Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That's their problem. They said account was £89 in credit when it was closed. Sent the cheque after about 3-4 weeks. They can't get it back from dead people. Unless they hold a seance.
    • Yes it was in her name at her address.  She used my address as a care of address when she moved into a care home.  I was managing her affairs from my address while she was in the care home.  Eon was made aware of this and agreed to it.  She/we used the Royal Mail redirection service from her old address to my address. 
    • @maroondevo52 what appears to be happening, is that the companies arranging vaccinations have been provided with bulk supplies of both flu and covid boosters. So the staff doing the vaccinations have trays with both ready to go into arms.                       
    • EON may have paid £89 refund in error and now they want it back.   Up to you really. But once you have sent the copy death cert that should stop any further communications.  You can of course look to take this further, but whether you would easily gain any compensation, is the question that you need to ask yourself.  They may dig their heels in and you then get into months of ping pong communications.
    • Great thanks, will leave 2 in then, replace 3 and I think its good to go.    This is exactly what I have in my word file ready to send, I think im happy with it and can send to mcol monday morning. Any further thoughts or things to update please let me know.   Again thank you both for your help, really is priceless.         Defence:   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.    2.     The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   3.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either having failed to plead an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   4.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      5.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a)   show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b)   show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c)   show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d)   show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

New Bailiff Association formed....The Certificated Enforcement Agents Association (CEAA)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2548 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

For the past few months rumors have been circulating that a new 'bailiffs association' was being set up. Rumors were true and the new association was formally launched on 8th December.

 

It is called the Certificated Enforcement Agents Association (CEAA). The Vice President is Andy Coates who has been in the enforcement industry for over 20 years.

 

He has worked for some of the largest enforcement companies and is well known within the enforcement industry given that he owns a large training company and runs training courses for new entrants to the enforcement industry. The President is Dave Rayner from Collect Services.

 

The Press release states that the new group was formed as there was a need for the individual Enforcement Agent to have a 'voice within the industry' at present the only 'association' is CIVEA (The Certificated Enforcement Agents Association) and in the main they represent the enforcement companies (although a small number of individual bailiffs are members).

 

The joining fee is low...just £25....and naturally a lot of bailiffs...including those working in house for local authorities have already signed up.

 

CEAA will continue to provide training course including the Level 2 and 3 in the Taking Control of Goods and Vulnerability Training with the Enforcement Process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a long time coming. Hopefully the membership will hit 300+ quickly (potential is nearly 1000 members) and MoJ will invite them to parcipitate in any discussions.

And promote training to weed out the thugs.

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

Given Andy Coates background and his business with training courses I hope that bad practices will be weeded out. The problem that I am seeing is that there are some bailiffs that are of the opinion that they can continuing enforcing a debt in the same way as they did pre 6th April.

 

By way of an example, I spoke with a debtor this morning whose vehicle has been clamped for the past 3 days. His vehicle is worth less than £500. He has 3 PCN's outstanding. The bailiff has confirmed that the vehicle is 'too old to take away'. Also, the bailiff clamped the car on the highway (outside of the debtors home) and so far...has failed to leave any statutory notices. He 'claims' that the sticker on the car is sufficient.

 

'Bad apples' like this guy (who is well known to me) puts the industry to shame and I suppose that no amount of training will change his way of enforcing a debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that really necessary? I didn't realise I'd posted on one of those 'other' forums.

 

Quite right, we can do without such aspersions being cast about bailiffs, there are no "Thugs" in the industry, merely "overenthusiastic" enforcement agents.

 

 

Why are you a bailiff?

 

 

Because

All

I

Love

Is

Flipping

Faking

Stuff

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given Andy Coates background and his business with training courses I hope that bad practices will be weeded out. The problem that I am seeing is that there are some bailiffs that are of the opinion that they can continuing enforcing a debt in the same way as they did pre 6th April.

 

 

Like everything that has happened we have to give them time and for me it should be that if an EA has not succeeded in attaining the relevant qualification or asttended the correct courses then his Certificate should be removed - say by April 6 2016 but preferably sooner.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that really necessary? I didn't realise I'd posted on one of those 'other' forums.

Evidently it was I refer you to BA's post #6. Idiots like the Jacobs moron who tried to take my motor whilst i was on the phone parked opposite a debtor's house where he had already clamped a car need to be sent to Jobcentre + pronto. They have no business being an Enforcement Agent.

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

Evidently it was I refer you to BA's post #6. Idiots like the Jacobs moron who tried to take my motor whilst i was on the phone parked opposite a debtor's house where he had already clamped a car need to be sent to Jobcentre + pronto. They have no business being an Enforcement Agent.

 

Unfortunately there will always be 'bad apples' in the bailiff industry and this is evidenced in my above post. From experience the same three or four names crop up very frequently indeed and in each case, they are continuing to enforce in the same way as pre 6th April. Local authorities need to start monitoring their bailiff companies and again, this will be a significant change for them as well.

