Marstons, PLEASE HELP!

[lisadp1970]

It's difficult to be calm under stress, and feelings always run high on this subject, I should know I've been through it.

 

And after reading all the threads carefully, I think dd's posts were very useful because it's good to have the inside view.

 

I don't think he was defending the OP's bailiff either.

 

Oh and just for the record, if you want someone to blame for all this, start with your MP - unless they vote for it bad laws won't be passed.

 

If they can manage to vote themselves a smoking room at work..................

 

DD is constantly defending bailiffs actions, regardless of whether the Bailif in question has broken the rules or not!

This kind of "advice" does not help a confused or distressed poster, who wants to know true facts on where they stand legally when they have one of these thugs threatening them with all sorts of fraudulent claims!

 

Diddiydicky if you read this post - no I do not have bad attitutde, just a fed up one with having to put up with the bo**ocks of this archaic practice and the law that does not protect people from the wanton bullying and fraud that Bailiffs commit on a daily basis.

Let's face it if I did have a bad attitude wouldn't I be looking for a career in the Bailiff industry myself

[chris600uk]

Lisa, my post wasn't intended to inflame.

 

I was trying to point out the value of having bailiffs and ex-bailiffs contribute to what is said here.

 

Having opposing points of view makes the advice stronger because it's tested at source.

[diddydicky]

lisa p i understand your frustrations

 

all i ask is that you are not Baliff-ist-

 

Just because you have had bad experiences with bailiffs doesn't give you the right to tell others in public forums that i (personally) am **** simply because i was a bailiff. , anymore than those who have had bad experiences call all policemen pigs (i am ex police too).

 

the problem is that on these forums you will only EVER see the problem cases, the stories of lies and intimidation- and of course your own experiences - you will NEVER hear on this site the tales of how bailiffs more often than have helped the client and tip them the wink in what to say/do to help them or how the bailiff wrote their debts off for them!

i don' know what job you do or have done but tell me and i am sure i or someone else will be able to relate stories of someone in your profession not behaving properly! it happens in all walks of life

 

you don't know me - I have a family and a life, and yet some people see that its ok to call me the **** of the earth - i find that deeply offensive and just as bad as racism

 

many of the people i have dealt with as a policeman and bailiff would say differently - but of course they cant- can they because this is a forum for the hook not the ovation!

 

i have not, in any of my posts defended bailiffs who intimidate or threaten people, what i have done once or twice is defended bailiffs in general when people on this forum calll them ALL **** (in general) and encourage people to be violent towards them for no other reason that they are bailiffs.

 

i am also wordly wise enough to know that not ALL the posters complaining about bailiffs on here are necessarily being truthfull (GOD NO it cant be - you mean a that some debtors could ALSO be liars just like some bailiffs!!)

 

contrary to what you and one or two other hostile posters have said i have been trying to help-

 

I did at one point think to myself Why bother ill just leave it alone - but then having read mountains of posts on here where people have been "chased" off the forum by a small minority to the disadvantage of the many

 

-i have decided no

 

i'll continue to give advice if and where i can and i WILL fight my corner

 

 

if needs be.

 

Now may i suggest we all get back to what this forum is about

 

lots of people giving their own advice and the person concerned deciding for themselves which advice to take and which to ignore!

When people say the system is archaic i couldnt agree more - but no one has yet managed to tell me what a FINAL SOLUTION could be if a debtor who genuinely owes a debt refuses to pay it"!

 

 

 

 

 

 

the bailiff has to try and work out if he is dealing with a cant pay or wont pay (cant pay = not commissions) (wont pay are the ones he's after)

 

He is never going to be the most popular guy in the world - but that does not excuse lies and threats or intimidation.

I can only speak of myself and the company i worked for which is the largest-

 

of the warrants issued i would say around 50% are returned ""no goods to levy"

 

l

[diddydicky]

the bit on the bottom is off another post - sorry about that

[Guest Happy Contrails]

i'll continue to give advice if and where i can and i WILL fight my corner

 

Diddydicky

 

I can see you have a level head on your shoulders, but just annoyed by the adversity against bailiffs that is prevalent on these forums.

 

I have never been a victim (for what better word) of bailiffs, but in 2006 my partner received a bailiff for a parking ticket. I thought nothing of it until minor irregularities appeared and my enquiries were quickly covered up by the authorities.

 

The bailiff called at my pied-a-terre flat (we are both commercial pilots and the property is for overnight stopovers & turnarounds at Gatwick) where her car had been registered, he thrust his boot into the door, which not only bent it out of shape but injured her right foot at the 5th metatarsal. I reported the matter to police on 999 who attended, but left the scene saying it was a civil matter.

