help with bailiffs

[brassnecked]

Say someone owes £1000. Say they have goods worth £800. The bailiff can remove the goods and sell them, and assuming the fetch £800 at auction, that leaves £200 owing.

 

Nulla Bona is an option when the debtor literally has nothing worth taking. There's no compulsion - it's a judgement the bailiff will make. But they see goods as assets, and if they have monetary value, they can take them (the usual conditions and restrictions on types of goods accepted).

 

It should also be remembered that the goods need only be to the value of the council's portion of the debt. The rest is the bailiff's own, and obviously they will take something rather than nothing.

 

Especially when potentially the fees they charge may be more than the principal debt at the point of enforcement. with multiple dodgy attendance fees, a brace of van fees, the levy fee, the value the cat fee ( not really I made it up, but if the cat is pedigree he could well snatch it) Lord Denning wanted to kill off distress as a medieval and therefore repugnant to a modern world method of enforcement, in the 1980's but sadly it is still with us.

 

In view of the above and your deduction Jamberson, and I do not dispute your viewpoint it is a valid summary of what could well happen; if a situation or levy is not addressed. A bailiff would not return a case nulla bona, as even goods worth a fiver will secure his fees, in his eyes. Time for bailiffs and distress to be consigned to the history books, with modern systems there is no need for it as income may be more easily attached to these days, when most will have some form of bank account, and payments in line with what a debtor can reasonably afford applied.

 

The reality is that goods with a value of £800 on an £800 debt will fetch £100 - £150 at best leaving a much bigger shortfall, that is when the levy should be challenged.

 

Best advice is not to let them in in the first place, deny them a levy and restrict their power, unfortunately bailiffs lie and people innocently think the bailiff will play fair

 

After all what Statute or law dictates a debtor MUST deal with a bailiff? Practically if he has a levy you will have to deal with them if only to challenge an unreasonable levy or pay up if you can afford it. Usefully many levies can be challenged because the bailiff has failed to follow correct procedure, it is a question of checking everything to look at ways to challenge especially if the items are low value. That is more important than lying down and letting the bailiff use your doormat, especially if he levies it:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2011/apr/ombudsman-criticises-bailiffs-practice-seizing-low-value-items-charging-fees/

Edited August 30, 2012 by brassnecked

[outlawla]

For what it's worth, my opinion here is the that difficulty in solving the dispute, lies in there being:

 

1) Legislation which is often unclear and open to interpretation, and

 

2) What is detailed in the contracts or service level agreements between the individual local authorities and their contracted bailiff firms.

 

I've seen at least one SLA (Manchester City Council I think) which specifies that the sale price at auction should at least cover a certain percentage of the debt and fees.

 

Page 30 of this...

 

 

The bailiff should not remove goods for sale unless it is anticipated that the sum realised will be sufficient to settle a reasonable proportion of the account outstanding to the Council (30% to 50%), including costs. As a general rule, the value of the goods can be divided by 5 to give an approximate value if auctioned.

 

 

It might be a good idea to collect as many of these agreements as are available and lump them in the same place and add to them as they become available, and replace as the contracts are renewed.

 

Also going back to the door mat and the LGO's findings, it was not the legality of the bailiff's actions which were in the spotlight but the reasonableness of the action.

 

 

LGO's door mat fiasco report

 

 

Report summary

 

Subject

 

Mr Worden had not paid his council tax and the Council instructed to bailiffs to recover the debt. When unable to gain access to Mr Worden’s home the bailiff ‘levied’ on (ie seized) a door mat and charged fees of £230 for this action. When Mr Worden complained to the bailiff firm and then the Council he was told the fees were legal. The Council then decided to instruct the bailiffs to withdraw the fees.

 

The Ombudsman found that it was unreasonable to levy on such a low value item and to charge fees for doing do. The bailiff firm and the Council should have realised much sooner that this was unreasonable. There is evidence that is not uncommon for other bailiffs to levy on low value items and charge fees and so the Ombudsman is issuing this report as matter of public interest.

