Bailiffs - the true horrors - The Exposure TV documentary - Rossendales - Comments

[YANO BEMUSE]

I suppose the programme was good telly if you like listening to swearing but it was very poor journalism. Right at the start, the narrator said that there are no laws covering bailiffs, only guidelines, which clearly signalled that the producers, journalists and researchers seemed not to understand the first thing about the subject. Anyone who has read John Kruse’s book knows that there are lots of laws bailiffs should follow.

 

Later, the narrator said the programme was about ‘Bost the bailiff’ and that’s really all it was about. Just one bailiff in one company. In one of the other stories, the narrator said that the bailiffs hadn’t done anything wrong, so why was it even mentioned in a programme about exposing bailiffs? Probably just as an excuse to include the MP! The story about JBW was so very, very carefully told, with so many of JBW’s words up on the screen that it even felt like we were not being told the whole story, even if we should feel sorry for someone with brain damage.

 

The only really good point made in the programme was that everyone wants change EXCEPT the Government, who rely on the bailiffs. But I said all that in an earlier post.

[citizenB]

I was astonished to hear Julie Green-Jones, the chief executive, say they hadnt received any complaints!! There must have been hundreds from Caggers alone!

 

Or possibly the fact that most people tend to rely on telephoning where there would be no record of any complaint unless it was recorded.

 

People if you need to complain.. put it in writing, send by tracked mail, that way they cannot deny receiving your complaints.

[rebel11]

What you can also say is, if you are a Bailiff you need to abide by the Guidelines, there will be quite a lot of covert filming going on, secuirty, mobile phone, etc.

[x bailiff]

It was unfortunate last night on Exposure for the bailiff concerned as it could so easily of been any bailiff and yes Rossendales will be fully aware of his methods to collect debts as this is encouraged unless you have too many complaints the council wants some action taken or you are exposed on TV where upon they had no option but to let him go.

[Fair-Parking]

Can't say that I watched it in great depth as I now never watch commercial TV live but I did flick through it. However it appeared that concentrating on one bailiff for the majority of the programme meant that it was far too easy to call him an isolated rogue, dismiss him and pretend that everything had been corrected. The bailiff industry breathes a sigh of relief, shrugs it shoulders and carries on without any further hesitation.

 

The length of the programme was too short (partly due to too many b....y adverts in all ITV programmes) but mainly because the scope of bailiff intimidation, bullying, deceit and fraud is so extensive that really this programme needed to be an introduction to a series whereby the misdemeanours could have been sliced up into their constituent parts and presented in a series format. ie individual bailiffs, bailiff companies, council tax collection, parking collection including towing of cars, ANPR, joint operations with the police and a summary.

 

That would be more educational (eye opening), more damning and not something that the MoJ and others who ought to regulating this shameful business could ignore with any dignity. The longer period of time would certainly gain the public's attention. People might look forward to the next programme. It would be far harder for the bailiff industry to shrug its shoulders and 'draw a line under all this'.

 

Nor can you criticise people for lack of experience in more techincal matters. I'll give you one example. Boast knocked on a door and said he was from 'the Council'. Later in the programme the narrator (Philip Glenister) also stated that he represented 'the Council'. He did not, he was working on behalf of Rossendales and in self employed capacity.

 

That was bourne out by Ms Green Jones openly stating that Boast's 'contract had been terminated'. He wasn't either dismissed or sacked as employees are. Contracts exist between third parties. Boast's only responsibilities were to himself and Rossendales as part of this contract and it did not extend to Hounslow Council. Boast was not a paid employee of the bailiff company whom Hounslow instructed, he was a sub contractor whom Hounslow would have not dealt with directly. The Council may not even have known about him. It was Rossendales and not Hounslow Council which instructed Boast. He was not from the Council.

 

Arriving at a person's door and stating that he was from 'the Council' was a deceit and not a mistake. Boast didn't forget that he was an independent bailiff, he simply chose not to say that he was. People are far more likely to admit a council official than a bailiff. Boast may possibly have known that.

