Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[blfuk1]

hmm MR Bailiff , just a question do u agree with bailiffs just turning up scaring the crap out young ladies into agreeing to pay more than they can afford just by saying im coming to take your goods away oh and not even giving notice of the visit and doing all this without being invited inside the dewelling?

not to mention the fact that ur fellow bailiff friends ALSO add charges beyond beliefe to the outstanding amount ( by the way this is council tax) and when the bailiff company is asked for a break down of charges several times ppl are just fobbed off with "it will be in the post" and as for ppl all of a sudden coming up with the money do u ever stop to think that they may barrow it just to pay u because there s*** scared?

Its because of this site that ppl now realise that bailiffs cant just walk in and do an inventory and that you are supposed to give notice.

sorry for the ramble but my partner was treated VERY badly by a Bailiff to which i paid the money and NOW KNOWS where he stands.

 

Bailiffs do not have to give notice regarding their intention to attend to seize goods for unpaid council tax. Their attendance will be to seize goods as directed (not to collect money) but the seizure can be prevented or delayed by agreeing to pay the outstanding council tax and appropriate fees. Bailiffs do not need to be invited into a dwelling in order to enter but must make a peacable entry - whether or not someone is there.This basically explains that I DO agree that bailiffs may do these things - as the law states they can. However, I do NOT agree that bailiffs can behave in a threatening manner (other than stating the fact that they ARE there to seize goods which in itself is a lawful threat), nor can they force their way in or overcharge beyond that which regulations state they can. I also agree that debtors have a right to know how much they have been charged and for precisely what. Clearly there are two ways of fulfilling one's obligations as a bailiff, the right way and the wrong way.

[Number6]

He!He!

 

By The way i got the same letter back from Hariet as you did .

Particullarily liked the bit about refusing to open their door. I thought that was what doors were for so you had the option who you wanted to grant access to your property or otherwise.

 

Sorry, what bit about doors?

 

Pete

[Number6]

Bailiffs do not need to be invited into a dwelling in order to enter but must make a peacable entry - whether or not someone is there.

 

Herein lies one of the problems.

 

Peaceable entry means entering by invitation or through an already open door or window.

 

Now lets suppose a (less than scrupulous) bailiff arrives when no-one is at home and he just happens to slip and fall against the door whilst holding his credit card which then proceeds to slip into the gap between door and frame and just happens to slip the Yale lock... ( )

 

Bailiff then walks in and takes possession, walking or otherwise.

 

How can the poor householder then prove that the bailiff did not gain peacfull entry? They can't.

 

I have known this to happen.

 

A bailiff (accepting for the moment the premise that there should be such individuals in the first place) should never be able to lawfully enter premises if the owner / tenant is not there.

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

Herein lies one of the problems.

 

Peaceable entry means entering by invitation or through an already open door or window.

 

Now lets suppose a (less than scrupulous) bailiff arrives when no-one is at home and he just happens to slip and fall against the door whilst holding his credit card which then proceeds to slip into the gap between door and frame and just happens to slip the Yale lock... ( )

 

Bailiff then walks in and takes possession, walking or otherwise.

 

How can the poor householder then prove that the bailiff did not gain peacfull entry? They can't.

 

I have known this to happen.

 

A bailiff (accepting for the moment the premise that there should be such individuals in the first place) should never be able to lawfully enter premises if the owner / tenant is not there.

 

Pete

 

Peaceable entry means entering without the use of force and is slightly more extensive than you describe but, for the sake of debate, a reasonable enough description. Your scenario is however somewhat extreme and I have never personally known a bailiff to do as you suggest. Equally, my bailiffs have been faced with open doors, entered and found no-one in the house or outside in the garden and rather than remove goods, which they can of course lawfully do, have instead left a levy of the goods inside the house. This emphasises the fact that they can and have entered the property but at least gives the debtor an opportunity to pay before the goods are actually removed. Obviously there are individuals in all walks of life who break the rules like the occasional policeman who plants drugs to secure a conviction (allegedly!) but that does not mean that the power vested in all policemen is too great. Nor does it mean that all bailiffs are housebreakers or that all policeman create evidence to fit up the villains!

