Bailiff Companies Forcing EAs to go for full Payment on First Visit?

[lookinforinfo]

It has been said that bailiff companies were forcing their EAs to go for full payment on their first visit.

There were different reasons mooted for the bailiff companies decision but either way not only is it a very worrying

situation but it may also be unlawful. The Act does allow for staged payments to be made by the debtor in the form of

the Controlled Goods Agreement where the debtor keeps possession of his goods that the EA has listed and as long as they stick to the agreement they will be free to keep their goods.

 

However it seems that bailiff companies do not want their EAs to enter into these agreements and instead force debtors to pay the whole amount due on the first visit.

 

This is a disgraceful way to operate and should, if true, be nipped in the bud very quickly.

Edited July 12, 2014 by ims21

[josephbloggs]

morning lookingforinfo,

 

the problem incurred in the new regs are that if the bailiff gains entry into the property they have to take control of goods. debtors are advised rightly or wrongly by debt advice places never to sign paperwork, which would rule out a controlled goods agreement.

 

so the only other options are remove to safe storage, lock goods in a seperate room, or clamp a vehicle until payment, or stand their ground until payment is secured.

 

one of these must occur because if a bailiff walks away offering time to pay, with no controlled goods agreement, they apparently are not allowed to go back and enforce because its deemed they have abandoned goods. therefore they have no option but to stand their ground and push for payment, or its nothing.

 

also im told pretty much everyone is ignoring the compliance letter as well - whereas we know this would be the ideal time to set up an arrangement to pay. whereas what it actually does is give people more time to ignore the debt, or attempt to get advice - and before they know it bang on goes 235.

[brassnecked]

The other angle of concern is that even if there is engagement at the Compliance and £75 stage, and that the letter arrived in good time, as in not sent by TNT Post etc and it arrived on or after the date on the letter; that the EAs are refusing reasonable and affordable plans that are borne out by the I & E say £30 per week that they can scrape together ,or the more affordable £20 which they can maintain. Instead they are demanding £70 per week which may well be more than they have left after paying bills and is for their food and travel to work.as in disposable income £50, EAf demands £70. so debtor panics does nothing and EA knocks and adds £235

 

Then when they call EA demands full payment, they may even say that maybe they should beg or borrow or go to Wonga to pay them, so to pile on pressure EA clamps the car worth a Monkey (£500) at best or as it is no V5 and key if towed a pony (£25) at auction so debtor cannot get to work.

 

 

Is the reality of the new rules coming home to roost, as what Talk sense has posted regarding how bailiffs/EA are paid is very worrying it does seem to indicate vulnerable debtors will be dealt with more harshly, as will all debtors who cannot front up a full payment at the knock. just because the bailiffs pay is now less certain

 

For comedic relief, would the hale and hearty fit 80 year old from 8a Acacia go to jail for smacking the bailiff with her garden spade, when he knocked her door instead of 8b Acacia in the same block, and he tried to seize her garden tools and garden furniture as she was in the garden at the time, and after knocking the wrong door approacher to take control of her goods.?

[lookinforinfo]

morning lookingforinfo,

 

the problem incurred in the new regs are that if the bailiff gains entry into the property they have to take control of goods. debtors are advised rightly or wrongly by debt advice places never to sign paperwork, which would rule out a controlled goods agreement.

 

so the only other options are remove to safe storage, lock goods in a seperate room, or clamp a vehicle until payment, or stand their ground until payment is secured.

 

one of these must occur because if a bailiff walks away offering time to pay, with no controlled goods agreement, they apparently are not allowed to go back and enforce because its deemed they have abandoned goods. therefore they have no option but to stand their ground and push for payment, or its nothing.

 

also im told pretty much everyone is ignoring the compliance letter as well - whereas we know this would be the ideal time to set up an arrangement to pay. whereas what it actually does is give people more time to ignore the debt, or attempt to get advice - and before they know it bang on goes 235.

 

EAS have to act within the Law. Failure to observe the 7 days clear notice renders their Controlled Goods agreement nullified. And to refuse a reasonable offer of repayment is a breach of the Act. And to force people into paying more than they can afford calls their fitness to hold a licence into question.

