Panorama Programme - 7 April - Discussion

[Fair-Parking]

You seem to be exhibiting a great deal of reliance on rumours and wishful thinking as many people are grateful to Fair Parking for getting their money and vehicles back through taking on local authorities.

 

If I agree about one thing this is taking the thread away from the programme so if you wish to continue with your incorrect accusations including anything about judges then please start a new thread and do try to put some facts before the rest of us and I'll deal with them and indeed any more bile you would like to spit out.

 

Back on thread - you have given no good reason why the baliffs had no warrants with them or why they were not even mentioned in the programme. Although one bailiff was moved to say that he was certificated court officer (rather than certificated BY a court) not one bailiff said he had a court warrant.

 

There can be no greater issues to discuss than baliffs who have no warrants although you can lump in violations of the Data Protection Act ie discussing the matter with any third party who answers the door and then threatening them. Or you could ask why admitted self employed bailiffs were passed personal information from JBW and Newlyn also in violation of the DPA

 

You did notice these didn't you HCEO? You must also know that the Data Proetction Act prevents such information being shared for any reason that involves the collection of an alleged civil debt. If you didn't then maybe you are not a fit and proper person to hold the office of HCEO.

[tomtubby]

The Telegraph article demonstrates the reason WHY it is not a sensible move to seek an Injunction. The media (by that I mean newspapers as well) do not like companies seeking to suppress news (and in particular; news that is of importance to the general public).

 

My personal opinion is that JBW should have 'taken the medicine' and put up with it's nasty taste. It is common knowledge that bailiffs do not act properly and charge fees in accordance with THEIR OWN interpretation of what the fee scale provides.

 

Trying to get the courts permission to suppress the news was clearly not a sensible move.

[brassnecked]

Wonder if Data Commissioner and ICO would be interested in the bailiff abusing the Roma family for breach of DPA

[fletch70]

I am assuming you are talking about DWB (hope I can say that) . Talk about rip off, £35 for a phone consultation when you can probably get a free solicitors appointment . Isn't he a mate of another rather odd forum owner?

[tomtubby]

I am assuming you are talking about DWB (hope I can say that) . Talk about rip off, £35 for a phone consultation when you can probably get a free solicitors appointment . Isn't he a mate of another rather odd forum owner?

 

Personally I cannot see the reason why the site cannot be mentioned. In fact I would go so far as to argue that letting the general public know is acting responsibly in particular given that the site people are behind this post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421842-Suing-a-Bailiff-Company-Enforcement-Agent.....make-sure-you-read-here-first!!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Turning back to your question; the cost of £35 is correct. This has been slashed from the previous figure of £70 !!! About being a 'mate' of another forum. The answer is yes. Enough said.

[Fair-Parking]

One final observation on the Panorama. Whilst the words 'fines' and 'debtors' were used liberally throughout the programme, there are no fines or debtors in civil parking enforcement. There are however 'charges' and 'contraventions'. Even the latter is merely an allegation.

 

You could clearly see that the bailiffs felt as if those who property they invaded could be contemptuously treated as second class criminals when they had committed no offence at all.

 

An alleged contravention is no more than an unproven civil accusation.

[fletch70]

Personally I cannot see the reason why the site cannot be mentioned. In fact I would go so far as to argue that letting the general public know is acting responsibly in particular given that the site people are behind this post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421842-Suing-a-Bailiff-Company-Enforcement-Agent.....make-sure-you-read-here-first!!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Turning back to your question; the cost of £35 is correct. This has been slashed from the previous figure of £70 !!! About being a 'mate' of another forum. The answer is yes. Enough said.

 

Well for once I must agree with the sentiment that if they offer a discount there must be something wrong with it !

[FrankieBeee]

On the thread regarding 'Third Party Goods' and 'Interpleaders' I made a post a short while ago about the 'swan sanctuary' vehicle. There were rumours going around a few weeks ago concerning this matter and to be fair...I do have concerns about this case.

 

It is my understanding that SOME local authorities do in fact consider the vehicle to be exempt and quash the PCN's. There are different scenarios being 'touted around' that some LA' have 'exempted' the vehicles altogether (in other words that no tickets are actually issued).

 

What however was CLEAR is the importance of APPEALING the PCN's. If some LA's did 'exempt' the vehicle then the debtor could have use this 'exemption' in his appeal to PATAS (the parking Adjudicator).

 

What was extraordinary it that he allowed his £15,000 car to be removed AND SOLD. I would have advised him to do everything in his power to raise the money to pay off the debt and argue afterwards. There was no mention of what happened to the proceeds of the car (if sold for £12,000). We were not told what deductions were made etc.

 

I thought it was the ambulance that was sold and the car was his wife's which they took as well as it was on the driveway and they would not listen to fact it was his wife's (who I believe works with victims of domestic abuse or similar) the bailiffs would not believe otherwise - whatever, it was a shambles and pretty scary

[FrankieBeee]

Would any reasonably minded person allow a total stranger access to their home without the proper authority to "see" so to speak? that would be NO

 

Trouble is if the door is unlocked the bailiff/EA just walks in (as I discovered once years ago when he went round the back of the house then into the garden, and found my back door unlocked and so just walked in the house - once in I am then not allowed to stop him).

