Introduction

[MARTIN3030]

My understanding is that there are a number of different issues to be aired.

Therefore it is anticipated we will have sep threads for each of those within this sub forum.

[brassnecked]

Excellent Martin, tomtubby suggested on the bailiff forum, that she would be sorting some sub threads with the required topics for the consultation, and it would be helpful if we assist her with translating the legalese in the draft legislation to plain language, so all can understand what is being proposed and a point for discussion. Also the MOJ are looking for a viable definition of vulnerability, so that one is an area we cannot allow the "Enforcement Industry" to dominate, and press their own agenda

 

BN

[sewingkit]

Excellent news,

 

Lets get this going big time, Come on TT.....

[sewingkit]

I think we need a Sticky at the top of each thread with the "points to raise/views to be considered" bullet pointed in a list. Obv we will have all the comments debating below but things can get lost, this will help further too

 

If the site admins can assist in making this happen, just take a pm and add them in every couple of days OR when someone posts a comment/idea they ask in the post for it to be added with some sort of identifier or someone at the top just edits a post and keep a running list, something like that.

 

good, bad, thoughts?

[citizenB]

If you were to start a thread with the points to raise/view with a link to a thread where discussion could take place on that particular topic.

 

We could then stikky the Topic list

 

I dont think you need more than the one stuck thread

[citizenB]

So for instance

 

To be stuck and Closed thread - Topics to be discussed

 

A -

Link to A

 

B -

Link to B

 

C -

Link to C

 

D -

Link to D

 

The thread above would be stickied and closed..

 

then you would have individual threads

 

A - Topic

 

B - Topic

 

C - Topic

 

D - Topic

 

I would add a note to each of the individual Topic threads than any off topic post will be removed to the correct forum for discussion.

 

HTH

[sewingkit]

thanks CB, perfect, whatever is fit for purpose and economic.

 

let's see how this goes....

[brassnecked]

Will start the ball rolling with Vulnerability

[tomtubby]

Can you give me a couple of hours and I will get the sub headings for you......

[brassnecked]

Something interesting here from the Guardian:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/17/bailiff-regulations-cost-debtors-more?newsfeed=true)

 

At least someone at CAB has grasped the implication and confirmed my fears and assumptions regarding costs.

 

if you check the article it would also pay to read the comments, as one posted by SharpChip suggested that the threshold for transferring debts up to High Court for a writ of Fi-fa should go up from £600 to £5000. This would stop the likes of Southern Water sending Sherfarce with a writ that increases the debt from £601 to £3,601

 

i would suggest all Caggers respond to this consultation, and hopefully the sub headings from tomtubby will be ready later so we can put a structure to this and make CAGs contribution to the consultation meaningful and an accurate indicator of what should be the outcome.

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked....I will respond to your link shortly but in the meantime, any thoughts on the following sub headings:

• Amendments to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents
  
• Discussions regarding the proposed Fee Scale
  
• Vulnerable groups and defining "vulnerability"
  
• Discussions regarding "exempt items" and time and dates of visits
  
• Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts
  
• Discussions regarding a Regulatory Body/Complaints procedure
  

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked....I will respond to your link shortly but in the meantime, any thoughts on the following sub headings:

 

• Amendments to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents
  
• Discussions regarding the proposed Fee Scale
  
• Vulnerable groups and defining "vulnerability"
  
• Discussions regarding "exempt items" and time and dates of visits
  
• Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts
  
• Discussions regarding a Regulatory Body/Complaints procedure
  

 

they seem fine to me TT, the main thing is to draw out the opinions and ideas, so those headings should fit the bill without people digressing off topic too much

[citizenB]

they seem fine to me TT, the main thing is to draw out the opinions and ideas, so those headings should fit the bill without people digressing off topic too much

 

If you think someone has moved off topic.. just yell and ask a ST member to move it for you

[brassnecked]

If you think someone has moved off topic.. just yell and ask a ST member to move it for you

 

Will do, I'm sure tomtubby will, as this one is so important to get right, it has the potential to raise the profile and influence of CAG in a really positive way.

