No, a bailiff cannot seize anything that he cannot prove you own. Of course, they will no doubt try the "you prove it isn't yours madam", but I don't believe that to be lawful.

 

If the vehicle is subject to a HP agreement, then they can't take it in anycase (other than for an outstanding debt of the HP agreement on the same vehicle)

 

Similarly if your TV is on HP, they can't take that.

 

Also they are not allowed to take essential items - these are things like your washing machine, bed, clothes etc.

 

Also they can't take essential items of your trade - for instance tools that are required for your job.

 

In fact there isn't really much they can legally take when it boils down to it!

 

There is a good leaflet available from your local county court which is intended for people who are trying to enforce judgements - it gives a good detail of when exactly a bailiff will be able to seize goods from a debtor - after you've read this you will be a LOT better informed and 100% less worried about a bailiff visit I can assure you!

 

I now consider a bailiff's visit 'sport' - I love quoting all the 'you can't take this because' at them and then telling them to firk off empty handed... most of them are pig-ignorant thugs and have absolutely no comprehension of the laws under which they are working. A little knowledge on your part is a HUUUUUGE weapon against them!

 

Oh, another tip I find works extremely well, constantly ask them exactly "what piece of legislation are you quoting as your right to seize goods" ... they usually reply with "we have a right" and then you again repeat and keep repeating your original question. I have yet to meet a single debt collector or bailiff who has been able to quote ANY law back to me... most of them give up when you are unrelenting in this way - not because they feel threatened, I suspect, but more because they realise you are not stupid and are not going to give in like the average Joe. At the end of the day they just move on to the next poor sod on their clipboard who isn't so clued up and is much easier to dupe out of all their possessions for some trivial little bill.

 

**the views expressed above are mine only and the word "allegedly" should probably be sprinkled all over the place, naturally** ;)

 

Lastly, always remember they cannot forcefully take anything - you HAVE to let them gain peaceful entry. If you never let them into the house, they can never take anything.

 

Don't have nightmares... get a pointy stick

A little knowledge is also dangerous. I think you need to appreciate the relevant and copious case law which means the bailiff can reasonably presume any goods in your possession belong to you. It is up to you (or the true owner) to prove goods are exempt, not the bailiff. If you rely on the belief that the bailiff has to seek out evidence of ownership, you will lose your goods. It is also no good relying on a set of rules for seizure following a county court judgment. The rules are different and what may or may not be seized depends on the warrant type. A pointy stick won't help much either. By the way, I'n not stating these points just to argue one side against the other, I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

So which piece of legislation then catagorically states that a bailiff does not have to prove ownership of the goods he is seizing? I have asked this question of bailiffs before, and not one has even been able to tell me.

Again, I am not arguing for the sake of it, I genuinley would like to know! - simply it is not easy for a homeowner to prove they do actually own, or don't own in this case, many things in their home. How many of us keep receipts for everything after all? ... it is quite easy to show that things are on HP - from the HP statements, or possibly from bank statements showing payments going to the HP company, for example. Obviously car ownership is easy to prove via a V5 logbook...

Oh, and I did say "most" bailiffs are pig-ignorant thugs - in my experience and opinion I never said all! - clearly you at least have some idea what you are talking about, which I why I hope you may be able to answer this point to the benefit of everyone who faces the often very traumatic experience of a bailiff visit.

So which piece of legislation then catagorically states that a bailiff does not have to prove ownership of the goods he is seizing? I have asked this question of bailiffs before, and not one has even been able to tell me.

 

Again, I am not arguing for the sake of it, I genuinley would like to know! - simply it is not easy for a homeowner to prove they do actually own, or don't own in this case, many things in their home. How many of us keep receipts for everything after all? ... it is quite easy to show that things are on HP - from the HP statements, or possibly from bank statements showing payments going to the HP company, for example. Obviously car ownership is easy to prove via a V5 logbook...

 

Oh, and I did say "most" bailiffs are pig-ignorant thugs - in my experience and opinion I never said all! - clearly you at least have some idea what you are talking about, which I why I hope you may be able to answer this point to the benefit of everyone who faces the often very traumatic experience of a bailiff visit.

