Well said. Keep on topic and forget other sites.

So is anyone going to make an ontopic cfomment then, or are you all just going to make off topic posts about how terrible it is to be well, off topic.

Ok this is the first paragraph

wish I’d been in that meeting. You know, the one where East Riding County Council instructed Jacobs Enforcement Services to recover an outstanding parking fine from nurse Rachael Carron (with Jacobs charging her several times the amount of the parking fine – £399 – in fees to do so). What sort of meeting does that sound like? Local politicians instructing an organisation that uses self-employed “enforcers” to collect debts for a fee that’s several times higher than the debt itself… sounds more like The Sopranos than the local council car park department, doesn’t it? The use of private debt recovery and enforcement is little more than legalised racketeering.

So regarding the first sentence. Would there have been any such meeting ?

The ticket would have just been sent for enforcment and in any case it would not have been for the fees as it would have yet to gone to the bailiff. There certainly would not have been some cloak and dagger meeting as suggested.

This is yet another thread that is in danger of being closed. Keyboard warriors do no one any favours so if you are thinking of posting spiteful remarks, don't!

If this keeps up, I will close it and I don't give a rats arse who it offends.

Final warning.

Are there meetings like this for every parking ticket enforced.

Mustachio twisting men in black cloaks sitting arround chuckling darkly as they issue parking tickets to orphans nurses and disabled people.

Must be.

Are there meetings like this for every parking ticket enforced.

 

Mustachio twisting men in black cloaks sitting arround chuckling darkly as they issue parking tickets to orphans nurses and disabled people.

Must be.

You can't man me SF, I am right on topic.

There is a first time for every thing DB!

Only joking DB I know you provide excellent advice on the Forum.

Perhaps you would like to look at paragraph 2, see if it gets any better ?

I am unsure if this is even meant for people this side of the pond. Ut refers to the "US System , mobsters,, racketeers", American terminology surely. Or iis it just an american(or more likely a candian) who doesn't understand really about who things work over here.

He says this about Racketeering.

Racketeering is defined (in the US legal system) as an organised crime where a dishonest service (or “racket”) is offered to solve a problem that wouldn’t exist without the activities of enterprise offering the service.

He then goes onto say that this describes our enforcment system. Our enforcement system works directly as prescribed by our legislation, if you say it is dishonest you have to say our whole system of laws and government is also dishonest, Hmm sound familiar to anyone.

Then he says that the function is to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist. This presumably means that we do not have any problems with none payment of taxes or credit debt for instance in this country, the problem does not exist apparently !

I think the main reason this fee was introduced at this level was to encourage the debtor to settle a at compliance in this it has been extremely successful to date.

Not Just more threats and unpayable debt to someone who is likely at their wits end anyway then?

Not Just more threats and unpayable debt to someone who is likely at their wits end anyway then?

That it how it seems to the unfortunate debtor, but then Council Tax is iniquitous as it takes no account of ability to pay.

I think we are supposed to stay on topic ?

To that end

The author of the piece then goes on to make this bewildering statement.

"After all, these are private companies that offer no financial services themselves, they simply make a profit from other people’s debts, making their debts grow as they do so."

Authorities hire all kinds of companies which provide" no financial services", painters road technicians, etc. mostly independent contractors, so i do not see any relevance in this.

Bailiffs provide the service of collecting the creditors debts( the authority in this case), why should they have to provide a financial service ?

As regards the bailiff fees, this is an old chestnut. Bailiffs have to be paid, I am afraid like you or I they will not work for nothing.

Which is the best way to raise funds to pay them ? Should the authority pay ?

Should we the ones who pay our taxes(no judgment implied) have to suffer an increase in order to pay collection costs incurred by those who have not paid ?

The money has to come from somewhere and what ever collection method you use it will incur costs.

Debts can be written off of course if unjust, but that is a different matter and one for the various agencies to address.

I think we are supposed to stay on topic ?

I've read the OP, in what way is my post OT?

Now I dont think people who park dangerously or even 'unreasonably (whatever that means), let alone shoplift or whatever should get away with it

but all other things aside I'm just trying to clarify whether adding reams of seemingly very unreasonable costs is going to increase the likelihood of folk paying, and not 're-offending' (term used very loosely there) or just drive them deeper into desperation with all the likely effects of that.

Hi TJ

I think I covered what in my opinion makes fees an unfortunate consequence of the services provided by debt collectors.

Everyone deserves to be paid for his efforts.

I think though that the intended purpose of this thread is to examine the piece on post one, I am sure PT will correct me if I am wrong.

Hi TJ

Everyone deserves to be paid for his efforts.

Thank you for your opinion on what you think the thread is about, but reading the thread leaves me in serious doubt that your assessment is appropriate.

A fair days pay for a fair days work - certainly,

but This really does smack more of extortion to me. Not saying it is extortion by any means, but it is hard to see the difference except for knees actually being broken.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) of obtaining money, property, or services through coercion.

and as the link highligts

At least loan sharks and mobsters lend money as well as extort it.

there are as always two sides to these arguments

Someone may or may not have broken some agreement or law

This should be tested, and any penalty should by common decency (which any laws in a society should be based on in my opinion)

1. Punish the cause appropriately and proportionally

2. Where appropriate, compensate the 'victim appropriately and proportionally

3. Address where possible any issues which require clarification or rectification

The issues here highlighted here seem to do none of those.

But it seems to me that some debt collectors actions seem as though they should be treated as more criminal than the original act, and that this would seem to be as a result of a very biased and unreasonable legal framework.

The thread refers directly to the document ?

Sorry the rest is confusing to me.

civil bailiff action is not about punishment, nor is it about compensation. All bailiff activity is preceded by a court authority and enacted by a lawful warrant writ or enactment, the sum to be recovered is stated on that document and the fees are per the legislation which sets them.

The thread refers directly to the document ?

Sorry the rest is confusing to me.

civil action is not about punishment, nor is it about compensation. .

I beg to differ here as can be clearly noted below its both punishment/compensatory in certain circumstances.....

libel

noun: libel; plural noun: libels

• 1.
  Law
  a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
  "he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes"
  synonyms:defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
  

Very good MM

Nice edit, but the original is still in my quote I am out of time to change it sorry!

I edited it because bailiff enforcment is not an action, the action has already been made in court, bailiffs enforce for the judgment sum due as required by it.

I knew that some would not be able to read my remark in the context of this thread. You prove me to be correct.

No not correct as I posted what I did. You corrected yourself as you were wrong or used a wrong word that took it out of context. Either way it looks better corrected thanks for that...It will save on confusion ...

MM bailiff action is about recovering debt not about pursuing damages, that matter would have been settled previously in court. I am sorry but I did not think that this needed explanation, perhaps in this I was incorrect.

Sorry MM will have to ignore you, nothing personal;)