Public Policy Exchange symposium on 'Rogue' Bailiffs

[wonkeydonkey]

Anyone have details to notes for this?

[mikeymack2002]

You KNOW where to find some of this information lol a good read I cant tell you where but its THERE ok, or should I say some of the highlights are being discussed atm

[wonkeydonkey]

You KNOW where to find some of this information lol a good read I cant tell you where but its THERE ok, or should I say some of the highlights are being discussed atm

 

 

I know where they have appeared ...but I was looking for a comparison version to obtain the truth.

[mikeymack2002]

Have you seen here? http://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events/FD28-PPE

[wonkeydonkey]

Have you seen here? http://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events/FD28-PPE

 

Yes but, I fail to see where the 'reporter' of the published notes and comments fits in to the scheme of things

Who Should Attend?

 

 

• Local Authorities
  
• Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers
  
• Relevant Government Departments
  
• The Enforcement Industry
  
• The Legal Profession
  
• The Judiciary
  
• The Advice Sector
  
• Businesses
  
• Voluntary Organisations
  
• Charities
  
• Landlords
  
• Local Housing Authorities
  
• Teams in Housing Associations
  
• Housing Services Management Teams
  
• Housing Management Officers
  
• Housing Finance Professionals
  
• Income Officers
  
• Income Management Officers
  
• Social Housing and Support Officers
  
• Housing Trusts
  
• Family Support Officers
  
• Community Development Teams
  
• Community Involvement Officers
  
• Community Engagement Officers
  
• Customer Involvement Managers
  
• Health and Safety Officers
  
• Tenancy Management Officers
  
• Principal Officers – Health and Housing
  
• The Police
  

[mikeymack2002]

I think it will be a few days/weeks before they release the full minutes of the meeting, looks like you may have to wait

[Bailiff Advice]

I wrote about this meeting in January as I was very surprised at the Programme which at that time had the following points for discussion:

 

Examine the Reforms in April 2014......Have they provided any more Protection against Aggresssive Bailiffs etc

 

Consider the National Standards for Enforcement Agent's document and its ability to be an Effective National Guidance Tool.

 

Has there been any progress made towards a fairer, more transparent and sustainable costs regime that provides adequate remunerations via the Transforming Bailiff Actions' published in 2012

 

Explore the Next steps in improving Accountability and Regulation in the Sector-Can a Licensing System and an Independent Regulator make a difference?

I received a formal invitation at the end of Janaury to speak at the event but I had to explain to the Producer and Researcher that many of the subjects had either been taken care of in the new regulations (transparent fee scale) or otherwise had been rejected by the government ( Licensing System/Independent Regulator) or were in the process of being reviewed by the Ministry of Justice (National Standards).

 

I explained that my personal belief was that such a event should take place towards the end of the year after the Ministry of Justice have released the results of the 'one year review' into the new bailiff regulations. My views were taken into consideration and a revised Programme was introduced a couple of weeks ago. I have confirmed that I would be pleased to take part in a meeting later in the year.

 

All Public Policy Exchange meetings are held under the 'Chatham House Rules' (and here) and accordingly, may not be publicised.

[wonkeydonkey]

Under the Chatton House Rules....really? so does that mean the 'notes' displayed elsewhere are untrue? Would there be a list of the attending delegates available anywhere?

[SabreSheep]

The same rule will forbid a list of attendees

 

Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?

A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting. - See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.XxWYT42M.dpuf

 

[url=http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.XxWYT42M.dpuf][/url]

[wonkeydonkey]

I seem to have struck a raw nerve....... could it be because he has been caught telling porkies again??

 

You have been permanently banned from this board.

 

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

 

A ban has been issued on your IP address.

[Bailiff Advice]

Under the Chatham House Rules....really? Would there be a list of the attending delegates available anywhere?

 

Certainly not. I personally know six delegates who were booked to attend but this information will remain confidential.

[wonkeydonkey]

Certainly not. I personally know six delegates who were booked to attend but this information will remain confidential.

 

Unless you want to read about it in the members area of the board in question!!!!

[Peterbard]

I seem to have struck a raw nerve....... could it be because he has been caught telling porkies again??

 

You have been permanently banned from this board.

 

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

 

A ban has been issued on your IP address.

 

LOL i get that also, they do not want people to view who can see right through the bxxxxxt.

[wonkeydonkey]

LOL i get that also, they do not want people to view who can see right through the bxxxxxt.

 

What amused me most is the FACT I am not even a member of the board, I only view as a 'GUEST' which suggests they really are paranoid.

 

I am going home tomorrow so my IP address will change, is he really going to check out every 'guests' IP in an attempt to see if they are 'friend or foe'.... what a wally he is.

[Peterbard]

You don't even have to do that WD if you really have to look at that drivel you can just go on "hide me" on google (the free one)type in their address and away you go.

 

If it is worth the effort is another matter.

 

Seriously it is an extension of the mind set of the forum, they need to be able to give their "opinions" and abuse without having people respond, they can do this by banning people from responding on their forum, but they are struggling to stop the debunking of their absurdities elsewhere.

[Bailiff Advice]

Do what I do and you cannot go wrong. I spend about 20 mins viewing posts and queries every Sunday and that it is. I have only ever posted ONCE and was immediately banned and have NEVER returned and will never ever do so.

 

No more comments are necessary.

[ploddertom]

 

No more comments are necessary.

 

 

 

That says it all really - better than having to close the thread.

[Peterbard]

Must admit I had this wrong, I thought it had something to do with the promised review of the act scheduled this year.

I didn't realize it was just a glorified sales conference who anyone with the price of a ticket could attend

[Bailiff Advice]

Certainly not. I personally know six delegates who were booked to attend but this information will remain confidential.

 

The Symposium was very poorly attended indeed with just fourteen tickets being sold.

 

Five of those attending were from three bailiff companies.....three of whom were from the same company... (that specialises in collecting road traffic debts). A further three individuals were from small local authorities. One person was from a notice processing company and another from a firm of accountants.

[Coughdrop]

The Symposium was very poorly attended indeed with just fourteen tickets being sold.

 

Five of those attending were from three bailiff companies.....three of whom were from the same company... (that specialises in collecting road traffic debts). A further three individuals were from small local authorities. One person was from a notice processing company and another from a firm of accountants.

 

That's not many people for such an important subject, is this down to a lack of interest within the industry or what? If the former, it's somewhat worrying.

[Peterbard]

Were there any speakers of note ?

[Bailiff Advice]

That's not many people for such an important subject, is this down to a lack of interest within the industry or what? If the former, it's somewhat worrying.

 

I have attended three of these events over the past 2 years and they have all been very well attended with on average around 60-80 ticket sales. I explained in post number 7 (below) the reason for the extremely low attendance figures.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?445124-Public-Policy-Exchange-symposium-on-Rogue-Bailiffs&p=4729265&viewfull=1#post4729265

[Bailiff Advice]

Were there any speakers of note ?

 

As always, the event was held under the Chatham House Rules and accordingly the identity of the 14 attendees and speakers should not be circulated. Despite wanting to....there is nothing further that I can add.

[ploddertom]

For anyone needing more info on the Chatham House Rules more info can be found here http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule

[Peterbard]

I think it is more about who said what rather than who was speaking, many of these events. particularly the commercial ones will advertise thiere main speakers in any case in order to sell tickets.

 

The idea is a good one IMO, however sometimes the whole secrecy thing can be used to try and give the impression that something important is going on, where really it is just corporate delegates with to much time on there hands engaging in a a back slapping exercise, not saying that was the case here of course, but without knowing who the key contributors were it is hard to say.