 

I find it hard to believe that EAs cannot go back to try and get paid on a second occasion if an unsigned agreement is broken. The goods cannot have been abandoned as there

was no agreement in the first place. Plus there is legislation in place when payments stop before the whole debt is paid off. Also there is an extra charge when a bailiff goes out

in those circumstances so it is hard to see a bailiff company turning that down.

Bailiffs lie, and so do bailiff companies.

But it is a situation that should be nipped in the bud. Bailiff companies are now better rewarded and they should not be allowed to run a cart and horses through the legislation

especially as it appears to put the poorest under the greatest pressure.

[brassnecked]

When we consider what has come to light courtesy of a bailiff, and looking at the new rules in that light, and the way the rules are mostly in favour of the enforcers, one can assume it is a train crash that has just left the station, on a single line, and the advice sector train is coming the other way on the same line, like Thorpe in 1874.

 

As to renaming them EA, if it looks, acts and smells like bailiff, whatever they call it it is a bailiff! The new terminology Enforcement Agent will not catch on, they will still be called bailiffs by the public and press until seizing and selling goods for a pittance to pay debt plus addition of fees is abolished

[Talk sense]

When we consider what has come to light courtesy of a bailiff, and looking at the new rules in that light, and the way the rules are mostly in favour of the enforcers, one can assume it is a train crash that has just left the station, on a single line, and the advice sector train is coming the other way on the same line, like Thorpe in 1874.

 

As to renaming them EA, if it looks, acts and smells like bailiff, whatever they call it it is a bailiff! The new terminology Enforcement Agent will not catch on, they will still be called bailiffs by the public and press until seizing and selling goods for a pittance to pay debt plus addition of fees is abolished

 

I agree.

But think the facility to remove still applies in cases that warrant it only.

 

This is 2014 and in a recession but the has to get pay in full??

That was the only point I really wanted to make.

 

While people still use bailiffs. For me it's about using them fairly and correctly.

Changing name is a nonsense.

Reputation can be changed but only if bailiff companies and councils start being realistic.

 

Bailiff companies don't offer reasonable or any pay on part payment collection, why:

 

•the bailiff has already called and added the fee.

•the bailiff has to enforce to earn a living.

 

Do bailiff companies want to use bailiffs at all? Or I'd it only due to the requirement of legislation with States the fees can only be added by a certified bailiff.

If was the case and the fee could be added by mail being posted, bailiff companies would just use call centres.

 

Why would the bailiff company make collection easy for the EA? When on no collection the debtor 5 days later calls the office and makes a payment anyway. Then the bailiff company pocket the full £310 when in truth all they've done is send a letter.

The bailiff has has had all the cost and done the majority of the work.

 

We as bailiffs would really love the opportunity to help debtors as much as possible by taking less money and offering affordable arrangement. However truth is we don't earn money for doing that because of how the companies pay.

They now all pay less than before.

That's without president.

 

But unfortunately people/debtors/Customers are being charged more and sooner.

 

The only people this new regulation has benefitted is the fat cat owners of bailiff companies.

[Talk sense]

I agree.

But think the facility to remove still applies in cases that warrant it only.

 

This is 2014 and in a recession but the has to get pay in full??

That was the only point I really wanted to make.

 

While people still use bailiffs. For me it's about using them fairly and correctly.

Changing name is a nonsense.

Reputation can be changed but only if bailiff companies and councils start being realistic.

 

Bailiff companies don't offer reasonable or any pay on part payment collection, why:

 

•the bailiff has already called and added the fee.

•the bailiff has to enforce to earn a living.

 

Do bailiff companies want to use bailiffs at all? Or I'd it only due to the requirement of legislation with States the fees can only be added by a certified bailiff.

If was the case and the fee could be added by mail being posted, bailiff companies would just use call centres.

 

Why would the bailiff company make collection easy for the EA? When on no collection the debtor 5 days later calls the office and makes a payment anyway. Then the bailiff company pocket the full £310 when in truth all they've done is send a letter.

The bailiff has has had all the cost and done the majority of the work.

 

We as bailiffs would really love the opportunity to help debtors as much as possible by taking less money and offering affordable arrangement. However truth is we don't earn money for doing that because of how the companies pay.

They now all pay less than before.

That's without president.

 

But unfortunately people/debtors/Customers are being charged more and sooner.