[%Ostrich%]

All the companies mentioned in this program are going to have to change and change quickly. When Marston's appeared on the whistleblower program 8 years ago, it marked the beginning of a complete shift in thinking. A shift which has seen changes to personnel, training and procedure. The Marston's of today is nothing like the Drakes of old where illegal bailiff behaviour was ignored in the main.

 

To be frank, I couldn't quite believe that any of the bailiffs kept a straight face when quoting the outstanding balances. The absurdity of asking for £1800 or more for 3 parking tickets is simply ridiculous. As an EA myself, I'm either doing my job incredibly well or missing out big time!

[brassnecked]

All the companies mentioned in this program are going to have to change and change quickly. When Marston's appeared on the whistleblower program 8 years ago, it marked the beginning of a complete shift in thinking. A shift which has seen changes to personnel, training and procedure. The Marston's of today is nothing like the Drakes of old where illegal bailiff behaviour was ignored in the main.

 

To be frank, I couldn't quite believe that any of the bailiffs kept a straight face when quoting the outstanding balances. The absurdity of asking for £1800 or more for 3 parking tickets is simply ridiculous. As an EA myself, I'm either doing my job incredibly well or missing out big time!

If you are engaging with debtors and arranging payment with them, and doing the job right you can be comfortable and safe in the knowledge that what is coming to Marestons Newlyn aka Screwlyn, and the Crapquita group, in terms of the complaints will be nothing to do with you. In fact Caggers should appeciate and thank EAs who do the job correctly, and find time to post advice and/or salient comments on the forum.. We need to see the other side as well.

[fletch70]

I thought it was the ambulance that was sold and the car was his wife's which they took as well as it was on the driveway and they would not listen to fact it was his wife's (who I believe works with victims of domestic abuse or similar) the bailiffs would not believe otherwise - whatever, it was a shambles and pretty scary

 

First of all the car was seized sold and they did say how much went to the bailiffs and to pay the fine. Then the ambulance was taken and sold . However bad the actions of the bailiffs were I do have to wonder about the motives or actions of the victims. Sorry if that sounds harsh but surely it would be easy enough to get the cars registration documents to show who the car belonged to . I am also not sure the ambulance can be classed as a tool of trade because he was a volunteer. You also have to ask how he could afford to volunteer full time, own a 15K car and a decent van as well as his wife having a decent car and not be able to pay the fines.

[brassnecked]

The point was that the ambulance was an exempt vehicle so was allowed to use the bus lane, how and why the council let it get that far is the point, as in reality it is the LA that should be the ones targeted here regarding the tickeyt and their responsibilty for Newlyn

[lamma]

surely it would be easy enough to get the cars registration documents to show who the car belonged to

]No, the registration documents carry no information at all as regards ownership. Nor should they.

[fletch70]

Registration documents show registered keeper. If we follow the above logic a bailiff could seize any car belonging to almost anyone and say they had reason to believe it belonged to the debtor

 

True the ambulance was an exempt vehicle but the only comment made was by the council saying the owner had not provided the documents to prove it was exempt. Now maybe it was an inept council, maybe the documents were not provided this point was not discussed

 

I have to say I smell a rat and a setup for "good TV" just like most bailiff programs.

 

Bet they wouldn't dare make one outlining your rights and the different types of bailiffs and people that call them selves bailiffs along with the powers they have

[brassnecked]

Registration documents show registered keeper. If we follow the above logic a bailiff could seize any car belonging to almost anyone and say they had reason to believe it belonged to the debtor

 

True the ambulance was an exempt vehicle but the only comment made was by the council saying the owner had not provided the documents to prove it was exempt. Now maybe it was an inept council, maybe the documents were not provided this point was not discussed

 

I have to say I smell a rat and a setup for "good TV" just like most bailiff programs.

 

Bet they wouldn't dare make one outlining your rights and the different types of bailiffs and people that call them selves bailiffs along with the powers they have

We could do that a 10 minute film outlining which is which, as in EA can do, DCA/Moorcarp Cannot do etc. with a couple of examples of knocking a door and an actor answering. The narrator and on screen caprrions then explain who the caller is and what they can or cannot do.

[tomtubby]

The NoTo Mob certainly had a significant amount of input into the programme (and the website which claimed that they had been involved were once again proved to be misleading their viewers).

 

NoTo Mob stands for 'No To Mobile enforcement' and this organisation now have over 1,000 members all over the Country. Whilst they were initially seeking better regulation of the use of CCTV and 'spy cars' they have certainly developed in the past year or so into a 'force to be reckoned with' and one which is certainly not ignored by local authorities and it is known that they have made some very serious complaints to the District Auditors regarding some local authority parking and bailiff contracts.

[brassnecked]

The NoTo Mob certainly had a significant amount of input into the programme (and the website which claimed that they had been involved were once again proved to be misleading their viewers).

