The subject of bailiffs being charged with Fraud was discussed in the House of Lords in 2007 and Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Minister of State) for the Home stated the following:

 

"The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned".....

What seems to be the police's other get-out-of-jail free card with regards not investigating allegations of bailiff fraud (when not the old favourite, "it's a Civil matter") is the Home Office circular 47 / 2004.

The problem that presents itself for the police by quoting this – apart from being stated in the memo that: "Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate" – is that many of the bulleted points listed under the heading: "Priorities For The Investigation Of Fraud Cases", fit exactly with what is relevant to the bailiff situation:

What has/is going on behind the scene with that site is so laughable it would make a fortune if written into a sit com.

Except of course that what is going on 'behind the scenes' is actually not funny at all. Instead, it is VERY serious indeed.

There should be appropriate regulation of online advice sites who charge for their services. This is a growing market and I see that there are now many bailiff advice sites who make charges for various services.

 

At the moment any client of these paid for online services, have no come back, other than through the civil courts, where I think they can show enough evidence in some situations that the paid for advice was defective to win relevant compensation.

 

The bailiff industry is not regulated enough either. There should be a thorough look at each aspect of enforcement and there should be much more standardisation. At the moment, it is too complicated and is open to abuse. It should be made so simple, with a basic step by step process, which clearly shows, enforcement powers/options, documents and charges, that everyone can easily understand it. Bailiffs should not have to use debateable tactics to obtain payments. The days when they send out several large 6ft+ skinheads to intimidate people should be in the past.

Do you realize that for someone to charge any fee for debt advise MUST have the correct license from the OFT to do so I believe, I asked them the direct question on this a few days ago , they stated that if someone charges a fee they Must be licensed by them, if not this is an offence. Giving FREE advice is just that ADVICE is this correct? or was I misled?

Also doing "a chargeback" when the card holder gave the details "FREELY" this is fraud yes?

I asked a serving Police Officer this very question this week also. His reply was yes.... he also stated that even if a Bailiff asks for it by card you can still refuse, this way the debtor is not committing fraud. This will make the Bailiff unhappy anyway, but if this terrible advice is continuously taken then bailiffs will REFUSE to accept cards period, this will have the disadvantage effect, as for most debtors as the goods will more than likely be seized for sale at auction. at a much earlier stage. So all in all the debtor will loose goods much more easily.

To be honest I cannot see a bailiff accepting any form of card payment soon, especially after April, then this will cost the debtor in the long run, because it will mean many more visits which come at a cost which will have to be paid by the debtor.... Bailiffs don't have to accept cards they do it as a gesture to help, this could just as easily be withdrawn and made a strictly cash only business, then what? the debtor looses again and will only be able to pay in cash or goods then.... more fees to pay!

I am lucky enough to be able to sit at court nearly daily, most days the courts have students in and they listen to the cases, then towards the end of the session they get to ask the bench/clerk/prosecutor/solicitors questions, I quite often ask these questions and am surprised how often these types of defendants end up back in the dock on further charges.

Again poor advice will ALWAYS cost a defaulter in the hands of a Bailiff much more on money and Chattels.

Misleading a Bailiff with a Warrant of the Court is punishable in Court, this is the way things may go in the future, perhaps soon a Bailiff will be given powers to use the Pace caution and write this all down to be used as evidence against the debtor, should they be daft enough to try "charge backs " in the future, this is just one of my crazy thoughts though....

MM

I have not hidden from the forum the fact that I have a website and one of the frequent enquiries that we receive, concerns credit card 'chargebacks' and the way in which debtors are commonly making such requests to their bank following misleading advice on the internet.

Bailiff companies and banks are becoming increasingly resistant to such requests and it is very common now to receive enquiries where bailiff companies recommence enforcement action following a 'chargeback' or 'reversal' of a credit card payment.

This particular thread was started almost a year ago (and three months before the new regulations came into effect). The new regulations have made significant changes that affect such 'chargebacks' (not least the fact that the enforcement 'power' does not cease in the event of a successful 'chargeback'.

Also, the goods of the debtor continue to be 'bound' (under Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007)

I notice that since that time this thread has received nearly 6,000 views so clearly the subject is of great importance. I will look at starting a new thread on this very important subject.

it is not just credit card charge backs that are a problem lately, i see sites that encourage people to do direct debit claw backs from everything from Bailiff payments, DCA payments, to even old insurance policies