 

It certainly fooled the programme makers and made Boast look far more authentic than his deceit deserved. But as I say, you cannot criticise people for not having the experience required to spot a very important difference which was meant to gain advantage.

[YANO BEMUSE]

Nor can you criticise people for lack of experience in more techincal matters. I'll give you one example. Boast knocked on a door and said he was from 'the Council'. Later in the programme the narrator (Philip Glenister) also stated that he represented 'the Council'. He did not, he was working on behalf of Rossendales and in self employed capacity.

 

Arriving at a person's door and stating that he was from 'the Council' was a deceit and not a mistake. Boast didn't forget that he was an independent bailiff, he simply chose not to say that he was. People are far more likely to admit a council official than a bailiff. Boast may possibly have known that.

 

It certainly fooled the programme makers and made Boast look far more authentic than his deceit deserved. But as I say, you cannot criticise people for not having the experience required to spot a very important difference which was meant to gain advantage.

 

I respectfully disagee and think we can criticise the programme makers for not knowing these sorts of things. Didn't they only have to ask their own expert, the one they interviewed, or Fair Parking or any of the other CAG experts, like tomtubby? They're not hard to find.

[China.Blue]

I could not agree more !! I am very supprised no one has challenged these bottom feeders in a court under the now very often used " Human rights act " I can't see anything more against human rights than these lice entering your home and emptying it of all the things you have worked for just for the sake of a few quid. Welcome to 21st century Britain !!

[YANO BEMUSE]

I think the programme makers purposely diluted the programme SO IT COULD be broadcast, as it would have been possible for Rossers and JBW to have gone for an injunction to stop or at least delay broadcast, as they would contend that doubt about the "Enforcement Industry" now there is an oxymoron as since when has aggravated debt collection been been industry? what does it produce? Ah yes broken lives...

 

Mr Boast's 'tache' was heroic enough to gain him employment now he ain't a bailiff (at least with Rossers but who knows he may crop up again with another company) in a Village People tribute Band.

 

It didn't go far enough but was better than nothing, John Kruse i think also understated the problem, but we don't know what he said in raw footage before his contribution was edited for the programme, so he may have given more robust comments but they could have been edited out.

 

I could be wrong but I think John Kruse 'understated' the problems because he hadn't seen what we saw. Perhaps he could tell us, but it seemed like he had been asked theoritical questions and so gave generalist answers.

[wonkeydonkey]

" aren't the program makers aware that John Kruse now works alongside Jamie Waller so he can hardly be called independent"

 

If JBW have seen the "light" and John Kruse is involved in their training programme then surely that can only be to the good......at least they can't say "we have a rogue bailiff training would be bailiffs". It could 'just' be possible John will be able to get through to some of them to show the right way to carry on working in the Industry....after all he has taught me a hell of a lot to the advantage of caggers.

 

WD

 

WD

[outlawla]

Any viewers watching with no experience of bailiffs collecting for councils would no doubt be shocked, but would assume this guy was a one off.

 

A debt collection/bailiff firm offering commission based on the number of contacts made with alleged debtors will inevitably attract the more "enthusiastic" applicant wanting to exceed targets and maximise their fees by visiting (or not as the case may be) the highest number of "customers" (as Rossendales label them) in the shortest possible time. It would be naive to think human greed has not been 'taken advantage of' by councils and this incentive offered to earn unlimited pay is exploited by them. But what local authorities don't bank on are the motives behind bailiffs exceeding targets.

 

They are of course, playing the system and the rhyming up of fees, to the bailiff firm, has more importance than securing debt owed to councils. Local authorities must have cottoned on to this and I wonder if they're impressed – that not only are "customers" getting stitched-up by these private enforcement firms but also "clients" (councils)?

