BBC Whistleblower exposes criminal world of bailiffs BBC1 26th September 9PM

[veryannoyed]

I am still awaiting a reply from 'barracad' following the libellous remark in post 123 of this thread. Without resorting to expletives, it is difficult to express my utter disgust at being accused of xenophobia, especially by someone charged with 'moderating' the site.

 

I doubt I shall get a reply - I fully expect either the thread to get closed or deleted, or more likely I will get deleted / barred from the site. After all, thats much easier than a 'moderator' loosing face. So much to freedom of speech eh?

 

And now another moderator, 'blueskies', who admits to not even seeing the original post, is verging on accusing me of racism. With the very greatest of respect blueskies, your intervention, without having seen the original post, isn't exactly helping.

 

Perhaps I should have expected moderators to stick together in the face of a complainant, maybe it is human nature? - just like all the bankers, bailiffs and CRAs are sticking together...

 

Kinda ironic, don't you think?

 

The subject matter is irrelevant. It is the principle that is important here. The principle that apparently a 'moderator' can go round hacking people's posts to bits and libeling the poster, without having to give any justification or enter into any proper dialogue thereafter. This seems to me to be a very unfotunate scenario, to put it mildly. This site is supposed to be about fairness and rights, yet it appears I have none.

 

I will gladly apologise / retract remarks / voluntarily leave the site as necessary if 'barracad' can justify the allegation of xenophobia.

 

Just saying "you are xenophobic because I think you are" isn't good enough. That is exactly the same as a Bank or CRA saying "your'e a bed debtor" when they cannot prove it, and not allowing you to question their statement.

 

I wonder how long it will be before I'm silenced for daring to question a moderator?

[dragonlord002]

I am still awaiting a reply from 'barracad' following the libellous remark in post 123 of this thread. Without resorting to expletives, it is difficult to express my utter disgust at being accused of xenophobia, especially by someone charged with 'moderating' the site.

 

I doubt I shall get a reply - I fully expect either the thread to get closed or deleted, or more likely I will get deleted / barred from the site. After all, thats much easier than a 'moderator' loosing face. So much to freedom of speech eh?

 

And now another moderator, 'blueskies', who admits to not even seeing the original post, is verging on accusing me of racism. With the very greatest of respect blueskies, your intervention, without having seen the original post, isn't exactly helping.

 

Perhaps I should have expected moderators to stick together in the face of a complainant, maybe it is human nature? - just like all the bankers, bailiffs and CRAs are sticking together...

 

Kinda ironic, don't you think?

 

The subject matter is irrelevant. It is the principle that is important here. The principle that apparently a 'moderator' can go round hacking people's posts to bits and libeling the poster, without having to give any justification or enter into any proper dialogue thereafter. This seems to me to be a very unfotunate scenario, to put it mildly. This site is supposed to be about fairness and rights, yet it appears I have none.

 

I will gladly apologise / retract remarks / voluntarily leave the site as necessary if 'barracad' can justify the allegation of xenophobia.

 

Just saying "you are xenophobic because I think you are" isn't good enough. That is exactly the same as a Bank or CRA saying "your'e a bed debtor" when they cannot prove it, and not allowing you to question their statement.

 

I wonder how long it will be before I'm silenced for daring to question a moderator?

 

I mised the post.

but if they want too ban anyone for itthey should have left it so other knew what was said.

[martinpar]

Just saying "you are xenophobic because I think you are" isn't good enough. That is exactly the same as a Bank or CRA saying "your'e a bed debtor" when they cannot prove it, and not allowing you to question their statement.

veryannoyed, I know from being a moderator on another forum that it is a very difficult job. You cannot please everyone and you are normally faced with having to make a decision alone, based on your interpretations of the forum rules.

 

Whether your words would fail a legal test of xenophobia I don't know but those words which remain show an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners in my opinion.

It isn't on to leave the offending post intact when moderating because that would make moderating pointless so we just have to trust our moderators to do their best. They're not professionals with legal brains (so far as I know) and I would rather they get it wrong occasionally than the forum be allowed to degenerate.

 

Apart from anything else this has taken us way off topic, which is a distraction from the real reason we're all here and I don't want to get dragged into any more discussion on this.

[veryannoyed]

I'll have to read it again tomorrow with a clear head then, I really don't get this "unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners" thing at all. Maybe my punctuation is off somewhere or something.