 

Finding

 

Maladministration, no injustice.

 

 

Conclusion

................

 

35. Bailiffs will not always be able to find goods of sufficient value to clear the debt and the costs, and it is entirely legal to distrain on goods of a lower value and charge the statutory fees for doing this. It will be a matter for the judgement of the bailiff as to how reasonable the disparity between the potential value of the goods and the debt is. In some cases it will be appropriate for the debtor to challenge the reasonableness of such a levy in the courts; that will depend on the facts of each case. But in some cases, and this is one, the unreasonableness of the action is apparent and there is no need for legal action to establish this.

 

36. In this case I consider that disparity was so great that any reasonable person would have concluded that the levy on the door mat should not have been made. As the levy should not have been made the fees should not have been charged. The bailiff was also at fault in charging what appears to have been too great a sum for the attendance fee.

 

37. When the bailiff firm and the Council considered the concerns raised by Mr Worden they concentrated on the legality of the situation and did not take aview on the reasonableness of the action.

 

38. I find that the distraint on the door mat, the charging of the fees for this, and not considering the reasonableness of this action were maladministration.

 

Edited August 30, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

@ outlawla "Also going back to the door mat and the LGO's findings, it was not the legality of the bailiff's actions which were in the spotlight but the reasonableness of the action."

 

Exactly so and if OP has diddly squat, where is the reasonableness in a levy for possibly worthless goods, at auction, if only to garner fees whern nulla bona would be the correct action.

Edited August 30, 2012 by brassnecked

[old bill]

The other thing that has to be borne in mind is that legislation is increasingly incorporating the term "what any reasonable person...". In layman's terms, this means that would the man or woman in the street consider what someone does to be dishonest, reasonable or whatever. Also, although what Jamberson says in their post is correct in theory, in practice, it is going to be for the bailiff to show they have acted fairly, reasonably and lawfully. I have said this before and I will say it again, "Bailiffs do not have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card". They are answerable to the law the same as everyone else. A local authority and its contracted bailiff company can wave their contract/service agreement above their heads and scream and shout until they go puce in the face, it is only lawful if a court says it is. A lot of local authorities and bailiff companies conveniently forget this.

[caledfwlch]

Brassnecked's approach is the best I feel.

 

Do NOT feed the Bailiff, do not give him or her oxygen and water. Do not negotiate, if you have managed to keep your car out the way, or don't own one, and they have not managed peaceful entry, then they are completely powerless, just impotent little thugs ranting useless threats they cannot act upon.

 

Film the little parasites from the moment they arrive, to the moment they get in their car. Tell them on Camera that you are not refusing to deal or pay your debt, you are refusing to deal with the Bailiff, and will only deal with the original creditor, as is your lawful right - whilst the creditor has a right to appoint an agent such as a bailiff, if operating on a court order, there is no Act, Statute or Law that states the Debtor must in turn deal with the Bailiff.

 

Even enforcing their own little £40 odd quid little visit fee's is potentially extremely difficult for a Bailiff facing a Debtor aware of their rights. If a council accepts a full payment, and forgets, or does not as standard deduct bailiff fees, then the Bailiff is stuffed, he cannot use the original Liability Order to enforce his fees, and I would suggest this means he is no longer a Bailiff in legal terms, if attempting to only gain his fees after the original debt has been settled, then I believe one can lawfully withdraw their implied licence to visit, as they are no longer able to use Bailiff powers, thus they only have an implied right, that is easily withdrawn, and breaching that is tresspassing, and if continued in person attempts are made, I would suggest its also criminal harassment, and potentially an OFT issue too.

 

And they cannot use "Peaceful Entry" or levying powers imho if the original debt has been satisfied.