 

I thought the programme served a purpose, which was to give a taster of what goes on. It covered many aspects of the malpractice in the industry but the three quarters of an hour air time could only hope to cover the tip of the Iceberg. Grimsby’s MP made a good point about regulating the industry, which requires a truly independent body and highlighted the futility of the current self regulation.

 

I don't think there was any mention – or if there was it was minimal – of the organisations put in place, supposedly to protect citizens from this kind of thing. The Police and Local Government Ombudsman are not interested in reforming this malpractice and turn a blind eye to any accusations. Council's who investigate themselves while dealing with formal complaints have procedures where there is only going to be one outcome, these procedures are an utter joke and could have been highlighted in the documentary.

 

Something that puzzles me, and I suppose is symptomatic of TV productions like these, is how the undercover reporter got lucky being teamed up with his Walrus tashed mentor?

 

Maybe the following comment posted by someone implying they were once a bailiff could answer the above:

 

It was unfortunate last night on Exposure for the bailiff concerned as it could so easily of been any bailiff and yes Rossendales will be fully aware of his methods to collect debts as this is encouraged unless you have too many complaints the council wants some action taken or you are exposed on TV where upon they had no option but to let him go.

[China.Blue]

The part that got me was where the moron mentioned something about hittng someone in the throat using two knuckles. He would get more than two knuckles if he came to my home.

[wonkeydonkey]

Very pleased that you like the book so much. If you have the time, it owuld be helpful if you would review it on the Amazon website.

 

Ta

 

BF I would love to review John's book on Amazon as I truly think it is very consumer friendly...but...I am denied the chance unless I make a purchase from them ? so I regret to say I can only tell everyone how good the book is on CAG ....and reiterate it is very consumer friendly

 

WD

[rebel11]

I wonder if Austin Mitchell, will mention it at 'prime ministers' questions, tomorrow.

[ploddertom]

What is interesting is how they arrived at Mr. Boast, pretty random, they didn't have to look very hard, thats the scary bit.

 

Is this strange.

 

He was introduced as one of Rossendales Senior Bailiff's.

He met his "Trainee" outside a B&B in Hounslow - does this mean he travelled down solely to train.

If that is the case then he was not just a Senior bailiff he must have been a member of Rossendales Training Department - if that is the case then it is little wonder there are other Bailiffs doing similar things in different areas of the country.

I wonder how many there are at Rossendales responsible for training and if there are do they all follow a similar pattern. I for one do not believe this was an isolated "rogue" Bailiff.

 

PT

[TasmanianDevil]

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/100500/LADER_Release_White_Paper_to_MPs_and_Local_Authorities/

[brassnecked]

BF I would love to review John's book on Amazon as I truly think it is very consumer friendly...but...I am denied the chance unless I make a purchase from them ? so I regret to say I can only tell everyone how good the book is on CAG ....and reiterate it is very consumer friendly

 

WD

Must buy this book on payday, as anything that can explain the nitty gritty in an easily accessible manner is great. even though I understand legalese, but it would be better to buy from CAG than Amazon imho

[TasmanianDevil]

For those that have time, view part 1 and 2 of

 

This young guy is a legend and correct.

[wonkeydonkey]

Must buy this book on payday, as anything that can explain the nitty gritty in an easily accessible manner is great. even though I understand legalese, but it would be better to buy from CAG than Amazon imho

 

Yes BN do buy it from Cag....I only came upon it prior to the publication date by accident and pre ordered, I was so excited to see another book by John Kruse I never read the blag I just clicked to buy. lol. If you have his other book "Law of Seizure Debtors Rights and Remedies" this new one really does compliment it by being a quick and painless reference guide. Definately deserves a place on my bookshelf and the cover is already showing signs of being well thumbed.!!!!

 

WD

[rebel11]

I wonder if any Health and Safety Training was done.

 

Is this strange.

 

He was introduced as one of Rossendales Senior Bailiff's.

He met his "Trainee" outside a B&B in Hounslow - does this mean he travelled down solely to train.

