What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

[HCEOs]

Are we not forgetting that a bailiff visit is a last resort because people haven't paid something that is owed. They have always been chased by post but still ignore it.

 

Almost all of brassnecked's comments refer to the vulnerable again. NOT EVERYBODY is vulnerable. There are many debtor's out there who just refuse to pay what's owed.

 

Remember, in the HCEO business the debts have made judgment. The creditors are often small businesses struggling themselves yet this always seems to be missed in this forum.

 

Not all debt is Council Tax!

[brassnecked]

Are we not forgetting that a bailiff visit is a last resort because people haven't paid something that is owed. They have always been chased by post but still ignore it.

 

Almost all of brassnecked's comments refer to the vulnerable again. NOT EVERYBODY is vulnerable. No not everybody is, but it is mainly the vulnerable and low income families who have fallen into hard times and arrears or gained a CCJ from a water company, that gets sent up to High Court that suffer disproportionately from the charging regime There are many debtor's out there who just refuse to pay what's owed. Yes there are many companies do a phoenix to avoid paying, some of the worst payers are councils

 

Remember, in the HCEO business the debts have made judgment. The creditors are often small businesses struggling themselves yet this always seems to be missed in this forum.

 

Not all debt is Council Tax! No it isn't but it forms a large proportion of the debt that advice is sought for on here

 

Now on a lighter note if I got a High Court Writ on Comet, what would be your chances of getting any money by enforcing against them?

[HCEOs]

You make some fair points brassnecked. I'm not saying that enforcement doesn't affect people in financial difficulty. It's just that I see a very different side to enforcement, which doesn't include CT/Parking by the way.

 

With regard to Comet, there are two hopes....

[brassnecked]

You make some fair points brassnecked. I'm not saying that enforcement doesn't affect people in financial difficulty. It's just that I see a very different side to enforcement, which doesn't include CT/Parking by the way.

 

With regard to Comet, there are two hopes....

 

The majority on here is CTax and parking with the odd Sherforce. The majority who come on CAG have every intention of paying debts, just that the enforcement backs them into a corner, as it compounds an already unmanageable debt. And yes threre are professional avoiders, but they will use bankruptcy, and where are you then with a writ, when the OR tells you nothing for you?

[seanamarts]

What you have to remember HCEO, is people come in here for help or advice because the bailiff that has been assigned to them has not played by the rules so to speak.

 

If the bailiff is sticking to the rules then there are no reasons why a debtor has to make it known in here. Saying that it has been heard that a bailiff has done the right thing in here, its a rarity but it has been known.

 

I cannot see your point in posting in here unless it is to wind a few people up.

 

If you want to do something good, then find your fellow rogue bailiffs and show them what they should be charging and just let them know that some of them are making your job a lot harder because of their actions.

 

Regardless what sort of bailiff you are, you are all being tarred with the same brush, the same as bailiff tar the same brush for debtors.

[i hate bailiffs]

What you have to remember HCEO, is people come in here for help or advice because the bailiff that has been assigned to them has not played by the rules so to speak.

 

If the bailiff is sticking to the rules then there are no reasons why a debtor has to make it known in here. Saying that it has been heard that a bailiff has done the right thing in here, its a rarity but it has been known.

 

I cannot see your point in posting in here unless it is to wind a few people up.

 

If you want to do something good, then find your fellow rogue bailiffs and show them what they should be charging and just let them know that some of them are making your job a lot harder because of their actions.

 

Regardless what sort of bailiff you are, you are all being tarred with the same brush, the same as bailiff tar the same brush for debtors.

 

:first:

[brassnecked]

Have to agree with seanamarts, in any case distress is medieval and has no place in a modern society, Lord Denning said as much 30 odd years ago in the last century.

[fcumred]

Are we not forgetting that a bailiff visit is a last resort because people haven't paid something that is owed. They have always been chased by post but still ignore it.

 

Almost all of brassnecked's comments refer to the vulnerable again. NOT EVERYBODY is vulnerable. There are many debtor's out there who just refuse to pay what's owed.

 

Remember, in the HCEO business the debts have made judgment. The creditors are often small businesses struggling themselves yet this always seems to be missed in this forum.

 

Not all debt is Council Tax!

 

Well how about the Bailliffs start by doing something really sensible and finding out WHY people haven't paid and rather than treating everyone like a criminal ( which they are not ) working out the best way to proceed rather than just using the "you are paying now whether you can afford it or not, and by the way I've added 25% onto your bill because I am a thieving thug".

 

You say SOME refuse to pay it, that is a very very small minority. The majority cannot afford it and in most cases I think that pride means they refuse to face up to it and admit there is a problem. That pride takes a further knock when some thug is stood in front of you telling you that you should ring friends or family and admit to them they are in trouble. That is the most disgraceful thing a bailliff can do. Not only do they make the matter worse by adding on huge charges, they then force them to go to other people and tell them that they are being blackmailed into borrowing money which they cannot afford to repay.

