Vulnerability, Bailiff Enforcement and the TCE 2007

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

So you are saying that if someone claims they are vulnerable, they don't have to give me any proof or reasons why, but I must just walk away and send the case back to the creditor?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I second that dodge, I dont know what part of the regs are being referred to but I have never read them. Or at least might have read but translated differently.

[Peterbard]

You see you are working on a supposition which we discarded right at the beginning of this thread, and that is that the debtor should be believed unless there can be proof to the contrary, this is not the case unfortunately.

 

There is nothing in the TCE which suggests this, and that is what this thread is about, if there is then please copy it here as said.

[mikeymack2002]

Oh my gosh why cant you both see what is right in front of you. The legislation is clear on this point and is not open for the EA to change. But also on this point there is nowhere in that legislation that allows the EA to have access to any personal information. All the EA has to do is tell the creditor what they have learned and then wait till the creditor has made their investigation.

 

 

Is this point to difficult to be clear enough?

 

 

Grumpy what I am saying and that you clearly understand them is that you have a DUTY to report the new information to your creditor and then allow them to make the decision as to what they ask you to do next.

 

 

An example a disabled person has a heart condition and has a pacemaker fitted. They clearly tell you that they are vulnerable, you disbelieve them and continue to enforce by means of a forced entry, during your time inside the property they collapse they are rushed to hospital and are seriously ill, this is totally down to you because you failed to abide by the rules.

 

 

What is worse for you the whole episode was captured on the debtors council run CCTV system and has been recorded including the audio. What do you do then when the debtors family sue you and your creditor?

 

 

Please don't say this cannot happen as it already has.

[Peterbard]

Oh my gosh why cant you both see what is right in front of you. The legislation is clear on this point and is not open for the EA to change. But also on this point there is nowhere in that legislation that allows the EA to have access to any personal information. All the EA has to do is tell the creditor what they have learned and then wait till the creditor has made their investigation.

.

 

That seems to be the problem the legislation you mention isn't in front of us.

[brassnecked]

They would hit you with their walking stick or run you down with their mobility scooter if you did suggest it Grumpy, and you couldn't seize the scooter as it was

 

(Just tring to inject a little dark humour) ."in use"

[mikeymack2002]

that remark is very offensive BN and not called for

[Peterbard]

that remark is very offensive BN and not called for

 

Quite agree.

 

Brassnececk they could not seize it because it is on hire, and besides it would have a blue badge.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Um...why is it offensive Mikeymack?

 

Lol, it does hurt to be hit with a walking stick. Once got hit by a relative of a debtor that didn't like me.

 

But back to the original issue, where is the legislation you are quoting from mikeymack?

[Peterbard]

Anyway back on track.

 

it would be interesting to see cases which were taken back by authorities, and what the mechanism is.

 

I would hope that most case of vulnerability on council tax issues would not be sent to bailiffs in any case, you would have thought the issue would have come up in contact prior to the defaults on the account but I would like to see some empirical evidence either way(if there is any yet).

[mikeymack2002]

currently in a call will post it up soon... taking the micky out of disabled persons is an offence especially on a public forum

[mikeymack2002]

DB this was my point from the beginning and that these accounts should NOT see the likes of an EA let alone having an EA banging on the door the way they do

[Peterbard]

As Bailiff advice said earlier, most of the council tax debts which fall int this category are probably weeded out before enforcment, the problem is mainly with fine enforcment where debtors put their heads in the sand until they receive the compliance stage letter.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

currently in a call will post it up soon... Taking the micky out of disabled persons is an offence especially on a public forum

wtf!

[mikeymack2002]

off the top of my head lol

 

 

from Bailiff advices own thread see this

 

 

42. Enforcement agents should be trained to recognise vulnerable debtors, to alert creditors where they have identified such debtors and when to withdraw from such a situation.

 

 

Nothing here shows that an EA has any right to formally decide to make any call other than report their findings to the creditor

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, we have been trained to spot.

We have been trained to alert creditors.

We have been trained WHEN to withdraw.

 

That doesn't say we must withdraw. Your point is pointless, we still have no clue where in the legislation you have read that we must do this that and the other.

[Peterbard]

off the top of my head lol

 

 

from Bailiff advices own thread see this

 

 

42. Enforcement agents should be trained to recognise vulnerable debtors, to alert creditors where they have identified such debtors and when to withdraw from such a situation.

 

Yes absolutely,"where they have identified|". It is the bailiff who decide, this is why they need the training.

[mikeymack2002]

no that is incorrect read it they must pass their findings on and wait further instructions

[Peterbard]

If they just had to believe everyone who said they were vulnerable they would not need any training would they ?

[mikeymack2002]

What I am saying is once a vulnerability has been identified by either the debtor stating this fact OR the EA realising this it states this must be as above and retire and await further instructions.

 

 

Again it does not state the debtor has o provide ANY information whatsoever to the EA, this is done with the OC

[mikeymack2002]

Going back to providing proof and using the same situation of a debtor having a pacemaker fitted and how would the EA be able to "see" this, get the debtor to open their clothing?

 

 

No they would supply the OC with this information and not the EA this is my point.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Where does it say we MUST do that? Where does it state that the EA MUST take the debtors claim and walk away without investigating?

[Peterbard]

Once again, vulnerability is not established by the debtor saying it, the EA will decide if the debtor is vulnerable based on his experience and the guidance in the legislation. i he is wrong the debtor has the right to complain.

 

Now unless you can produce legislation which shows the EA must refer to the creditor if the debtor claims to be vulnerable i am afraid I am not going to respond to any more of your posts on this, because everyone else seem to understand this simple point and I do not want this thread to get stuck on irrelevancies.

[mikeymack2002]

Using the argument I made earlier with vulnerable adults and certain situations an EA cannot make an agreement if the only person present is classed as such, this could be read to allow an agreement to be signed, but not if the other person present was not an appropriate adult

 

 

How bailiffs must deal with potentially vulnerable people

 

The law says that bailiffs must:

 

• ensure that a vulnerable person has the opportunity to get help and advice to deal with the bailiff's action before they take goods or charge fees
  
• not take certain belongings necessary for older or disabled people
  
• not take goods where the debtor is a child under 16
  
• not make a controlled goods agreement with anyone under 16
  
• not enter a home or premises when only a child under 16 or vulnerable person is present
  
• not take goods when a child under 16 or vulnerable adult is the only person in the home or premises.
  

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/debt_w/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/bailiffs_e/complaining_about_bailiffs_e/bailiffs_and_vulnerable_people_e.htm

 

 

If you had cared to read the entire set of regulations correctly then you would allow open discussion on this thread..... Since you quite promptly state, I am throwing my rattle out of my well you know the rest....

 

 

You have read the regs often enough to know where to find my points if not have the thread closed

[Peterbard]

Where does it say we MUST do that? Where does it state that the EA MUST take the debtors claim and walk away without investigating?

 

It doesn't Grumpy its nonsense.