The following news article featured on SCOOP today: http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/london-council-to-launch-ethical-debt-collection-for-residents?dorewrite=false/Page-1749 https://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Since the introduction of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, it has been very interesting to observe the number of forum posts (here and on all other websites) where debtors (and indeed regular forum posters) consider that in cases where a debtor is identified as being ''vulnerable', that the local authority (or creditor) should be obliged to recall the account from an enforcement agent.....and remove all bailiff fees. In the majority of cases, the fees under discussion will be £310, consisting of a Compliance Fee of £75 (applied when sending the Notice of Enforcement) and an Enforcement Fee of £235 (applied when an enforcement agent attends the debtors premises in person). In the following post I have outlined my opinion on the above.

Sorry for bring this up again If the vehicle is not owned by the debtor, and is clamped or towed. then surely this is a breach of Data protection, as some one who is not the debtor will find out about the warrant?

Was watching this channel five show 2 weeks ago - in full view of the camera the HCEO normally on the show a decent enough guy with a nasty job forced entry into a residential home, assaulting the debtor after putting foot in door. Has the new act now given HCEO's the right to make a forced entry trying to smash past the debtor/resident over a civil debt? I thought HCEO's could only force entry into commercial property? They also appear to now be issuing bankruptcy stat demands like confetti in an attempt to secure their fees despite the fact this could be working against their clients interest as if the debtor has no assets, in trying to secure their fees the HCEO's if they go ahead have lost the creditor/claimant any chance of recovering a debt that is now "gone" with no assets towards the bankruptcy... I thought using bankruptcy stat demands as a debt collection tool to try and frighten a payment was against the rules and got some debt collection bottom feeders into trouble?

At a Liability Order hearing at Chesterfield magistrates’ court on 4th March two debtors were led out of the court by ushers. One of the debtors was Mr Henry who refused to remove his woollen had and argued that to do so would be a breach of his rights and he began quoting from paperwork stating that: “This is my thought, consciousness and religion and you cannot deny me these rights.” The second debtor was Mr Trevor Hill but he provided the court with his 'strawman' name of "Trevor of the Hill family". He told the court that he would not consent with the proceedings and argued that the court could not proceed without his consent. Magistrates retired briefly and Mr Hill was then led out by security as he referred to the rights of the Freeman of the Land. Despite not 'consenting' with the proceedings, Liability Orders were nonetheless granted against both debtors. http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/men-forced-to-leave-chesterfield-court-after-hat-and-phone-row-1-7157658#comments-area

I changed my name in 2006 whilst living in England and from then on-wards I did not make any payments towards my debts in my old name. I did not inform my banks or creditors of my change of name and have not applied for any credit accounts since then. I have been living in Scotland for 1 year and all of a sudden I have had Sheriffs Officers visit my address on a few occasions looking to speak to my "old alias. I have not acknowledged the debts at all, I have simply told them that there is no such person living at my address. My questions are: A. Can Sheriffs officers pursue a debt in Scotland that was built up in England? B. If so, can they pursue these debts if more than 6 years have passed and there has been absolutely no contact or acknowledgement of the debt either by phone, writing or any other method? C. Can I continue to use the same method to get rid of these peoples i.e. plead ignorance that the person doesn't exist at my address? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated!

An interesting story that featured on SCOOP today has caught my attention. The link to the story is below and the article says the following: Council tax dodgers in Wyre could be targeted by a team of specialist lawyers under plans drawn up by town hall bosses. Law firm Greenhalgh Keer has been lined up for a six-month pilot scheme that could see residents who refuse to pay up pursued more aggressively. A report published by Wyre Council’s resources portfolio holder Coun Alan Vincent (pictured), who will make a decision on the plans next week, said chasing up the most persistent offenders is too “time-consuming and costly”. He added: “Unfortunately, the council does not have the in-house resources for anything more than the occasional case.” Wigan-based Greenhalgh, which currently has arrangements with 35 local authorities, specialises in chasing up council tax and business rate debts. The trial scheme, which would cost the council nothing, will “test the water” with a dozen pre-selected cases. http://www.fleetwoodtoday.co.uk/news/law-firm-set-to-chase-council-tax-1-7055615

a little dickie bird just sent me a msg saying Advantis DCA are now using a series of mobile phones to try and get around debtors not responding to landline calls and letters. it took several exchanges to find out they were a DCA the caller just asked for the debtor by their first name saying they were an old school friend. he smelt a rat as he could here call centre chatter in the back ground. 07891891162 was the number others to follow or add them here if you know others dx siteteam.

