Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
    • I've now chopped the original statement as attached. I haven't included 'the law' as I assumed that was fully covered in my skeleton arguement, which I also assumed would be a supporting document in my bundle. Or should the two be merged? 22Jun24 anonymised completed WX statement @ 1843.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Is the Bailiff always the bad guy?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3784 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

with the growing popularity of the new sheriffs tv show and the fact that often people who have been screwed over have no one else to turn other than the bailiffs

and the sheriffs,

 

My question is are the bailiffs and sheriffs always the bad guys?

 

For instance you win a judgement and a sheriff operates for you. or youve been a victim of crime and the bailiff goes out to get your compensation that youre rightly entitled to.

 

Is every bailiff and sheriff in the wrong from the outset?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're very brave! Likewise for bailiffs collecting taxes. Those of us who pay taxes get annoyed when pro debt-avoiders or freedom of the land idiots cause us to end up paying more. Yes I know there are vulnerable debtors out there. Hopefully the new bailiff reform will help to recognise these cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit like asking whether all supermarket ready meals offer poor nutrition. The answer is some are bad and some are good.

 

We don't get too many posts on CAG, where someone is praising a bailiff for helping them get their money back. You would not expect it, because these online forums are mainly for people who have problems.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bailiffs operated within Legislation or claimed fees correctly then this Forum would not exist. Unfortunately we very rarely hear of those who do their job correctly and of course there must be a lot who do.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bailiffs operated within Legislation or claimed fees correctly then this Forum would not exist. Unfortunately we very rarely hear of those who do their job correctly and of course there must be a lot who do.

 

This is absolutely correct, and I wonder if the new fee structure will prove equally devastating to the can't pays as in lower income earners, who used to have some help with council tax, or someone on benefits having to pay 30% of the bill from their £71 per week JSA or £110 couple rate. They will undoubtedly fall into arrears, have a Liability Order gained against them, and a bailiff knocking threatening to take all their worldly goods and chattels. A tenner extra is unaffordable to them, let alone £380 at the first knock. Then there is the interpleader effective after April that a neighbour or even a randomer who happened to park their car by the debtors house may be embroiled in when the bailiff takes their car for that third party debt citing Observer v Gordon, "it was nearby 'guvnor, so am entitled to assume it belongs to the debtor".

 

Can we expect suicide rates to go up or threats of it as as happened in the housing sector?:

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/staff-deal-with-suicide-threats/7001555.article

 

It isn't always the bailiff, the majority do their work correctly, and some even help debtors it is more likely to be the system at fault as it both causes and permits the transgressions to occur with no effective check and balance.

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

I know a bailiff who isn't a bad guy, he does his job and is looking to move on from the industry back into mainstream security.

 

I have had experience of a bad unlicenced bailiff but with Tomtubby's help in the early days on this forum he was sent packing.

 

Some debt collecting agencies behave as if they are bailiffs when they are 'common debt collectors' and give everyone else a bad name, whether it is deserved or not.

 

Sadly the government seems to think that bailiffs are the way forward for many councils to keep their targets on council tax collection - when they should be using bailiffs as a LAST resort, rather than a FIRST resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of bailiffs to collect court judgments from business and people who are avoiding repaying debts which they can but will not pay is a completely different scenario to the one which make up the majority of posts on here and other forums I|MO.

 

Take the collection of council tax arrears for instance, there the authorities have a variety of enforcement options, attachment of earnings , they can do third party orders , or remove money from benefits , yet the vast majority of enforcement is placed in the hands of the bailiffs.

 

The reason is that the other measures cannot legally be done, most have no savings to take they are already subsisting on the minimum allowable under law, it is not possible to legally take anymore off them and expect them to live. So what happens the debt gets transferred to the bailiff , as if the debtor can magically not only produce the money they owe but in addition find the bailiff fees.

 

The problem is then further compounded by the fact that it is in the bailiffs financial interest to levy goods and make repeat visits (currently), the fact that they are operating a "business" off the back of people in debt is to my mind morally unconscionable.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good and accurate analysis Dodgeball, this distinction is conveniently overlooked by the lawmakers when they set fees and methods. The interpleader system will be a case in point, the fear is that it will lead to a spate of third party seizures that will be detrimental to the debtors neighbours or even a randomer parking their car outside the debtors home in a terraced street while they go to work.

