accepting from the debtor a repayment plan which takes account of their financial situation as well as the needs of the creditor.

and this

Illegal Action


198. The courts will always deal with complaints of illegal action. Illegal seizure of goods applies where the action was not authorised or justified from the outset or where entry to the premises is obtained in an unlawful manner. Currently, damages where recoverable will be for interference with goods, trespass and/or conversion.35 The existing remedies for illegal behaviour should be available under a simplified regime and we see no good argument that the distinction between distraint and execution should continue.
199. The claim for all three remedies is simple damages up to the value of the goods plus special damages which may also be claimed. Special damages would be any additional claims on top of the value of the goods, such as loss of earnings if a car was removed and the debtor needed the car to carry out their job. They might also include the automatic return of goods, or payment of their full value to the debtor if they have already been sold (i.e. replacement value). 200. We need to ensure that debtors readily understand how to seek a remedy for an illegal action by an enforcement agent or a creditor, and that information is accessible. The enforcement agent must provide information to the debtor on any rights of appeal or avenues of complaint the debtor may have. There will be a standard form of words in secondary legislation setting out what his or her rights are.

to sum up what is going to happen

I refuse to let the bailiff in, and then I offer a payment plan of of £10 per week on debt of £520 and the bailiff has to choose if he will take it. Then the bailiff has to go to the county courts and get permission to make a forceful entry, this will not be given as I made a offer of payment to the bailiff.

[caledfwlch]

fair enough, but the law seems to give carte blanche to break into homes willy nilly, so how can their BE illegal entry? It seems to give some reasonable and overdue rights, but at the same time contradicts itself by removing the rights If they have the right to use force to enter property, then there can BE no illegal entry, except when its not the debtors home.

The things I read did also say it would come down to how UK judges interpret it, but im just confused by the seeming contradiction, or have they ammended it since?

And the installment thing seems pointless, purely to punish the debtor for getting into debt by throwing massive bailiff fee's on top, why not just give the option to remove the bailiff from the equation altogether? put an extra tick box on the CCJ forms - I agree to pay such and such per month if I do not keep to this payment schedule, then I understand my wages will be arrested at source, my employer / payroll no is bla bla.

But anything that allows the bailifs to forceably enter premesis and assault the debtor is very very wrong, and seems an incredible thing to propose when apparantly Scotland has just reformed bailiff law to make it very difficult to remove property.

Hopefully I am misreading things, and things are as actually good as you say Zooman

Originally Posted by Zooman

and this

Illegal Action


198. The courts will always deal with complaints of illegal action. Illegal seizure of goods applies where the action was not authorised or justified from the outset or where entry to the premises is obtained in an unlawful manner. Currently, damages where recoverable will be for interference with goods, trespass and/or conversion.35 The existing remedies for illegal behaviour should be available under a simplified regime and we see no good argument that the distinction between distraint and execution should continue.
199. The claim for all three remedies is simple damages up to the value of the goods plus special damages which may also be claimed. Special damages would be any additional claims on top of the value of the goods, such as loss of earnings if a car was removed and the debtor needed the car to carry out their job. They might also include the automatic return of goods, or payment of their full value to the debtor if they have already been sold (i.e. replacement value). 200. We need to ensure that debtors readily understand how to seek a remedy for an illegal action by an enforcement agent or a creditor, and that information is accessible. The enforcement agent must provide information to the debtor on any rights of appeal or avenues of complaint the debtor may have. There will be a standard form of words in secondary legislation setting out what his or her rights are.

The idea is simple the bailiffs will be able to charge a (lets say 4%) set up fee for a installment plan, at the minute bailiffs have no opportunity to take payments these will lead to a system where all bailiffs companies are happy to take installments.

In addition they are also being given the power of forceful entry when a peaceful entry can not be made, to obtain this warrant for forceful entry (and it is only going/can be used when people flatly refuse to pay) they will have to go before a County Court Judge (this will cost them) and put forward their case, if you have made an offer of payment over 18 months and the bailiffs/ their clients have tuned it down they will be refused the warrant for forceful entry.

Also the rights of using windows etc is going the only way to gain peaceful entry will be though a open door.

Originally Posted by caledfwlch

And the installment thing seems pointless, purely to punish the debtor for getting into debt by throwing massive bailiff fee's on top, why not just give the option to remove the bailiff from the equation altogether? put an extra tick box on the CCJ forms - I agree to pay such and such per month if I do not keep to this payment schedule, then I understand my wages will be arrested at source, my employer / payroll no is bla bla.

The situation with bailiff at present their only source of money is fees and they have no interest in agreeing installment plans as all it does is cost them extra money to run it, now they will be able to offer installment plans for the people who need it. Yes they will have to pay a percentage (sorry for this all) but like any other company they have a duty to make money and this is only fair.

What I want to see is 100% above board bailiffs that have the power to both collect money that is owed and always act both with in the law and fairly at all times, and IMO this is what the new act is going to do (on paper anyway).