There are a number of relevant pieces of case law stretching back over a hundred years or more. One fairly commonly quoted piece is Gonsky v Durrell, 1918, in which case it was stated that the onus of proof was on the debtor to show that goods were exempt from seizure. Other cases include Observer Ltd v Gordon, 1983 which made it clear that it was not reasonable to expect bailiffs to make enquiries as to ownership of goods. This follows the long established principle that a bailiff may seize that which he has reasonable cause to believe belongs to the debtor. In Fox, 1948 this was stated in terms that it was reasonable to believe a person owned that which was in their possession A word of caution regarding ownership of cars. Registration of a vehicle does not prove ownership. I for one would not accept it as evidence.

Ok - so you (that's the bailiff industry, not you personally!) are relying on odd bits of case law, not any statute law or anything that the general public have easy access to in order to check their legal rights?

Disregarding the fact you are a bailiff and I am an ordinary Joe, do you honestly think this is fair?

Of course we all agree there is the need for some ultimate method of gaining payment from debtors who simply refuse to pay genuine debts that are not in dispute, I don't think anyone would question that. But most also agree the current system is very very flawed, to say the least. The recent TV expose highlighted this in very graphic examples (and yes, we all also accept these were obviously the most dramatic examples otherwise they wouldn't have made good TV!)

I really think that alongside the usual "a bailiff will visit you on X date" letter, there should be a leaflet, in plain engligh, explaining exactly what the laws mean and exactly what the bailiff can or can't seize (should the homeowner decide to let him in in the first place). If there is an actual law that states the onus of proof of ownership of items is on the debtor, then it should explain what forms of proof are acceptable evidence to a bailiff to prove the debtor doesn't own them - for example you state a V5 in someone else's name would not be proof enough that a debtor didn't own the car parked on their drive.

Very interesting information on what the Local Authority bully boy baliffs can take or not take. They threatened to take my car which was subject to a HP agreement, and said they were sending for a tow truck then and there, resulting in me conducting a Starsky and Hutch style reverse manouvre through my neighbours garden and spending the entire evening clearing out the garage to prevent that from happening. I wish I had known this then.

Ok - so you (that's the bailiff industry, not you personally!) are relying on odd bits of case law, not any statute law or anything that the general public have easy access to in order to check their legal rights?

 

Disregarding the fact you are a bailiff and I am an ordinary Joe, do you honestly think this is fair?

 

Of course we all agree there is the need for some ultimate method of gaining payment from debtors who simply refuse to pay genuine debts that are not in dispute, I don't think anyone would question that. But most also agree the current system is very very flawed, to say the least. The recent TV expose highlighted this in very graphic examples (and yes, we all also accept these were obviously the most dramatic examples otherwise they wouldn't have made good TV!)

 

I really think that alongside the usual "a bailiff will visit you on X date" letter, there should be a leaflet, in plain engligh, explaining exactly what the laws mean and exactly what the bailiff can or can't seize (should the homeowner decide to let him in in the first place). If there is an actual law that states the onus of proof of ownership of items is on the debtor, then it should explain what forms of proof are acceptable evidence to a bailiff to prove the debtor doesn't own them - for example you state a V5 in someone else's name would not be proof enough that a debtor didn't own the car parked on their drive.

Firstly, case law IS law and available to anyone who cares to research it. This site has previously mentioned publications to assist debtors such as those of John Kruse from the Advice Sector. Second, there are many organisations to assist those in genuine difficulty such as Citizens Advice, whose staff should be aware of what bailiffs can and can't do. Finally, as we could obviously go back and forth forever on this, it is irrelevant whether I consider the laws, regulations and rules to be fair or not. I did not create them but have to work within them and equally to their extent.

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

 

I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

My conscience is in good shape due to the part I play in collecting billions of pounds of state debt which would otherwise cost everyone who does pay a lot more and due to the fact that I, and many others like me, identify debtors who simply don't want to pay from those who simply can't. As far as the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society go, I play my part in identifying them to those that should know but didn't and assisting them in facing the problems they have not been able to face. I think you must be referring to the minority of bailiffs who like the minority in every walk of life, enjoy abusing the authority our democratic society has vested in them. But thanks for asking anyway!

You do it for the good of the state.

Where have i heard that before.

You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far.

I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't.

I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind.

Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

You do it for the good of the state.

Where have i heard that before.

You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far.

I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't.

I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind.

Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

I appreciate you see bailiff action from one point of view as clearly I do from what can only be an oppossing view. I would argue that in all the years I have been a bailiff I have seen the majority of people I deal with as - would rather not pay as they'd prefer to pay for something else - category. With respect, as a bailiff my job is not to see who can and can't pay but who should and shouldn't be subject to bailiff action - the seizure of goods. Bailiffs are not there to collect money, as the creditor (be it a court or a council) has already tried that. My job is to seize goods. I can see that most people I deal with may not have the means to immediately pay to prevent a seizure but have goods which I can and should seize while leaving them with the basic needs. Like it or not, that's what a bailiff is there for - not to collect money. Often people magically find the money though I agree that in a not insignificant minority, they cannot find that money no matter what. It is to those whom I have a duty to assess as to whether goods should be removed or not. If someone is in dire straits and my seizure would worsen their situation beyond that which society has deemed acceptable, then I must and will withdraw and report those circumstances to the creditor. I don't decide who can and can't pay, I decide who should have goods removed and who shouldn't. That's my job not the creditor's. The courts have already decided whether someone should pay.

I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but I do want to restate my belief that siezure of goods in lieu of debts in the modern age is totally beyond the pale.

Why?

The bailiff system is an anachronism left over from the middle ages when goods and chattels = money. In other words a cow or a chair were worth exactly the same whether you exchanged them in barter for other goods or whether you sold them for cash. So, if someone owed a debt and refused to pay then it was probably fair enough to sieze goods to the same value as the debt.

This situation has not been current for at least 50 years. Goods today (unless it's antiques, or an original Renoir or a Lamborghini, etc) are next to worthless as a medium of barter. The average Joe's complete houseful of goods would probably fetch less than a grand at forced auction but probably cost 10 - 20 times that to buy.

It maybe wouldn't be quite so bad if the goods that were siezed were sold with some attempt to get a decent price for them, not sold to the lowest bidder, or to the bailifs uncle for peanuts. I've personally known cars worth thousands to be siezed and sold at auction for a few hundred quid.

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

Pete

 

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

 

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

 

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

 

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

 

Pete

But What do you do when you are the poor average guy who's owed, and the other guy won't pay?

I have just posted another thread asking precisely this. I am in a situation of person v person, and the other one is refusing to pay me money owed. Why should I be out of pocket? What resource have I got if that person continues to refuse to pay even after a court order? What am I supposed to do?

Sorry, Pete, but there is a need for bailiffs, like there is a need for lenders who take higher risks, and garbage collectors. They're not popular and not many would do their job. But the clue is not in the man, it's in the profession, which needs to be seriously regulated. Our decent bailiffs on this forum would not disagree.

But What do you do when you are the poor average guy who's owed, and the other guy won't pay?

 

I have just posted another thread asking precisely this. I am in a situation of person v person, and the other one is refusing to pay me money owed. Why should I be out of pocket? What resource have I got if that person continues to refuse to pay even after a court order? What am I supposed to do?

 

Sorry, Pete, but there is a need for bailiffs, like there is a need for lenders who take higher risks, and garbage collectors. They're not popular and not many would do their job. But the clue is not in the man, it's in the profession, which needs to be seriously regulated. Our decent bailiffs on this forum would not disagree.

BW

If there was a genuine demarcation line determined somehow between those that can't pay and those that won't pay then I'd be much happier. But this does not happen. Those that won't pay won't pay even if you send in the bailiffs, they'll have it sussed so that they'll have no siezeable goods - trust me on this. It's the ones that get into a mess and can't pay that have all the nice stuff that the bailiffs sieze and auction for pennies. You'll end up paying for an enforcement warrant and the bailiffs will report back that the debtor has no goods of value. so you'll be worse off, not better.

And the bailiff industry is about to be differently regulated. There is a Bill currently under discussion that, if passed will give bailiffs the right to force entry to your home and if needs be to use force in order to sieze goods. Is that a forward looking step to take? I don't think so.

Pete

I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but I do want to restate my belief that siezure of goods in lieu of debts in the modern age is totally beyond the pale.

 

Why?

 

The bailiff system is an anachronism left over from the middle ages when goods and chattels = money. In other words a cow or a chair were worth exactly the same whether you exchanged them in barter for other goods or whether you sold them for cash. So, if someone owed a debt and refused to pay then it was probably fair enough to sieze goods to the same value as the debt.

 

This situation has not been current for at least 50 years. Goods today (unless it's antiques, or an original Renoir or a Lamborghini, etc) are next to worthless as a medium of barter. The average Joe's complete houseful of goods would probably fetch less than a grand at forced auction but probably cost 10 - 20 times that to buy.

