Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can only do your best, tnook. We'll support you no matter what.   The people on the other end of the line are only human beings and you're worth as much as they are. Just go through your arguments and don't be intimidated.     HB
    • I’m wondering how and why this person has got involved? She states that she works for West Midlands police in the cyber bullying/online fraud department. How would this have come to her attention?   The only picture that I have seen of someone on here was posted on Facebook 6 years ago - maybe 17 at the time but would be 24 now. No one is physically threatening this person or has anyone contacted him through Facebook (have they?) We, as victims, are merely conducting our own research, as it does not seem to be of interest to the police - more a civil matter.   My son in law holds the same position as the author with Staffordshire Police and he told me that he would be dismissed if he provided this information online. In fact, any official contact from the police must be made through the appropriate channels, including the officer’s full professional details. This is not an official police warning.  Knowing what I do about this slippery car dealer and the fact that HE follows these threads, I would be more likely to believe that this has something to do with him.
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
    • No I'm afraid everything here is done in the open. We are all very honest and straight dealing and also we have helped people in respect of this company before – they may be aware of us – but does it really matter? You started off this thread by asking how to they get away with it? The answer is that because even their own customers like to keep the problem secret so it becomes not generally known. If you want to do this secretly then you are simply bringing comfort to the sofa company. Is that what you want? Why?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Ministry of Justice today release the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2952 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

 

Thanks :)

 

I look forward to reading this on my lunchbreak!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting recommendation from the LGO on page 35 of the response.

 

Remedies and Complaints handling

 

139. The consultation paper set out the existing complaints procedures and sought views on whether this was sufficient. (Question 53)

 

141. The Local Government Ombudsman supports the Governments position (what is the LGO if not the government?) on not introducing a complaints body covering the industry as they are concerned about the impact that such a proposal would have on their own jurisdiction.

 

142. We consider that the proposed changes to the law, fees and the certification process will address some of the current complaint issues. It is clear, however, that there is a need to work with all stakeholders and the Local Government Ombudsman to clarify the details of the complaints process so that there is a greater understanding as to how debtors can seek redress. In particular, setting out the remedies that are available and where they could be obtained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

needs a good read, and double check to digest this.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I burned the midnight oil and read the report from start to finish making notes on the way.....conclusion... some positives but sadly they far outweighed by all the negatives.

 

Even when presented with all the evidence to bad practices, it seems this government are hell bent on permitting the' bad apples' and those that employ them to continue to operate without being regulated.

 

Yes, the media took a peak at what has been a shamelessly costly exercise but even they appeared to want to tuck it away.......is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

They have been told to let it lie most likely, as they might find themselves with a nice statutory regulator who will gag them.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

 

And this is exactly what an authorised HCEO has to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

 

And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

 

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

That brings me to another point. If these private bailiff firms have the potential to be so profitable, why the hell have almost all local authorities outsourced their enforcement to them? They use exactly the same statutory fee schedule, and probably all of these firms are contractually obliged to do additional administration for free, not to mention the ones who pay councils a percentage for the business.

 

Either a missed opportunity for councils to make a killing, or the private bailiff firms are up to something a bit iffy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

CCR Magazine had a different view....

 

 

Julie Green-Jones has been instrumental in helping the Ministry of Justice to shape new legislation under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that is due for final consultation to all relevant parties soon.

 

 

They can't be that inefficient, they're making £millions.

 

Have you ever known a government department to be run or managed as efficiently as private enterprise...???
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that is more PR than substance. CIVEA and the HCEOA played a part and I believe she may have been part of the former in a working group rather than in isolation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This extract argues that an HCEO's cost base is higher because of the the greater likelyhood of disputes including interpleader proceedings and costs assessments. It's a pity that the HCEO's charge too much and wrongfully sieze goods then?

 

7.2.5.

Legal complexity of cases handled

High Court Enforcement tends to be a more legally complex process than Non‐High Court Enforcement, since:

HCEOS have the obligation to have a wide ranging knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules and should be prepared to defend that knowledge and expertise before senior judiciary as the circumstances of each case dictate;

following the levying upon goods, it is more common that an interpleader process will be entered into, during which the debtor and third parties may make representations relating to the status and legal ownership of goods levied upon;

HCEO fees are more often challenged by debtors through the legally complex process of detailed cost assessment; and

since the HCEOs actions are potentially subject to legal challenge by the creditor, to whom the HCEO has enhanced duties and obligations (compared to an EA), various aspects of the case must be recorded and administered to a level of accuracy and detail that could withstand examination in the context of a legal challenge. The administration of High Court Writs of Fi Fa therefore includes a greater level of detail and quality of information than that of non‐High Court distress Warrants.

As a result of all of the above considerations it is necessary for HCEOs to employ admin staff with greater levels of skill, and often with legal qualifications. Suitably qualified admin staff demand higher salaries, and serve to increase the staff overhead cost per case for HCEOs compared to EACs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More bullsh*t to justify the existence of these HCEO's... £600 magically turned into 2k against people who would never have imagined themselves on the wrong side of 'poverty', the same people who are queuing to get food parcels to help them survive....what next...debtors prisons..workhouses?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The attending officer may only get £25 or so, whilst the Company racks up to £750 for the same person, just so happened to find out from a disaffected "enforcement officer" what he actually received. Also believe this came up at a Costs Hearing last year where the HCEO had to quantify what the attending officer actually received - the Judge then downward graded what they were claiming.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

 

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

 

You obviously haven't read my last post on this thread. Some of the reasons given for higher charge scales is the extra costs because of disputed ownership, disputes over charges and legal difficulties. Firstly a Fi Fa writ is extraordinarily easy to obtain, a doddle, so no great cost there then. Disputed ownership might be a tricky one with business debts because of varied ownerships of premises, different limited companies, personal ownership etc but really not that bad because all PLC and Ltd companies are online together with financial status. I would classify those problems as very easy to sort out by a moderately intelligent person in a few minutes. Disputes over charges occur simply because HCEO companies charge far more than they should. I would warrant that 90% of costs hearings probably go with the debtor.

 

In the case of personal creditors and sole traders there is no greater difficulty than that faced by a certified bailiff.

 

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

 

100% agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

What is ridiculous about educating people on their rights, and getting the lawful, legal ways of protecting your goods from levy into public knowledge?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...