Beat The Bailiff On TV

[MrShed]

 

as for collecting unpaid monies, credit risk calculators & systems are some of the most advanced computer systems. Banks and lenders MUST be wholly responsible in their lending. They charge a huge premium for taking on that risk..... if they lend by calculation, they should not take by force, as the risk and cost of erroneous calculations should be bourne by the risk taker - after all that is what they are paid for!

I agree to an extent - banks clearly should be making an educated decision upon whom they lend to.

 

However, this is a theme that comes up time and again on here, and I cant buy into it.

 

The banks are not SOLELY responsible. Some responsibility has to lie with the debtor who has borrowed money, and does not have the means to repay it.

 

Ultimately, regardless of credit checking and risk calculation, only the applicant knows their means, and their ability to repay certain debt.

 

It is wrong to remove all responsibility from the lendee - we should be able to make our own decisions, and bear responsibility if those decisions are incorrect.

 

Moreover, my point has been missed (again) that baliffs, contrary to popular belief, enforce a range of debts, not just credit card/loan debt - as mentioned above.

 

Debt enforcement is a requirement.

[RaeUK]

No worries MrShed, my post was tongue in cheek. 'Snobbery' refers to the bailiffs preferring some peoples goods over others. The final line refers, of course, to the occasional peeing competitions that crop up from time to time...

Rae.

[MrShed]

Dont worry, knew it was tongue in cheek

 

I wasnt aware that baliffs ever refused to seize goods!!!

[RaeUK]

MrShed, strange but in my case absolutely true! Way before I joined cag I had the bailiffs calling every now and again for CT I couldn't afford. I will say these ones were polite and courteous. I let them do their stuff and we'd have a coffee and a natter. Every time they said 'sorry, but we're going to have to remove' I'd say fine it's no problem. They never did. I know I have little of value but it has to be insulting when the bailiffs won't take your things. At least I know why I've never been burgled...

Rae.

 

For the record, as I've posted before, I've also had dealings with some pretty nasty bailiffs too!

Edited February 14, 2010 by RaeUK
type o

[Another Jack]

Just for the record, removal really is the last port of call.

 

Every bailiff would rather get paid, by the threat of removal, than have to follow it through.

 

Less than 1% of cases end in removal.

 

That's my point. When all's said and done it just bullying and not fit for a civilised society!

[hazza]

Debt enforcement is a requirement.

 

Bollocks!!!!!!

 

In a medieval world yes, not in a forward looking civilised society.

 

A forward looking civilised society would, in my eyes send a humble person - a female ideally!- (bailiff's are perversely men) - with bags of humility with a laptop to talk assess and HELP the person get back on track - only by providing the means to do more and EARN MORE.

 

I.e. don't steal from debtors- instead educate and help those in debt to help society become richer - no one wants debt. The stress caused by debt may be as costly to the NHS as smoking????? If we have high debt, isn't the logical thing to help us get out of debt and not enforce and destroy the lives of vunerable people....

 

Debt is resolvable thru help. Bailiff action is a tsunami which will put people further back into poverty - vicious circles!.

 

The day we stop tsunami'ing people in their homes the day we can all sleep better.

 

The Newlyn plc MD said he was going to climb through my windows and take what ever he wanted - for a blinkin parking ticket. Bastard. No one should be allowed to take anything by intimidation or force- something HMCS inflicts on us everyday!

 

If something is needed halfway, a bailiff should only ask a debtor what may be taken. He should then go to court and a judge (not bailiff!) makes a decision on what should be agreed to be taken - authorised by the debtor. Perhaps.... It should be law that someone's goods cannot be sold on. Only put into storage until the debt is paid.

[MrShed]

Hazza - I respect your opinion.

 

But I ask you what I have asked others above - give me a viable alternative that allows creditors to be repaid.

[hazza]

Hazza - I respect your opinion.

 

But I ask you what I have asked others above - give me a viable alternative that allows creditors to be repaid.

 

I believe there is an old adage, somewhere that says.... don't gamble what you can't afford to lose... directed towards banks.....

 

and... also don't spend more than you earn..... directed towards debtors

 

simples!!!!

 

I have lost hundreds if not thousands on lending to people - friends etc - money when they have not been able to borrow from the bank etc.

 

i would not send a bailiff to them.

 

Sometimes I get it back, sometimes I didn't. If I didn't get it back, I blamed myself (ouch) as I should have perhaps used better judgement.

i.e. i lent someone some money perhaps on the chance that if i may one day be in need myself, I could ask someone to return the favour - makes for good society!

 

unfortunately banks do not operate on this humane principle

 

they are not your friend - the bailiff is.

 

but again back to your question....

 

give me a viable alternative that allows creditors to be repaid.