 

The only people this new regulation has benefitted is the fat cat owners of bailiff companies.

 

If their were a bailiff union we would all walk.

 

We hate the regs and the industry as much as debtors.

Truth.

 

But we all need to try and support our families.

I'd walk tomorrow if I had another job to go to, which would pay my bills.

But there's not.

The majority of bailiffs have no qualification or trade.

 

Bailiff companies know this.

 

Bailiff companies say. "If your not happy leave"

To what???

They're no stupid.

 

They'd all have a bloody heart attack if we all did walk.

 

I think that would be better for everyone.

Maybe then they'd all get the message.

 

Bailiffs arnt the problem here.

I understand and agree that some bailiffs in the PAST have brought a lot of this on themselves.

 

But this is the here and now.

[DragonFly1967]

I understand and agree that some bailiffs in the PAST have brought a lot of this on themselves.

 

But this is the here and now.

 

Maybe I've underestimated you Talk sense, and if I have, I apologise.

 

 

You keep talking about things that might've happened in the past, but it's still happening now.

 

SOME Bailiffs (or Enforcement Agents) are still misrepresenting their powers, or at the very least, bending the truth of the extent of the (somewhat limited) powers that they do have.

 

 

For instance, you replied in another thread, that the police are entitled to act to assist you to gain entry to a property, and that's quite simply not the case. Where a court has issued a warrant that includes the right to force entry to a property, the police can (and probably will) be in attendance, but cannot use police powers to effect entry into those premises. So, as I said, the police would be there only to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

And while the Liability Order, in the case of Council Tax, does (on a first visit) provide for 'peaceable right of entry' you can only now enter through an open or unlocked door, or if you're invited into the property.

 

Taking my property as an example...

 

To the rear is a garden with a fence all around it. You are no longer allowed to climb over the fence. And even if you were, to do so would cause damage to that fence, which definitely isn't allowed.

To the side there is a locked gate, which you're no longer allowed to climb over.

 

The above are the only access to my back door, so you're unable to achieve 'peaceable entry' via that door.

 

You're no longer allowed to climb through an open window, so that's out.

 

And if you knock on the front door, you can't push past me when I open it, you can't employ the 'threshold maneuver' and put your foot in the door to stop me closing it, and I most certainly won't be inviting you to step inside.

 

Leaving you, in my opinion, as I said, with as much right of access as the postman.

 

 

Edited to add: The "you" in the majority of this post means bailiffs in general, not you personally.

[Talk sense]

Maybe I've underestimated you Talk sense, and if I have, I apologise.

 

 

You keep talking about things that might've happened in the past, but it's still happening now.

 

SOME Bailiffs (or Enforcement Agents) are still misrepresenting their powers, or at the very least, bending the truth of the extent of the (somewhat limited) powers that they do have.

 

 

For instance, you replied in another thread, that the police are entitled to act to assist you to gain entry to a property, and that's quite simply not the case. Where a court has issued a warrant that includes the right to force entry to a property, the police can (and probably will) be in attendance, but cannot use police powers to effect entry into those premises. So, as I said, the police would be there only to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

And while the Liability Order, in the case of Council Tax, does (on a first visit) provide for 'peaceable right of entry' you can only now enter through an open or unlocked door, or if you're invited into the property.

 

Taking my property as an example...

 

To the rear is a garden with a fence all around it. You are no longer allowed to climb over the fence. And even if you were, to do so would cause damage to that fence, which definitely isn't allowed.

To the side there is a locked gate, which you're no longer allowed to climb over.

 

The above are the only access to my back door, so you're unable to achieve 'peaceable entry' via that door.

 

You're no longer allowed to climb through an open window, so that's out.

 

And if you knock on the front door, you can't push past me when I open it, you can't employ the 'threshold maneuver' and put your foot in the door to stop me closing it, and I most certainly won't be inviting you to step inside.

 

Leaving you, in my opinion, as I said, with as much right of access as the postman.

 

 

Edited to add: The "you" in the majority of this post means bailiffs in general, not you personally.

 

Sorry.

I wasn't saying police would assist in gaining entry.

But they're there to help assist in other ways.

They're not there only to prevent breach of peace.

 

I think the whole idea of a bailiff is a nonsense in truth.

 

The principle I agree with but the practices are a shambles.

 

Put it this way.

