Petition to ban bailiffs (10 Downing Street) Add name and refer people.

[90DC]

Hi all,

 

Please click to read through the petition and sign your name accordingly, pass on the link to people who may also be interested. Enough names and the PM will take notice. This only takes two or three minutes.

 

 

Petition to: Ban companies from employing bailiffs and Debt collection agencies to recover debts and them to assume responsibility of the debt themselves. | Number10.gov.uk

[Nintendo Pü]

I dont agree with this. I suggest takling the causes of the bailiff pandemic that is sweeping Britain: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/236055-baliffs-human-rights-act.html#post2616854

[90DC]

Thanks for the feedback, i have read your post and agree with what you say. For now though i am sticking with my petition and ask of anybody that does agree to sign it.

[%Ostrich%]

What does "assuming responsibility for the debt themselves" mean?

 

Who's going to make me "assume responsibility" if I have choose not to pay my council tax, court fines or income tax?

[pink_eeyore]

I don't agree with this either, in my opinion debt collectors often behave worse than bailiffs.

[Nintendo Pü]

What does "assuming responsibility for the debt themselves" mean?

 

I think the OP is referring to consumer debts, I think he is saying that a trader must trade sensibly if he is giving out consumer credit.

 

Tackling statutory debts such as tax, parking, CSA, fines, TV Licensing and Council tax needs a very different approach. Many of these end up nulla bona because the consumer did not borrow any money in the first place.

[90DC]

Thank you Nintendo Pu, you answered that question for me, the companies will have the responsibility of chasing the debt.

 

I can see where people are coming from in saying they don't agree with this, but that's the point, there's alot we all don't agree with, and what i don't agree with here is the fact that people who cannot pay debt, are passed onto debt collectors and bailiffs who extort alot of money out of them.

 

I would say that there are more people right now who can't pay rather than wont pay, and why fling everybody into one very large boat and make dirty money from them, people in serious financial difficulty are passed onto bailiffs who then take all of their belongings. Some of these people aren't as clued up as you and i, and are extorted, i should know, the bailiffs tried feeding me crap, but i went to the council with the evidence and they took my Council Tax debt back, eventually, after giving them every little bit of information.

 

I am just trying to help out vulnerable people, because this problem leads to worse problems before it gets any better, £100s later.

[Nintendo Pü]

I am just trying to help out vulnerable people, because this problem leads to worse problems before it gets any better, £100s later.

 

The problem isnt so much individual bailiffs, its the companies charging hundreds of pounds in fees for work in advance on the pretext of that work being done at some point in the future.

 

The other issue, bailiffs charge fees as "reasonable costs", this clause in the legislation does not provide for bailiffs to make a gain for himself - it only provides for bailiffs to recover a disbursement, or costs, when performing further work if the debtor does not pay. Bailiffs try to argue that it is reasonable to charge £250 for attending an address in a van on the pretext of performing work regardless whether that work is actually done.

 

A bailiff commits an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 by charging fees for work that is not done, but Police originally tended to view any form of bailiff crime to be a civil matter. Following an enquiry by a certain poster, an airline pilot, on this forum who discovered the bailiff fraud pandemic in 2006 following a parking ticket case, approached the House of Lords. Lord Lucas on 20 April 2007 finally got the Government to concede a bailiff who charges a fee for work not done, does in fact commit a crime, and police can no longer pass off reports of bailiff crime to be a civil matter.

 

Bailiffs argue they cannot make a reasonable living from a £45 CCJ or a £24.50 council tax visit, and see the reasonable costs clause in the fee regulations to supplement up their income. This is not allowed because it is not reasonable costs or an actual disbursement and this was upheld by Judge Avent in the Culligan vs. Marsden wheel-clamp case. This can also be counter-argued that nobody is forcing the bailiff to be a bailiff.

[twonames]

The problem isnt so much individual bailiffs, its the companies charging hundreds of pounds in fees for work in advance on the pretext of that work being done at some point in the future.

 

The other issue, bailiffs charge fees as "reasonable costs", this clause in the legislation does not provide for bailiffs to make a gain for himself - it only provides for bailiffs to recover a disbursement, or costs, when performing further work if the debtor does not pay. Bailiffs try to argue that it is reasonable to charge £250 for attending an address in a van on the pretext of performing work regardless whether that work is actually done.

 

A bailiff commits an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 by charging fees for work that is not done, but Police originally tended to view any form of bailiff crime to be a civil matter. Following an enquiry by a certain poster, an airline pilot, on this forum who discovered the bailiff fraud pandemic in 2006 following a parking ticket case, approached the House of Lords. Lord Lucas on 20 April 2007 finally got the Government to concede a bailiff who charges a fee for work not done, does in fact commit a crime, and police can no longer pass off reports of bailiff crime to be a civil matter.

 

Bailiffs argue they cannot make a reasonable living from a £45 CCJ or a £24.50 council tax visit, and see the reasonable costs clause in the fee regulations to supplement up their income. This is not allowed because it is not reasonable costs or an actual disbursement and this was upheld by Judge Avent in the Culligan vs. Marsden wheel-clamp case. This can also be counter-argued that nobody is forcing the bailiff to be a bailiff.

 

 

"Attending to levy" or " Attending to remove", these fees can be £140+, I personaly believe these fees should not be charged, a visit fee perhaps £40-£60

[Nintendo Pü]

You are right, they shouldnt be, but government only admits its a crime, but if you read the "small-print" of the Lord Lucas's reply he received on 20 April, there is an escape clause for the police, they have a right not to investigate the crime if they do not have the resources, or other types of crime more important need investigating.

 

When police say they are under resourced, I wonder where they suddenly obtain resources to assemble an army of police officers with ray-guns and staging roadblocks with vans and cars ambushing approaching motorists.

[twonames]

You are right, they shouldnt be, but government only admits its a crime, but if you read the "small-print" of the Lord Lucas's reply he received on 20 April, there is an escape clause for the police, they have a right not to investigate the crime if they do not have the resources, or other types of crime more important need investigating.

 

When police say they are under resourced, I wonder where they suddenly obtain resources to assemble an army of police officers with ray-guns and staging roadblocks with vans and cars ambushing approaching motorists.

 

And who defines what resources are needed, surely if a crime is commited then it should be a matter of time scale as appossed to resources.

 

Sorry Sir, we cant look into the robbery of your house because we are busy with murder cases.

[Nintendo Pü]

Its not fully understood who decides which crimes are investigated by the police.

 

Police still consider bailiff crime a civil matter because reports of bailiff fraud are still not being recorded in crime statistics. The police publicly focus on street crime "The Policing Pledge" campaign, and disregard fraud because it commits lots of CID detective time to question bailiffs over their fees.

 

One police chief commented it was "not conducive to public good" [sic] to be prosecuting persons who does a public service (council tax collection), but this was quickly challenged because High Court Enforcement Officers collecting private and consumer debts are caught charging fees under the pretence it is costs or disbursements (fraud by false representation).