My landlord has two judgements against him, one is over £10000. I have discovered also that my landlord has two charging orders on his house and that one of his creditors has sold my landlord’s debt of over £10000 to a firm at a discount which is specialised in buying debts at a discount. I would like to know why my landlord’s creditor has not made bankrupt my landlord, sold his house and taken his money from the proceed of the sale of my landlord’s house so that to be paid the full amount of money that it is owed by my landlord to him instead of selling at a discount my landlord’s debt and losing money

Form 4 complaint: Burnley County Court: May 2013. His Honour Judge Butler This particular Judgment is very serious indeed and it being posted as it is in the public interest to do so. Firstly, the contents of the Judgment are vitally important but, as can be seen from the top right hand corner, all 3 pages have been copied from a particular website. It is sadly the case that the website in question have continually claimed that it is a "myth" that Courts have ever ordered claimants to pay costs if a Form 4 Complaint is dismissed. This is all the more serious given that this judgment appeared on that particular website on around 29th May 2013 and the entire thread was removed from public view by the website owner on 3rd June 2013 after a post had been made about the judgment on Consumer Action Group. From reading the final paragraph on Page 2 and the closing statement on Page 3 it is very clear that His Honour Judge Butler is confirming that costs have indeed been ordered and, as an example, he confirms that in one "recent case" at Southampton County Court a cost order of £10,000 had been ordered against the person making the Form 4 complaint. In fact, I referred to this particular Form 4 outcome a few days ago and it is my understanding that “costs” are still being debated and look likely to reach over £20,000 !!! The Form 4 Complaint for Mr Kirk (the complainant) had been drafted by the website in question and this was confirmed on the thread started by Mr Kirk ( before it was removed from public view) and is evident by the PDF of the thread. This Judgment needs to be available to the public and there are many reason for this: Mr Kirk had initially posted a query on Consumer Action Group and he was advised in no uncertain terms by posters on here that he should not consider a Form 4 complaint in particular given......that the amount in dispute was just £20!! The brief background is that the bailiff levied upon a vehicle owned by Mr Kirk's sister and that he charged a fee of £24.50, £18.00 and a "levy fee" of £28.00 There was also a small additional amount of £26.00 which apparently related to a shortfall against a previous account. Mr Kirk complained to Rossendale’s about the levy. Sensibly, they removed the levy fee and visit fee and credited the account with the sum of £50. The debtor was not happy to be told on this forum that he had no grounds in which to file a Form 4. Subsequently, he sought advice from another forum and from reading a copy of the PDF of his thread, it would seem that he was encouraged to file a Form 4 Complaint. The website in question are known to charge a fee of £99 for “drafting” the Form 4 complaint. Before the website had removed the entire thread on 3rd June 2013 a copy of Mr Kirk's Form 4 had been displayed. Sadly, it referred to at lest 14 legal cases most of which were irrelevant "19th century law cases". As a warning to anyone else who may quote such case law in a Form 4 complaint, it is noteworthy that His Honour Judge Butler stated that if he had felt it necessary to list the Form 4 for a hearing that he would have required the complainant to bring to the court copies of the legal cases referred to in the Form 4 and most seriously; he would have requested that the complainant or "his legal adviser" would have been required to attend court explain to the Judge the relevance of such legal cases !! Finally, in paragraph 6 His Honour Judge Butler refers to Mr Kirk's comment that he had "taken legal advice" and he questions whether such "advice" had come from "face to face" advice from a solicitor or CAB or alternatively whether the "legal advice" had originated from "internet research". If so, he stated that "if from the latter he should not assume that this information is correct and nor should he assume that the court is aware of the matters he relies upon” ( in this he refers to the "19th century legal cases") As mentioned above, within hours of brief details of this highly critical Judgment being posted on the CAG forum the judgment and the claimants entire thread were removed from public view. The effect being that any new visitors to the website would be "kept in the dark" about the response to a Form 4 complaint that the website had drafted for him. To this day, that same website continue to advise debtors to file Form 4 complaints and most seriously....to "claim" that costs will not be awarded against the claimant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9666748/Occupy-Wall-Street-campaigners-buy-up-debt-to-abolish-it.html