The system can't work without self employed EA's. Simple arithmetic. The very high number of warrants require high numbers of EA's, if they were to be paid whether or not they recovered enough money to cover their wages, then their employers would lose money. This is the only reason that any private company have self employed agents.

It is true that is why the system has to change.

In principle there is nothing wrong with the debtor covering the costs incurred by him not paying his bills, however in the case of bailiff firms he not only covers the const of collection he funds a mufti million pound industry complete with offices directors and share holders, bailiff have proven over and over again that they are incapable of regulating themselves, far better and cheaper to have a department employing collection agents who are paid a salary funded by a fair collecting fee, overseen and regulated totally by parliamentary process.

It's unfortunate perhaps, but that's life. It's the "bailiff" that's out on the street facing the punters, not those sat in their nice clean ivory towers.

 

I'll just leave this here for you to watch TS.

 

 

Now whilst I appreciate that this was researched and filmed before April 6th, it's systemic to the bailiff industry, and if you don't do this, and you say you don't, I'd say that you were one of the few.

Just watched 20 mins of that.

I've never seen it before.

I will say this too start.

A bully and a nasty piece of work. I'd have his certificate.

If that was my home he'd leave alright in a police van or a box. A utter disgrace and embarrassment.

The fees atrocious even if legal.

His manner and behaviour disgusting.

1. I never collect rta in the past because of the extreme fees which I didn't believe in.

2. If that was me making the visit I wouldn't of clamped a taxi.

3. On the word "cancer" I'd of left.

So what do learn from this video and experience?

1.not all bailiffs are pieces of muck

2.the fees needed addressing (have been)

3. Maybe put a camera on all agents

4.why had this got so far?

There's a lack of responsibility across the board here.

But to then complement a difficult situation with an overgrown idiot, theif ,bully is even worse.

I truly am disgusted and feel a great sense of anger now I've seen this.

I hope he's been sacked and had his license removed.

However I get the point that for bailiffs to be in court it's taken bad behaviour which shouldn't occur at all.

But we ain't all like him.

And if I was with him I'd of dragged him out the house myself.

Believe me! Maybe difficult after seeing that

It is true that is why the system has to change.

 

In principle there is nothing wrong with the debtor covering the costs incurred by him not paying his bills, however in the case of bailiff firms he not only covers the const of collection he funds a mufti million pound industry complete with offices directors and share holders, bailiff have proven over and over again that they are incapable of regulating themselves, far better and cheaper to have a department employing collection agents who are paid a salary funded by a fair collecting fee, overseen and regulated totally by parliamentary process.

Totally agree.

If I'd wanted a further discussion on bailiffs and how they are paid I would have used a different heading..............................

 

One of the topics I was asking is that if it is true that bailiff companies in general are insisting their EAs go for the full debt on a first visit, is this lawful and is it the fault

in the way the new legislation was drafted.

Second, a more importantly, what effect is that having on debtors and is it not strange that we appear to have a drop in the number of debtors coming to the forum. Is that

because more people are settling prior to a visit or are creditors trying to avoid the use of bailiffs since the increase in bailiff fees will mean that it will take creditors longer,

if ever, to get their money.

We have seen an increase in debtors even with the compliance stage being longer in process.

Certain creditors still wish to use the bailiff that won't change.

If anything I would say by only having the one fee over numerous debts encourages debtors to take as long as they like in paying bills

We have seen an increase in debtors even with the compliance stage being longer in process.

Certain creditors still wish to use the bailiff that won't change.

 

If anything I would say by only having the one fee over numerous debts encourages debtors to take as long as they like in paying bills

That is assuming they can afford to pay them, as someone is only so they say two paydays from the streets. Take someone involved in an accident on their way to work, and are medically retired as a result, they have no savings and are cast onto ESA, which took 10 weeks before they were given any money, and the bailiff is at the door, because they went for the LO, even though HB had been applied for, as yes you must pay whilst waiting to hear about a claim......

We tend to get that sort of can't pay on here where income has gone from good to breadline, and adding even 50 pence in fees is not affordable to them.

In the old days when granddad was a lad when the means test really meant something in the 1930s, a bailiff could take a radio, and get enough to clear the debt and fees. Today due to consumerism he wouldn't even get the £305 in compliance and Enforcement fee for a house full of goods let alone any of the debt.

That is assuming they can afford to pay them, as someone is only so they say two paydays from the streets. Take someone involved in an accident on their way to work, and are medically retired as a result, they have no savings and are cast onto ESA, which took 10 weeks before they were given any money, and the bailiff is at the door, because they went for the LO, even though HB had been applied for, as yes you must pay whilst waiting to hear about a claim......

 

We tend to get that sort of can't pay on here where income has gone from good to breadline, and adding even 50 pence in fees is not affordable to them.

 

In the old days when granddad was a lad when the means test really meant something in the 1930s, a bailiff could take a radio, and get enough to clear the debt and fees. Today due to consumerism he wouldn't even get the £305 in compliance and Enforcement fee for a house full of goods let alone any of the debt.

Yes that's true.

Removal of goods for me a thing of the past.

And not necessary!

I'd really class that as vulnerable.

You'd have to be an idiot to enforce some cases.

I hate the whole word enforce. To me it gives a poor view of what I believe we are to be used for.

The nature of the job has changed so much.

I really think we had it right when we used levy bailiffs. But now the industry has done away with them and only use "enforcement" agents? I think it should have swung the other way.