 

The bottom line is that while bailiffs and HCEO exist there amongst their ranks, will always be a minority that will abuse their powers and the system whatever regulatory framework or fee scale is in place.

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

I think this is an excellent topic.

 

Time and time again I read threads on here and think 'really?'.

 

I bet there are a large number of posts on here which are just fabricated lies, or only partially tell the truth about the situation.

 

There are a large number of posters on here too (and they know who they are) where following the original post they make judgements on the Bailiff, the company, and the situation. Quite often Bailiffs and the companies are labelled because the originators post is true of course, and all Bailiffs are the same.

 

Where as those of us in the real world know only too well that there are rogue bailiffs but also excellent bailiffs out there. Likewise there are customers who are honest and others who fabricate lies and others who are out to avoid paying their debts.

 

Everything you read isn't always the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I ask is I'm considering undergoing the certification process myself but i point blank will not work for councils.

 

My intention would be to solely do criminal work such as arrests, fines and compensation for victims of crime, and eventually to move into high court enforcement for employee tribunals etc.

 

Anyone that knows me through here will know I'm a totally ethical and moral guy and will not do anything to make done one in trouble even worse off, indeed looking over my history and problems myself on here I think it's pretty obvious I've got little time for those that abuse the process and powers that are given to them.

 

My big question is does my personal beliefs in being totally ethical and doing the right thing mean it's just not gonna be a suitable role for me, despite my total aversion to working for councils and only wanting to do work that will help those who have been the victims of crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, why would you want to take a job which continually entails bringing people bad news ?

 

If you fancy enforcement join the police force or the army.

 

Don't get me wrong one of my most respected friends is an ex HCEO and he runs a charity now to help educate people with money problems, however he went into the profession with a degree and at management level. A certified bailiff is in it for the business of making money, morality does not(and cannot) enter into it sadly.

IMO

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

with the growing popularity of the new sheriffs tv show and the fact that often people who have been screwed over have no one else to turn other than the bailiffs

and the sheriffs,

 

My question is are the bailiffs and sheriffs always the bad guys?

 

For instance you win a judgement and a sheriff operates for you. or youve been a victim of crime and the bailiff goes out to get your compensation that youre rightly entitled to.

 

Is every bailiff and sheriff in the wrong from the outset?

 

We don't have sheriffs in England any more. They only operate in Scotland. The company that are being filmed has the company name "Sheriffs" which can be confusing although they only employ bailiffs in England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I find it interesting that the amount of horror stories on here that it seems so many people believe that the Enforcement industry is the party thats in the wrong. Ok, Ive had problems and fallen behind in bills before now, but it does seem like theres many, many people on here that believe the system owes them a living and that they shouldn t have to pay bills that the rest of us. And dont even get me started on the whole 'freeman of the land bs'...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the amount of horror stories on here that it seems so many people believe that the Enforcement industry is the party thats in the wrong. Ok, Ive had problems and fallen behind in bills before now, but it does seem like theres many, many people on here that believe the system owes them a living and that they shouldn t have to pay bills that the rest of us. There are many who genuinely cannot afford the bills due to a reduction in income/withdrawal of benefit And dont even get me started on the whole 'freeman of the land bs'...........

 

You can have a laugh at FMOL. The real issue is that government policy, coupled with horrendous utility bills, and Council Tax that is an imposition with no relation to ability to pay, as in many Social Homes, as in council/HA are actually in the higher bands so in some circumstances the council tax can be more than the rent, or even a mortgage.

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

If you are considering a career as a bailiff you will need to carefully read the new certification procedure.

 

We are expecting this 3rd and final statutory regulation within a week ( if not sooner).

 

There will no longer be a "Form 4" but there will be a replacement will this will centre ONLY on the bailiff's FITNESS to hold a position of certificated bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will they be able to subvert or pervert this into litigation as per the existing Form 4?

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

 

Will they be able to subvert or pervert this into litigation as per the existing Form 4?

 

 

brassnecked

 

In answer to your question.....only time will tell.