 

I DO HAVE a fear or hatred (and not unreasonable in my opinion) of the SYSTEM of social security and how it is dished out, perhaps I didn't make that absoultely plain-english, bomb-proof, crystal-clear, black-and-white to the moderator?

 

It is off-topic, fair enough, but then if you were to moderate all threads that go off-topic, there wouldn't be a lot left anywhere

 

Besides, if the forum rules of not exhibiting hatred to groups blah blah blah are to be adhered to, then virtually every thread needs moderating as they include waaaaaaaaaaaaay stronger language directed at banks, bailiffs, DCAs and CRAs and their respective directors/managers than I have used above...

 

Ho hum... I do hope its not becoming yet another forum that gets drowned in a deluge of political correctness bo****ks

[meagain]

Taken from this post:

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to your opinions.

It DOES NOT mean you can force them upon others.

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to tell people about it.

It DOES NOT mean we have to provide the platform for you to do so.

 

It DOES mean you can go online and spout all you like.

It DOES NOT mean you can do so on someone else's forum.

 

You are on private property, here by the grace of Mods. They are entitled to take issue with anything you say (they have freedom of speech too, you know), ask you to tone things down. They are also entitled to remove you from their front room, head-first via the bay window if necessary.

[veryannoyed]

Yep, I agree with all that...

 

But where DOES it mean a moderator can libel me without recourse?

[meagain]

Yep, I agree with all that...

 

Then you have no reason to complain.

 

But where DOES it mean a moderator can libel me without recourse?

 

If it makes a difference, technically one can't libel a nickname when its owner isn't known (or can't reasonably be deduced). More importantly, however, be the bigger person: walk away from the fight, and let others form their own opinion. Arguing over bad publicity in public view is a great way of making yourself look even worse.

[MARTIN3030]

veryannoyed, I know from being a moderator on another forum that it is a very difficult job. You cannot please everyone and you are normally faced with having to make a decision alone, based on your interpretations of the forum rules.

 

Whether your words would fail a legal test of xenophobia I don't know but those words which remain show an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners in my opinion.

It isn't on to leave the offending post intact when moderating because that would make moderating pointless so we just have to trust our moderators to do their best. They're not professionals with legal brains (so far as I know) and I would rather they get it wrong occasionally than the forum be allowed to degenerate.

 

Apart from anything else this has taken us way off topic, which is a distraction from the real reason we're all here and I don't want to get dragged into any more discussion on this.

 

 

I think this sums up things very well and comes from someone who is impartial to moderation here but has the benefit of experience elsewhere.

This really is going nowhere fast and the quicker its put to bed the quicker we can all get on with the job in hand.........claiming back our bank charges. !!

[veryannoyed]

Yep, well it has become quite obvious that although this site promotes fairness, it doesn't practice what it preaches, or at least certain moderators do not.

 

Therefore I shall no longer be posting on this thread, unless of course some other derogatory remark is made to which I have little choice but reply. For that reason I am making the reasonable request that no-one else posts on the matter of unjust moderation and derogatory remarks (whether technically libellous or not) on this thread.

 

It is a shame the moderator in question doesn't have the gumption to justify their actions, but there ya go...

 

I'm sure as 'meagain' rightly says, people will form their own opinion of the parties in question from what has happened on this (and several other) threads.

 

Viva Las Vegas

 

[elsinore]

Thank gawd for that!

Now, perhaps, we can get back to something interesting and on topic, like bailiffs and how to deal with them.

 

Elsinore

[MARTIN3030]

Good idea......they cause people far more misery and despair than any other profession I know..........ahem (cough) ......apart from certain Solicitors who work for banks.............:o

[veryannoyed]

ooooh I do hope you're not displaying an unreasonable fear or hatred of bank solicitors

 

sorry - couldn't resist

[MARTIN3030]

Nope I wouldnt dream of such a thing.........Cough again....(must get some benlyn )....

[poorgirl]

I ahve recived a reply from the mayor reagrdign my complaint about teh use of Blakes adn CCt for collection of fines - well not exactly a reply from the mayor - I am postin it here.. seems they didnt really get what i was saying - but actually its a pathetic rebuff...

 

RE: Drakes and CCS Enforcements Bailiffs

I thank you for your email, received 27 September 2006, which was addressed to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. As an Enforcement Correspondence Investigation Officer for the Congestion Charging Scheme, your letter was forwarded to me for investigation and response.

