Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Demitri

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. For clarity, what is the relevant case that this thread concerns? I read posts of yours previously claiming that a debtor had changed ownership of a car but the two old ladies in front of me were adamant that you cannot change ownership when you are only hiring a vehicle
  2. Yeah that's right. I am paid to work on enforcement issues full time, 6 or even 7 days a week but my knowledge is "none existent" [sic] I rarely advise anyone these days as I don't have the time. I leave it to the "experts" like you
  3. You have told debtors yourself that if they don't pay and choose to sit it out that they run the risk of imprisonment When you've answered your previous nonsense, I will give you a more detailed response, if the admin have not banned me by then.
  4. Also, I do not have a television. i do not watch TV. I work 12, 14 hours helping people who have bailiff issues. I post about two people who do nothing to help debtors whatsoever. I post nothing about you or your forum other than that.
  5. stupid letters are indeed a waste of money but I don't think she goes to court. nor does a "certain person" He went to court last month when he couldn't get a solicitor, due to them all being booked in other court cases. He got the debtor his car back and costs. Thanks in advance.
  6. Richard was responsible for much case law that is applicable today. Debtors cannot simply be committed to prison for council tax because they have not dealt with bailiffs. This is a direct result of Richard's work and a legacy that he has left for debtors. Richard exposed many unlawful and illegal warrants, no end of debtors who were illegally and unlawfully jailed, including many vulnerable, sick and poor people. Richards line of work was not the most lucrative, far from it. Richard left his mark and anyone who aspires to help and/or advise debtors should look at Richards work for inspiration.
  7. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/if-he-cant-spring-you-nobody-can-1347699.html
  8. I quite agree and as such I would like to know the following: 1. Why should a debtor be advised to enter into a repayment plan once it has been satisfied that there are no goods on the premises that can be controlled? 2. What advantage is there for the debtor to do so? 3. Is the debtor obliged to do so? 4. Is it in the debtors best interests to do so? 5. Is the forum aware of Regulation 24 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013? 6. Would a bailiff company want to force entry before following protocol? 7. Would a bailiff have the power/authority to make a decision on whether forced entry may be made? 8. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority can not be given because the visit takes place at 6am? 9. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority should not be sought because we don't know if the debtor is going to be at home when the visit takes place? 10. Should we not request that no goods levies/nulla bona be returned to the courts? I'm really confused here as I would like clarification as to whether the purpose of the forum is to advise debtors or whether the purpose is to assist bailiffs (that is EA's for those who are confused)
  9. What a very strange and peculiar thing to suggest? There are at least 3 other people who use the term "EA" on this thread, including the person that I was responding to. I have no idea who you are, or who you think I am but it's a bit ripe to suggest that I am hostile. You have been hostile towards me, from your very first post, for no reason (I assume?) other than the fact that I corrected your mistake regarding the position when there are no goods/insufficient goods to take control of. You have further singled me out for a lecture on what I may or may not post and where, despite you not (as far as I can see) being a moderator on this forum. It is no problem to me at all if you want to spit your dummy out over something so trivial as a minor correction. What I would point out though is that all the hostility appears to be coming from you, and you alone.
  10. Of course I know how many cases are issued. I also know of the benefit to both sides of having protocols in place for the extreme small percentage of die hard "won't pays" that result in forced entries. I actually came on here looking at a completely different section of the site, for my own personal benefit. I found this section two days ago and subsequently registered. I don't see what all the fuss is about. The enforcement of court fines provokes very, very few complaints/claims. There is no need whatsoever for an agency to overstep the mark and they rarely do. They also ensure that they are covered in the handful of cases in which forced entry is used. I'm not sure why you are trying to create this image of chaos within the court system and individual EA's being at liberty to decide when they force entry. We both know this isn't the case don't we?
  11. I apologize to the OP if I have detracted from the issue at hand. However, I hope that my comments have been helpful to both the OP and all other viewers of the forum. It is important to remember that forced entry is a last resort. Agencies DO jump through hoops before giving the go ahead to their foot soldiers to force entry. If there are no goods/insufficient goods on the premises, the correct procedure should be for the EA to return the warrant. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should debtors be advised to enter into a repayment plan in these cases. Finally, most goods in households are NOT exempt. I will say no more on the matter. Well it doesn't stop you visiting does it? You will surely cover yourself by obtaining clearance for the eventual time when the debtor is in? Please do not make the mistake that I am naive. It only serves to make yourself look silly. All the questions I am asking are all relevant and valid questions that would be asked in an enquiry, if something went wrong with a visit. Why the hell would you not want to cover your backside by simply following protocol? It seems crazy to me. Fortunately, your bosses are not so reckless.
  12. Right So you now appear to be stating that an EA plans his calls. What was to stop him, during the planning of his calls, following the procedure that Bailiff Advice linked to? Are you now saying that a bailiff shouldn't have to bother with the court because the debtor might not be in? Can you please explain to me, your reason why approval can not be sought on one day, with a visit taking place the next?
  13. I do apologize. It is not my intention to start arguments with anyone. Surely the correct way to provide assistance to the public and viewers is to provide accurate information to them? What incentive is there for a debtor to enter into a repayment plan with a bailiff, once (s)he knows that goods cannot be removed? Why would anyone want to do this, or indeed advise someone to do this when it will cost a debtor an additional £310 to do so? I ertainly wouldn't want to pay an extra £310 if there was an alternative which meant that I didn't have to do so. Regarding bailiffs returning many warrants back to the court, this is of no concern to me. It is not my problem as I didn't make up the laws, I just act and respond within them.
  14. As you correctly state, the case is passed to an enforcement agent FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING CONTROL OF GOODS. However, you are mistaken in your view that a payment arrangement could be agreed. In fact, when there are no/insufficient goods, then the correct course of action would be to return the warrant to the court. This of course rarely happens as there is little incentive for a bailiff to do so. nevertheless, it is the correct course of action. The above applies to all types of enforcement and is not specifically tied just to the enforcement of fines.
  15. Are you suggesting that an EA simply gets out of bed at 5am and then randomly decides what he's going to do for the day? Just because the court is closed a t the time of visit, does not mean permission must be applied for at that time. What will probably happen is the decision will be made (at a level higher than the foot soldier) and permission to the court will be obtained. Plans will then be put in place for a 6am visit the following morning, ensuring the locksmith is booked to attend and probably ensuring the police are alerted in case things turn ugly and a fast response is needed. No company would want to just visit and claim the courts were closed. What about if things went wrong? What about if the debtor didn't live there or someone was hurt during the visit? The power is there to force entry but companies will want to make damned sure that they follow protocols in order to protect themselves if things go wrong during the visit.
  • Create New...