Vulnerability, Bailiff Enforcement and the TCE 2007

[mikeymack2002]

What would I think be of interest to those visiting this thread is for the following to each give their own "version" of vulnerable"

 

 

DB /BA /GRUMPY it would also assist those reading this thread as a guest/member for them to explain their reasons/findings in as much detail as they can. This way I think those reading can then see if there is any reason why this thread appears to want to have the persons listed in those guidelines to have that protection removed.

 

I believe this is a relevant question and should be answered.

[mikeymack2002]

Hi MM

 

When making a point like this it would be helpful if you could post up the authority which you are basing your argument on, when you say that the guidelines do not agree, which particular section do you refer to, for instance.

 

 

I did not make this statement I quoted it from the post made by grumpy in post #122

[mikeymack2002]

You know perfectly well the "guidelines " include those that are unemployed and those that are disabled the remark at post #122 now appears that the information contained in it should not be used as a reason for vulnerability. I was/am hoping for the posters on this thread to clarify why they think these are now wrong and the reason they have behind it.

 

 

Though there are some that think the list could do with amending then maybe this part of the discussion could and should be made into a different thread, if you think about the guidelines for a moment why not start a thread for this part alone?

 

 

Why not have a discussion as to whom or who should have some form of protection and then discuss those points individually? just a thought here DB this was it could actually help your thread in the long run your thoughts?

[Peterbard]

I did not make this statement I quoted it from the post made by grumpy in post #122

 

MM I do not want o make an issue out of this but you said "Those persons that have drafted the GUIDELINES think differently please post up PROOF that you can just IGNORE these"

 

Now it would be helpful if you could state which sections of the guidelines contradict what grumpy says.

[Peterbard]

You know perfectly well the "guidelines " include those that are unemployed and those that are disabled the remark at post #122 now appears that the information contained in it should not be used as a reason for vulnerability. I was/am hoping for the posters on this thread to clarify why they think these are now wrong and the reason they have behind it.

 

 

Though there are some that think the list could do with amending then maybe this part of the discussion could and should be made into a different thread, if you think about the guidelines for a moment why not start a thread for this part alone?

 

 

Why not have a discussion as to whom or who should have some form of protection and then discuss those points individually? just a thought here DB this was it could actually help your thread in the long run your thoughts?

 

MM for clarity the guidance says

 

 

77. Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not

exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case

basis. (my emphasis)

 

These are not a list of groups who are in all cases to be considered as being vulnerable, merely a guide as to which sectors of the community are more likely to contain vulnerable people.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

We have covered it dodge and he knows it. Dont rise to his baiting.

[mikeymack2002]

DB this is exactly what grumpy said "The council must be sure they are vulnerable though. Just being on job seekers or dla alone is not necessarily enough to class someone as vulnerable."

 

The national standards say this

 

 

 the elderly;

 people with a disability;

 the seriously ill;

 the recently bereaved;

 single parent families;

 pregnant women;

 unemployed people; and,

 those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

 

At line 2 it states the "disabled" it does not go on to say those that receive DLA. DLA is a benefit for those with a disability and those with a disability are said to be vulnerable, this again is open to interpretation by the EA as you can see DB you have indeed picked a subject that has so many interpretations that can be made.

 

 

Maybe the list needs revising now is this what is being considered at this time?

 

Another question that may help is to know who made this list in the first place and what their intentions were on this subject?

 

 

I think this thread is very useful but has far too many options to deal with in one post, this is why it may help if it is split a little to discuss what each of the classes of vulnerability mean and the consequences of the debtor dealing with an EA.

 

 

Then maybe cherry picking the different responses are from ALL replies and then maybe the answer the original question could be answered. I think the original question should have been what and why are certain people classed as vulnerable, as it stands its a mess and open to all sides to interpretation of VULNERABILITY.

 

With this thread in mind DB can I say this "what if the Government decide no one is vulnerable as far as enforcement is concerned" because you must pay what you owe to the Government?

[mikeymack2002]

We have covered it dodge and he knows it. Dont rise to his baiting.

 

 

I am not trying to bait. But since you are around grumpy please clarify your statement you made at 122

[fletch70]

Vulnerability is not a strict definition. It is fluid, I remember the old OFT guidelines on debt collection said that merely by virtue of being in debt you could consider a debtor vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent.

 

What I do not understand is how , if someone is on a means tested benefit it gets to bailiff action certainly for council tax .

[mikeymack2002]

Vulnerability is not a strict definition. It is fluid, I remember the old OFT guidelines on debt collection said that merely by virtue of being in debt you could consider a debtor vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent.

 

What I do not understand is how , if someone is on a means tested benefit it gets to bailiff action certainly for council tax .

 

 

Bedroom tax and the changes in the rates of what the bill payer must now pay, most if not all Councils require a bill payer to contribute to their bill. Whether working or not so the debt arises and the LO is issued hence the EA

[mikeymack2002]

Grumpy I do understand the predicament you must face on a daily basis but why can the EA not allow repayment of a debt at an affordable level instead of in one go?

