An Act of Parliament to end the scourge of bailiff’’s fee fraud - Your comments

[ploddertom]

Has this been reported to police? and did police explain why the evidence not passed to the Public Prosecutor?

 

 

 

This is only protection from a civil action. There is nothing in law that protects against criminal liability except statutory protection for visiting diplomats and sovereign heads of state. .

.

Was this reported? Initial complaint at front desk level was "this is a civil matter"

 

It could be that police have learned to tolerate threats of violence by enforcement officers. A stark contrast to established police tactics in dealing with threats of violence onboard a commercial aircraft. The moment I cut the engines, stairs approach and 10 or more officers board and scrum the passenger in his seat.

 

 

 

This is why I think there is a need for reform. There is no point having an appeals process when those needing it most cant afford it. With a simple fee structure covering all enforcement work, the small claims track can settle disputes quickly and cheaply.

 

The suggestion I would be taking further action prompted the reply:

 

You will be aware from your attendance at the High Court last week that Master xxx made an order that there be no action brought

against the High Court Enforcement Officer. As we have communicated previously Mr xxx was acting under the delegated authority of the Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer.

 

In these circumstances if you wish to pursue an action against the Enforcement Officer you will need to apply to court to set aside

Master xxx order first.

 

PT

Edited April 26, 2010 by ploddertom

[tomtubby]

HCEO's do not collect government debts, a bailiff who is not a civil servant must hold a certificate before he can handle public money. Its HCEO's that feature well with complaints concerning high fees. Bailiffs fee irregularities for government debts are easily resolved becasue the authority is liable for its agents, and filing a claim in the small clams track clears the matter up quickly and cheaply. I propose the same for resolving HCEO fees because this method is well tested.

 

 

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I dont believe any Judge would be so naive.

 

Many debtors receiving a bailiff do so because civil servants have not calculated liability correctly, too quick to jump straight to enforcement, the debtor is unable to claim a benefit under his own means, he doesnt know liability exists, or he is not financially active, they are students, immigrants etc. The reasons are endless, its little to do with not wanting to pay. As someone working in debt counselling, I would have thought you would know that.

 

 

 

You are right. Its a disgusting job facing all those empty houses, gone aways, mums with 10 kids, druggies and skint unemployed people, nobody is forcing bailiffs to be bailiffs.

 

 

 

It has been bandied around for a while but there is nothing in motion to set a transparent statutory fee structure for civil enforcement. I think you are referring to the consultation paper on civil enforcement training practice due for assent in 2012, this is nothing to do with fees, its all about setting guidelines on training practices for civil enforcement officers and administration procedure.

 

 

 

 

Only trade and local government associations contributed and little action was recommended that protected debtors from high fees. Debtors paying high fees were totally unrepresented in this consultation. I argued this did not attain sufficient input from the public to achieve any positive protection for debtors. Unfortunately my efforts fell on deaf ears, and I thought the CAB's input did not represent an accurate extent of the problem.

 

 

 

It sounds like you have been reading the Regulation for Enforcement Agents consultation paper,. The SIA said they did not want to be the regulator, but the government can still pass a statutory obligation on the SIA.

 

 

 

 

Do you have a copy?

 

I only discussed a staged fee proposal for civil enforcment at the House with a legislator last year but I never formally put it into motion. It was only recently I was contacted by another member of the House to relist it.

 

 

 

HC. Can you tell me how to do multi quotes so that I can answer individual points like you have done?

 

 

In the meantime to answer one of your points:

 

It has been bandied around for a while but there is nothing in motion to set a transparent statutory fee structure for civil enforcement. I think you are referring to the consultation paper on civil enforcement training practice due for assent in 2012, this is nothing to do with fees, its all about setting guidelines on training practices for civil enforcement officers and administration procedure

 

The above in not correct. In my post I was not referring to the SIA Consultation at all.

 

As I had pointed out MOJ have commissioned an independent company who spent a lot of time with bailiff companies and High Court Enforcement firms to evaluate the actual costs of running their business. In the course of this research they were provided with access to company and management accounts. This company also met with local authorities and representatives from the advice sector.

 

After months of research the company have provided MOJ with a very comprehensive report with suggestions as to how a fixed fee scale can be applied.

 

It is the case that MOJ are actively looking at a two stage fixed fee across all debt types.

 

as to how a fixed fee scale could be applied and checked figures against the published accounts. at the company accounts etc and t

[ploddertom]

have had to time to think about some other bits and pieces that need to be sorted out in conjunction with fees and that relates to visits & requests.

 

Why is it that the Bailiff is permitted to creep up on your door and post a letter without even knocking? I realise part of this is to add a fee, but yet again this should not be allowed - how does he know that the debtor may be hiding behind the door with a fist full of notes to pay him!

 

For those that have moved and the bailiff has traced why does he then post at the old address until the bill gets to the stage that is worth collecting when he calls at your new address?

 

How do they get away with ignoring a request or not complying with providing a breakdown of fees, or those who insist it is a SAR.

 

PT

[RaeUK]

TT - try the multi-qoute button next to the qoute button bottom right, pair of speech marks...

Rae

Edited April 28, 2010 by RaeUK

[tomtubby]

I thought that it was that button but on my laptop it doesn't work ....

[RaeUK]

TT, just had a quick practice - hadn't actually done it myself before!

Press the multi qoute button for each post you wish to qoute, it turns red on my screen, then qoute button as well on the final post. Edit as required...

HOWEVER

I suspect that when splitting a single post into salient points - which is what you really want to do - then I assume you just ensure each segment has typed [qoute] at the beginning and [/qoute] at the end...

Best wishes

Rae

[Dodgy Geezer]

Multi-quotes:

 

 

 

If you want to reply to more than one post, click on

on each post you want to quote from, it will then turn

 

 

On the last post you want to quote from, click on

first then .

 

 

 

The end result will look like this:

 

 

.

If you change your mind, or have clicked on the wrong post, just click on the again, it will deselect it.

 

 

I suspect that when splitting a single post into salient points - which is what you really want to do - then I assume you just ensure each segment has typed [qoute] at the beginning and [/qoute] at the end...

 

:)

 

But you do have to spell it right.

 

.

[RaeUK]

You know me, DG, not one to understand spelling or grammar! It's one of those simple words I will consistently get wrong - even when it appears at the bottom of every post. Oops.

Best wishes

Rae

[Dodgy Geezer]

Not a criticism. Keep up the good work.