What is the alternative?

[High Court Enforcer]

Unfortunately, this country will always need the bailiff industry. Too many people take and dont pay. Enforcement is always the last point of call for these people and all that they understand.

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example.

 

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated. 99% of complaints are spurious. People just dont like getting caught.

 

And before Joncris and others bleet that it's only the 'vulnerable' that get enforced against, wake up and get real.

[Nintendo Pü]

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example..

 

Would you allow an EX160-like fee remission if they are on a low income or unemployed?

[spamheed]

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated.

 

ROFLMAO You speak like this is my suggestion, not at all, This is the way the SIA operate. Personally, I would do away with bailiffs in their current form completely as mentioned in my earlier post

 

Neither should being barred from working without any real evidence barr a doorman or security guards from working, but it did, innocenmt people judged guilty by the SIA until proven innocent, many people had to go through the courts themselves, just to demonstrate that they were fit to hold their positions, a lot of people had to justify themselves before a magistrate because the SIA regulations allowed them to unilaterally decide on a persons suitability based on a complaint from a disgruntled late night drunk.

 

A simple caution (even though not classed as a conviction) is enough for the SIA to remove your licence and barr you from working for up to three years. The SIA generally class them as evidence of a criminal nature

 

Given the differences in the way the two industries operate what with most doormen being regularly monitored by CCTV and performing their roles in the presence of Bar management, public and colleagues, it still happened to them.

 

Whilst the "indespensable" bailiffs operate as a law unto themselves, I would imagine the number of complaints must be far greater, Let's see how many bailiffs get the same treatment from the SIA when they get the job and decide to show the public just how strict they are.

[wonkeydonkey]

Unfortunately, this country will always need the bailiff industry. Too many people take and dont pay. Enforcement is always the last point of call for these people and all that they understand.

You have just given everyone on this forum confirmation they are right to show contempt toward your Industry by posting such an arrogant and judgmental statment.

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example.

 

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated. 99% of complaints are spurious. People just dont like getting caught.

 

And before Joncris and others bleet that it's only the 'vulnerable' that get enforced against, wake up and get real.

 

I am wide awake and although physically disabled I can assure you my mental health could never be classed as vunerable. but I still bleat, I must be the 1% that has not cast spurious complaint against bailiffs for my complaint has been upheld... but then judging by at least a dozen more in the same predicament I calculate that as being at least 12% of the 100 you base your sums on.

[twonames]

Unfortunately, this country will always need the bailiff industry. Too many people take and dont pay. Enforcement is always the last point of call for these people and all that they understand.

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example.

 

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated. 99% of complaints are spurious. People just dont like getting caught.

 

And before Joncris and others bleet that it's only the 'vulnerable' that get enforced against, wake up and get real.

 

 

Some form 4 complaints, are for very minor things, in some cases the bailiff who has the complaint made against him, may have only visited a property, not spoke to anyone and a form 4 complaint can still be made.

 

There should be a better complaint process, which is fair for both parties.

[twonames]

SPAMHEAD, do you hate doormen too?

[Nintendo Pü]

doormen? do they defraud consumers £300 +VAT fees as well?

 

This is a bailiffs forum, what has a doorman and a bailiff got in common? Currently they dont even have the same regulator, one is SIA and the other is MoJ.

[tomtubby]

doormen? do they defraud consumers £300 +VAT fees as well?

 

This is a bailiffs forum, what has a doorman and a bailiff got in common? Currently they dont even have the same regulator, one is SIA and the other is MoJ.

 

The SIA will be the new regulator of bailiffs. However, they will not have any part in dealing with complaints.

[spamheed]

SPAMHEAD, do you hate doormen too?

 

Having been a doorman for too many years to remember and even performing that particular role in the early 80's when I was on leave from the green, I would have to say catagorically no I don't hate doormen, some of my very best friends are either ex military, doormen, or both and yes I do still work the weekends in and around Newcastle.