 

It maybe wouldn't be quite so bad if the goods that were siezed were sold with some attempt to get a decent price for them, not sold to the lowest bidder, or to the bailifs uncle for peanuts. I've personally known cars worth thousands to be siezed and sold at auction for a few hundred quid.

 

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

 

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

 

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

 

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

 

Pete

Pete. I respect your right to your opinion but clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Whatever your feelings on bailiffs they exist in every part of the world from Africa to Russia and Trinidad to Germany. The reason they exist is a last resort to force payment where payment is due by taking away goods when payment is not made. Provided the seizure is appropriate - it works. Most people become focussed on the priority of a debt when faced with bailiffs, which is why the vast majority of bailiff action is made not on consumer debt but on public body / state debt - or essential payments if you like, such as council tax and business rates (which are vital to the economy) or fines (which are vital to uphold the justice system). How would you feel if someone who broke into your home or assulted you or a member of your family was fined and decided not to pay? Would you think it was a good thing to have a bailiff force the issue or better that they were perhaps put in prison or just let off? I know we're not popular, but neither are the police when you've broken the law.

Pete. I respect your right to your opinion but clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Whatever your feelings on bailiffs they exist in every part of the world from Africa to Russia and Trinidad to Germany. The reason they exist is a last resort to force payment where payment is due by taking away goods when payment is not made. Provided the seizure is appropriate - it works. Most people become focussed on the priority of a debt when faced with bailiffs, which is why the vast majority of bailiff action is made not on consumer debt but on public body / state debt - or essential payments if you like, such as council tax and business rates (which are vital to the economy) or fines (which are vital to uphold the justice system). How would you feel if someone who broke into your home or assulted you or a member of your family was fined and decided not to pay? Would you think it was a good thing to have a bailiff force the issue or better that they were perhaps put in prison or just let off? I know we're not popular, but neither are the police when you've broken the law.

The law is (or should be) based on equity. The law upholds fairness essentially.

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.

If someone broke into my home and / or assaulted my family I'd be VERY unhappy if all they got was a fine! I would rather see them banged up so your point means nothing to me. It does me no good in those circumstances whether they pay a fine or not so I don't really care either way.

A large percentage of Council Tax goes into topping up the council employee and police inflation proofed pension fund so I really don't care if other people pay their Council Tax or not. I pay mine because I'm a good citizen and I bow down to the current Sherrif of Nottingham when he calls to collect!

No, the bailiff system is unfair in it's premise and operation in modern society.

Pete

The law is (or should be) based on equity. The law upholds fairness essentially.

 

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.

 

If someone broke into my home and / or assaulted my family I'd be VERY unhappy if all they got was a fine! I would rather see them banged up so your point means nothing to me. It does me no good in those circumstances whether they pay a fine or not so I don't really care either way.

 

A large percentage of Council Tax goes into topping up the council employee and police inflation proofed pension fund so I really don't care if other people pay their Council Tax or not. I pay mine because I'm a good citizen and I bow down to the current Sherrif of Nottingham when he calls to collect!

 

No, the bailiff system is unfair in it's premise and operation in modern society.

 

Pete

Fair enough! The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not and never persist in trying to set people right. -Hannah Whitall Smith, Inspirational author (1832-1911)

Fair enough! The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not and never persist in trying to set people right. -Hannah Whitall Smith, Inspirational author (1832-1911)

I like that! That's my type of sarcasm, must remember it

Pete

I am glad you did not get drawn into the argument Number 6. LOL

I am glad you did not get drawn into the argument Number 6. LOL

We were not arguing, we were having a civilised debate!

We were not arguing, we were having a civilised debate!

Quite right.

I never argue! Hence I never get drawn into arguments

Pete

hmm MR Bailiff , just a question do u agree with bailiffs just turning up scaring the crap out young ladies into agreeing to pay more than they can afford just by saying im coming to take your goods away oh and not even giving notice of the visit and doing all this without being invited inside the dewelling?

not to mention the fact that ur fellow bailiff friends ALSO add charges beyond beliefe to the outstanding amount ( by the way this is council tax) and when the bailiff company is asked for a break down of charges several times ppl are just fobbed off with "it will be in the post" and as for ppl all of a sudden coming up with the money do u ever stop to think that they may barrow it just to pay u because there s*** scared?

Its because of this site that ppl now realise that bailiffs cant just walk in and do an inventory and that you are supposed to give notice.

sorry for the ramble but my partner was treated VERY badly by a Bailiff to which i paid the money and NOW KNOWS where he stands.