 

The enforcement industry is currently facing challenges. There is pressure from a few LA's to take some of the work in-house and if the Reverend Paul Nicholson is sucessful in his JR application in the New Year then I am certain that more LA's will be looking at in-house work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there will always be 'bad apples' in the bailiff industry and this is evidenced in my above post. From experience the same three or four names crop up very frequently indeed and in each case, they are continuing to enforce in the same way as pre 6th April. Local authorities need to start monitoring their bailiff companies and again, this will be a significant change for them as well.

 

The enforcement industry is currently facing challenges. There is pressure from a few LA's to take some of the work in-house and if the Reverend Paul Nicholson is sucessful in his JR application in the New Year then I am certain that more LA's will be looking at in-house work.

 

 

There are two at least working for Marstons who need weeding out, one is a nasty individual who is a McThuggy extroardinaire! That one ignores vulnerability if if punches him in the face.

 

If an EA does the job correctly then while the Enforcement System exists as in until Lord Dennings wish to abolish it as past it's sell by date by a couple of Centuries is done, then we can only complain when the bad eggs are allowed to continue.

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

There are two at least working for Marstons who need weeding out, one is a nasty individual who is a McThuggy extroardinaire! That one ignores vulnerability if if punches him in the face.

 

 

 

If an EA does the job correctly then while the Enforcement System exists as in until Lord Dennings wish to abolish it as past it's sell by date by a couple of Centuries is done, then we can only complain when the bad eggs are allowed to continue.

 

And what happens when the enforcement system is abolished? Would the country be happy without loans, mortgages, cards, banks, insurance etc. Or would they continue? And how would not payment then be enforced? Or should it just be made criminal? You say do away with enforcement, but what do you suggest replaces it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what happens when the enforcement system is abolished? Would the country be happy without loans, mortgages, cards, banks, insurance etc. Or would they continue? And how would not payment then be enforced? Or should it just be made criminal? You say do away with enforcement, but what do you suggest replaces it?

 

Lord Denning was in favour of attachments to earnings replacing taking and selling debtor's goods, as the auction proceeds from a Distress Sale rarely even clear the fees in some cases. So how does adding fees to someone too impoverished to afford their council tax help them discharge their now vastly increased debt, on top of paying the unaffordable new bill?

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

What about those that don't earn but have money so don't need to work? How would you collect? What about squatter evictions? What about travellers? What about car finance repo or shall we just not have finance at all? You don't seem to grasp that in the modern world, enforcement agents are needed. Yes there ate bad ones out there, but its a very small minority. Out of interest, what do you do for a living. I dont mean to pry, but any trade on earth has bad pennies within its ranks. Does that mean that trade should cease to exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those that don't earn but have money so don't need to work? If it is tax HMRC will soon have an in direct to a banlk account and don't quote guff about leaving 5K they will soon be able to clear an account How would you collect? What about squatter evictions? What about travellers? Oooh you have hit a nerve and offended me see below What about car finance repo or shall we just not have finance at all? You don't seem to grasp that in the modern world, enforcement agents are needed. Yes there ate bad ones out there, but its a very small minority. Out of interest, what do you do for a living. I dont mean to pry, but any trade on earth has bad pennies within its ranks. Does that mean that trade should cease to exist? In the case of the Enforcement Industry YES YES YES but then I am obviously biased against it so we will agree to disagree as I believe in free speech and respect your viewpoint/QUOTE]

 

I see your point, but taking and selling goods is so last century as values are low, so you could clear a house and even take the exempt items and not get enough to clear a fraction of the debt so what is there to do? You can attach to earnings, you could place enforced Standing Orders to a debtor's account to net the rich non workers who won't pay.

 

What do I do, well on the strength of your last quote I feel like becoming a Traveller and buying some land so your buddies can try and evict me from my land where I will live in a Yurt. My cousin is part Romany so you have seriously annoyed me with your comment on travellers. I know there are differences in types of traveller , but I feel part Pikey and proud, as in I can live anywhere even a camper van if i had to.

 

As to work i I do more than one job to keep away from the dole I have been a CAB advice worker, and am a board member of a Housing Association. I see the pain EA''s cause every day to Tenants who cannot afford their council tax and rent due to pittance pay. I am a Community Councillor and when I had the unfortunate experience with the Jacobs bailiff I was Chair of the local Community council, and was on the phone to the Constituency MP when the bailiff wanted to levy my motor for a third party debt. So now can you see why I am so biased against the Industry?

 

Addendum: Whilst the Industry is still in opoeration we should be vigilant and make sure they stick to the rules, as it is obvious some still don't

Edited by brassnecked
focus

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

Hear, hear Brassnecked.

It ia amazing to me that bailiffs can charge £235 just to visit. To me this is tantamount to fraud since the reason that the figure was set that high was to take into

account an EA entering a property and carrying out a proper inventory which could take some time to get it done properly and lawfully.

It is time this means of overcharging was stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear, hear Brassnecked.

It ia amazing to me that bailiffs can charge £235 just to visit. To me this si tanatamount to fraud since the reaso that the figure was set that high was to take into

account an EA entering a property and carrying out a proper inventory which could take some time to get it done properly and lawfully.

It is time this means of overcharging was stopped.