[brassnecked]

Well how about the Bailliffs start by doing something really sensible and finding out WHY people haven't paid and rather than treating everyone like a criminal ( which they are not ) working out the best way to proceed rather than just using the "you are paying now whether you can afford it or not, and by the way I've added 25% onto your bill because I am a thieving thug".

 

You say SOME refuse to pay it, that is a very very small minority. The majority cannot afford it and in most cases I think that pride means they refuse to face up to it and admit there is a problem. That pride takes a further knock when some thug is stood in front of you telling you that you should ring friends or family and admit to them they are in trouble. That is the most disgraceful thing a bailliff can do. Not only do they make the matter worse by adding on huge charges, they then force them to go to other people and tell them that they are being blackmailed into borrowing money which they cannot afford to repay.

 

Exactly, where are they going to get the money, wonder if some bailiffs have told them to go to Wonga to get money to pay their fees legit and dodgy?

[HCEOs]

brassnecked, my experiences from the other side of the fence in HCEO says that only 50% of the debtors we deal with had an intention of paying what they owe. The other's do not use bankruptcy to avoid debt. We see a lot of rogue companies set up to avoid it however, transferring assets of the debtor business into a new one. Other's just think they can get away with it. Of the debtor's that do want to clear what they owe most go into payment arrangements. Yes,there are fees added to the debt but that is the price of avoiding it. It is usually only our intervention that prompts the dialogue and the payment that follows.

 

seanamarts, I didn't come here to wind anybody up. I agree that there is abuse of the 'bailiff' system and that abuse will clearly be seen greater in the enforcement of Council Tax. Whether you agree with the TCEA 2007 fee proposals or not much of the fee abuse will be wiped out straight away. I would argue that the abuse is due to the initial fees being far too low at present. Clearly Caggers will disagree but as I said before there is a cost to running an enforcement company. You may also argue it is an outdated method but it's here today so this is what we have to deal with. I also agree that the vulnerable need more protecting and enforcement against people on benefits could, and should, be handled via an attachment of those benefits. There are rarely assets to seize so the 'bailiff' approach is understandably the wrong one.

 

At the end of the day creditors, whether they be a Council, a small struggling business or an elderly woman ripped of by rogue builders need to recover what is owed. Sometimes enforcement is the only logical answer.

[i hate bailiffs]

At the end of the day creditors, whether they be a Council, a small struggling business or an elderly woman ripped of by rogue builders need to recover what is owed. Sometimes enforcement is the only logical answer.

 

 

What about all those ripped off by a rouge bailiff

[HCEOs]

There are remedies for this and they should be followed through. This website has the expertise to guide those that feel they have been 'ripped off'. The sooner 'rogue' bailiffs are out of my industry the better. However, there will always be those that cry 'rogue' when they are merely upset at getting caught.

 

We had a case recently where a woman claimed an enforcement officer kicked her door open, pinned her to the wall and assaulted her. The police were called and it was only when she realised the whole thing had been filmed that she withdrew her complaint. She was charged with wasting Police time. This wasn't a vulnerable single mother either. Huge house, nice cars (albeit on finance) and the ability to pay.

[42man]

What is your opinion on this case here ? - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?313825-%A3543-charged-on-1st-viist-by-Marston-in-Magistrates-Court-Fine

[HCEOs]

Personally I have very little experience in this kind of work.

 

However, I know the case because I was asked about it. It turned out that the letters had been received and ignored. The debtor had lied to his wife about them. £542 was not a first visit charge.

[42man]

How do you know about this case ?

[HCEOs]

You know full well that it was posted by a member of my staff. I directed them to CAG because I didn't know the answer. What is your point 42man?

[HCEOs]

42man, if you're Site Team would rather I not comment on any post, even if it does help a Cagger then let me know. You're own ims21 has already shown the sometimes unprofessional nature of CAG by removing a post in this thread already.

 

I have already said that surely dialogue with at least somebody in the industry must surely benefit.

[lamma]

"Of the debtor's that do want to clear what they owe most go into payment arrangements. Yes,there are fees added to the debt but that is the price of avoiding it." What on earth kind of thinking or logic is that. Agreeing a payment arrangement is not "avoiding it" at all. the entire context of your post was about payment not about the levy. it is clear that by "it" you refer to payment. I am sorry to say that your comment clearly indicates your blinkers. Please be accurate and factual. Then again being accurate (with charges) and sticking to facts (wrong address, wrong person, wrong car) does not seem common in your line of work. Such a gross misstatement from a HCEO is troubling. In any business there will those that won't or can't pay. Times are hard but it seems that bailiffs want to be lifted from that and have the public carry the consequence. the general public are fed up with that now, they have had enough of it.

[HCEOs]

"Of the debtor's that do want to clear what they owe most go into payment arrangements. Yes,there are fees added to the debt but that is the price of avoiding it." What on earth kind of thinking or logic is that. Agreeing a payment arrangement is not "avoiding it" at all. the entire context of your post was about payment not about the levy. it is clear that by "it" you refer to payment. I am sorry to say that your comment clearly indicates your blinkers. Please be accurate and factual. Then again being accurate (with charges) and sticking to facts (wrong address, wrong person, wrong car) does not seem common in your line of work. Such a gross misstatement from a HCEO is troubling. In any business there will those that won't or can't pay. Times are hard but it seems that bailiffs want to be lifted from that and have the public carry the consequence. the general public are fed up with that now, they have had enough of it.