I feel it may be useful if I begin by outlining TfL’s policy and procedures regarding the use of bailiff companies. TfL, like most other Local Authorities, only use bailiffs to recover unpaid penalties and other debts such as Council Tax as a last resort. In respect of Congestion Charging penalties no such action is taken until the issue of at least three enforcement notices. In addition, when a warrant is despatched to bailiffs, prior to a bailiff visiting, a further enforcement notice is issued by them advising that the debt remains outstanding and the implications if payment is not made.

Whilst TfL acknowledges that the use of bailiffs can cause distress it is essential that we have recourse to collect outstanding debts.

In respect of bailiffs used by Congestion Charging I would advise that TfL closely monitors the activities and performance of the four bailiff companies it engages using a variety of monitoring activities. As a direct result of such activities we have, since February this year, had additional requirements on them to improve the information they hold on their bailiffs activities and the recording and availability of evidence to prove the validity of charges they add to the debt due to us.

In addition, all charges applied by the four bailiff companies in recovering outstanding Congestion Charging penalties are covered by legislation and have been agreed by TfL. The charges applied by bailiffs are monitored by TfL and should a motorist believe they have been overcharged, they have the right to take out a Taxation Order to challenge the fees applied. Further details on Taxation Orders can be found on the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) website.

Please also note that TfL uses only County Court certificated bailiffs for the recovery of outstanding congestion charge penalties and as such, these bailiffs are required to comply with all relevant legislation in the recovery action undertaken by them. If you believe that a bailiff has acted in breach of their county court certification, you may contact the County Court where the certificate was granted and make a formal complaint; alternatively, you may wish to contact one of the Bailiff Trade Associations. For contact details and more detailed information about the process for making a complaint about a certificated bailiff, please contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) or visit their website: www.dca.gov.uk. Alternatively, you may choose to seek independent advice.

In light of the recent BBC Whistleblower programme mentioned in your e-mail, I would advise you that despite the fact that none of the cases featured in the programme related to TfL related penalties, we take all the allegations made very seriously and I can assure you that we will not tolerate such activity by bailiffs acting on our behalf. We have already had several detailed discussions with the two bailiff companies featured and are satisfied that they have taken immediate steps to remedy the issues arising from the programme. Such actions have included the immediate suspension and dismissal of staff for gross misconduct. In addition we intend to review our current contract requirements and arrangements, intensify our monitoring regime even further and continue to ensure that the conduct of each company engaged by us is consistent with TfL’s requirements.

I hope that this clarifies the position of TfL and brings the matter to a satisfactory close.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Evans

Enforcement Correspondence Investigation Officer

Congestion Charging

Transport for London

 

.

[meagain]

ooooh I do hope you're not displaying an unreasonable fear or hatred of bank solicitors

 

When it comes to bailiffs or bank solicitors, there's no such thing as an "unreasonable hatred". Especially for those lovely people who consciously chose to enter the professions

 

As for the "imediate suspensions", if the bailiff companies really did take these allegations seriously, and immediately suspended all offenders, some would have no bailiffs left afterwards!

[Peterbard]

I recently posted a request for any thoughts or points you wanted me to put to the MP for my district on the letters to MPs page ,my idea was to have a list of questions and points that would empress on him the sence of unease that i thought was present on this forum over the loss of civil liberties that this new lecgislation threatens. I am sorry to say i have had zero response,i have nevertheless prepared myself as best i can and will report the answers back.

[Peterbard]

The meeting with my MP whent very well and he is generally in agreement with the points made. He suggested various next steps some including the media and has promised some support and advice.

If any one is interested in more details please pm me. I am not willing to waste my time on more unanswered postings.

[Recycler]

The TfL bailiff stats I Have show as of October 2005

 

CCS had sucessfully recovered £1,903,249 of TfL debt

Drakes had sucessfully recovered £1,412,052 of TfL debt

 

So in spite of the featured bailiffs being dismissed TfL is happy to keep any monies which these individuals may have collected on its behalf....

would be interesting to know how much these individuals were responsible for & how TfL can be satisfied it has control of its bailiff agents under the circumstances.

 

 

 

I ahve recived a reply from the mayor reagrdign my complaint about teh use of Blakes adn CCt for collection of fines - well not exactly a reply from the mayor - I am postin it here.. seems they didnt really get what i was saying - but actually its a pathetic rebuff...