 

sorry - i don't do demands - unless of course you are a un-certificated bailiff supported by police officers who has clamped my car illegally and is prepared to claim that you are a bonafide court bailiff like Newlyn plc does!- sorry!

 

what I will do is work with people on this forum collectively and collaborate to come to a CAG made alternative that allows creditors to be paid - or not!

 

this may take time and many roads - but fwiw, i have about 5-6 viable alternatives that do not involve terrorising people in their homes

 

if only someone starts a thread on this topic - this thread is not it... unless the OP agrees...

 

....Beat the Bailiff on TV started the fall from grace of the bailiff industry - to be replaced by common sense and decency!

[Another Jack]

Hazza - I respect your opinion.

 

But I ask you what I have asked others above - give me a viable alternative that allows creditors to be repaid.

 

Okay, okay. Here's how it goes. Bailiffs take people's stuff, sell it cheap, take a great wedge for themselves, give the creditor a pittance and the debtor gets deeper into debt buying more stuff to replace what was sold. That's 1% of the cases, says High Court Enforcer.

 

Or they threaten to sell the stuff, so the people get deeper into debt borrowing not just what they owe but a lot more so the bailiff gets his gets his great wedge too. Is that the other 99%?

 

Why not pay the bailiff's wedge to a debt counsellor who can sort it all out sensibly?

[MrShed]

I'm going to bow out of this debate now, as I feel I've said all I can anything more is just repeating myself.

 

Was fun though! and a good discussion.

[hazza]

tis good to talk!

[hazza]

Why not pay the bailiff's wedge to a debt counsellor who can sort it all out sensibly?

 

excellent .... the court assigns a debt counsellor to perform a "pre-sentence report" - sorry - "debt assesment" which should recommend a fair agreement between debtor and creditor

 

problem is... all of this is complete rollocks when parking tickets are taken into account.

 

If i did not repay a loan, there is a contract that shows i agreed, and i may have failed - contract breach

 

However, with parking tickets, i never entered into contract with the council. I paid road tax which allows me to drive, but this is not to do with the council - then why how can council send criminals to my door?

 

then when i ask why they sent criminals to my door they respond by saying they act within the law

 

who's to blame the law, or the council or the bailiff - or the police?

 

all me thinks, shame it's easy for them to dig claws into us, but make it very difficult for us (by way of trial!) to gain justice against those that lie

[High Court Enforcer]

We do not need bailiff's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Try telling that to the thousands of creditors who get swindled by the 'wont pays'....

[hazza]

who do you mean by creditors?

 

banks?

councils?

finance/hire purchase companies?

 

if so, tell them that they should not lend so much next year - it might not all be paid back

 

but they can't - as it will affect sales/growth projections for everything

 

no credit no sales no xmas bonus

 

it's a big bubble that they all pumped up too much without realising the consequences

 

the industry would not implicate themselves in protecting the consumer (look how much they spent protecting bank charges)

 

many have crossed the line -

 

anyway, i have the eye of the tiger - thankfully it is the year of the tiger today

 

[MrShed]

who do you mean by creditors?

 

banks?

councils?

finance/hire purchase companies?

 

What about when they are not large "faceless" corporations? Do you feel the same then?

 

Even so - what difference does the claimaint make if the defendant WONT pay as opposed to CANT pay?

[hazza]

hi shed,

Let's get some stats, i reckon 80-99% of orders involving bailiffs and consumers at home are large corps or gov - terrorise me at my home if i am wrong!

does anyone have any figures?

if i owe £10 to the corner shop guy, he would not get litigious

if i owed £10 to BT, Gas, water etc they would get very litigious then start selling the £10 debt until it was £100 -

 

they are the reason why we have in our socety 'bulk' litigation centers - not for the people, but for the corps

 

i think the can't or won't is irrelevant here - in fact i believe it is no one's business - right to privacy, right to peace at home etc

 

it is simply paid or not paid

 

the industry loves to extract lots of private info on people to determine this - cant vs. wont - i think it's none of their business - only perhaps someone good and honest like a bonafide debt counseller should be told if can't or won't

 

by differentiating can't/won't they use different debt attack strategy - why?

 

perhaps some people who can pay won't pay because they're ethically obliged not to be intimitated by threat and fear therefore making them into a can't pay

 

this should be the theme tune for CAG - back to the 80's!

 

YouTube - Survivor - Eye Of The Tiger

 

i think i am over the limit to continue answereing questions

 

i need to check my computer driving license to see what the legal CAG limit is

 

btw... i'm so skint i can't pay, but i was forced to pay - illegally - which destroyed many other areas of my life - what do you say for that - when someone is made to pay illegally - they believed i was a won't pay but i was a can't pay now i am just.... a victim of a litigious world?

 

[MrShed]

Hazza - if you owe someone money, I think that cant pay or wont pay is VERY MUCH someone elses business.