 

NoTo Mob stands for 'No To Mobile enforcement' and this organisation now have over 1,000 members all over the Country. Whilst they were initially seeking better regulation of the use of CCTV and 'spy cars' they have certainly developed in the past year or so into a 'force to be reckoned with' and one which is certainly not ignored by local authorities and it is known that they have made some very serious complaints to the District Auditors regarding some local authority parking and bailiff contracts.

 

They have done some great work, Mobile enforcement is sneaky, and in many cases probably unlawful.

[Smiths]

The programme information and a tag line in the broadcast asked the question: "whether new laws to curb the bailiffs' worst excesses go far enough", personally I felt it didn't really answer the question.

 

All it showed was bully tactics that the Bailiffs use and are which continue to be used by newly named the Enforcement Agents.

 

The basic fees might have changed but you can still be charged for additional court charges, storage of vehicles, locksmiths to get into vehicles, the removal of vehicles and the sale of the vehicle. The one thing it did mention, at the end, and I’m sure we are all on agreement on, is that the industry needs an independent regulator with teeth. There is really nobody to complain to about unfair charges, incorrect charges, bullying and intimation etc etc.

 

Even the newly named Enforcement Agents give you no details of in house complaints procedures or anything when I have looked for them, they just seem act how they want.

[tomtubby]

The new regulations are goods in many parts but sadly, their failing is with the introduction of an Interpleader . Such a procedure is not just for 'third party goods'....it is in fact for ANY goods to which their is a dispute. In other words, if a 'Third Party's goods have been removed that person would be required to file an Interpleader and also, if a debtor considers that goods removed should be exempt (ie for business use) then he must also use the 'Interpleader' procedure !!! I fear that in a short time this procedure will lead to sloppy 'levies' and significant complaints.

 

 

The introduction of the 'Interpleader' process has also led to EA's being able to apply 'storage' fees. A big mistake.

 

The government have also wasted a good opportunity to settle the subject of goods for 'business use'. There is a significant area of concern regarding the 'cap' of £1350. We will have to see how this works in practice.

[tomtubby]

I also need to repeat something very important (which will feature in the forthcoming Simplified Guide that from 6th April an enforcement agent CANNOT charge a DVLA fee or HPI fee . Such charges will have to be INCLUDED in the admin fee of £75. The EA cannot also charge a credit or debit card handling fee !!!!

 

The fees that they can charge are FIXED.

[brassnecked]

The business use cap of £1350 will prove to be a mistake when individual sole traders asnd some companies cannot continue trading when the specialist tools are gone as they are individually worth more than £1350. You are absolutely correct regarding the interpleader TT thsi will prove to be a big mistake, as the cost to be paid in to court will likely include around £1000 in storage fees if it is a car that has been taken. With the implementation of storage fees, the EA will be much more likely to remove goods at the first visit to get the £110, and add storage fees along with the Enforcement fee of £235

[citizenB]

So.. the question is.. what is the answer -

 

How do we ensure that "debtors" who genuinely cannot pay are protected.

What changes need to be made to ensure that Bailiffs and their bosses behave correctly.

What is the point of inflating a small debt out of all proportion if someone cannot pay the small debt, they sure as hell are not going to be able to pay the larger one.

 

If I understand things correctly, Council debts are probably one of the largest issues - families living on or below the poverty line are being forced down even further because Councils are so swift to offload Council Tax arrears - take no account of vulnerability situations.

 

Or is it that the "debtors" are not contacting the Council swiftly enough when they encounter problems ?

[brassnecked]

So.. the question is.. what is the answer -

 

How do we ensure that "debtors" who genuinely cannot pay are protected.

What changes need to be made to ensure that Bailiffs and their bosses behave correctly.

What is the point of inflating a small debt out of all proportion if someone cannot pay the small debt, they sure as hell are not going to be able to pay the larger one. It would seem that they regard adding fees to make the debt unpayable is a consequence of not paying, as in you haven't paid, your excuse of becoming disabled, lost your job,, etc etc and your income reducing is insufficient excuse so we have the right to add to the debt and profit from youir misfortune. I think the excuse is they do it because the law allows them to .

 

If I understand things correctly, Council debts are probably one of the largest issues - families living on or below the poverty line are being forced down even further because Councils are so swift to offload Council Tax arrears - take no account of vulnerability situations. The council tax system is so automated that as Outlawla found they will generate a default asnd obtain a Liability Order for as little as a penny therefore turning a penny into £400 +

 

Or is it that the "debtors" are not contacting the Council swiftly enough when they encounter problems ? It is a combination of it all, head in sand, never had to pay before perhaps,

 

 

One thing is certain whilst seizure and sale of goods is allowed it will only get worse. The only way would be by a system of deductions from income set at a level that does not cause penury for the debtor, or prevents them or a third party innocent from working because the EA has had a car away. The fees and charges are part of the problem and not the solution, as you are correct, how the hell can tripling a small debt with fees help a debtor pay it off?

[citizenB]

Yes, that is a worry regarding them taking cars that have no connection to the debtor. I think that needs addressing urgently.