Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3156 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

Could happen again on steroids under TCGA, and the homeowner might need to go to interpleader to save their property in a similar scenario today.

 

Or have the bailiffco's learned lessons?

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

"We find the bailiff's refusal to exercise any common sense ....

 

That's a joke right, isn't it the main qualification of getting a job with Rossendales that you have 'no common sense'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a joke right, isn't it the main qualification of getting a job with Rossendales that you have 'no common sense'.

 

No I think they were deadly serious. Dossendales were and are still a disaster waiting to happen, especially as they are now part of Marstons.

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

Has anyone seen the comment at the end of this story : re paying the coucil direct

That appeared after the article was linked to this thread. Don't know what legal basis is claimed, but in general that is one for the lawyers to argue in case there is a genuine conflict between something previous and TCGA. It is assumed that TCGA replaces all that went before, unless there is something in the Council Tax Regs themselves that was missed., regarding the duty to collect the actual council tax owed. Probably will make noi difference and fees still apply.

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

The posting below that article is more hopeful, baseless get out of debt free strategy. The Real Situation is short and simple.

It is the billing authority which has the enforcement power bestowed upon them by Paragraph 14(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to enforce council tax arrears (or Section 62A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for Non Domestic Rates arrears.)

The billing authority exercises the power by issuing it to an enforcement agent.

As soon as the instruction is received by the enforcement agent the fee for the Compliance Stage is due and so the amount outstanding includes the £75 compliance fee.

If a payment that is less than the amount outstanding is made after the £75 has been added it represents proceeds that are “less than the amount outstanding” and so by virtue of Schedule 12 50(4) and Fee regulation 13 the payment must be allocated in accordance with fee regulation 13. There is no expressed exception compelling the billing authority to handle it differently so they must follow the regulation.

If more than £75 is paid it is to be split pro rata in accordance with the same regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The posting below that article is more hopeful, baseless get out of debt free strategy. The Real Situation is short and simple.

It is the billing authority which has the enforcement power bestowed upon them by Paragraph 14(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to enforce council tax arrears (or Section 62A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for Non Domestic Rates arrears.)

The billing authority exercises the power by issuing it to an enforcement agent.

As soon as the instruction is received by the enforcement agent the fee for the Compliance Stage is due and so the amount outstanding includes the £75 compliance fee.

If a payment that is less than the amount outstanding is made after the £75 has been added it represents proceeds that are “less than the amount outstanding” and so by virtue of Schedule 12 50(4) and Fee regulation 13 the payment must be allocated in accordance with fee regulation 13. There is no expressed exception compelling the billing authority to handle it differently so they must follow the regulation.

If more than £75 is paid it is to be split pro rata in accordance with the same regulations.

 

The one thing which is being conveniently omitted in this post (presumably because E Munch is a beneficiary of bailiff proceeds in one way or another) is the fact that the legislation which he/she refers to makes provision for the allocation of the oppressive £75 compliance fee and pro rata payments of subsequent charges in connection with the '2013 Regulations' in circumstances where the enforcement contractor has collected/enforced payment.

 

This is not the case where the debtor has the good sense to refuse to engage with the opportunists.

 

EDIT:

 

I would add that the CAB are also likely to endorse the advice which favours increasing profits for the bailiff companies because they take their instructions in these matters from the cr ooked local authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that the rantingsof a couple of fmotl seeking yet another nonexsistant loophole is rumbling on. really the best advice is to ignore,they don't have a clue,and embarrass themselves on a a daily basiis. Pointless tryiing to explain the legislation,they simply do not have the capacity.

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

The one thing which is being conveniently omitted in this post (presumably because E Munch is a beneficiary of bailiff proceeds in one way or another) is the fact that the legislation which he/she refers to makes provision for the allocation of the oppressive £75 compliance fee and pro rata payments of subsequent charges in connection with the '2013 Regulations' in circumstances where the enforcement contractor has collected/enforced payment.

 

This is not the case where the debtor has the good sense to refuse to engage with the opportunists.

 

EDIT:

 

I would add that the CAB are also likely to endorse the advice which favours increasing profits for the bailiff companies because they take their instructions in these matters from the cr ooked local authorities.

 

Any of your foi. Support this view?��

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

Sign of desperation when all they can pick up on are spelling mistakes and typos. This particular posters career in law commenced jst two years ago on goodf lest we forget .wanting advice on how best to utilise his straw man persona.all perfectly spelled of course.

 

Pointless arguing law with the like. Even more pointless taking his advice.

Bit like giving a moron a book on brain surgery, it may tel him where to cut. But the patients will surely die.

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

E Munch is entirely correct of course. The enforcement power granted under section 62 of the TCEapplies equally, to all ea action no exceptions.

 

Nor could there be as taking control of goods can only be actioned under sched12

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

One of these spent time and money foi ing countless authorities regarding passing on compliance fees.

Catalogued all those that he thought supports the argument he presented.

 

Problem is that not one stated that fees were not still due and enforcement did not continue until recovery, in fact most stated categorically the opposite,all they revealed was that different authorities use different accounting methods. Still kept him busy

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

Now dick has delved into the big blue book of goodf misinterpreted out of context quotes,

 

Trials resulting in commitment are civil apparently, how are you supposed to argue with someone with such poor basic knowledge

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

Magistrates course do of course deal with civil and criminal proceedings. Issuing an lo is civil, committal is not.

 

Need to learn some basic stuff,really do

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 would add that the CAB are also likely to endorse the advice which favours increasing profits for the bailiff companies because they take their instructions in these matters from the cr ooked local authorities.

 

Can you explain what you mean by this statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please have a read and comment see here http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/13508384.Bury_Council_rebuked_after__quot_aggressive_bailiff_threatening_to_take_uninvolved_man_s_property/

 

 

 

In the incident, a man, who has not been named in the LGO's damning report published today, owed £780 in unpaid council tax.

 

His home had been repossessed and he was staying at a friend's house.

 

 

Rossendales sent a bailiff to the property and, after walking in uninvited and without showing ID, he threatened to take belongings worth £1,110 — unless the homeowner could prove they were his, and not the debtor's.

 

As the debtor, his friend and a lawyer debated the matter with the bailiff, the bailiff swore at them and urged the debtor to "ring round friends and family" to get the cash.

 

Feeling pressured, the homeowner paid £1,110 in cash and the lawyer complained to Bury Council chiefs, who said Rossendales did nothing wrong.

 

It then emerged the bailiff filmed the incident and the council acknowledged wrongdoing when the council reviewed the footage.

 

 

Edited by citizenB

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

Was the bailiff aware he was filming his own disgraceful actions ?

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its finally admitted in the press that the LA IS responsible for the actions of the EA and can be complained about...

 

I bet it is business as usual. Neither the council or Rossendales will be that bothered.

 

Until the LGO or courts apply huge financial penalties and EA's start to face criminal prosecutions, the industry will remain the same. Collect debts first and worry about any issues later.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads merged - I will remove irrelevant posts and this one..

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the bailiff aware he was filming his own disgraceful actions ?

 

They probably were, but if it was their normal practice it would not have concerned them.

 

It is quite clear to me from the EA's who post on CAG, that they believe they have a right to act in a way, that would see ordinary members of the public face investigation by the Police. If they believe that using force, intimidation and threats is acceptable withour fear of Police action, they will just continue.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...