Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Vulnerability, Bailiff Enforcement and the TCE 2007


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3275 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is another perspective for the EA;s (or some of them) a debtor has all their medical files to hand and can produce them straight away. Say one has a blue badge as well, but this is in the car that belongs to the carer that transports them around so it is not "lost" they can produce a letter from the DLA/DWP/LA national bus scheme. Would you believe they are "vulnerable"? maybe/not, that is your call.

 

Can you explain what the issue is that makes them vuln? Just being on DLA or having a blue badge doesnt automatcally make them vuln.

 

 

But at the end of the day the person that has to live with their disabilities and the effects it has on them could be hidden from view to you. I.E. they have a serious brain injury or heart condition, just like the story I mentioned earlier, on the outside to you they "look normal" but on the inside they are not, from this you can deduce as you see fit, to give you an example again,

 

The above would be taken on its merits and usually, there is some paperwork or medication to back up the story, and when asked, they never kick off, they are always happy to prove their illness. I have never had someone rant and rave about proving they are ill. Its the ones that are not ill that rant and rave when asked to prove it i have found.

 

 

A debtor has had a massive stroke, but has no outward signs like the dropped face and so on but has a VP shunt fitted in their brain, but again this is not visible is it? what I am saying grumpy is that every time you walk to a different property to carry out your duties you really should be thinking that everyone is DIFFERENT. You have the hard job on deciding if they are telling the truth, so why not think along the lines of "what if they ARE telling the truth" What if I make the mistake of not believing the reasons the debtor has given? Why not pass that buck back to the creditor and let THEM make your choice for you? This is the safest option open to you is it not?

 

Thisis what we generally do think, hence the original posts about the EA making a decision at the time and if need be, refering back to the client or asking for proof. If we dont get proof, and the client doesnt see any proof, they will just send us back anyway. its better for all concerned that proof is supplied and recorded and then im on my way.

 

 

I am just thinking out aloud here ok here is a thought for you...... As an EA you have to get your job right EVERY SINGLE time what if you got it wrong just once because the public has lied to you in the past and you thought this was the case every time you knocked on a debtors door. Are you really prepared to take this risk each time you knock on a door to enforce your warrant of control?

 

Unfortunately yes, its part of the job. If we dont ask for proof, the client will only send us back out to get it or continue enforcement. you cant even imagine how often we get lied to in this job.

 

IF in doubt why not just pass it back to let them make the tuff decision for you? This way you still get to catch them at a later date in other words it is better to be safe rather than sorry is it not?

See above, unless proof is given to the claimant, we just get sent back out so we push for proof on the first occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

icon1.png Bailiff Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Jailed for 10 months

Along with fraudulent electricians, builders, bankers, salesmen, government officials,
benefit claimants
, police...... The list goes on. Every trade and walk of life has its fraudsters.

 

Good riddance to this one. Although he owned up, its still good to see someone punished properly.

 

Although if it was some scrote who broke into the guys house and stole the 10k, it would prob have been a slap on the wrist.

 

 

I see you list
benefit claimants
amongst your pet hates.... I agree some do lie but some do not.... I understand your trade is very difficult to do or understand but at the end of the day you must realise
EVERYONE
is different to the person you have just met, yet you treat them in the
same, why?

 

 

You must be 100% perfect every time if a debtor needs a chance just once then maybe your thoughts could be "what if I believe this one" and it turns out you were right to do so? but on the other hand what if you got it terribly wrong simply because you tarred everyone with the same brush? is this not
discrimination
at its most
ugliest
?

 

 

Ps this is not an attack against you but a general discussion as to whom you give a chance too and those you don't that is all. May I ask you a question? in fact I will it is this, have you made a choice within your role that it has been wrong and wished you could have changed your mind?

 

 

 

 

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another perspective for the EA;s (or some of them) a debtor has all their medical files to hand and can produce them straight away. Say one has a blue badge as well, but this is in the car that belongs to the carer that transports them around so it is not "lost" they can produce a letter from the DLA/DWP/LA national bus scheme. Would you believe they are "vulnerable"? maybe/not, that is your call.