 

RE: Drakes and CCS Enforcements Bailiffs

 

I thank you for your email, received 27 September 2006, which was addressed to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. As an Enforcement Correspondence Investigation Officer for the Congestion Charging Scheme, your letter was forwarded to me for investigation and response.

 

I feel it may be useful if I begin by outlining TfL’s policy and procedures regarding the use of bailiff companies. TfL, like most other Local Authorities, only use bailiffs to recover unpaid penalties and other debts such as Council Tax as a last resort. In respect of Congestion Charging penalties no such action is taken until the issue of at least three enforcement notices. In addition, when a warrant is despatched to bailiffs, prior to a bailiff visiting, a further enforcement notice is issued by them advising that the debt remains outstanding and the implications if payment is not made.

 

Whilst TfL acknowledges that the use of bailiffs can cause distress it is essential that we have recourse to collect outstanding debts.

In respect of bailiffs used by Congestion Charging I would advise that TfL closely monitors the activities and performance of the four bailiff companies it engages using a variety of monitoring activities. As a direct result of such activities we have, since February this year, had additional requirements on them to improve the information they hold on their bailiffs activities and the recording and availability of evidence to prove the validity of charges they add to the debt due to us.

In addition, all charges applied by the four bailiff companies in recovering outstanding Congestion Charging penalties are covered by legislation and have been agreed by TfL. The charges applied by bailiffs are monitored by TfL and should a motorist believe they have been overcharged, they have the right to take out a Taxation Order to challenge the fees applied. Further details on Taxation Orders can be found on the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) website.

Please also note that TfL uses only County Court certificated bailiffs for the recovery of outstanding congestion charge penalties and as such, these bailiffs are required to comply with all relevant legislation in the recovery action undertaken by them. If you believe that a bailiff has acted in breach of their county court certification, you may contact the County Court where the certificate was granted and make a formal complaint; alternatively, you may wish to contact one of the Bailiff Trade Associations. For contact details and more detailed information about the process for making a complaint about a certificated bailiff, please contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) or visit their website: www.dca.gov.uk. Alternatively, you may choose to seek independent advice.

In light of the recent BBC Whistleblower programme mentioned in your e-mail, I would advise you that despite the fact that none of the cases featured in the programme related to TfL related penalties, we take all the allegations made very seriously and I can assure you that we will not tolerate such activity by bailiffs acting on our behalf. We have already had several detailed discussions with the two bailiff companies featured and are satisfied that they have taken immediate steps to remedy the issues arising from the programme. Such actions have included the immediate suspension and dismissal of staff for gross misconduct. In addition we intend to review our current contract requirements and arrangements, intensify our monitoring regime even further and continue to ensure that the conduct of each company engaged by us is consistent with TfL’s requirements.

 

I hope that this clarifies the position of TfL and brings the matter to a satisfactory close.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Matthew Evans

Enforcement Correspondence Investigation Officer

Congestion Charging

Transport for London

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[Number6]

Parliamentary Written answers

Tuesday, 24 October 2006

 

House of Lords

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Draft Bill

 

All Written Answers on 24 Oct 2006

 

 

Lord Lucas (Conservative) Hansard source asked Her Majesty's Government:

 

When they will reply to the letter dated 20 September from Philip Evans, chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, concerning the draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill; and whether they propose to submit that draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

 

 

Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Hansard source

 

My right honourable and noble friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor replied to Mr Evans's letter on 20 October 2006. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill was published in draft on 25 July and has been available for pre-legislative scrutiny by interested parties. There are no plans to invite a parliamentary committee to conduct a specific scrutiny inquiry on the Bill, though any comments from parliamentary bodies are welcome.

[Number6]

Constitutional Affairs

Bailiffs

 

All Written Answers on 30 Oct 2006

 

 

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth North, Labour)

 

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what regulations govern the activities of bailiffs.

 

Harriet Harman (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs)

 

Activities of county court bailiffs employed by Her Majesty's Courts Service are governed by the terms of their contracts of employment. Private bailiffs are currently self-regulated.

 

My Department published the draft Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill on 25 July 2006, which proposes an improved regulatory regime for all private sector bailiffs. The Government's long-term intention is to introduce full-scale regulation of the entire bailiff industry by way of an independent statutory regulatory body.

 

The Bill will be introduced to Parliament as soon as time allows.