 

I may be ethically against paying income tax, but that doesnt mean I cant.

 

You are probably right that most claims are large organisations. But not all.

 

If large organisations were not able to claim, our financial society would fall apart. Utility companies would no longer exist, or banks (which like it or not, most of us need them these days).

 

Your thought process is very utopian and nice. But we live in a world that be neccessity is dictated by capitalism and the appropriate laws around that. We cant choose to ignore the law (civil or criminal), and neither can we choose not to repay a debt that we incurred.

 

I fail to see on what "ethical" basis you can say that someone can run up a £1000 debt and then just simply fail to repay it? That is basically theft!

[hazza]

Hazza - if you owe someone money, I think that cant pay or wont pay is VERY MUCH someone elses business.

 

I may be ethically against paying income tax, but that doesnt mean I cant.

 

TOTAL ABSOLUTE ROLLOCKS AGAIN!!!! (nothing personal i assure you!)

 

I am not talking tax ere - i am talking consumer debt and dodgy parking tickets - but if you ask me, we could be living in an much more ethical society where tax is an option - not a punishable offence - and the lights would not go out

 

Okay, i haven't read many of your posts but i sense you are in the 'industry'

 

have you ever been visited by a trainee bailiff ?

 

are you the type of person that agrees with council's etc using RIPA too?

 

financial matters are not for a bailiff ever - them too dumb - they can't even add up!

 

financial matters are for someone with a qualification- and a spreadsheet - to help get out,

 

bailiff's operate cloak and dagger, stalking, following anpr etc - no more ever i pray!

[Another Jack]

I'm going to bow out of this debate now, as I feel I've said all I can anything more is just repeating myself.

 

Was fun though! and a good discussion.

 

Thank you Mr Shed for joining in. (I see you didn't really bow out.)

 

It's a shame we're powerless to do anything about something everybody agrees needs cleaning up if not abolishing.

 

For those who have been concerned about qualifications, let me assure you that I have some GCSEs and loads and loads of scout badges.

[hazza]

If large organisations were not able to claim, our financial society would fall apart. Utility companies would no longer exist, or banks (which like it or not, most of us need them these days)

 

You really are putting yourself in line with statements like that... please explain your theory in more detail. I think if orgs could not send someone to someone's home to intimidate and take by theft, they would just be a bit more cautious in their lending. We will always have utility companies - even if it's a bloke helping people at a communal well

 

Your thought process is very utopian and nice. But we live in a world that be neccessity is dictated by capitalism and the appropriate laws around that. We cant choose to ignore the law (civil or criminal), and neither can we choose not to repay a debt that we incurred

 

no one is asking you to do that - we as a society need to remove the last shackles of a medievel world - bailiffs!!!

 

I fail to see on what "ethical" basis you can say that someone can run up a £1000 debt and then just simply fail to repay it? That is basically theft!

 

rollocks again - non payment of debt is never theft.

Bailiff action for incorrect debt IS theft - by deception?

[Another Jack]

non payment of debt is never theft.

 

It might be fraud and that's close enough but we're not talking about criminals but bailiffs bluffing and bullying honest people.

[seanamarts]

Hazza, can i be hypothetical with you for just a mo, please dont bite my head off though. I take my landlord to court, for damages because he failed to repair a leaking pipe, the leak got worse, he didnt repair it so the leak got worse, damaged my property, now he refused to reimburse me for the items that I had to replace because of the damage, I took him to court and I was recompensed for my loss plus costs. Now what if he didnt pay what would I do? what would be my choices?

[hazza]

simples!

the landlord is not a consumer

he obviously has assets

by not fixing he put his own property and assets in jeapordy

by not paying damages he is putting his assets at risk

so, if i were you, claim that the house is yours (freehold) until thehe pays damages - assuming you are still there!

sm....i would not bite anyone's head off - but if i find a post absurd i may post an absurd reply if i've had a beer!

[hazza]

It might be fraud and that's close enough but we're not talking about criminals but bailiffs bluffing and bullying honest people.

 

so we agree that non-payment of debt is not theft!

 

we're not talking about criminals but bailiffs bluffing and bullying honest people.

 

and let's be clear that bailiffs bluffing and bullying ANYONE is fraud and is theft!

[hazza]

simples!

the landlord is not a consumer

he obviously has assets

by not fixing he put his own property and assets in jeapordy

by not paying damages he is putting his assets at risk

so, if i were you, claim that the house is yours (freehold) until thehe pays damages - assuming you are still there!

sm....i would not bite anyone's head off - but if i find a post absurd i may post an absurd reply if i've had a beer!

 

actually, if a judge has made an order for damages then there are ways to enforce a *court order* - which is not what i say not to pay!!!!

 

i am thinking and focused on enforcing a parking ticket