 

Agreeing to a payment arrangement with an HCEO would usually imply that they have avoided paying the original debt, then the judgment that was issued. Therefore this agreement has been forced by the attendance of an enforcement officer (usually the last resort) and is not therefore a willfulness to settle what was owed.

 

If you believe I'm blinkered I'm happy to listen as to why....

[HCEOs]

Oh and the general public form a fair portion of the £65M that HCEOs recover each year. I'm not sure that they're fed up with it.

[brassnecked]

Oh and the general public form a fair portion of the £65M that HCEOs recover each year. I'm not sure that they're fed up with it.

There we will have to politely beg to differ, as the rogues seem to outnumber the good in the enforcement "industry?" is it an industry, or a service? well it does when you trawl the debt forums. I would say a service, where you are paid for extracting money that is due when all else fails, what you have to accept is that there is a growing number of cases where the cost of the enforcement will be too great for the debtor to bear, due to reducing income from low pay or benefits, that conundrum will remain whatever we say.

[HCEOs]

brassnecked, I fully understand your stance and one that is based upon your own experiences and what is published here. Clearly the most complained about enforcement is that by Certificated Bailiffs under the Distress for Rent Rules - CT, Parking, Mag Fines etc. I'm not for one minute suggesting that there aren't people that abuse the system and regulations laid out before them but I would have to disagree that the rogues outnumber the 'good apples', as it were. In any event, the fact that they are out there is the reason forums like this exist so it's clearly going on.

 

Yes the industry needs tighter regulation and yes many of the 'bailiffs' on the road need more formal and justifiable training. A Judge granting a certificate on something he know little about is clearly wrong. I would welcome these reforms with open arms.

 

As I said previously, there also needs to be a clearer definition of vulnerable and a complete rethink on enforcement against those on benefits. Even I know that sending a bailiff to recover assets that probably don't exist or have any value but charging fees for it is completely pointless and if I'm honest. wrong.

[wonkeydonkey]

42man, if you're Site Team would rather I not comment on any post, even if it does help a Cagger then let me know. You're own ims21 has already shown the sometimes unprofessional nature of CAG by removing a post in this thread already.

 

I have already said that surely dialogue with at least somebody in the industry must surely benefit.

 

What 'dialogue' is it you suggest is available to the debtor? 'no affordable payment plan', 'seven days to pay in full or we will break in and take your goods'' borrow what you owe to pay me and don't worry about paying the lender back' 'we need to double the debt to cover our fees'....

 

Am I really missing the point here? who other than the industry will benefit from the one sided dialogue you suggest?

 

WD

[smouk]

Just a thought...

 

What is a realistic charge for a bailiff attendance?

 

Conspiracy to defraud? Common assault? Aggravated burglary?

[seanamarts]

seanamarts, I didn't come here to wind anybody up. I agree that there is abuse of the 'bailiff' system and that abuse will clearly be seen greater in the enforcement of Council Tax.

 

Not just council tax, but pcn's as well.

 

Whether you agree with the TCEA 2007 fee proposals or not much of the fee abuse will be wiped out straight away. No it wont because the bailiff will rely on the debtor not knowing what the fee's are, unless the bailiff/council are kind enough to send a fee scale with notice letters first. which I doubt very much.

 

I would argue that the abuse is due to the initial fees being far too low at present. Poppycock!! bailiffs went into the 'industry' knowing full well what the fee's were They get told how to milk the system and how and what to charge

Clearly Caggers will disagree but as I said before there is a cost to running an enforcement company. There is cost in running every company, but you do not see other companies sending out people to bully, threaten and abuse people to get what they need to run a business. That is basically an admittance why rogues are being bought in to work for the bailiff industry.

 

I can only imagine what enforcement companies felt like when the internet took off as it has and sites like this were born, because if they hadnt your work wouldnt of changed. no one would be the wiser.

You may also argue it is an outdated method but it's here today so this is what we have to deal with. I also agree that the vulnerable need more protecting and enforcement against people on benefits could, and should, be handled via an attachment of those benefits. Vulnerability dosnt just stop at benefit, there are other vulnerabilities out there.

 

There are rarely assets to seize so the 'bailiff' approach is understandably the wrong one. No no no, 'understandably'!!! Bailiff's are meant to be 'professionals' they have a certificate to prove that they know what is right from wrong, that certificate is not a right to go ahead and abuse innocent people. which most seem to think that it is. Its about time 'empathy' was added to the bailiff vocabulary.

At the end of the day creditors, whether they be a Council, a small struggling business or an elderly woman ripped of by rogue builders need to recover what is owed. Sometimes enforcement is the only logical answer

.

 

Nobody denies that. There wouldnt be a forum like this if they did what they did in the correct manner.