 

Can you explain what the issue is that makes them vuln? Just being on DLA or having a blue badge doesnt automatcally make them vuln.

The standards shown at the start of this thread clearly states this "the unemployed"

DLA is a benefit that is for a disability again this is covered

 

 

But at the end of the day the person that has to live with their disabilities and the effects it has on them could be hidden from view to you. I.E. they have a serious brain injury or heart condition, just like the story I mentioned earlier, on the outside to you they "look normal" but on the inside they are not, from this you can deduce as you see fit, to give you an example again,

 

The above would be taken on its merits and usually, there is some paperwork or medication to back up the story, and when asked, they never kick off, they are always happy to prove their illness. I have never had someone rant and rave about proving they are ill. Its the ones that are not ill that rant and rave when asked to prove it i have found.

I would have no issue showing you a blister pack for lets say 5 medications, but would you understand what they are for or what they can do for the patient? I doubt it

 

 

A debtor has had a massive stroke, but has no outward signs like the dropped face and so on but has a VP shunt fitted in their brain, but again this is not visible is it? what I am saying grumpy is that every time you walk to a different property to carry out your duties you really should be thinking that everyone is DIFFERENT. You have the hard job on deciding if they are telling the truth, so why not think along the lines of "what if they ARE telling the truth" What if I make the mistake of not believing the reasons the debtor has given? Why not pass that buck back to the creditor and let THEM make your choice for you? This is the safest option open to you is it not?

 

Thisis what we generally do think, hence the original posts about the EA making a decision at the time and if need be, refering back to the client or asking for proof. If we dont get proof, and the client doesnt see any proof, they will just send us back anyway. its better for all concerned that proof is supplied and recorded and then im on my way.

Back to my original point why should an EA have medical information that they will/could not clearly understand due to the technical terminology used by a qualified Dr The proof goes to the OC and not the EA, you do not have the right to know this information after all you are just an enforcement agent. I think that you should sent this back at this point then allow the debtor and creditor to sort out the personal details, then if need be the credit can then return the file for enforcement or tell you they will take it back. Again you have no right to access this personal information.

 

 

I am just thinking out aloud here ok here is a thought for you...... As an EA you have to get your job right EVERY SINGLE time what if you got it wrong just once because the public has lied to you in the past and you thought this was the case every time you knocked on a debtors door. Are you really prepared to take this risk each time you knock on a door to enforce your warrant of control?

 

Unfortunately yes, its part of the job. If we dont ask for proof, the client will only send us back out to get it or continue enforcement. you cant even imagine how often we get lied to in this job.

Trust me I am a man of sorts and I know for a fact that people lie even under oath

 

IF in doubt why not just pass it back to let them make the tuff decision for you? This way you still get to catch them at a later date in other words it is better to be safe rather than sorry is it not?

 

 

Without googling this statement please answer the following please. Situation is as follows

 

 

I am a debtor you knock at my door for a debt worth say £300.00 before fees. I open it and realise you are a bailiff I state that I am disabled yet have no outward signs of it. I state to you that I have a Ventriculoperitoneal shunt installed. you know what this is because you have been trained to know these things.

 

 

For all intents and purposes I look normal ok? Would you consider me as a disabled and vulnerable adult? Would you believe me as I cannot show you my disabilities because it is known as the "hidden" disability? What would you do in this situation?

 

 

Finally I need an appropriate adult with me to deal with difficult situations but can sometimes live a normal life albeit tense and challenging

 

I hold a blue badge because of my unseen disabilities. This one item alone should ring bells for you and that you retire and inform your creditor as per guidelines stated clearly by DB on this very thread.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If a cancer patients car is clamped and he has an appointment card and shows it to the EA, any one of my guys or girls would lose their job if they lifted that car or didn't unclamp it sharpish. Possibly even their certificate if it went to an eac2 complaint."

 

Thanks for that Grumpy, I don't doubt you and your colleagues along with a majority of EAs would do the right thing, and follow the rules, having had dealings with Jacobs as a third party merely parked up on the phone opposite a debtor's house with their car already clamped I don't doubt they would not unclamp the car in that scenario.