I don't know of any current serving bailiff who was present to

Help with the new reform.

It was owners and councils.

A joke

[brassnecked]

Sorry.

I wasn't saying police would assist in gaining entry.

But they're there to help assist in other ways.

They're not there only to prevent breach of peace.

 

I think the whole idea of a bailiff is a nonsense in truth.

 

The principle I agree with but the practices are a shambles.

 

Put it this way.

I don't know of any current serving bailiff who was present to

Help with the new reform.

It was owners and councils.

A joke

 

The fragrant "millionaire" bailiff Julie Green-Jones, best buddy pal of Mr Boast was at the table to push for bailiffs, oops Bailiff Companies and gaffers. Seems she pretty much got what she wanted. Flashed a bit of leg perhaps.

[Talk sense]

Maybe I've underestimated you Talk sense, and if I have, I apologise.

 

 

You keep talking about things that might've happened in the past, but it's still happening now.

 

SOME Bailiffs (or Enforcement Agents) are still misrepresenting their powers, or at the very least, bending the truth of the extent of the (somewhat limited) powers that they do have.

 

 

For instance, you replied in another thread, that the police are entitled to act to assist you to gain entry to a property, and that's quite simply not the case. Where a court has issued a warrant that includes the right to force entry to a property, the police can (and probably will) be in attendance, but cannot use police powers to effect entry into those premises. So, as I said, the police would be there only to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

And while the Liability Order, in the case of Council Tax, does (on a first visit) provide for 'peaceable right of entry' you can only now enter through an open or unlocked door, or if you're invited into the property.

 

Taking my property as an example...

 

To the rear is a garden with a fence all around it. You are no longer allowed to climb over the fence. And even if you were, to do so would cause damage to that fence, which definitely isn't allowed.

To the side there is a locked gate, which you're no longer allowed to climb over.

 

The above are the only access to my back door, so you're unable to achieve 'peaceable entry' via that door.

 

You're no longer allowed to climb through an open window, so that's out.

 

And if you knock on the front door, you can't push past me when I open it, you can't employ the 'threshold maneuver' and put your foot in the door to stop me closing it, and I most certainly won't be inviting you to step inside.

 

Leaving you, in my opinion, as I said, with as much right of access as the postman.

 

 

Edited to add: The "you" in the majority of this post means bailiffs in general, not you personally.

 

I agree 150% with what you've said.

I really do.

And I understand why you write this.

I appreciate why you and others take this view.

 

But really.......

Climbing fences, going through windows and feet in doorways.

I know of that going on. And that's rediculous.

I can honestly say in over 10 yrs I have never once used such methods.

And I'm not a bailiff who's struggled to earn a living.

So don't see why others have done it. Idiots

And should be struck off like a doctor who abuses their position.

 

But surely put a camera on me and all bailiffs.

Legal requirement wear a camera.

Job solved.

 

Offer a more fair playing field with wages.

Which opens up a greater fairness to the debtor.

 

Job solved.

 

Easy

[Talk sense]

The fragrant "millionaire" bailiff Julie Green-Jones, best buddy pal of Mr Boast was at the table to push for bailiffs, oops Bailiff Companies and gaffers. Seems she pretty much got what she wanted. Flashed a bit of leg perhaps.

 

Lol

She's long gone.

But bailiffs and bailiff companies are 2 different things.

 

It's like the puppet and puppeteer.

[brassnecked]

Lol

She's long gone.

But bailiffs and bailiff companies are 2 different things.

 

It's like the puppet and puppeteer.

So we can assume the Sheriffs, and the bailiffs in Parking Mad are as badly treated as the Capita goons knocking for TVL then, or even a zero hour contract worker at a Maccy D. At least they offer a proper training regime with progresssion from crew to manager at Maccy D's

[Talk sense]

So we can assume the Sheriffs, and the bailiffs in Parking Mad are as badly treated as the Capita goons knocking for TVL then, or even a zero hour contract worker at a Maccy D. At least they offer a proper training regime with progresssion from crew to manager at Maccy D's

 

Sorry???? I don't understand this

 

Bailiffs are crew

But are paid less to become management.

 

This is why good bailiffs don't ever become bailiff managers.