 

I do however have very little time or sympathy for the numerous numpties who because of their lack of restraint, discipline, or character fail miserably at being doormen and then run off to become bailiffs, where I understand a lot of them quickly develop the traits that are regularly mentioned on this and other forums. I suppose it is always preferable to square up to a little old lady than it is a group of lads on a drunken stag night

 

And as for the criticisms of the posts on this thread.

 

When the SIA were suddenly imposed on doormen without any recourse at all and they took over the registration process for the security industry, I saw first hand a lot of injustices as previously mentioned.

 

People who were wrongly accused had their livelihoods removed without even being given the status normally afforded a car thief ie innocent until proven guilty. Many had to go to court to prove that they had an entitlement to a badge as the only course of appeal

 

Many people were refused their badge because of such rediculous childhood offences as "pinching" lost golf balls from a golf course lake at the age of 15. The SIA alleged that this displayed a pattern of criminality or because they lived in the same areas and mixed with people that they regarded as known "criminals" even though they had been neighbours since childhood

 

I made the observation that even given the various levels of scrutiny of door supervisors over the years. Many were still forced out of their jobs and made to seek other jobs, or jump through multiple hoops simply to keep their jobs.

 

Imagine how easy it is going to be to cull the bailiffs where there is no such scrutiny and the complaints are manifold

Edited December 30, 2009 by spamheed

[Nintendo Pü]

The SIA will be the new regulator of bailiffs. However, they will not have any part in dealing with complaints.

 

Do you have an official source for that?

 

There has been no consulation paper as yet, I would be putting forward my comments.

 

So far its only rumour in the legal profession but no member of a house of parliament has said the SIA is taking over regulation of civil enforcement.

[spamheed]

Within the security industry it is accepted as a done deal.

 

Only the bailiffs companies are objecting to it, everyone else see's it as a positive move.

 

Regulating an industry which arrogantly regards itself as untouchable and above the law whilst being riddled with corruption and espousing criminal behaviour as the norm and if past records are anything to go by, the SIA are going to have a field day

 

I would however be very interested to see how the regulators will be disallowed from acting in the enforcement role when this is one of their primary roles.

[Nintendo Pü]

I think I'll take a back seat on this for now, but bailiffs wanting a standard fee arrangement of £150 1st visit and £250 2nd visit is impractical.

 

A £92.15 council tax arrears case will be charged in advance as £470 inc. VAT per case regardless the number of visits, and assuming a bailiff processes positive 10 cases per day would achieve an annual turnover of £1m. Not bad for someone with no academic diciplines. But it is interesting to see inside the mindset of an HCEO.

 

I hope the SIA will take a different view if the Security Industry Act 2001 is reppealed or consolidated with present bailiff fee regulations.

[danboy381]

I have an alternative:

 

currently alot of debts being enforced are those that are congestion charge fines, council tax, tv licence fines etc etc. These are ridiculous charges/fines etc that neednt be there in the first place.

 

The list is endless and this is because of the current government, who will, if they havent already done so, bring this country to its knees, with its cack arsed, unfair council tax system, the fact that If i honestly forget to pay my london con charge, i get hit by a 60 quid+ fine - all these things are totally avoidable in the way that they serve no purpose apart from one big job and money creation scheme.

 

With regards to company/business debt, alot of this is down to greed by the supplier. I learnt my lesson not extending too much credit, so its now a case of buy goods 1 week, and get credit. Next week you want some more goods from me, pay me for the last lot.

 

However, I agree that its difficult to run business like that, and not get 'sucked in', and before you know it the debtor has disappeared, but the more business savvy you become, the easier it gets.

 

I can say that I run several companies. We have goods arriving all the time, and when I look at some of the invoices attached to these goods, sometimes theres no company name on them, just a name of the guy that ordered them. Of course, if the supplier wanted to chase a debt, he legally has nowhere to go, apart from rely on trust that payment will be made.

 

Sloppy invoice/account management is I would say a big problem for Medium/large companies

 

Of course, as a supplier, you dont give credit in the first place!

[danboy381]

Unfortunately, this country will always need the bailiff industry. Too many people take and dont pay. Enforcement is always the last point of call for these people and all that they understand.