 

Your input and observations from the other side, are valuable and allow a re-focus to explore the Regulations in use.

We can be sure that Vulnerability is a can of worms and has serious consequences all round if the EA and Creditor get it wrong. However there is no excuse for a Council to send an EA in when they have data that proves vulnerability, an attachable benefit is in payment, and there is a risk to the debtor, and in some cases the EA if the debtor is a known PVP.*

 

 

* For Caggers who don't know councilspeak: PVP Potentially Violent Person, a flag on a record, or database if the person has known violent tendencies, and a note outlining contact methods, such as no visit by a single worker.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all slamming the EA's as ruthless **** that dont give a **** and thats a bit pathetic if you ask me. Sorry for that language.

The problem is most of you think that we see a vulnerable person as an easy target. We dont. If we enforce, and it backfires, the company will/may lose a contract, the EA may/will lose hos certificate and the claimant gets a whole heap of bad pr.

Its very very rate a genuine vuln claim comes in and when it does, we treat them with the respect and diligence they deserve. We ask for proof and then await clients comments.

Why do we ask for proof? Because we get lied to day in day out.

 

Anybody want to know how I got on earlier with my pregnant debtor? The debtor owned the car. The pregnant girl was the debtors sister. She showed the pregnacy file and tried to do so hiding the name.

 

Those of you with your perfect system of Orwellian checks, you can think again. You cant even get one system to talk to itself(dvla for instance) so what do you think the chances of ten or 15 systems talking is. And what about data protection? I dont want every tom dick and harry knowing my medical history? Would you be happy with anybody just viewing you medical history? No, I thought not.

 

As a whole, the EA is becoming more civilised in that we are looking for vulnerable debtors and helping them put their claim forward. But essentially, they have to claim to be vulnerable of ita not immediately obvious.

 

At least in its current form the ea will be punished if caught enforcing against someone who he knows to be vulnerable, bit...if he is not told, and it layer transpires that the defendant is vulnerable, how can the be the fault of the EA? Its not.

 

Again, there are different stages to the vulnerability.

Unemployed, vulnerable but should it stop enforcement? Some of you say yes. So that means that every unemployed person can run up debts, be it civil and criminal debt, and not have to pay it...ever?

What about recently bereaved? 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, or is it up to the debtor? What about if you call the day after a debtors father has died. He says its fine, it was expected and they are perfectly happy to deal with this now and offer payment in full. The EA collects and the debtor then hangs himself that night? Is that the EA's fault?

How about quadriplegic and unable to talk. He does however have the ability to use a finger pad and can electronically speak. He says he wishes to pay and tenders a cheque and offer to enter into a controlled goods agreement signed by his son who he has given permission to to sign the paperwork. Is he vulnerable? If I say to him are you vulnerable, am I going to hear yea, or am I going to get an ear bashing from someone that considers himself as not vulnerable and insulted that just because he is quadriplegic I assume he is vulnerable?

 

There are millions of scenarios and we do our best not to cause offence OR enforce against someone that is genuinely vulnerable, bit at the end of the day, we are not doctors, we are not social workers we are bailiffs.

 

Using tunnel vision to look at a subject like this will never work. You have to view the broader issue which is that we get lied to about things like this just to avoid paying debts.

 

Hell of a rant I know, nit alot of you seem to think this is an easy issue to solve, when in reality its a seriously difficult one to solve.

 

If a cancer patients car is clamped and he has an appointment card and shows it to the EA, any one of my guys or girls would lose their job if they lifted that car or didn't unclamp it sharpish. Possibly even their certificate if it went to an eac2 complaint.

 

Also, had a single mum with a child today. No job. No family. but no benefits either. Has plenty of money. Is she vulnerable? Falls into two possible vuln categories there but not really vulnerable is she?

 

Sorry for the bad spelling. Fat fingers on a little phone.

 

Absolutely Grumpy. I agree with most everything you said here.

 

The thing is that there is never going to be one rule for dealing with potentially vulnerable people. There are some cases which are obviously vulnerable, children certain disabilities, and if these are the only person at the address or they are the debtor themselves the EA must withdraw.