[Number6]

Peaceable entry means entering without the use of force and is slightly more extensive than you describe but, for the sake of debate, a reasonable enough description. Your scenario is however somewhat extreme and I have never personally known a bailiff to do as you suggest. Equally, my bailiffs have been faced with open doors, entered and found no-one in the house or outside in the garden and rather than remove goods, which they can of course lawfully do, have instead left a levy of the goods inside the house. This emphasises the fact that they can and have entered the property but at least gives the debtor an opportunity to pay before the goods are actually removed. Obviously there are individuals in all walks of life who break the rules like the occasional policeman who plants drugs to secure a conviction (allegedly!) but that does not mean that the power vested in all policemen is too great. Nor does it mean that all bailiffs are housebreakers or that all policeman create evidence to fit up the villains!

 

Explain please, how is peacefull entry more extensive than I have described?

 

In any event, IMO lawful entry should not be possible if the debtor is not present, except in extreme criminal cases maybe, certainly not in furtherance of a civil matter.

 

Pete

[lookinforinfo]

Blf it may be your remit to seize goods rather than collect money, but I am

sure that the majority of bailiffs would far prefer to be paid cash or

by credit card. It is far quicker for you and much less of a trauma for debtors

than to see their possessions being taken away, knowing thet the replacement cost will be far in excess of what the levied goods can hope to achieve at auction.

[Peterbard]

Sorry, what bit about doors?

 

Pete

 

Sorry nimber 6 there seems to be a paragraph extra in my response it is inserted after your red highlighted bit it goes;

 

"The aim of the Government propsoals relating to enforcement is to ensure that people who cand afford to pay their judgment debt are not able to avoid doing so by refusing to open their door when an enforcement agent (bailiff) visits."

It goes on about only using this as a last resort and ensuring complience with the Human rights act and then continues with the following paragraph as per yours.

 

If you like i will PM you a complete copy together with my reply.

 

Peter

[Scott1976]

Heres one for u all to think about having cctv in my taxi with covert sound recording i am intitled under law to act within the law to threating behaviour, i have now added the same security to my home, i have the required signs up so if a bailiff comes to my door employing the same tactics as he did with my partner i will simply tell him , i feel threatened by his actions towards me which covers me by law to physically defend myself if i believe i am going to be attacked, which i will do in the future with bailiffs that give it large as it will all (video and audio) be recorded onto my DVR.

[blfuk1]

Blf it may be your remit to seize goods rather than collect money, but I am

sure that the majority of bailiffs would far prefer to be paid cash or

by credit card. It is far quicker for you and much less of a trauma for debtors

than to see their possessions being taken away, knowing thet the replacement cost will be far in excess of what the levied goods can hope to achieve at auction.

 

Most definately! But the point is we are tasked by warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money - otherwise we would be debt collectors which we are not. The problem is that many debtors don't understand why we wont accept £5 per month for £800 unpaid council tax and we try to explain that it does not matter (in law) that they cannot pay in full or within a short time as we are not there to collect money or make arrangements but to seize goods. Surely debtors have a right to know the purpose of a bailiff so they may deal with a situation appropriately rather than expect something which they are unlikely to get - a long term arrangement. That is not our purpose and why a court has decided that seizure of goods is the only remaining option. Citizens Advice are one of the biggest providers of false information often advising debtors to make an offer as we are apparently obliged to accept any offer made. When we don't it causes a lot of unnecessary problems and we are accused of being immovable and unreasonable. I recall an item in their Report Undue Distress which cited an example of a bailiff refusing what appeared to be a reasonable offer of payments for an unpaid fine when at the time it was not permissable to accept part payments on fines! It was full payment or removal of goods as clearly stated in the regulations.

[blfuk1]

Explain please, how is peacefull entry more extensive than I have described?

 

In any event, IMO lawful entry should not be possible if the debtor is not present, except in extreme criminal cases maybe, certainly not in furtherance of a civil matter.

 

Pete

 

You are right to separate the civil matter (let's say council tax and parking penalties) as unpaid fines, compensation orders and confiscation orders can be pursued with more vigour and by forced entry (under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act). Peacable entry can be achieved by walking through an open door or a closed but unlocked door (it doesn't have to be ajar as it were). If a bailiff finds the key is left in the door, even though it is locked (most front doors lock when closed), then the bailiff can turn the key and unlock/open it - the key is seen as an invitation to enter. As you stated, he can climb through an open window or skylight. However, unlike the closed but not locked door, a bailiff cannot climb through a window which is closed but not fastened. He cannot open the window even though it is not locked as it is not a normal means of entry, whereas the door is. He also cannot open a window which is partly open but fastened. If a door or window are already broken when the bailiff arrives, he may enter through them. Bailiffs can also climb walls and fences and cross gardens provided no damage is caused. (Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!) Bailiffs have a right of entry to property and while acting lawfully under a warrant cannot be trespassers.