 

The more Consumers who deny Bailiff's their revenue stream, who protect themselves via hiding the car, ensuring the home is always locked, and/or protect everything in the house via a Statutory Declaration signed by a friendly relation or friend, so even if they DO get in, they can't levy on anything anyway, and the more Consumers who make it an absolute nightmare for a Bailiff to even collect his lawful 2 visit fees of Forty something quid, the better, as denied a living wage more bailiff's will have to quit and get a real job. We need to do our best through campaigns, through advertising to deny them their food, to make the general public aware of its rights, so we can cause a Bailiff shortage, so we can cause individual bailiff's serious income problems, leading to them quitting.

 

I think that Citizens Advice should if possible be doing more on the issue to raise awareness of peoples rights v Bailiffs - at the very least every CAB Office window/shopfront should have highly visible information posters detailing the basics of rights if Bailiff's are coming. I would love to be able to raise the money in some way, via charitable donations or grants to begin mailshotting households in general to make them aware of their rights and what to do if a Bailiff is coming. I have a couple of ideas to try and raise local awareness anyway

 

I also think, if you live in an area where the local Court will Notarise a Statutory Declaration for free, then you should go and get a friend/family member to SD everything in your house, the moment you know Bailiff's are on the horizon. Let's starve them!!!

[Swizz75]

i would be interested where you get your information from if it is a book i would ask for a refund either that or you are a troll

 

they can NOT return and force entry without a order from the court they do not have that

 

you have a good day:peace:

thanks i have spoken to both council and bailiff and funnily enough the bailiff has realised that they did not list enough and have now backtracked and said instead of £500 a month they will accept £50!!

[Swizz75]

I appreciate you have told us what he seized, however can you list it eaxactly as described on the Notice of Seizure he left you with, reason being there may be some inconsistencies with what he has seized.

 

he listed technika tv

glass tv stand

2 material cream sofas

acer laptop

hp printer

wood coffee table

playstation 3

selection of dvds

[Swizz75]

Did you sign a Walking Possession Agreement?

 

yes

[brassnecked]

he listed technika tv

glass tv stand

2 material cream sofas

acer laptop

hp printer

wood coffee table

playstation 3

selection of dvds

 

Of that list, nothing is of a value to discharge all fees cost of removal, and a portion of the debt, the sofas without fire safety labels are unsaleable, the DVDs unless collectors items and listed individually are worthless, and make the levy a global one, PS3 if is a childs would be exempt, and the Technika TV is worthless at auction as it is a budget Tesco Own brand. Bailiff has levied for the purpose of garnering fees for himself imho.

[Swizz75]

Of that list, nothing is of a value to discharge all fees cost of removal, and a portion of the debt, the sofas without fire safety labels are unsaleable, the DVDs unless collectors items and listed individually are worthless, and make the levy a global one, PS3 if is a childs would be exempt, and the Technika TV is worthless at auction as it is a budget Tesco Own brand. Bailiff has levied for the purpose of garnering fees for himself imho.

 

ok well he is expecting a £50 payment tomorrow or sending "van" tuesday, all i want to know really is am i best to just agree to 50 pound payments or just pay council. if i he did force entry can he only take listed goods and can he take anything else and after auction would it go back to council? very confused

[i hate bailiffs]

ok well he is expecting a £50 payment tomorrow or sending "van" tuesday, all i want to know really is am i best to just agree to 50 pound payments or just pay council. if i he did force entry can he only take listed goods and can he take anything else and after auction would it go back to council? very confused

 

 

bailiffs backtracked and accepting reduced amount is good

 

sending van tomorrow he is relying on fear bailiffs lie

 

if it was me i would make payments direct to the council get a receipt number

 

sounds to me bailiffs are chancing one last throw of the dice before they give up and hand it back to council

 

 

remember bailiffs lie

[brassnecked]

Pay the council get a reciept and film the bailiff with a mobile phone to capture his threats for that Formal complaint later, he cannot at this stage force entry no matter what he spouts, that would be somewhere down the line if you paid the council nothing.

[Jamberson]

What about liability for the fees?

 

Surely paying the council is at best the same as paying the bailiff (the rest of the debt will still be there) and at worst, an error which will result in him being judged to have broken the payment arrangement, while the council have his cash?