 

But the definition in the NSEA (which is entirely unsatisfactory in my view, but is all we have) does not say that everyone with a physical disability is vulnerable, and as you said I know several disabled people who would slap you silly if you were to call them such.

The act and the guidance only says that these groups may contain cases of vulnerability, in other words when presented with a debtor who falls into one of these groups extra care must be taken in case there is vulnerability.

We can all write scenarios and tailor there outcomes to cater for our own prejudices, these forums are full of this, it serves no purpose other than to inflate the ego of the person writing it.

Much of what were discussing here will have to be decided in the coming years in case law in any case, but i do think that the advice that anyone with one who who falls into one of these categories should automatically claim vulnerability is misplaced and in the end will cause more problems than it cures.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DB "Much of what were discussing here will have to be decided in the coming years in case law in any case, but i do think that the advice that anyone with one who who falls into one of these categories should automatically claim vulnerability is misplaced and in the end will cause more problems than it cures."

 

One size cannot fit all, and each case should be on it's merits, as a blanket assumption of vulnerability could not work either.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If a cancer patients car is clamped and he has an appointment card and shows it to the EA, any one of my guys or girls would lose their job if they lifted that car or didn't unclamp it sharpish. Possibly even their certificate if it went to an eac2 complaint."

 

Thanks for that Grumpy, I don't doubt you and your colleagues along with a majority of EAs would do the right thing, and follow the rules, having had dealings with Jacobs as a third party merely parked up on the phone opposite a debtor's house with their car already clamped I don't doubt they would not unclamp the car in that scenario.

 

Your input and observations from the other side, are valuable and allow a re-focus to explore the Regulations in use.

We can be sure that Vulnerability is a can of worms and has serious consequences all round if the EA and Creditor get it wrong. However there is no excuse for a Council to send an EA in when they have data that proves vulnerability, an attachable benefit is in payment, and there is a risk to the debtor, and in some cases the EA if the debtor is a known PVP.*

 

 

* For Caggers who don't know councilspeak: Potentially Violent Person, a flag on a record, or database if the person has known violent tendencies, and a note outlining contact methods, such as no visit by a single worker.

 

Councils, in my history of working with them are actually not bad at weeding out the vulnerable cases and stopping them reaching us, and when they do reach us, they are quick to pull the case back. But, the problem is, as MM keeps going on about(and misreading and misinterpreting the regs) is that people assume that because you have an issue that may put you in the category as vulnerable, it might not automatically make you vulnerable.

 

And we often see warrants coming in with warning notes on that the debtor may be vulnerable and to tread carefully to establish the lie of the land.

We also get warrants through with violence alerts on if the debtor or connections are known to be violent.

 

These are dealt with in the same way as any other warrant but usually by two officer as a minium with a BWV as backup.

 

At the end of the day, alot of people will lie about anything in order to get out of trouble. And as my pregnant case showed yesterday, they WILL lie.

 

I can see that mm has written more, but I'm not responding. We have covered everything and he is just going over dead ground so I shall not respond as I don't think its appropriate to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only able to glance at the forums yesterday and had not realised how intense this thread became. It is important to take note of the following:

 

The first point to take on board is that bailiff companies enforce over 5 million debts a year.

 

Six years ago there was a tragic case of a debtor who died during a bailiff visit. The background (which I do not want to drag up here) was simply dreadful. There could not have been a more obvious example of a vulnerable debtor and one who had only been released from hospital a few days earlier (where he had been for over a month). On a personal level I spoke with the family (and the police) on the same day...and for a long time afterwards (and I even met up with a family member last summer who continues to lobby MOJ for changes regarding 'vulnerability'.). The media ran endless stories regarding the debtor's death and the IPCC investigated the matter. The Minister; Jack Straw became involved in the case and he asked for a review on bailiffs and in particular....the matter of vulnerability.

 

Since that time, there have been endless discussions taking place at the Ministry of Justice with different agencies in an attempt to define vulnerability and it is a subject that I know a great deal about. The regulations that came into effect last years do NOT define vulnerability and it is clear from the Explanatory Guidance that the governments intention is that it is the role of the enforcement agency/enforcement agent to recognise vulnerability.