If that is the case then he was not just a Senior bailiff he must have been a member of Rossendales Training Department - if that is the case then it is little wonder there are other Bailiffs doing similar things in different areas of the country.

I wonder how many there are at Rossendales responsible for training and if there are do they all follow a similar pattern. I for one do not believe this was an isolated "rogue" Bailiff.

 

PT

[joe1965]

Just watched it. The womans body language showed she knew exactly what was going on within her company. What a vile woman.

[tomtubby]

On last evenings programme, Bruce Forsyth's well known catchphrase of: DIDN'T WE DO WELL comes to mind !!!

 

I am of of course, referring to the many bailiff companies who must have breathed a huge sugh of relief that they had NOT been featured !!

 

Having read the comments on here, I am in agreement with everything that is being said in response to the programme.

 

As most people on here are aware, I have a commercial business advising the public with regards to a bailiff visit. I have been astonished at the number of calls and emails that we have received since the programme aired and ALL of these appear to indicate that members of the public are horrified at the way in which the bailliff acted but most worryingly, are extremely critical at the response from Ms Green Jones of Rossendales Ltd which appeared to attempt to blame the governement for failing to introduce regulation on the bailiff industry. The opinion that I am receiving is that Ms Jones is confirming that she cannot regulate her own bailiffs !!!

 

In an earlier post on this thread I had said the following:

 

All bailiffs know that in working as a bailiff that they must abide by Paragraph 10 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 which provides the following:

 

"No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules"

 

Whether the bailiff is enforcing unpaid council tax or a parking ticket , he knows when taking on the job that the fees that can be charged are set by Statute Law under an Act of Parliament. I would agree that the fee for "attending to levy " (where no levy is made) of £24.50 is not a lot of money for the job in hand BUT this is what the fee scale provides and the bailiff has a choice. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE THE JOB. It is that SIMPLE.

 

Take for instance the scenario that anyone us took a position of employment working at (for instance) Mc Donald's or another fast food restaurant earning £6 per hour. This would probably not be enough to survive on. Therefore, can you imagine what would happen if we charged another £1 to every customer we served? That would be theft and if discovered, we would be arrested and convicted.

 

Since the recession, it is now almost routine for bailiffs to charge an "enforcement fee" to each account when visiting a property for unpaid council tax. Typically this is for approx £150-£200 PER CUSTOMER!!! The statutory regulations do NOT provide for such a fee. Is this "theft"....? I would say so.

 

Once this programme is aired I would not be at all surprised to see that bailiff companies or their governing bodies attempt to say that the fault with bailiffs overcharging or acting aggressively lay entirely with the Ministry of Justice for failing to implement the Tribunals Court and Enforcement Act 2007 and that the current fee scale is neither clear, simple or easy to understand !! In other words......lay the blame on someone else.

 

 

As you can see from this post, the respose from last nights programme is predictably.......TO BLAME OTHERS.

 

Nobody forces anyone to take employment as a bailiff. The bailif chooses whether to take the job or not.

 

If he does wish to become a bailiff, HIS EMPLOYER is under a duty to advise him or her that they MUST adhere to the fee scale as provided by either the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order ( for unpaid parking tickets) or alternatively, the Council Tax Administration & Enforcement (Amendment) 1993 (as amended).

 

Next, the EMPLOYER should also inform their employee that he MUST adhere to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

 

How difficult is this !!!

 

If the bailiff overcharges, or fails to adhere to the National Standards then the COMPANY should simly terminate his employment....and please DO NOT blame the Government !!!!!!

[rebel11]

Ms. Green - Jones, did boast thats last year they collected, £xx,xxx,xxx. Hopefully they won't collect as much, as they've been exposed.

[citizenB]

Is this strange.

 

He was introduced as one of Rossendales Senior Bailiff's.

He met his "Trainee" outside a B&B in Hounslow - does this mean he travelled down solely to train.