[Number6]

You are right to separate the civil matter (let's say council tax and parking penalties) as unpaid fines, compensation orders and confiscation orders can be pursued with more vigour and by forced entry (under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act). Peacable entry can be achieved by walking through an open door or a closed but unlocked door (it doesn't have to be ajar as it were). If a bailiff finds the key is left in the door, even though it is locked (most front doors lock when closed), then the bailiff can turn the key and unlock/open it - the key is seen as an invitation to enter. As you stated, he can climb through an open window or skylight. However, unlike the closed but not locked door, a bailiff cannot climb through a window which is closed but not fastened. He cannot open the window even though it is not locked as it is not a normal means of entry, whereas the door is. He also cannot open a window which is partly open but fastened. If a door or window are already broken when the bailiff arrives, he may enter through them. Bailiffs can also climb walls and fences and cross gardens provided no damage is caused. (Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!) Bailiffs have a right of entry to property and while acting lawfully under a warrant cannot be trespassers.

 

What you state is what I understood the rules to mean so thanks for confirming that.

 

What actually constitutes entry?

 

I'm thinking about a situation perhaps where there is an entrance porch that has a lockable front door and a further lockable door into the house proper. If the outer porch door was open but the inner door locked shut would the bailiff have gained entry by crossing the porch threshold, or not?

 

Similar situation with a conservatory - lockable outer and inner doors.

 

Pete

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

Heres one for u all to think about having cctv in my taxi with covert sound recording i am intitled under law to act within the law to threating behaviour, i have now added the same security to my home, i have the required signs up so if a bailiff comes to my door employing the same tactics as he did with my partner i will simply tell him , i feel threatened by his actions towards me which covers me by law to physically defend myself if i believe i am going to be attacked, which i will do in the future with bailiffs that give it large as it will all (video and audio) be recorded onto my DVR.

 

As we've already noted there are several ways in which a bailiff can enter a property lawfully. If, however, you refuse entry before a bailiff has entered the property (except for unpaid fines etc) and no previous peacable entry has been made, then you have a lawful right to resist entry but within limits. You may use reasonable force. The problem of course is that REASONABLE is a subjective matter. Your refusal to permit entry on the occasion does not preclude the bailiff from attempting entry on another occasion - in other words your refusal does not last any longer than the visit itself. By the way, if you set a dog on a bailiff, even of you believe he entered illegally, you may be liable for any injury caused.

[Number6]

If, however, you refuse entry before a bailiff has entered the property (except for unpaid fines etc) and no previous peacable entry has been made, then you have a lawful right to resist entry but within limits. You may use reasonable force.

 

Sorry but again there is an implicit excuse for improper behaviour here.

 

The situation should never arise. Bailiff calls, householder says you cannot pass, bailiff should walk away. There should be NO QUESTION that the bailiff then tries to muscle his way in and if he does then he is acting no better than a burglar or mugger. I would then be in fear for my own and my families safety and would have no qualms about grabbing the crowbar that I'd recently been using on a DIY project near the front door and resisting entry with it! That to me would be reasonable force under the circumstances.

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

What you state is what I understood the rules to mean so thanks for confirming that.

 

What actually constitutes entry?

 

I'm thinking about a situation perhaps where there is an entrance porch that has a lockable front door and a further lockable door into the house proper. If the outer porch door was open but the inner door locked shut would the bailiff have gained entry by crossing the porch threshold, or not?

 

Similar situation with a conservatory - lockable outer and inner doors.

 

Pete

 

Pete

 

Every main entry to a building is protected as we discussed. However, once a peaceable entry has been made through the outer door, then a bailiff can force entry through an inner door. He can break down any door within a property including cupboard doors for example, in order to search for goods. He cannot however break down inner doors if you have offered to open them. Obviously, there is no power to be destructive for the sake of it! Oh, just a minor point, but a bailiff can break down an outer door from the inside if the debtor refuses to let him out - though why you would want to keep the bailiff in the house is questionable. I have known two cases where bailiffs had to break down the front door to get out after debtors imprisoned them because they didn't want the goods to leave with the bailiff.