 

Given the seriousness of this subject the government are continuing to improve and define vulnerability and the way in which this will be achieved is by way of the proposed changes to the National Standards.

 

The current NSEA are merely guidance and this needs to be made clear. However, that is to change.

 

The new National Standards are to be introduced under the 'one year review' and the difference will be that they will be endorsed by the many government agencies that are owed money (local authorities/HMCTS, HMRC, CSA etc)...by the enforcement agents that enforce the debts....and by external groups (including advice sector groups, healthcare and medical organisations and others) who have all played their part under the review. There will be changes made to vulnerability under the new NSEA but it will continue to be the case that it will be for the enforcement agency and enforcement agent to consider each case on an individual basis.

 

I will repeat what I have said hundreds of times before, it is important that debtors 'engage' with the enforcement company on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement and if there is a case of serious vulnerability with the debtor then this must be brought to the attention of the enforcement company immediately and some sort of evidence provided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils, in my history of working with them are actually not bad at weeding out the vulnerable cases and stopping them reaching us, and when they do reach us, they are quick to pull the case back. But, the problem is, as MM keeps going on about(and misreading and misinterpreting the regs) is that people assume that because you have an issue that may put you in the category as vulnerable, it might not automatically make you vulnerable.

 

And we often see warrants coming in with warning notes on that the debtor may be vulnerable and to tread carefully to establish the lie of the land.

We also get warrants through with violence alerts on if the debtor or connections are known to be violent.

 

These are dealt with in the same way as any other warrant but usually by two officer as a minium with a BWV as backup.

 

At the end of the day, alot of people will lie about anything in order to get out of trouble. And as my pregnant case showed yesterday, they WILL lie.

 

I can see that mm has written more, but I'm not responding. We have covered everything and he is just going over dead ground so I shall not respond as I don't think its appropriate to.

Thanks for that Grumpy, it adds focus and helps us all when deciding what questions to ask the OP to get a clear background picture, If the EA has that level of information you describe then it will be the rogue elements we are probably dealing with, as you and most EAs would have done the right thing already.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Grumpy, it adds focus and helps us all when deciding what questions to ask the OP to get a clear background picture, If the EA has that level of information you describe then it will be the rogue elements we are probably dealing with, as you and most EAs would have done the right thing already.

 

I can assure you that there are rogue individuals out there and they are dealt with and removed when found. We wont tolerate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that there are rogue individuals out there and they are dealt with and removed when found. We wont tolerate them.

That is good to know Grumpy, you can rest assured we will help you find them.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only able to glance at the forums yesterday and had not realised how intense this thread became. It is important to take note of the following:

 

The first point to take on board is that bailiff companies enforce over 5 million debts a year.

 

Six years ago there was a tragic case of a debtor who died during a bailiff visit. The background (which I do not want to drag up here) was simply dreadful. There could not have been a more obvious example of a vulnerable debtor and one who had only been released from hospital a few days earlier (where he had been for over a month). On a personal level I spoke with the family (and the police) on the same day...and for a long time afterwards (and I even met up with a family member last summer who continues to lobby MOJ for changes regarding 'vulnerability'.). The media ran endless stories regarding the debtor's death and the IPCC investigated the matter. The Minister; Jack Straw became involved in the case and he asked for a review on bailiffs and in particular....the matter of vulnerability.

 

Since that time, there have been endless discussions taking place at the Ministry of Justice with different agencies in an attempt to define vulnerability and it is a subject that I know a great deal about. The regulations that came into effect last years do NOT define vulnerability and it is clear from the Explanatory Guidance that the governments intention is that it is the role of the enforcement agency/enforcement agent to recognise vulnerability.

 

Given the seriousness of this subject the government are continuing to improve and define vulnerability and the way in which this will be achieved is by way of the proposed changes to the National Standards.

 

The current NSEA are merely guidance and this needs to be made clear. However, that is to change.