 

 

You still have not answered the question of why are YOU as an EA allowed to decide who is and who is not vulnerable?

 

 

Then since this question is now asked please provide the relevant ACT that allows you to do so. IF you cannot produce it please provide the relevant information that allows the EA to decide this.

 

 

This is following several responses to statements that have been made as to "please provide the information you reply on" I now say this to you please provide the forum this information.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

You cant seem to get your head around the fact that being disabled or having a mental illness etc doesnt make you vulnerable and i find it HIGHLY offensive that you cliam that everyone with a disability is vulnerable. I am not vulnerable and yet im classed as disabled.

The guidlines state quite clearly that people on the following list might be vulnerable.

 the elderly;

 people with a disability;

 the seriously ill;

 the recently bereaved;

 single parent families;

 pregnant women;

 unemployed people; and,

 those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

It doesnt say they are vulnerable, just that they might be. Missing a leg doesnt make you vulnerable, but it would make you disabled.

[Peterbard]

Vulnerability is not a strict definition. It is fluid, I remember the old OFT guidelines on debt collection said that merely by virtue of being in debt you could consider a debtor vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent.

 

What I do not understand is how , if someone is on a means tested benefit it gets to bailiff action certainly for council tax .

 

This is a good point Fletch and one which i think is being hotly debated by the government and various charitable organisations as we speak.

The means tested benefit system put people on the lowest level which it considered that they can survive, so how can further deductions be possible without putting them in a situation where there income is below that which the EU states is required to live.

[Peterbard]

MM please read my post 130

[mikeymack2002]

The guidelines say this not me! I must correct you that not once have I stated that disabled people are vulnerable. Please show me where this is so. I have simply stated that the GUIDELINES class those in the list as vulnerable. Whether or not you are Highly offended is irrelevant. I find it offensive that you have the authority to view my personal data and can decide whether or not that information is even needed by you. Your client yes you NO.

 

 

Now for clarity grumpy please provide the requested information that you as an EA have the authority to deem someone as vulnerable or not, its a simple question and you should be able to post up this information in moments.

[Peterbard]

I have simply stated that the GUIDELINES class those in the list as vulnerable.

 

MM

The guidelines say no such thing please read my post 130

[mikeymack2002]

Sorry DB missed that one as I was writing.

 

 

I do understand both sides of this discussion but I am trying to understand is why certain people are classed this way and for what reason.

 

 

This thread can and does create a moment of clarity but it also opens this up to INTERPRETATION. Some think that I am trying to bait this is a far from the truth as it gets.

 

 

What I am doing is asking relevant questions that can be taken either way, this is not deliberate but for information. Would the topic of asking what and why are certain groups classed this way and what the intention of this was in the first place.

 

 

The reason this topic is of concern to me is that

 

 

(a) I am disabled

(b) Sometimes I am vulnerable

© I have serious concerns as to the ability of the EA to actually understand my condition

(d) MY condition changes on a DAILY basis

[wonkeydonkey]

"Missing a leg doesnt make you vulnerable, but it would make you disabled"

Don't you think you need to look past the obvious 'missing limb' and ask yourself what impact losing the limb has on the persons mental and physical well being?

[mikeymack2002]

MM

The guidelines say no such thing please read my post 130

 

 

DB sometimes in my excitement to reply I forget some words in my thread lol for that I appologise

[mikeymack2002]

WD you then have to consider the impact of PTSD of losing your leg too. This is a recognised disability too.

[Peterbard]

DB sometimes in my excitement to reply I forget some words in my thread lol for that I appologise

 

NO need to apologize MM

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

"Missing a leg doesnt make you vulnerable, but it would make you disabled"

Don't you think you need to look past the obvious 'missing limb' and ask yourself what impact losing the limb has on the persons mental and physical well being?

 

Your making the assumption that a leg is missing from an amputation. Might not it be missing since birth?

 

My point being is that a person with a missing leg MAY be vulnerable. But he/she may also NOT be vulnerable.

 

MM your repetitive questions have been answered in previous posts.

[mikeymack2002]

But the most important one has NOT what right do you have to decide whether or not someone is vulnerable or not. That information IS required please post it up or well you know the rest

[mikeymack2002]

You ask posters to provide this information so please as a curtsey do the same its not a lot to ask for is it?

 

 

From your posts it appears that you as an EA still continue to trample on those unable to understand

[Peterbard]

Trying to understand the situation where an agent should not enforce, I can think of two basic groups.

 

One where the debtor is unable to understand the agent, either through mental or language disability .

 

Or when the debtors physical condition can be actively worsened by the interaction with the EA , typically someone with a heart condition , who may have implication due to the stress incurred , or perhaps people who are just physically to poorly to speak coherently with anyone.

 

There may be other groups of course which I have not thought of.