Most bailiff action is not connected with CCJs

[caledfwlch]

Well im learning from picking your brains Zooman
my final confusions - I thought in terms of unsecured debt a Bailiff was only a baillif if there was a CCJ - otherwise they have no rights of entry, or to levy goods?

by 18 months, do you mean if you can pay it back within 18 months? if so what about those who genuinly can't, say your debt is 4-5000 and you only have 100 spare a month? I am still concerned over the "force on debtors" bit I read about and the fact that ID would apparantly pose difficulties since a huge amount of people could then be a "bailiff" civil servants for instance.

Where I got my information from was some sort of lawyers group - Maybe they are reading to much into it/imaging the worst case scenario were judges to view it a certain way, or maybe they had an outdated/unammended version?

Originally Posted by Zooman

The situation with bailiff at present their only source of money is fees and they have no interest in agreeing installment plans as all it does is cost them extra money to run it, now they will be able to offer installment plans for the people who need it. Yes they will have to pay a percentage (sorry for this all) but like any other company they have a duty to make money and this is only fair.

What I want to see is 100% above board bailiffs that have the power to both collect money that is owed and always act both with in the law and fairly at all times, and IMO this is what the new act is going to do (on paper anyway).

Most bailiff action is not connected with CCJs

This is mainly for all but County Court Bailiffs (they are already established civil servants and get no monetary gain from enforcing warrants) and any debt of 4-5,000 is most certainly a CCJ and already has access to a very fair installment plan system through the county courts.

This is mainly aimed at certificated bailiffs (they carry out distress for rent, council tax, non-domestic rates and parking fines) where the total bill should not be over lets say 2k in the extreme. And the 18 months was just an eg it could be 3 years, it is my opinion that the courts will expect it to be run on the same principles of the court installment scheme where the debtor should not under any circumstances be forced to pay more then they can afford each month regardless of the length of time it takes to pay.

[rambo]

What really worries me about this bill is the fact that bailiffs lie alot of the time, what if I had a gold ring in my house and it dissapeard after the bailiffs had been in?.
I cannot believe the goverment are thinking of giving bailiffs extra powers when they are complete cowboy's.

they are not getting extra powers (in fact they are losing many of their powers), what is happening the law is getting consolidated into one block, which will replace bailiff law that dates back to 1066.

[Number6]

OK, what if you are disputing a debt that has been placed with a DCA? You are refusing any payment because the debt is made up largely or completely of unlawful fees that you are trying to claim back.

The DCA gets a CCJ and the debt is passed to the "Enforcement Officer".

Would you then be faced with the stark choice of either agreeing an installment plan on a debt you dispute or having the "Enforcement Officer" kick your front door in?? Under current rules you have no problem so long as you know that you don't have to let a bailiff in.

Pete

[dragonlord002]

Originally Posted by Number6

OK, what if you are disputing a debt that has been placed with a DCA? You are refusing any payment because the debt is made up largely or completely of unlawful fees that you are trying to claim back.

The DCA gets a CCJ and the debt is passed to the "Enforcement Officer".

Would you then be faced with the stark choice of either agreeing an installment plan on a debt you dispute or having the "Enforcement Officer" kick your front door in?? Under current rules you have no problem so long as you know that you don't have to let a bailiff in.

Pete

pluss they dont have to agree to you paying by installments ether.

Originally Posted by Number6

OK, what if you are disputing a debt that has been placed with a DCA? You are refusing any payment because the debt is made up largely or completely of unlawful fees that you are trying to claim back.

The DCA gets a CCJ and the debt is passed to the "Enforcement Officer".

Would you then be faced with the stark choice of either agreeing an installment plan on a debt you dispute or having the "Enforcement Officer" kick your front door in?? Under current rules you have no problem so long as you know that you don't have to let a bailiff in.

Pete

Pete, no you defend your claim in court and if you lose and can not afford to pay it back you use the court installment scheme that is in place as long as installments are kept up with no enforcement action can take place.

As I said above this aimed at certificated bailiffs (rent, council tax, non-domestic rates and parking fines) and not CCJs.

And lets be very fair here, creditors are entitled to their money and this will bring a ways and means to ensure those who will not pay their council tax & criminal court fines pay up and those who simple need time to pay the time they need. I'm the first one on here to help people enforce their rights when it comes to bailiffs but I also agree strongly that we all have to pay our dues in life. This act should only worry those who refuse to pay back debts and those who simple need the time and relax and know the law is now on their side. Also I have never had to much sympathy for fine dodgers as these are the same people who make our towns unsafe, and if they can not live by the word of the law they do not deserve the protection of the law.

[dragonlord002]

the bill has nothing to do with criminal fines they can allready kick you door off for that
were you not awear that the law has been changed to allow fourced entry for criminal fines already ?

or inprison you for willfull refusal not to pay councile tax

the new bill covers civl matters not criminal

what about those who are lone term sick and on token payments.

you really thing they will agree to token payments and not send in ballifs then.

If you belive that you will belive anything

im shorry Zoomman Im not as trusting in our courts and goverment as you are.