 

The new National Standards are to be introduced under the 'one year review' and the difference will be that they will be endorsed by the many government agencies that are owed money (local authorities/HMCTS, HMRC, CSA etc)...by the enforcement agents that enforce the debts....and by external groups (including advice sector groups, healthcare and medical organisations and others) who have all played their part under the review. There will be changes made to vulnerability under the new NSEA but it will continue to be the case that it will be for the enforcement agency and enforcement agent to consider each case on an individual basis.

 

I will repeat what I have said hundreds of times before, it is important that debtors 'engage' with the enforcement company on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement and if there is a case of serious vulnerability with the debtor then this must be brought to the attention of the enforcement company immediately and some sort of evidence provided.

 

That will be good news, although at the end of the day it will be upto the EA on the doorstep to interpret the new guidance and decide what action to take.

 

It would be interesting to see any figures on vulnerability once the debt has reached the enforcement stage and particularly to find out how vulnerable debtors(those who fall int the definition in the guidance) were not picked up earlier.

 

If vulnerability is basically the inability to handle the affairs of the household, you have to wonder how social services have not been involved at some point particularly in long standing cases.

 

I read a case on another forum where a debtor claimed vulnerability, and wrote an extremely eloquent appeal to the EA and creditor detailing all relevant authority and case law. The EA simply wrote back and said that judging from the letter you sent you certainly seem more than capable.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read a case on another forum where a debtor claimed vulnerability, and wrote an extremely eloquent appeal to the EA and creditor detailing all relevant authority and case law. The EA simply wrote back and said that judging from the letter you sent you certainly seem more than capable.

 

In fact I have been 'ripped to shreds' because of a post that I made a few weeks ago elsewhere suggesting that a debtor's case should be referred to an enforcement companies welfare dept as the debtors wife was 2 weeks short of having a baby.

 

I am perfectly aware of the regulations (more so than a lot of people) and the intention behind them of vulnerability and I know perfectly well that if a debtor's wife is about to have a baby that this is not in itself a reason for the bailiff to discontinue enforcement.

 

However, the reason for suggesting that the debt be referred to a Welfare Dept is because, when reading the debtor's post it was made clear that the debtor himself had recently been discharged from personal bankruptcy and all the items in the house had been transfered to a third party under his bankruptcy and were evidenced by a Statutory Declaration !!! Accordingly, if the bailiff were to consider forcing entry (the debt was for a court fine) that would be futile given that the debtor was not the lawful owner of any of the items in the property.

 

The above is a good example of the importance of making sure that people carefully read what the poster says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I saw that,didn't think you were ripped to shreds though.It was the posters way of directing attention away from the embarrassingly incorrect advice they had been been giving.

Yes and on that point I should mention that of course there is no such thing as a vulnerable household, so please no letters to the parliamentary ombudsman because the lodger has a broken thumb and you think you are therefore classed as vulnerable. LOL

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose that we will have to wait and see if the guidance is updated following the yearly review.

 

The definition certainly need to be clarified, unfortunately as with many other measures in legislation which are designed for the protection of the debtor, it is so easily abused by those who wish to avoid payment.

We see already advice given in some quarters to claim vulnerability in almost every case of enforcment, as said this can only have a negative effect on those who are genuinely vulnerable. The definitions need to be sharpened so that these speculative claims can be discouraged.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

A further point that was brought to my attention today was that in order to ensure that 'vulnerable' debtors are not subject to bailiff enforcement, most local authorities adhere to the following (or similar) policy:

 

Should a customer be identified as in receipt of Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance Employment Support Allowance or Pension Credit, we will arrange for their debt to be paid by deductions from their benefit rather than the use of enforcement agents, to avoid extra debt being incurred.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A further point that was brought to my attention today was that in order to ensure that 'vulnerable' debtors are not subject to bailiff enforcement, most local authorities adhere to the following (or similar) policy:

Should a customer be identified as in receipt of Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance Employment Support Allowance or Pension Credit, we will arrange for their debt to be paid by deductions from their benefit rather than the use of enforcement agents, to avoid extra debt being incurred.

 

But i believe this is with the agreement of the debtor is it not?

 

If its automatic and without agreement, then fine. the debt gets collected.