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example.

 

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated. 99% of complaints are spurious. People just dont like getting caught.

 

And before Joncris and others bleet that it's only the 'vulnerable' that get enforced against, wake up and get real.

 

 

Just one question HCE, how many debtors do you currently visit in say a Mon-Fri - i,e new debtors, not repeats

 

db

[spamheed]

On the subject of applying rediculous charges to clients.

 

Another worrying thing will be brought about by the cost of registering with the SIA, At the moment a doorman would be expected to pay for this themselves before obtaining work (with certain exceptions of govt courses etc)

 

At present for a door supervisor or security guard it costs somewhere between £200 and £500 to go through the required training with the SIA, depen ding on the training required and the company used to provide the training. The training is classroom based and is of the "go through the motions and get your certificate" variety. I have never heard of anyone failing the training.

 

of course there are preferred trainers schemes and certain favoured companies offer free training to the unemployed/low earners and the like but as an example lets say £250 costs for the "official" training.

 

Then the badge itself costs £245 per person for three years, so the up front cost for each bailiff will be in the vicinity of £500. (a lovely twist here is if you don't get your badge, the SIA still get the £245) however this does include the cost of the CRB check

 

You can bet your lives the bailiff lobby will use these costs as leverage when deciding what the standard charges will be

[Mr Worried]

Unfortunately, this country will always need the bailiff industry. Too many people take and dont pay. Enforcement is always the last point of call for these people and all that they understand.

 

The point is that the industry needs to be more transparent regarding fees. £150 for a first visit and then £250 per additional visit for example.

 

Oh and Spamheed, Bailiffs should not have there licenses removed whilst complaints are being investigated. 99% of complaints are spurious. People just dont like getting caught.

 

And before Joncris and others bleet that it's only the 'vulnerable' that get enforced against, wake up and get real.

 

Whoa Mr North London Boy

 

Got yourself a little carried away there...would you class my complaint for overcharging, bullying tactics 'I have a telescopic ladder and I'll get in the upstairs window' and lying ' which is recorded '.. would you class that as SPURIOUS.....

 

Did your parents not teach you to engage your brain before you speak????

 

Mr W

[Mr Worried]

doormen? do they defraud consumers £300 +VAT fees as well?

 

This is a bailiffs forum, what has a doorman and a bailiff got in common? Currently they dont even have the same regulator, one is SIA and the other is MoJ.

 

What they got in common.....well one is a gangster gone wrong and the other is a wannabe policeman.

 

Mr W

[Nintendo Pü]

The question should be:

 

1. how many cases are assigned to him a week?

2. how many of those result in a sucessful recovery

3. what are the combined fees sucessfully obtained?

 

We can work out the rest, bit I dont think anyone in a public forum will get an honest answer.

 

A freedom of information request to TFL will obtain the number of recovered cases, but we will never have any idea of the attempted fees charged by the enforcement.

 

Unrecovered fee invoices to debtors are never diclosed by the enforcement contractor to a tax inspector, otherwise the firm becomes liable for the VAT on all unpaid invoices. That is probably the majority of uncleected cases due to drivers not properly registering vehicles with DVLA.

[zoltron]

I don't fear the bailiff, the bailiff fears me. I've already had 2 of them struck off, and now i'm working on the 3rd.

 

I cannot believe in this day and age they are allowed to get away with crap they force upon the vulnerable. You get the trolls roaming around here saying what they do is right and all above board, try telling that to the 2 i've had struck off and will never knock on some poor single mothers door again threatning to take her kids xmas presents away.

 

I hope to get my 3rd struck off in the new year.

[Mr Worried]

I don't fear the bailiff, the bailiff fears me. I've already had 2 of them struck off, and now i'm working on the 3rd.

 

I cannot believe in this day and age they are allowed to get away with crap they force upon the vulnerable. You get the trolls roaming around here saying what they do is right and all above board, try telling that to the 2 i've had struck off and will never knock on some poor single mothers door again threatning to take her kids xmas presents away.

 

I hope to get my 3rd struck off in the new year.