[Number6]

All Written Answers on 10 Oct 2006

 

 

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour)

 

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Government will include provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill 2006 to make it a criminal offence for bailiffs and other debt collectors to fulfil their clients' instructions using (a) menaces, (b) illegal or enforced entry without proper warrant or legal authority and © clamping or seizing vehicles without proper warrant or legal authority; and if he will provide for a Regulatory and Ombudsman regime to have oversight of the industry and adjudicate in any complaints made against (i) any individual bailiff or debt collector and (ii) the firms they represent.

 

Harriet Harman (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs)

 

My Department published the draft Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill on 25 July 2006 and the proposals contained within the draft bill are now being considered by my officials in the light of comments received. These cover the use of reasonable force to enter a debtor's premises, regulations outlining the circumstances in which a bailiff may take control of goods or vehicles, the remedies that are available to the debtor should a bailiff breach any of the provisions in the Bill and an improved regulatory regime for all private sector bailiffs. A Bill will be published and introduced when parliamentary time allows.

 

Currently, there are no plans to create new criminal offences for illegal actions committed by bailiffs and other debt collectors, as these are already covered by existing legislation. The Government's long-term intention is to introduce full-scale regulation of the entire bailiff industry by way of an independent statutory regulatory body.

 

Regulation of debt collectors is a function of the Office of Fair Trading, as debt collection is a regulated activity under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Legislation already exists to prevent debt collectors harassing debtors; as do processes to deal with complaints against debt collectors and the firms that they represent.

[blackrain]

CAn anyone point me in the right direction? There was a thread somewhere and in it was listed everything a DCA can do if they haven't purchased a debt followed what they can do if they have. Basically the same but they can initiate court proceedings.

 

Can't remember what the thread was called or who posted it and I've been looking everyhwere this morning. It was also repeated on the moneysavingexpert site and I can't find it there either......my eyesight is failing....must stop drinking home made cider

[billsters]

Very interesting reading ... I have recently entered a new world, that of the very poor (relatively speaking) unemployed, who get woken up by aggressive bailiffs at the door.

I agree with previous posters that their practices, clearly meant to cause fear and distress, are outrageous.

In my case, I owed 36 quid council tax, was lax in sorting out the paperwork to get benefits (I've been putting all my energy into finding a job), I've asked Intelligent Finance TWICE to provide the paper statements that the council require, and they haven't ... anyway, yesterday I had a thug at my door telling me I had to come to an arrangement with him to pay 157 pounds, he needed to inventorise my goods, otherwise the van would be round in two hours and if whether I was there or not they could enter and take property. I asked how exactly they would gain entry? He said "in certain circumstances we can break in".

What rubbish. Luckily I knew this to be rubbish, and I am only a temporarily poor person, but I am angry that he attempted to intimidate me. I slightly got my own back, with a sarcastic and rather spiteful tirade which had him scuttling back to his car and muttering to himself.

A rich friend of mine paid the bill the next day just to get them off my back and things look a bit rosier in the long run. I am just angry that people at their most vulnerable are treated this way with the apparent backing of the courts and councils.

[JonCris]

Make no mistake ALL debt collectors are scumbags

[FairPlay77]

Very interesting reading ... I have recently entered a new world, that of the very poor (relatively speaking) unemployed, who get woken up by aggressive bailiffs at the door.

I agree with previous posters that their practices, clearly meant to cause fear and distress, are outrageous.

In my case, I owed 36 quid council tax, was lax in sorting out the paperwork to get benefits (I've been putting all my energy into finding a job), I've asked Intelligent Finance TWICE to provide the paper statements that the council require, and they haven't ... anyway, yesterday I had a thug at my door telling me I had to come to an arrangement with him to pay 157 pounds, he needed to inventorise my goods, otherwise the van would be round in two hours and if whether I was there or not they could enter and take property. I asked how exactly they would gain entry? He said "in certain circumstances we can break in".

What rubbish. Luckily I knew this to be rubbish, and I am only a temporarily poor person, but I am angry that he attempted to intimidate me. I slightly got my own back, with a sarcastic and rather spiteful tirade which had him scuttling back to his car and muttering to himself.

A rich friend of mine paid the bill the next day just to get them off my back and things look a bit rosier in the long run. I am just angry that people at their most vulnerable are treated this way with the apparent backing of the courts and councils.

 

THE bailiffs have over-charged you and you should have them propsecuted for fraud.

They are only allowed to add on £24.50 for a first visit to your property and £18 for a second, no matter how many times they come (or say they have come).