Wonder of wonders. The police actually removed the bailiff for trespassing.

OB. I have read the story twice and it does not say that the police removed the bailiff for trespassing at all. What the story actually says is as follows:

When Ms Michael tried to steer him away from the front of the shop, he entered the kitchen and police were called to remove him from the area for trespassing.

Eventually, he began unplugging the coffee machine despite Ms Michael’s pleas to choose another item to remove.

However, after two hours, a kind-hearted customer who was having breakfast stepped in and offered to clear the whole debt

From the above it is clear that a call was made to the police but a further two hours passed (obviously with the bailiff still in attendance) before a customer paid the debt.

You have to remember that some people have more than casual interest in the work of bailiffs. In a perfect world, you would not need bailiffs and all the various forums/companies that assist with problems relating to them.

 

At some point, it might occur to people that quite a lot who don't pay debts, perhaps don't have the money. That employing EA's to collect monies owed is used too quickly and perhaps it would be better to invite the debtor to attend a meeting where the debt problem can be discussed. Instead with council tax, it appears that councils obtain LO's by an admin process without the debtor being able to get a hearing and then enforcement begins.

 

Enforcement Agents use should be a last resort and it should not be necessary to employ so many. I think TT said that 400,000 EA's were registered in the last year.

Have to agree UB, there are vested interests everywhere, a but from my CAB days I know how difficult it is for debtors to address the issues in a rational way, head in sand, panic and all that

so anything that encourages and opens dialogue and a way forward rather than a big stick and bailiffs is good. But wonder if UKGov will balk at throwing all those highly trained (not) dedicated thugs, oops Enforcement Agents onto JSA,

Crapquita in the news again...

Getting back to the story, it is very odd indeed as the debtor has a Cafe in North Finchley and she apparently got into arrears with her non domestic rates in March 2013 because"

"the pay-by-phone system saw her lose 60 per cent of takings"

I would assume that the debt was one that was being pursued under the previous legislation so it is not simple to calculate whether or not the fees are correct (they do not appear to be right).

Have to agree the fees seem incorrect, but also as stated although police were called the bailiff proceeded to start unplugging machines that were in use, so obviously did not remove him. I f i was that copper i would have asked the bailiff to make me a coffee (joking of course)

In answer to two points.

I certainly made a huge typo error !!! Last year there were approx 1,600 certificated bailiff and today is just short of 2,000 meaning that an additional 400 bailiffs have been granted certificates. This is a 25% increase in just over one year.

It's a start, but let's see if the police go the extra mile and start probing Crapita and the Revenues Department of Barnet Council. That should have Crapita howling protests from the rooftops.

In fact the correct procedure is for a local resident(of Barnet) to make a Formal Complaint to the District Auditor.

In fact the correct procedure is for a local resident(of Barnet) to make a Formal Complaint to the District Auditor.

The problem with taking a complaint to the Auditor (now they are private companies contracted to councils) is that it's not in the interest of the Auditor to find fault with the council's accounts.

The problem with taking a complaint to the Auditor (now they are private companies contracted to councils) is that it's not in the interest of the Auditor to find fault with the council's accounts.

As I understand it, a RESIDENT may make a complaint under section 16 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 objecting to the accounts and you can ask the external auditor under Section 17 of the ACA to have an item in the accounts declared unlawful in the courts.

The problem with taking a complaint to the Auditor (now they are private companies contracted to councils) is that it's not in the interest of the Auditor to find fault with the council's accounts.

Another unintended consequence?

This thread of mine regarding SCOOP was only started 8 months ago but in the short period over 35,000 viewers have visited the posts. That is an incredible number of visitors but with the thread now running to 20 pages I am not sure whether it would be a better idea to start a brand new STICKY with a link to SCOOP and in that way, when an important subject features any one of the regulars posters on here can start a new thread to discuss the story.

In that way, subjects like the one posted today by Outlawla concerning the antics of an Equita bailiff can be properly discussed (and most importantly, new visitors wishing to take an interest would not have to plough through 20 pages !!!

The 'proof of the pudding' is in the brilliant 'discussion' thread regarding the Reverend Paul Nicolson!!

Thoughts anybody?

This thread of mine regarding SCOOP was only started 8 months ago but in the short period over 35,000 viewers have visited the posts. That is an incredible number of visitors but with the thread now running to 20 pages I am not sure whether it would be a better idea to start a brand new STICKY with a link to SCOOP and in that way, when an important subject features any one of the regulars posters on here can start a new thread to discuss the story.

 

In that way, subjects like the one posted today by Outlawla concerning the antics of an Equita bailiff can be properly discussed (and most importantly, new visitors wishing to take an interest would not have to plough through 20 pages !!!

 

The 'proof of the pudding' is in the brilliant 'discussion' thread regarding the Reverend Paul Nicolson!!

 

Thoughts anybody?

Might be a way forward to keep various issues on their own thread, to allow the discussion to focus in on the article quoted

...Personally if it were my shop, the coffee machines were in use, hot, and full, I would report Equita to the HSE for breaches of H & S regarding risk assessments into the removal of said hot property, and the risks to staff customers, and bully bailiff by being scalded during any removal....

Send in clowns capitas bailiffs visit

I agree. I think keeping items on their own thread helps keep clarity to that particular issue. Reading through a mish-mash of different issues can get confusing.

If everyone is in agreement I'll ask Tomtubby to start another thread giving Scoop's details etc & make it a Sticky. We'll then close this thread and if anyone wants to start another thread discussing the different issues raised from Scoop then feel free to do so.

If everyone is in agreement I'll ask Tomtubby to start another thread giving Scoop's details etc & make it a Sticky. We'll then close this thread and if anyone wants to start another thread discussing the different issues raised from Scoop then feel free to do so.

Sounds a good idea

Excellent idea. I will get wording for a new thread over to you later today.

I've copied the first post & made it a Sticky. I'll also close this thread now and would advise that if anyone finds an article on SCOOP then start a new thread about it.