I wrote to my MP a few weeks ago regarding bailiffs and the proposed new legislation contained in the current government Bill entitled "Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill".

This bill, if it were to be enacted contains worrying clauses that would enable a bailiff (or enforcement agent as they are now referred to apparently) to forcibly enter private premises, and sieze goods using force if necessary in order to do so.

We are told that such forcible entry powers will only be used as a last resort but who defines last resort??

The reply that my MP has received from Harriet Harman at the DCA has been passed on to me and I reproduce it here in full:

Selborne House

54 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6QW

 

Department for

Constitutional Affairs

Justice, rights and democracy

T 020 7210 8683

F 020 7210 8620

E [email protected]

http://www.dca.gov.uk

 

********* MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A OAA

 

Our ref: 206601-1 ‘ 2006

 

Number6, ***********************

 

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2006 to Alistair Darling MP and your further letter of 9 October 2006 to Lord Falconer, enclosing correspondence from your constituent Number6. Number6 is concerned about bailiff practices and measures that are contained in the draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. Both letters have been passed to me for reply as I have ministerial responsibility for the courts in England and Wales.

 

Current bailiff laws are complex and varied. These were looked at in detail as part of my Department’s Review of Enforcement, which was commissioned by the previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, in 1998 and completed in 2003. On the 25 July this year we published a draft bill, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill to effect changes to a range of enforcement laws, amongst other things.

 

One of the areas which received considerable interest during the consultation process was the issue of forcible entry to premises. The draft Bill contains proposals which would enable enforcement agents to force entry into debtors premises when enforcing a civil debt, to enable them to search for and seize goods, which can then be taken into control and if necessary removed and sold at auction to pay the debt. This power will only be used as a last resort and when specific judicial authority has been granted for forced entry to be used. Each individual case will be judged upon its own merits, and the criteria for granting forced entry will be strict. This will ensure compliance with Human Rights legislation.

 

The draft bill also contains provisions for introducing a single piece of bailiff law. This is intended to unify and rationalise the mix of legislation and common law that currently governs what bailiffs do and what they can charge for.

 

A new fee structure that is designed to support the principles of transparency, consistency and proportionality, is included in this programme of reform.

 

In addition, provisions are included for enhancing and extending the existing bailiff certification process. These provisions will strengthen existing requirements regarding training and understanding of the law, and extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector who take goods and sell them to recover a sum of money. The draft Bill is available via my Department’s website, the link to which is http://www.dca.gov.uk/Ieciist/tribenforce.htm

 

It will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

 

Realising that changes to primary legislation were required and that these would take some time to effect, my Department worked closely with creditors and the enforcement profession to produce the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. These standards, which were launched in April 2002, are intended for use by all enforcement agents, public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them and the major creditors who use them. The standards advise that appropriate discretion should be used when dealing with those who might be potentially vulnerable e.g. the elderly, people with a disability and single parent families. The standards also advise that Enforcement agents ensure that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgment is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

 

This publication, which is effectively a best practice guide and is not therefore legally binding, cannot, and is not, intended to replace legislation in the future. It is, rather, an opportunity and commitment from the profession (and creditors) to raise standards across the whole of the enforcement sector. The Standards have been widely endorsed, by, amongst others, the associations representing bailiffs.

 

Bailiffs are currently self-regulated and there are established procedures for lodging complaints against them that are independent of my Department. Information on these procedures can be found in the enclosed EX345 leaflet, titled About Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers.

 

The BBC programme referred to by Number6 showed bailiffs in the employ of Drakes Group Limited and CCS Enforcement Services apparently in breach of the proper procedures for executing warrants issued by Magistrates’ Courts. We take any allegations of impropriety very seriously and consequently, Her Majesty’s Courts Service an executive agency of my Department, has launched an immediate investigation into the issues raised. When the investigation is complete we will take the appropriate action.

 

I enclose a further copy of this letter and the EX345 Leaflet for you to send to Number6, should you wish to do so.

 

HARRIET HARMAN

Pete

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.

I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could.

Peter

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.

 

I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could.

Peter

Cheeky sod!!

Pete

He!He!

By The way i got the same letter back from Hariet as you did .

Particullarily liked the bit about refusing to open their door. I thought that was what doors were for so you had the option who you wanted to grant access to your property or otherwise.