Well the fragrant Julie Green-Jones the millionaire tossendales bailiff was fighting the corner for the Enforcers.....

 

It looks like in some circumstances, depending on the bailiff company that they will call before 7 clear days and charge £235, refuse all offers at Compliance stage, visit and add £235, and on one thread I have seen somewhere, the cheeky EA added a £110 sales fee in even though there had been no entry, so no goods listed no Controlled Goods Agreement, so no right of entry to force entry sieze sell, and add £110 sales fee, so yes ever likely I vehemently disagree with GrumpyToSayTheLeast.

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 your saying that the enforcement industry should be abolished. So anyone, travellers and squatters can live where they want. A squatter moves into your house and that's it, you have to find somewhere else to live.

 

I understand alot of what you say, I genuinely do. There are alot of problems with the enforcement industry but to say that to get rid of bailiffs and just empty someone's account is ludicrous. In 10 years, I have twice removed household possessions. On each occasion, it raised enough to clear fee's, costs and in one case, almost all of the debt, in the other, all of the debt. Its pointless removing if the goods are not going to clear the fee's alone, let alone the costs and debt. I know that happens and its that that needs to be changed.

The problem is, you and I on here see a minute % of what the enforcement industry does. 1000's are visited every day and yet maybe 1 new case pops up in a district.

 

 

I do apologise if I caused offence, but as you say there are travellers that cause problems, and then travellers that don't. It comes down to the simple rule of if you are on someone else land and they ask you to move, you should move, and if you don't, you would be moved on. Now who should do that? A bailiff that just asks them to move on and watches, or a police officer that arrests everybody on site and impounds the caravans. As if you get rid of bailiffs, you would have to criminalize trespass.

 

 

I just find it staggering how you could think that just emptying someones account is the way forward. Maybe for hmrc, yes. But what about if you and I have a disagreement th turns to financial remuneration. How would you as an individual get that money back from me?

Edited by citizenB
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debate. I agree with Grumpy that barely any household goods are actually removed (and with the additional exempt items in the new regs there is hardly any point at all in removal anyway).

 

As anyone who has read my posts over many years of being on here will know, I will always state that a debtor should not allow a bailiff into their home and with the new regs my position on this has been strengthened by the provision for re-entry into the premises. Instead, debtors should engage with the bailiff company at the Compliance Stage and should ensure that any payment proposal agreed should be kept to and payments made earlier than the date allowed to ensure that the payment is not seen as defaulting. If debtors continued to engage at this early stage their exposure to fees is limited to just £75.

 

The only time that 'Grumpy' is required is when debtors fail to address the matter at Compliance Stage or in cases of default. Yes....the enforcement fee of £235 is high but the fact of the matter is that complaints against bailiffs have significantly decreased. Yesterday I read an email from John Kruse and he stated the exact same. It is still early days and the full impact of the new regs will not be known for at least another 6 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How would you as an individual get that money back from me?"

 

A CCJ could have a sliding scale repayment to take account of means, but yes it is a problem. Evictions could be by appointed officers not privare EA's on commission

 

Many Traveller evictions are by councils evicting them from land the Travellers actually own, which is why I made the comment about buying land and living in a Yurt on it it isn't a permanent structure. but a bone headed council could spend years trying to evict me from my own land, so I take it down and re erect it the next day and they have to try to get rid of me all over again.

 

My cousin.s father and with due deference to her roots , mother lived in a decent static caravan think similar to those in holiday camps in the back of my uncle's house, all proper permissions in place rates paid on it,. but still one idiot in the council tried for years to evict them from their lawfully sited caravan on the families own freehold land at enormous cost to the Council Tax payers; unbelievable.

 

Again There are categories of Traveller, each with their own issues, and people confuse Romanies with Irish Tinkers.

 

Councils have a duty to provide sites for Travellers, both mobile, and permanent, but sadly avoid providing them as no one wants to live near one. They conveniently ignore the need to provide. In Wales the Welsh Government have made it a legal requirement to include Gypsy provision within a Local Development Plan (LDP) Squatters should be dealt with by the police as is it not now a crime?

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 debtors continued to engage at this early stage their exposure to fees is limited to just £75....

 

I take that to have been a typing error and should have been; their exposure to fees is limited to £75, with the 'just' omitted?

 

If I had the misfortune of having an EA on my back I would certainly not even pay them the £75 let alone anything else that followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take that to have been a typing error and should have been; their exposure to fees is limited to £75, with the 'just' omitted?

 

If I had the misfortune of having an EA on my back I would certainly not even pay them the £75 let alone anything else that followed.

 

Then they would visit and add £235, but unless you had a car not a lot else if council tax, they certainly could not force entry at that point, they would however become more strident with their demands.

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 take that to have been a typing error and should have been; their exposure to fees is limited to £75, with the 'just' omitted?

 

If I had the misfortune of having an EA on my back I would certainly not even pay them the £75 let alone anything else that followed.

 

Limited to £75 or just £75 means the same. Lets keep this thread on topic please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to see if this new Association can help drive the standards and promote best practice in an Industry that should have no need to exist.

 

We must watch this space.

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...