 

But.. if it requires the debtor to agree and they dont, even though they are classed as vulnerable, can the EA then collect by doorstep enforcement? Or does the debtor just walk away with no repercussions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But i believe this is with the agreement of the debtor is it not?

 

If its automatic and without agreement, then fine. the debt gets collected.

 

But.. if it requires the debtor to agree and they dont, even though they are classed as vulnerable, can the EA then collect by doorstep enforcement? Or does the debtor just walk away with no repercussions?

 

I am actually pleased with your input on this thread as it is important to have the view of a bailiff 'on the streets'. What I was trying to demonstrate with the above post was that many debtors subject to a Liability Order and in receipt of Income Support, JSA, Pension Credit or ESA are identified by the local authority and arrangements put in place for nominal deductions to be made from their qualifying benefit. This is important as it does demonstrate that LA's are playing their part in ensuring that those who are known to them as 'vulnerable' are not subject to bailiff enforcement and the extra fees that would be applied.

 

PS: Once a Liability Order is in place the LA does NOT have to obtain the consent of the debtor to apply for deductions from the qualifying benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually pleased with your input on this thread as it is important to have the view of a bailiff 'on the streets'. What I was trying to demonstrate with the above post was that many debtors subject to a Liability Order and in receipt of Income Support, JSA, Pension Credit or ESA are identified by the local authority and arrangements put in place for nominal deductions to be made from their qualifying benefit. This is important as it does demonstrate that LA's are playing their part in ensuring that those who are known to them as 'vulnerable' are not subject to bailiff enforcement and the extra fees that would be applied.

 

PS: Once a Liability Order is in place the LA does NOT have to obtain the consent of the debtor to apply for deductions from the qualifying benefit.

 

Yes you would think they would be aware of any disabled person if they were receiving council tax rebate or banding adjustment. Also as said being disabled does not necessarily mean that they are "unable to handle the household affairs"

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually pleased with your input on this thread as it is important to have the view of a bailiff 'on the streets'. What I was trying to demonstrate with the above post was that many debtors subject to a Liability Order and in receipt of Income Support, JSA, Pension Credit or ESA are identified by the local authority and arrangements put in place for nominal deductions to be made from their qualifying benefit. This is important as it does demonstrate that LA's are playing their part in ensuring that those who are known to them as 'vulnerable' are not subject to bailiff enforcement and the extra fees that would be applied.

 

PS: Once a Liability Order is in place the LA does NOT have to obtain the consent of the debtor to apply for deductions from the qualifying benefit.

Thank you, I know I'm not always diplomatic, but if I can shed some light on what we do and why we do it, then it may clear up son questions.

 

I wasn't sure how it worked with deductions, as I obviously dont get involved. Thank you for clarifying.

And I FULLY agree. If the LA is aware, then they should be taking steps to assist those in a vulnerable situation.

The council must be sure they are vulnerable though. Just being on job seekers or dla alone is not necessarily enough to class someone as vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you would think that most truly vulnerable people would be picked up, Although i know that this a massive generalization. I would imagine that most traffic fines would be committed by people who were able to drive and therefore capable, authority tax bills etc as said I would think would be subject to some kind of benefit and therefore weeded out.

 

So that leaves us with people who are recently disadvantaged or things like TV license none payment where it is likely that there has been no intervention between the debtor and the services. As I say a massive generalization, but if wonder if the figures would bare this out.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with is comment

 

 

"The council must be sure they are vulnerable though. Just being on job seekers or dla alone is not necessarily enough to class someone as vulnerable."

 

Those persons that have drafted the GUIDELINES think differently please post up PROOF that you can just IGNORE these

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with is comment

 

 

"The council must be sure they are vulnerable though. Just being on job seekers or dla alone is not necessarily enough to class someone as vulnerable."

 

Those persons that have drafted the GUIDELINES think differently please post up PROOF that you can just IGNORE these

 

Hi MM

 

When making a point like this it would be helpful if you could post up the authority which you are basing your argument on, when you say that the guidelines do not agree, which particular section do you refer to, for instance.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...