 

Every industry (whether it is an insurance company opposing a household/motor claim or a bank opposing a PPI claim) will be looking for the "loophole" in the agreement/contract for the purpose of gaining a financial advantage. Sadly, the bailiff industry is no different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Will they be able to subvert or pervert this into litigation as per the existing Form 4?

 

 

 

The Form 4 (as we know it) will become obsolete in 8 weeks time although I suspect that the terminology may still be used by debtors. Hopefully from 6th April debtors will use a "Form 4 Complaint" as a very last resort and instead, take their complaint to the local authority or magistrate court FIRST. In that way we will be able to avoid the dreadful cost orders that are coming through from the courts in respect of "vextatious" Form 4 complaints.

 

I will be starting a new thread about two such "cost orders"........

 

One is MASSIVE at over £21,000 !!!.......no need to go to Specsavers. The figure is correct.

 

The second one is just over £4,000 from a County Court in the West Country.

 

It has been a busy few days and the bailiff industry are all over these 'cost orders' like a rash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, why would you want to take a job which continually entails bringing people bad news ?

 

If you fancy enforcement join .. the army.

 

 

 

 

Well, the values and standards of the Army could not be more different to the way bailiffs behave:

 

 

Army life is based on six core values:

 

 

 

Courage; be brave enough to do the right thing, no matter what the circumstances.

 

Discipline; set a good example and follow lawful orders.

 

 

Respect for others; treat people as you’d want to be treated.

 

 

 

Integrity; be honest and never lie, cheat or steal.

 

 

 

Loyalty; look after your mates and stick with them, even when the going gets tough.

 

 

 

Selfless commitment; put the team, your mates and the mission before yourself.

 

 

As a soldier, your behaviour must always be:

 

 

Lawful, appropriate and totally professional at all times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience when I get no payment following a CCJ I will instruct the HCEO as a matter of course when I know the debtor's location. Usually I instruct where there is lack of contact with the debtor i.e. ignoring pre-issue LBAs, not responding to the Court Forms, and not responding to Judgment.

 

It often takes the HCEO to visit a debtor to find out they've got no funds to pay, and you're often left thinking.. well if you'd have responded to the LBA and said that it wouldn't have got this far.

 

Obviously this then impacts on how effective the HCEO is. I think in 3 years I've only had 1 full recovery using the HCEO of approx £10k. I've got 8 or 9 debtors in payment plans with the HCEO ranging from £15 to £200/month. 3 who started payment plans then stopped paying. I'd go out on a limb and say 60-70% of claims the HCEO has not made contact in 3 visits so no recovery and a further £72 quid for Client to pay.

 

But if the debtor doesn't respond to LBAs and proceedings then it's really the only option left from a Claimant's point of view (aside from writing off the debt and taking a hit on any extra costs).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well, the values and standards of the Army could not be more different to the way bailiffs behave:

 

 

Army life is based on six core values:

 

 

 

Courage; be brave enough to do the right thing, no matter what the circumstances.

 

Discipline; set a good example and follow lawful orders.

 

 

Respect for others; treat people as you’d want to be treated.

 

 

 

Integrity; be honest and never lie, cheat or steal.

 

 

 

Loyalty; look after your mates and stick with them, even when the going gets tough.

 

 

 

Selfless commitment; put the team, your mates and the mission before yourself.

 

 

As a soldier, your behaviour must always be:

 

 

Lawful, appropriate and totally professional at all times.

 

Not ideal new career for a soldier then.

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

So an update to this, I am now going to be getting certified, starting the course v soon.

 

I'm doing it solely to get into high court enforcement so as to help people have been unfairly dismissed etc. A colleague of mine that I used to work the doors with is a HCEO so Im trying to see if he can help me with it.

 

However, on a plus point for this site, Ill be able to provide a little insight from inside the business at the least.

 

Hopefully Ill be in a position to help some people on here at the very least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting twist to the original post.

 

Firstly it is Certificated and what course do you intend to do?

 

There are several companies out there offering courses that really aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the official enforcement agent certification course Im doing. Through one of the large established firms.

 

So its legit.

 

Only thing I concerned with is Ive told them quite bluntly I wont do council tax or civil work. Theyre happy enough (at the moment) with my plan to only do criminal stuff but well see how long that lasts........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...