Ian olney
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
-
Instead of sighing, why not have a read of Brintons v Wyre Forest District Council 1976. Failing that, at least try to educate yourself on what seizure actually entails
-
This is not correct-Siezure does not begin at the point that a bailff gains entry. Agree that he should not be allowed in-Was thinking more in cases where he enters through an unlocked door (& you'd be surprised how many times this happens)
-
If a bailiff has gained peaceful entry but is asked to leave before beginning the process of seizure, they DO have to leave & CAN be removed forcibly if they do not. The debate over what is deemed to be reasonable thereafter is quite contentious and will depend upon circumstances. A bailiff making his way out of the door for example cannot expect to have a baseball bat wrapped round his head. This of course is not exclusive to bailiffs either as the murder conviction of Tony Martin (who shot a retreating burglar) shows. Personally, I would grab the bailiff & physically throw him out of the front door but I'm not claiming that this is quite within the law.
-
Joking aside-A can of CS gas is classed as a firearm, covered by the Firearms Act
-
My argument is that a starting point has to be the law. We all agree that bailiffs are breaking the law on a daily basis and that Government agencies such as councils turn a blind eye to this. To take the law into your own hands brings you down to the level of the bailiffs. Guns give some very horrible people immense power and many innocent people get caught up (Rhys Jones being the high profile example). Threatening to shoot someone is not any less of an offence in my eyes if the gun was not real. The way to beat bailiffs is to make it as hard as possible for them to abuse legislation, not to show violence or the threat of violence as this only plays into their hands.
-
Yeah-That's a great deterrent isn't it? What do you advocate for actually shooting a bailiff? 12 months probation?
-
I think if anyone threatens to shoot another person, they should expect jail. I doubt anybody on this site condones this behaviour. Bailiffs are unfortunately a necessary part of our society. I wouldn't do the job personally for a number of reasons but this doesn't make every single man or woman who does "low life". The bailiffs clearly took the threat seriously as they didn't continue with the clamping.
-
This isn't entirely the case. I'd say less than half of the councils actually stipulate a fee-They simply state that fees must be in line with Schedule 5. As we know, as far as Head C is concerned means "reasonable costs incurred". This means it is left to the bailiff company to decide what is reasonable (or unreasonable as the case is, in this instance) In most cases, I don't have an issue where councils stipulate fees as they are nearly always £150 or under- When bailiffs are left to decide what they charge it is usually £150 or over. As posted previously, there are exceptions but on the whole this is how it is.
-
Many LA's do not give a damn about what is reasonable though & turn a blind eye to the charges that debtors incur at the hands of bailiff companies. To leave a bailiff company at liberty to decide what they want to charge is asking for trouble. One or two bailiff companies DO imo charge fees in line with legislation & LGO recommendations, Rundles spring to mind for example. Sadly, the vast majority are out to fleece the debtor for what they can, reliant on the debtors ignorance of legislation & their rights.
-
& as regards CIVEA my advice is to coin their own phrase: Take no notice
-
Council Tax nightmare
Ian olney replied to rippedoff15's topic in Local Authority, Council Tax and Business Rates Issues
Once a LO is obtained, a council can apply an AOE Not much help now, but you'd have been better off holding onto the £610 you paid them & used it to supplement your AOE deductions. -
It's actually "reasonable costs INCURRED" as far as Head C is concerned. How can it be deemed reasonable for the same company to charge £110 in one area, £130 in another and £150 in a third? If £110 is deemed reasonable and the bailiff company are happy to carry out a visit for this figure, then the extra £40 that residents of another area are being charged cannot also be reasonable.
-
Durham Council are one of the worse offenders that I have come across. Their attitude is one of contempt as well. 3 different agents, all charging separate "van visit" fees, 2 of which don't charge Head H. The poor old debtor really is placed into a lottery to determine how much he will be fleeced. Some of the more caring councils place restrictions on what bailiffs may charge (usually in line with the LGO) which means that it doesn't matter which bailiff company is deployed, the fees passed on to the debtor are standardised.
-
On a par with the amount of people in debt nationally. & what do they do to help? Profiteer illegally out of liability orders & then expose the debtors to crooked bailiffs
-
You clearly didn't watch the recent Channel 4 dispatches programme on councils spending then? http://www.channel4.com/explore/dispatches/council-waste/ They are the most incompetent bunch of idiots I have encountered. They are however happy to waste taxpayers money on a wide range of perks & luxuries that are needless & unneccesary. In my experience they enjoy being self-regulating & treat the LGO (who was appointed by HM The Queen) with utter contempt.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS