I could be wrong but I think John Kruse 'understated' the problems because he hadn't seen what we saw. Perhaps he could tell us, but it seemed like he had been asked theoritical questions and so gave generalist answers.

I respectfully disagee and think we can criticise the programme makers for not knowing these sorts of things. Didn't they only have to ask their own expert, the one they interviewed, or Fair Parking or any of the other CAG experts, like tomtubby? They're not hard to find.

I suppose the programme was good telly if you like listening to swearing but it was very poor journalism. Right at the start, the narrator said that there are no laws covering bailiffs, only guidelines, which clearly signalled that the producers, journalists and researchers seemed not to understand the first thing about the subject. Anyone who has read John Kruse’s book knows that there are lots of laws bailiffs should follow. Later, the narrator said the programme was about ‘Bost the bailiff’ and that’s really all it was about. Just one bailiff in one company. In one of the other stories, the narrator said that the bailiffs hadn’t done anything wrong, so why was it even mentioned in a programme about exposing bailiffs? Probably just as an excuse to include the MP! The story about JBW was so very, very carefully told, with so many of JBW’s words up on the screen that it even felt like we were not being told the whole story, even if we should feel sorry for someone with brain damage. The only really good point made in the programme was that everyone wants change EXCEPT the Government, who rely on the bailiffs. But I said all that in an earlier post.

Of course we must wait and see. My point in my two posts in this thread is just to warn against expecting anything good to come out of the programme. Even if the programme itself is good, if MOJ is pushed into doing 'something' they will do whatever is easy for them and under cover of a lot of poliitical spin the system will become harder and meaner. As another CAGER has said, Be careful what you wish for.

I’d like to be proved wrong but I’m not expecting much from this documentary and certainly not serious journalism that exposes what Government expects from bailiffs and it’s negligent attitude to the way some of them exploit the free hand they have. I think we’re likely to see some secret filming of bailiffs being abusive/sexist/racist/ageist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/classist or something else that we deplore but who really are no worse than the rank and file members of any group like police or military. We will hear from some debtors with a grudge and probably, a few weeks later, if we’re still listening, hear that they were actually the authors of their own misfortune. We’re probably get a couple of ‘experts’ being vague or just wrong about the law. We will be told the bailiffs are overcharging but then find that we were told only part of the story. It will all make our blood boil but it won’t provoke any clear thinking or sensible options for doing things better. One or two firms will go through a rough patch, and may even go out of business, but they will have been no worse than the rest that will continue as before. I hope I am wrong but I expect this because ITV wants exactly what the councils and the bailiffs want, to make lots of money.

Yes!

Don’t get your hopes up about what this programme might achieve. Even if it exposes genuine problems, if the Ministry of Justice has another knee-jerk reaction, like in 2006 after the Whistleblower programme, everyone will be worse off than ever. Don’t forget that most bailiffs collect most money for Government and it won’t do anything that will risk bailiffs collecting less. If MoJ react by implementing the bailiff law in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, that it forced through Parliament after Whistleblower, the new law will be harder on people that what we have now. It will make it harder for bailiffs to take goods, which means they will do it the very first opportunity they have. It will require bailiffs to follow a timetable so that enforcement is concluded quickly, which means there will be less opportunity for people to find payment. The new law will include new bailiff charges that will be much higher than now. This will let bailiffs to charge even more than now. Even a proper regulator won’t be able to help if bailiffs are doing just what the new law requires. The Government keeps talking about stopping agressive bailiffs but that's just an excuse for doing nothing. Watch out! If MoJ have a knee-jerk reaction to this programme, a lot of people are going to get kicked hard!

I think this debate has passed it's sell by date but one detail should be clarified. JBW has been at pains to point out that the man in question is not acting as a bailiff. He is not a court officer. Neither is he handling money or in contact with defaulters.

If we make sweeping judgements about an entire occupation, we're exercising a bigotary that we would consider unacceptable if applied to a racial or age group. Do we assume that all pawnbrokers fence stolen goods, all car dealers turn back the clock, all builders and plumbers do shoddy work and so on? If we do not believe that people can get over mistakes, if we do not accept that people can change for the better as well as for the worse, then we don't understand what it means to be human. But I'm just an unrealistic idealist and so should leave this argument to wiser people who live in the real world.

I see. So, in fact, you don't know.

It is a good enough article but surely the writer must know that you can't check a vehicle's ownership with DVLA. All that you can check is the registered keeper. While that is an indication of ownership, it is by no means conclusive. If anecdotal evidence is accurate, there seem to be a great many cases where bailiffs seize and then clamp or remove vehicles that are leased by the defaulter (who is the registered keeper) knowing that they cannot sell them but simply inconveniencing the defaulters so they pay up. I cannot see how this can be legal: if bailiffs cannot sell something, they can't seize it. In these cases, the defaulters end up paying various fees that should not have been incurred. What would the Ombundsman say about those cases, I wonder.

How do you know that?

I agree with you: but who can say that this man is "criminally minded"? I realise that a criminal conviction makes a person a criminal - but to be "criminally minded" is something else. It implies a way of life. People commit crime for all sorts of reasons. In this case, it seems that he tried too hard to make his business work. I'm not excusing that but it seems to me to have been a one-off lapse. I understand that it was a serious lapse but we must, surely, keep a clear distinction between someone for whom crime is a way of life and someone who commits an isoliated crime.

I expect that Leeds Council realised that JBW is acting honourably in allowing a man with a past to continue his rehabilitation. So long as pragmatic management safeguards are in place, there should be no cause for criticism. People should be embarrassed that this story keeps cropping up. Do we really want people who have been sent to prison restricted to very menial jobs for the rest of their lives? Or made to live on the dole? The man should be left alone to get over his mistakes and on with his life.

A briefing note to every MP and peer, backed up by a press release, would get the word around. It would need to be no longer than a single side of A4 and better sent by a recongised organisation than a indvidual.