[outlawla]

What about liability for the fees?

 

Surely paying the council is at best the same as paying the bailiff (the rest of the debt will still be there) and at worst, an error which will result in him being judged to have broken the payment arrangement, while the council have his cash?

 

 

A bailiff is entitled – as a priority over the outstanding debt to the council – to take his fees first, if it is considered he has collected the debt. However, the council has no obligation to hand over anything to the bailiff in respect of his fees when funds are paid direct to the authority.

 

They (the council) are only likely to pay the bailiff firm in these circumstances, if his fees are also paid to the council, over and above the amount needed to settle the debt.

Edited September 2, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

A bailiff is entitled – as a priority over the outstanding debt to the council – to take his fees first, if it is considered he has collected the debt. However, the council has no obligation to hand over anything to the bailiff in respect of his fees when funds are paid direct to the authority.

 

They (the council) are only likely to pay the bailiff firm in these circumstances, if his fees are also paid to the council, over and above the amount needed to settle the debt.

 

If the levy is challenged, and found to be faulty, and the debtor pays the council direct, including lawful visit fees, the bailiff is out of pocket, as he will have to sue for fees and had better be sure all are kosher. There is one big anomaly, that is not addressed levy or no levy, and that is there is no Legal Compulsion for anyone to deal with a bailiff, so if he cannot levy he is knackered, even with a levy he can fall over in greed for fees.

[brassnecked]

What about liability for the fees?

 

Surely paying the council is at best the same as paying the bailiff (the rest of the debt will still be there) and at worst, an error which will result in him being judged to have broken the payment arrangement, while the council have his cash?

 

Yes it is the same in the end if a levy is correct, but if it is found to be faulty or contains fraudulent fees the bailiff should be horsewhipped like the bounder he is, and the debtor pays the council direct including any lawful fees, by initiating a Formal Complaint, and paying the council with a notice that he/she cannot trust the bailiff to deal fairly with them as the levy is faulty, and they feel the bailiff will strive to engineer a default to charge more fees.

 

I hate bailiffs after seeing their nastiness in advice work, so would now do anything legal to harm their income stream, especially since one of Jacob's scrotes tried to levy my motor for a debt belonging to a house I was parked opposite whilst on the phone to my MP as it happened.

 

Would you condone his seizure of a random car with the owner who is unconnected to the debtor sat in the car, as that muppet tried to do to me?. he had already clamped the debtors own car.

[old bill]

I feel it needs to be brought up that certificated bailiffs employed by private companies tread a very fine line between staying within the law and actually breaking it. The core of the problem is that they are paid a basic wage and then encouraged to gather as many levies as possible to bolster their wages. This "incentive", unfortunately, is the problem with privatisation and using private companies to carry out public services. The employees are corrupted to break the law and their managers turn a blind eye to it as long as the money is coming in. I saw this when investigating frauds against government departments, when in the police force.

 

The mugs who pay for this corruption is us, the taxpayers, not the managers and shareholders of the private bailiff companies. It is time for local authorities and government departments to change contract/service agreement terms and conditions to hold private bailiff companies financially-liable for law-breaking by their certificated bailiffs. How many private bailiff companies would tender for public debt enforcement contracts if they knew they would be 100% liable for the conduct and law-breaking of their certificated bailiffs? Absolutely zero.

[brassnecked]

I feel it needs to be brought up that certificated bailiffs employed by private companies tread a very fine line between staying within the law and actually breaking it. The core of the problem is that they are paid a basic wage and then encouraged to gather as many levies as possible to bolster their wages. This "incentive", unfortunately, is the problem with privatisation and using private companies to carry out public services. The employees are corrupted to break the law and their managers turn a blind eye to it as long as the money is coming in. I saw this when investigating frauds against government departments, when in the police force.