If that is the case then he was not just a Senior bailiff he must have been a member of Rossendales Training Department - if that is the case then it is little wonder there are other Bailiffs doing similar things in different areas of the country.

I wonder how many there are at Rossendales responsible for training and if there are do they all follow a similar pattern. I for one do not believe this was an isolated "rogue" Bailiff.

PT

 

What is even more worrying is that he might just have been one of those who are now training local councils in their own Debt collection tactics !!

[brassnecked]

Just watched it. The womans body language showed she knew exactly what was going on within her company. What a vile woman.

 

She is a vile duplicitous woman, but I'll bet the character who you use for your avatar, Quagmire, would want to bed her for spite. Peter Griffin bailiff, now there IS a nightmare, he would levy his own house...

[TasmanianDevil]

On last evenings programme, Bruce Forsyth's well known catchphrase of: DIDN'T WE DO WELL comes to mind !!!

 

I am of of course, referring to the many bailiff companies who must have breathed a huge sugh of relief that they had NOT been featured !!

 

Having read the comments on here, I am in agreement with everything that is being said in response to the programme.

 

As most people on here are aware, I have a commercial business advising the public with regards to a bailiff visit. I have been astonished at the number of calls and emails that we have received since the programme aired and ALL of these appear to indicate that members of the public are horrified at the way in which the bailliff acted but most worryingly, are extremely critical at the response from Ms Green Jones of Rossendales Ltd which appeared to attempt to blame the governement for failing to introduce regulation on the bailiff industry. The opinion that I am receiving is that Ms Jones is confirming that she cannot regulate her own bailiffs !!!

 

In an earlier post on this thread I had said the following:

 

All bailiffs know that in working as a bailiff that they must abide by Paragraph 10 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 which provides the following:

 

"No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules"

 

Whether the bailiff is enforcing unpaid council tax or a parking ticket, he knows when taking on the job that the fees that can be charged are set by Statute Law under an Act of Parliament. I would agree that the fee for "attending to levy" (where no levyis made) of £24.50 is not a lot of money for the job in hand BUT this is what the fee scale provides and the bailiff has a choice. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE THE JOB. It is that SIMPLE.

 

Take for instance the scenario that anyone us took a position of employment working at (for instance) Mc Donald's or another fast food restaurant earning £6 per hour. This would probably not be enough to survive on. Therefore, can you imagine what would happen if we charged another £1 to every customer we served? That would be theft and if discovered, we would be arrested and convicted.

 

Since the recession, it is now almost routine for bailiffs to charge an "enforcement fee" to each account when visiting a property for unpaid council tax. Typically this is for approx £150-£200 PER CUSTOMER!!! The statutory regulations do NOT provide for such a fee. Is this "theft"....? I would say so.

 

Once this programme is aired I would not be at all surprised to see that bailiff companies or their governing bodies attempt to say that the fault with bailiffs overcharging or acting aggressively lay entirely with the Ministry of Justice for failing to implement the Tribunals Court and Enforcement Act 2007 and that the current fee scale is neither clear, simple or easy to understand !! In other words......lay the blame on someone else.

As you can see from this post, the respose from last nights programme is predictably.......TO BLAME OTHERS.

 

Nobody forces anyone to take employment as a bailiff. The bailif chooses whether to take the job or not.

 

If he does wish to become a bailiff, HIS EMPLOYER is under a duty to advise him or her that they MUST adhere to the fee scale as provided by either the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order ( for unpaid parking tickets) or alternatively, the Council Tax Administration & Enforcement (Amendment) 1993 (as amended).

 

Next, the EMPLOYER should also inform their employee that he MUST adhere to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

 

How difficult is this !!!

 

If the bailiff overcharges, or fails to adhere to the National Standards then the COMPANY should simly terminate his employment....and please DO NOT blame the Government !!!!!!

 

She certainly won`t get an Oscar for that poor performance last night and as for the other party....well I hope his Mum is proud. Some one reading this will know what I mean. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!