 

Hi Zol

 

Can you enlighten us with your methods and reasons for complaining, and are you sure your complaints were not SPURIOUS, as the member hce thinks they all are.

 

Cheers

 

Mr W

[spamheed]

What they got in common.....well one is a gangster gone wrong and the other is a wannabe policeman.

 

Mr W

 

Oh I know of plenty of doormen who would fall into both categories and an awful lot more who would fall into neither.

 

The real difference between the two is that a bailiff forces his way into places where they are never welcome

 

whilst a doorman ejects you from a place where you were once welcome but without trying to add £300 onto the bill.

[Mr Worried]

Oh I know of plenty of doormen who would fall into both categories and an awful lot more who would fall into neither.

 

The real difference between the two is that a bailiff forces his way into places where they are never welcome

 

whilst a doorman ejects you from a place where you were once welcome but without trying to add £300 onto the bill.

 

Fair comment bonny lad.

 

Mr W

[tomtubby]

Do you have an official source for that?

 

There has been no consulation paper as yet, I would be putting forward my comments.

 

So far its only rumour in the legal profession but no member of a house of parliament has said the SIA is taking over regulation of civil enforcement.

 

You are incorrect.

 

A Consultation Document was launched on 14th December 2009 by the SIA to Stakeholders on the Training Requirements for Enforcement Agents (Bailiffs). The Consultation ends on 29th January 2010.

 

The Press Release from the SIA is as follows:

 

 

 

Notes:

• The SIA has been asked by the Ministry of Justice to introduce the compulsory licensing of Enforcement Agents (bailiffs) in England and Wales. Licensing is due to be implemented from October 2011 – this is subject to Parliamentary approval and process.
  
• It is intended that the initial licensing process will apply to the following types of activity:
  
  • Taking control of goods
    
  • Possession
    
  • Committal and Arrest
    

  It will apply to the following people operating in England and Wales:

  • Certificated and Private Bailiffs
    
  • Local Authority Bailiffs
    
  • Any other individual undertaking the above licensable activities
    
  • Back office staff involved in licensable activities e.g. negotiating and taking payments
    

  It will not apply to:

  • Crown Servants
    
  • Scotland and Northern Ireland
    

In the Introduction to the lastest accounts from the SIA released a few days ago, Alan Campbell, The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime Reduction confirmed the following:

 

We are working with the Ministry of Justice on the introduction of Regulation of enforcment agents. Work is also in hand on the future licensing of private investigators and precognition agents.

 

PS: As confirmed by Spamhead ....a done deal !!

[spamheed]

I think you will see the SIA take on a host of new powers over the next few years, replacing all current authorities where registration and licencing is a requirement. I really do hope that they draw the noose tight when it comes to bailiffs.

 

A bit of a negative side though is that I would imagine it might have an impact on suppliers of black Flack Jackets and Magnum boots.

 

Damn Shame

[zoltron]

Hi Zol

 

Can you enlighten us with your methods and reasons for complaining, and are you sure your complaints were not SPURIOUS, as the member hce thinks they all are.

 

Cheers

 

Mr W

 

Pretty much an open and shut case really, earlier this year 2 bailiffs attended our property. Our 2 children are well educated on answering the door to bailiffs, so our 15 year old son went out the back patio door which he locked behind him and round the house to where we have a iron gate. My son opens the gate and bailiff number 1 pushes past him and knocks him to to ground, while my son is on the ground he manages to grab the leg of the bailff who pushed him to the floor and the bailiff lashes out at him with is foot. Meanwhile my wife is on the toilet and hears the incident taking place outside, she rushes outside and gets pushed to the floor by brute number 2 injuring her ankle. Thank god our other son thinks quickly and locks the front door which my wife rushed out off thus securing the house.

 

I get a phone can from my son who is locked in the house explaining that his mother and elder brother have been injured at the hands of 2 nasty men.

 

I rush home as I only work a short drive away to witness the fuss, I called the police and handed them the CCTV footage which shows the incident. To which these 2 brutes are arrested for their acions.