[blfuk1]

Sorry but again there is an implicit excuse for improper behaviour here.

 

The situation should never arise. Bailiff calls, householder says you cannot pass, bailiff should walk away. There should be NO QUESTION that the bailiff then tries to muscle his way in and if he does then he is acting no better than a burglar or mugger. I would then be in fear for my own and my families safety and would have no qualms about grabbing the crowbar that I'd recently been using on a DIY project near the front door and resisting entry with it! That to me would be reasonable force under the circumstances.

 

Pete

 

I agree that a refusal to permit entry does not give a right to use force. But are you saying that a bailiff should give up at the first hurdle? I don't think that the nature of the job. The bottom line is that the bailiff is there executing a warrant issued by a court - undertaking a lawful duty. The debtor's refusal to permit the due process of law is not to be applauded even if it is a right under modern standards. The view of a court should be, even if it is not always so, that the debtor has snubbed the due process of law and should pay the price. Which is why there are further sanctions, including imprisonment, when the bailiff is unable to execute his duty for council tax and fines.

 

No, I believe a bailiff has a duty to re-try to execute the warrant as the law has directed and not to accept that a debtor can simply dismiss the process as if it were meaningless - that simply undermines the due process of law. It is also why, when bailiffs are refused entry, that they are right to seek to find goods elsewhere - such as cars - even if the value seems disproportionate to the sum due.

[Peterbard]

(under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act).

I know the section you refer to exists but i cannot find it in the act could you help.

 

(Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!)

Do i sense a bit of conscience breaking through.

 

Seriously I think your imput in this thead has been invaluable and given many of us a clearer understanding of what we are up against .

 

Peter

[Recycler]

The reply that my MP has received from Harriet Harman at the DCA has been passed on to me and I reproduce it here in full:

 

 

'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

'The powers of forced entry in Schedule 11 of the draft Bill will not apply to all cases. Section 47 of the draft Bill does not abolish common law powers of entry and Schedule 12 does not abolish the liberal power of forced entry by bailiffs in Schedule 4A, paragraph 3, of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (which was created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004).'

[blfuk1]

(under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act).

I know the section you refer to exists but i cannot find it in the act could you help.

 

(Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!)

Do i sense a bit of conscience breaking through.

 

Seriously I think your imput in this thead has been invaluable and given many of us a clearer understanding of what we are up against .

 

Peter

 

 

Schedule 4. Section 4 provides bailiffs with the authority to enter and search any premises for goods and Section 5, gives the authority to use reasonable force. Of course, the DVCV Act only applies to unpaid fines etc not parking penalties or council tax.

[Number6]

'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

'The powers of forced entry in Schedule 11 of the draft Bill will not apply to all cases. Section 47 of the draft Bill does not abolish common law powers of entry and Schedule 12 does not abolish the liberal power of forced entry by bailiffs in Schedule 4A, paragraph 3, of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (which was created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004).'

 

Thanks for that information Recycler.

 

I need to do some more reading methinks!

 

Pete

[Number6]

'Unfortunately, Mrs Harman’s letter contains two significant errors. The provisions of the draft Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill will not ‘extend the certification process to all individuals in the private sector’. Her colleague at DACE, Brenda Prentice MP, made a similar mistake when she replied to a Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP recently. Section 45 (5) of the draft Bill exempts some private bailiffs from holding a certificate, including most of the bailiffs featured in BBC’s Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September.

 

It looks like a case of Ms Harman being "economical with the truth".

 

S 45(5) of the Draft Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill appears to exempt any enforcement agent working for a county or district council under Section 125A of the magistrates Courts Act 1980 and subsequently the Magistrates' Courts (Civilian Fine Enforcement Officers) (No. 2) Rules 1990:

 

3.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (2) of section 125 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980[4] (warrants) and subsection (2) (a) of section 136 of that Act (committal to custody overnight at police station for non-payment of sum adjudged by conviction)—

 

(a) local authorities, police authorities and magistrates' courts committees are authorities of a prescribed class; and

 

(b) a person employed by any such authority is authorised in the prescribed manner to execute warrants to which those sections apply within the area for which the authority in question performs its functions if he has been issued by or on behalf of the authority by which he is employed with an authorisation in writing in that behalf in a form suitable for identifying him to persons with whom he deals as a person so authorised.

 

(2) In paragraph (1) above, "local authorities" means—

(a) a district council,

(b) a London borough council, and

© a county council.