I think we should let tomtubby point the way with this one as she will be able to draw the most useful information out from the posts, and put them into the correct context.

Edited February 18, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

There are many other categories to include the right to forced entry etc but I am sure that the above 6 sub headings should do for now.

 

Between now and tomorrow, I can make introductory notes for each sub heading and hopefully, posts can start to be made sometime tomorrow.

Edited February 18, 2012 by tomtubby

[sewingkit]

This looks really great. I cant wait to see this start to take shape

 

ST - Is there any way for a link/header to be put at the top of a Start Thread for someone to see. Which would off course would have "Once you have finished your initial enquiry please go here...." Try and get everyone here to read and contribute

 

They would then see TT introductions and key points and then get into the swing off it?

[brassnecked]

There are many other categories to include the right to forced entry etc but I am sure that the above 6 sub headings should do for now.

 

Between now and tomorrow, I can make introductory notes for each sub heading and hopefullys posts can start to be made sometime tomorrow.

 

These will be fine, as the list can be fine tuned and the others, like the forced entry can be addressed and added in once there is flesh on the other bones so to speak, as there are 12 weeks, so it will pay to focus on these first, and add the others in. to make sure all are addressed in the light of the questions posed on the consultation itself. this will add value to the CAG material, when submitted. or MOJ people and MP's who a view the forum, when we ask them to look at the evidence themselves from a "live" response to the issues, as I'm sure Mrs Green-Jones and the other "vested enforcement industry interests" will be sneaking a look, if not even posting. as bailiffs have done before on topics.

Edited February 18, 2012 by brassnecked

[Deadwood]

Transferred to consultation forum

Edited February 22, 2012 by Deadwood

[lookinforinfo]

I think that it is time there was an Ombudsman specifically to deal with bailiffs and with the power to punish bailiffs and their companies. But I do mean proper accountability

and not just slaps on the wrist which do nothing to send a message to other baiilffs to get their act in order.

There can be a discussion as to what behaviour is unacceptable-such as claiming to work for the council: adding inflated fees: taking unauthorised monies from bank accounts:

lying as to their powers both to the public and the police: threatening things they cannot do ie getting locksmith: not backing off when confronted with vulnerable people:etc etc

 

The level at which cases can be taken to the High Court should be raised to at least £5000.

 

There should be a set minimum compensation for people who have been mishandled by the bailiffs and the company that used them.

 

I understand that at present, their initial fees may be too low which encourages them to invent charges.I do think £305 is a ridiculous increase, totally inequitable and unjustifiable,

especially as they have access to many other charges that they can lawfully apply even after that proposed initial charge.Legislators have to understand that the job of the bailiff

is to recover money for the creditor, so the more the bailiff is allowed to charge, the longer it takes for the creditor to get paid.

 

All their fees should be much more transparent and none should be at the discretion of the bailiff or the bailiff company.

[lookinforinfo]

Another point is to discuss the relationship between some police forces and bailiffs. Why are some helping the bailiffs with ANPR work while other[ie most] Police

officers seem unaware that when bailiffs go beyond the lawful boundaries, then the matter can go from being a civil matter to a criminal one.

[brassnecked]

Another point is to discuss the relationship between some police forces and bailiffs. Why are some helping the bailiffs with ANPR work while other[ie most] Police

officers seem unaware that when bailiffs go beyond the lawful boundaries, then the matter can go from being a civil matter to a criminal one.

 

The police seem blissfully unaware that when this happens, if they have "actively assisted" the bailiffs in their criminal act either as a result of ignorance, or believed the bailiffs take on the Brothers Grimm; and helped them gain entry or sieze goods then they are criminals themselves at that point, for possible aggravated burlary, or some other criminal charge.