 

The mugs who pay for this corruption is us, the taxpayers, not the managers and shareholders of the private bailiff companies. It is time for local authorities and government departments to change contract/service agreement terms and conditions to hold private bailiff companies financially-liable for law-breaking by their certificated bailiffs. How many private bailiff companies would tender for public debt enforcement contracts if they knew they would be 100% liable for the conduct and law-breaking of their certificated bailiffs? Absolutely zero.

 

They already are liable technically along with their employer the council, but even with cast iron evidence the CPS, (Criminal Protection Service) would never pursue a fraud case against Crapquita or A.N. Other Bailiff Co and a council Head of Revenues, would they?

[old bill]

They already are liable technically along with their employer the council, but even with cast iron evidence the CPS, (Criminal Protection Service) would never pursue a fraud case against Crapquita or A.N. Other Bailiff Co and a council Head of Revenues, would they?

 

Unless the taxpayer makes sufficient noise to bring about the necessary change in the situation, the status quo will prevail, BN. I'm a firm believer in "Never Say Never".

[mellymoo74]

They already are liable technically along with their employer the council, but even with cast iron evidence the CPS, (Criminal Protection Service) would never pursue a fraud case against Crapquita or A.N. Other Bailiff Co and a council Head of Revenues, would they?

 

Well that's my next plan of action do we will see. I agree they're unlikely too but as there is much evidence to support the claim that crapita are committing wholesale fraud.

[brassnecked]

Unless the taxpayer makes sufficient noise to bring about the necessary change in the situation, the status quo will prevail, BN. I'm a firm believer in "Never Say Never".

 

That's where we come in, on CAG by constantly exposing their illegal actions.

[old bill]

Well that's my next plan of action do we will see. I agree they're unlikely too but as there is much evidence to support the claim that crapita are committing wholesale fraud.

 

Mellymoo,

 

Take it from me, the likes of Crapita only get away with it for so long before they get greedy and start making stupid mistakes that leads to their undoing. And when that happens, they come crashing down with one almighty bang.

[old bill]

That's where we come in, on CAG by constantly exposing their illegal actions.

 

Badgering MPs and respective Secretaries and Ministers of State, as well as Permanent Secretaries of relevant government departments, and passing information of their illegal actions to them is the way forward, in my considered judgement. That way, those in positions of power cannot say they didn't know it was going on. It's called accountability, something that scares the crap out of some politicians.

[outlawla]

I feel it needs to be brought up that certificated bailiffs employed by private companies tread a very fine line between staying within the law and actually breaking it. The core of the problem is that they are paid a basic wage and then encouraged to gather as many levies as possible to bolster their wages. This "incentive", unfortunately, is the problem with privatisation and using private companies to carry out public services. The employees are corrupted to break the law and their managers turn a blind eye to it as long as the money is coming in. I saw this when investigating frauds against government departments, when in the police force.

 

The mugs who pay for this corruption is us, the taxpayers, not the managers and shareholders of the private bailiff companies. It is time for local authorities and government departments to change contract/service agreement terms and conditions to hold private bailiff companies financially-liable for law-breaking by their certificated bailiffs. How many private bailiff companies would tender for public debt enforcement contracts if they knew they would be 100% liable for the conduct and law-breaking of their certificated bailiffs? Absolutely zero.

 

 

Funny you should mention the "incentive" aspect to bailiff collections.

 

Rossendales seem to be on a drive to recruiting employed and self-employed bailiffs, with the self-employed offered UNCAPPED EARNING POTENTIAL.

[old bill]

Funny you should mention the "incentive" aspect to bailiff collections.

 

Rossendales seem to be on a drive to recruiting employed and self-employed bailiffs, with the self-employed offered UNCAPPED EARNING POTENTIAL.

 

Exactly, Outlawla. Sod Cameron's public hand-wringing about emburdening businesses with regulation. Regulation is there for a reason - to protect the public and reputable businesses. Strangely, it is the misconduct of a small minority, mainly, large businesses that make regulation necessary. The credit crunch is a prime example of what happens when you don't have proper and effective regulation.