 

So as you rightly state Recycler any bailiff collecting unpaid Council Tax or parking fines will be exempt from certification under this Bill.

 

Another letter to my MP is called for now.

 

Pete

[Guest Herbie]

This question for blfuk1

 

It is certainly good to have your views on these pages and I am very interested in your comments that the bailiffs role is:

 

"to enforce a warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money..... otherwise we would be debt collectors".

 

Having obtained various contracts between local authorities and their various bailiff companies, I have just been reading 6 of them.....and in 4 of these it clearly states the following:

 

"The Bailiffs initial contact with the debtor will be with the intention of obtaining immediate full payment.......only where this is not possible etc, etc.

 

Regardless of what the law actually says, it is the case that a bailiff will be coming to your home to collect money...even the local authorities are of this view, and more of a worry of course is the fact that just reading into the wording of these contratcs, I cannot see how the bailiff could possibly argue that he is not a DEBT COLLECTOR. Another problem of course with this being the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence !!!!!

[blfuk1]

So as you rightly state Recycler any bailiff collecting unpaid Council Tax or parking fines will be exempt from certification under this Bill.

Not so! The proposals mean that any directly employed bailiffs of the noted authorities will be exempt such as directly employed bailiffs working for an in-house bailiff team of a local authority and directly employed civilian enforcement officers of magistrates' courts, as well of course, as the county court bailiffs. Private bailiffs will be the only ones requiring a certificate, which in any event is a bit of a double standard. Why shouldn't everyone who does the same job be regulated, if that what they think a certificate achieves, in the same way?

[blfuk1]

This question for blfuk1

 

It is certainly good to have your views on these pages and I am very interested in your comments that the bailiffs role is:

 

"to enforce a warrant to remove goods NOT to collect money..... otherwise we would be debt collectors".

 

Having obtained various contracts between local authorities and their various bailiff companies, I have just been reading 6 of them.....and in 4 of these it clearly states the following:

 

"The Bailiffs initial contact with the debtor will be with the intention of obtaining immediate full payment.......only where this is not possible etc, etc.

 

Regardless of what the law actually says, it is the case that a bailiff will be coming to your home to collect money...even the local authorities are of this view, and more of a worry of course is the fact that just reading into the wording of these contratcs, I cannot see how the bailiff could possibly argue that he is not a DEBT COLLECTOR. Another problem of course with this being the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence !!!!!

 

Incorrect. Only those four, and possibly other local authorities, are of the view that the prime purpose of the bailiff is to collect money. The law is quite clear that the function of a bailiff is to seize goods. No matter what a local authority may put in its contract specification, it cannot change the purpose of a warrant. If we were just collecting debts, then we wouldn't need a warrant, would we? As for a consumer credit licence, bailiffs do NOT need one unless they are collecting debts arising from a consumer credit agreement. Council tax, business rates, parking penalties, income tax, VAT, commercial rent and fines are most certainly not debts arising from consumer credit agreements. You can of course check this with your local trading standards!

[TideTurner]

blfuk1 - sorry to p!ss on your bonfire - but you have no more rights than the common man. If you attempted to gain access to my premises by 'REASONABLE FORCE' or through a window you would exit by same. When you go to a prospective 'client' are you given a job sheet? Do you know what you're going to? Are your employers looking after your better interests? Not just bailiffs, but most people will defend their castle against anybody.

 

Looking at previous posts, you tend to repeat yourself, as if you try to justify what you do.

 

Do you have any knowledge of the debtor or debt prior to attendance?

 

How many illegal charges have you helped apply? Now you know these charges are illegal and unfair, will you attempt to get the goods back for these people?

[Guest HUSBANDKHAN]

I was a bit surprised to blf1 has not made any comments on my thread certification ceremony as he usually trashes what i have said about bailiffs ? I believe that there may double standards involved. We do not know how and what tactics if any are used by blf1. Also even though he is helping people on this site what his actions are against the diffrent situation/s he comes along. Will he dart for an open door. Will try and get in through an open window ? A cat flap just big enough for hime to squeeze in or Is he as helpful when at work. No disrespect but somethings that people know can be done cannot be published on this site that are legal but morally people say it is illegal. Hence when advising someone i am usually tearing my hair out when they ask questions like : Are you sure ? But he told me ! They told me the law says and so on. Any way good night folks and i will wake up nice and fresh in the morning.