And therefore normally speaking the voice of the bailiff on the street is misunderstood between bailiff and owner as the go between manager struggles to comprehend both views or certainly that of the agent.

[Talk sense]

Sorry???? I don't understand this

 

Bailiffs are crew

But are paid less to become management.

 

This is why good bailiffs don't ever become bailiff managers.

And therefore normally speaking the voice of the bailiff on the street is misunderstood between bailiff and owner as the go between manager struggles to comprehend both views or certainly that of the agent.

 

I've been in many a meeting a have my point of view.

They either chose not to understand or they're too thick to get it.

Money mad the lot of them

[Talk sense]

Maybe I've underestimated you Talk sense, and if I have, I apologise.

 

 

You keep talking about things that might've happened in the past, but it's still happening now.

 

SOME Bailiffs (or Enforcement Agents) are still misrepresenting their powers, or at the very least, bending the truth of the extent of the (somewhat limited) powers that they do have.

 

 

For instance, you replied in another thread, that the police are entitled to act to assist you to gain entry to a property, and that's quite simply not the case. Where a court has issued a warrant that includes the right to force entry to a property, the police can (and probably will) be in attendance, but cannot use police powers to effect entry into those premises. So, as I said, the police would be there only to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

And while the Liability Order, in the case of Council Tax, does (on a first visit) provide for 'peaceable right of entry' you can only now enter through an open or unlocked door, or if you're invited into the property.

 

Taking my property as an example...

 

To the rear is a garden with a fence all around it. You are no longer allowed to climb over the fence. And even if you were, to do so would cause damage to that fence, which definitely isn't allowed.

To the side there is a locked gate, which you're no longer allowed to climb over.

 

The above are the only access to my back door, so you're unable to achieve 'peaceable entry' via that door.

 

You're no longer allowed to climb through an open window, so that's out.

 

And if you knock on the front door, you can't push past me when I open it, you can't employ the 'threshold maneuver' and put your foot in the door to stop me closing it, and I most certainly won't be inviting you to step inside.

 

Leaving you, in my opinion, as I said, with as much right of access as the postman.

 

 

Edited to add: The "you" in the majority of this post means bailiffs in general, not you personally.

 

No problem. And thanks

I guess if a politician tried to convince me he was any different it would take me a period if time. To judge that person on there own merits. I get it

[Peterbard]

Comments made by TS illustrate a cause of the problems, as said earlier bailiffs generally are unskilled and generally unable to do other equally lucrative work, the consequence of this is what must be called an unprofessional workforce enforcing warrants and liability orders as if the were officers of the court or the police. In addition many bailiffs see the position as an excuse to exercise their entrepreneurial muscle, seeking to boost there legitimate income by duplicating fees etc.

 

There will always be debt and therefore debt collectors, however bailiffs do not work on behalf of creditors, bailiffs work on there own behalf in order to raise fees from debts owed to others, this is the problem.

 

The simple solution would be to have a professional salaried workforce as part of the court system. This exists currently of course in the rapidly diminishing county court bailiff, my encounters with these seeks only to prove my beliefs as they seem to me to be the most reasonable and honest of the breed in my experience.

[Talk sense]

Comments made by TS illustrate a cause of the problems, as said earlier bailiffs generally are unskilled and generally unable to do other equally lucrative work, the consequence of this is what must be called an unprofessional workforce enforcing warrants and liability orders as if the were officers of the court or the police. In addition many bailiffs see the position as an excuse to exercise their entrepreneurial muscle, seeking to boost there legitimate income by duplicating fees etc.

 

There will always be debt and therefore debt collectors, however bailiffs do not work on behalf of creditors, bailiffs work on there own behalf in order to raise fees from debts owed to others, this is the problem.

 

The simple solution would be to have a professional salaried workforce as part of the court system. This exists currently of course in the rapidly diminishing county court bailiff, my encounters with these seeks only to prove my beliefs as they seem to me to be the most reasonable and honest of the breed in my experience.

 

But you still see the "bailiff" as being the problem.

 

And it is "not" the bailiff who is responsible for the collection and payments made to the bailiff.

 

County court bailiffs are how they are because of the different payment structure, fee structure.

 

Which allows them to be how they are.

 

There's no reason why the private bailiff can't work a similar practice. None at all.