 

I asked the bailiff for a refund but the request was denied, so I executed chargeback under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act because the bailiff had cheated with his fees.

 

I reported the bailiff to police for committing an offences under the Theft Act 1967 (fee fraud), an offence under the Criminal damage Act 1971 (fire door) and the Offences against the Persons Act 1861 (personal injury) and the police continued to assert these are civil matters.

 

The issuing council was equally uncooperative and declined to investigate the conduct of their bailiff. The parking ticket turned out invalid and the authority failed to comply with issuing and enforcement regulations prescribed in Road Traffic Act 1991, so I filed a claim against the authority for the damage to property and asked for compensation for receiving a bailiff. The claim was successful and the court made a finding of fact the bailiff was not certificated.

 

I filed a Form 4 but the case was dismissed. Two judges contradicted each other in their findings when considering the same set of facts whether the bailiff was certificated.

 

I appointed a law firm and made a complaint to the IPCC who investigated and the police officers who now denied making the civil matter comment at the scene.

 

I handed the law firm the CCTV tape which covers the communal stairway to our flat that captured the police officer making the civil matter comment, and the camera tape covering the fire escape stairwell at the opposite end of the flat which captured the bailiff applying inward force to the fire exit door.

 

The IPCC investigated and treated the police officers statement to be truthful, until the CCTV tape was shown and the officer lost a rank promotion as a result. The bailiff denied applying force to the fire exit door, causing injury and fee fraud. I originally did not produce CCTV tapes because I had no reason to doubt the integrity of the officers and the bailiff; I assumed they are of honest character and the matter would be settled quickly.

 

A personal Injury claim against the bailiff company for my partner was successful, and after paying the award which included her loss of earnings for 8 months as a commercial pilot and her medical bills. After paying the award, the bailiff firm wound up itself up and reformed itself under a new identity.

 

I could not reach a resolve with the council under my own means so I contacted the Local Government Ombudsman. They found the original ticket layout was invalid failed to follow correct recovery procedure. An appeal filed with the TEC. The Ombudsman ordered the council to refund all parking tickets having the same format resulting in a £150,000 bill for the taxpayer. The council terminated its contract with the bailiff firm and revised its parking tickets recovery procedure.

 

The case could have been cleared up quickly but it was the councils and the bailiffs choice to fight, and resulted in a bill of nearly a quarter of a million pounds – all for a £30 parking ticket.

 

I continued to follow the activity of bailiffs and found that fee fraud and the use of uncertificated bailiffs is endemic in civil enforcement. I have spoken to friends who are police officers, judges, council officials and an MP at the House of Commons and they all accept what goes on and explained why the law is quietly overlooked.

 

The high number of failed cases returned by bailiffs makes it difficult for bailiffs to make a reasonable living on the prescribed fees and necessitates what amounts to organised crime by defrauding the public with fees.

 

The principle reason why council tax cases end up with bailiffs is because the debtor should be claiming a benefit or the debtor has moved the council applied for the liability order before doing a trace to get the current address for the debtor. Parking tickets, the authority fails to follow the prescribed recovery procedure and the debtor is unaware of a debt until a bailiff arrives. It is only small minorities that simply wont pay.

 

What you see on this forum are genuine cases of hardship and this exposes the fee irregularities and unlawful tactics (e.g locksmiths/threatening to commit breaking & entering) employed by bailiffs.

 

The wont-payers dont come here because they know they get away with it and the bailiff goes nulla bona.

 

This leaves two schools of thought.

 

The root cause of the problem needs to be addressed. A fairer local taxation system for low income earners - similar to those in the EU which is based on income (a local income tax) rather than the size of accommodation irrespective of earnings. Parking ticket authorities need to follow correct regulations in their enforcement policies and that would leave the wont-payers to be cleared up by bailiffs. Cant-payers can afford to run a car so they can afford £30 for putting it on a double yellow.

 

If the above is resolved there would be no work for bailiffs.

 

Diddydicky, Welcome to the Bailiff forums, feel free to fight your corner.

[diddydicky]

thanks good points- interesting case- i agree the police often try to get out of being involved when it clearly seemed like a common assault

 

i think the starting point (which may have already arrived) is for lenders and sellers of goods on finance to be much more stringent and for mortgage companies to go back to the "old" values (ie not lending mre than 95% of value and not allowing people to take mortgages where the mortgage equals more than a weeks income.

 

house prices are reducing now to reflect the reality that young people have been priced out of the market and i just hope that common sense prevails once more