 

The bailiff is not the problem it's the bloody system that's screwed. Bailiffs are left working writhing a rubbish corrupt system when dealing with these debts.

 

If you take nothing else from my posts please just understand this point.

Bailiffs are the making of a corruption and greed by owners of private firms.

Sort them out and how they allow the bailiff to work and be paid, and you sort out the bailiff.

 

Trying to pull individual bailiffs from the industry will take years. Go to the route of the problem.

At the top.

[DragonFly1967]

But you still see the "bailiff" as being the problem.

 

It's unfortunate perhaps, but that's life. It's the "bailiff" that's out on the street facing the punters, not those sat in their nice clean ivory towers.

 

I'll just leave this here for you to watch TS.

 

 

Now whilst I appreciate that this was researched and filmed before April 6th, it's systemic to the bailiff industry, and if you don't do this, and you say you don't, I'd say that you were one of the few.

[Peterbard]

But you still see the "bailiff" as being the problem.

 

And it is "not" the bailiff who is responsible for the collection and payments made to the bailiff.

 

County court bailiffs are how they are because of the different payment structure, fee structure.

 

Which allows them to be how they are.

 

There's no reason why the private bailiff can't work a similar practice. None at all.

 

The bailiff is not the problem it's the bloody system that's screwed. Bailiffs are left working writhing a rubbish corrupt system when dealing with these debts.

 

If you take nothing else from my posts please just understand this point.

Bailiffs are the making of a corruption and greed by owners of private firms.

Sort them out and how they allow the bailiff to work and be paid, and you sort out the bailiff.

 

Trying to pull individual bailiffs from the industry will take years. Go to the route of the problem.

At the top.

 

I agree that the corruption and profiteering extends all the way to the top, but that does not change the situation that the debtor faces when he comes into contact with someone whose only goal is to raise the maximum amount of fee for their own pocket.

Lets hope the new registrations at least help the debtor in this regard.

[rippedoffagain]

The system can't work without self employed EA's. Simple arithmetic. The very high number of warrants require high numbers of EA's, if they were to be paid whether or not they recovered enough money to cover their wages, then their employers would lose money. This is the only reason that any private company have self employed agents.

[brassnecked]

The system can't work without self employed EA's. Simple arithmetic. The very high number of warrants require high numbers of EA's, if they were to be paid whether or not they recovered enough money to cover their wages, then their employers would lose money. This is the only reason that any private company have self employed agents.

 

 

Exactly sack yourself jobs.

[Talk sense]

Exactly sack yourself jobs.

 

No one is saying pay them for every single job.

 

Pay the bailiff if he collects some money.

 

I would suggest that 90% of the people I speak to make me an offer of payment. They ain't all not wanting to pay.

 

So when someone phones me and says

"I've received your letter mate, you want £2000 now but I don't have it. I can pay you £200 Friday and £100 per month"

 

I can say" ok mate this seems fair" (depending on circumstance) "give me a call Friday and we can get that done"

 

Now if I could do that everybody is happy in what can be a terrible situation fraught with all kinds of problems.

Debtor pays money

I collect and am paid

Bailiff company are doing a job

Cnl gets paid.

 

I don't see a problem really. It ain't rocket science.

 

I don't think people who don't pay should be let off.

 

But I don't believe bailiffs should be used to inflict more hardship and misery.

 

There is a balance to be had so let's have it.

[brassnecked]

No you get me wrong TS, a sack yourself job is one that relies overly on commission with a small basic, where you lash out cash on a motor, and other exes you have to claim back,

 

Just like double glazing salesmen and TV Licensing Crapita goons, and door knocking debt collectors for Snotcall and Moorcarp.

 

The way you are paid is just as scandalous as Zero Hour contracts.

[lookinforinfo]

If I'd wanted a further discussion on bailiffs and how they are paid I would have used a different heading..............................

 

One of the topics I was asking is that if it is true that bailiff companies in general are insisting their EAs go for the full debt on a first visit, is this lawful and is it the fault

in the way the new legislation was drafted.

Second, a more importantly, what effect is that having on debtors and is it not strange that we appear to have a drop in the number of debtors coming to the forum. Is that

because more people are settling prior to a visit or are creditors trying to avoid the use of bailiffs since the increase in bailiff fees will mean that it will take creditors longer,

if ever, to get their money.