Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[blfuk1]

Nobody gets a FREE service - with respect to business relationships, are any bailiffs 'related' to house clearance businesses. Are the 'house clearance businesses' related to the repossession squad? There will be a paper trail and telephone records etc. in this respect regarding those who are 'GIVEN THE NOD'. That part of the industry is fruitful yet disgrateful.

 

The creditor (council, taxman, court) does get a free service because the person who has failed to pay his tax or fine, has to pay the cost of recovering it - which is pretty fair it seems to me. Why should those who pay their taxes and fines have to pay for recovering them from those who don't?

 

By the way, I personally don't know any bailiffs who are linked to house clearance businesses or 'repossession squads?' Any goods I seize are lodged at a public auction where anyone can bid for them - including the debtor from whom they were seized.

[fairblf]

Sir

I am not raising my voice to you

Please don't raise your voice to me!

[TideTurner]

Referring to my last post, how are the goods you seize disposed of and do you have regular contacts / regular auctions where you achieve the best price possible? I am aware that you are required to attain a measly amount for goods received. That does not make it morally 'right'. My question is ' have you ever given a mate, or family member the "NOD"'?

[blfuk1]

So why then are clampers licensed and have to under go training and so on when a bailiff just has to put up £10000 bond money need 2 refrences and a good record and possibly have to work as a trainee for x amount of time and then can go about clamping vehicles as and when s/he feels like it ?

 

Because a bailiff clamps a vehicle as a preamble to seizing it under the authority of a warrant issued by a court, whereas a 'clamper' who has to have an SIA licence, is someone acting under the 'authority' of a land-owner, in respect of parking on someone elses land without permission.

 

I think you'll find there is a difference to 'just' putting up £10,000 to taking a two day course and paying a £180 fee. The average cost of obtaining a bailiff certificate is in the region of £1,000 plus CRB and CCJ checks and a judge then personally decides whether to grant the certificate or not.

[blfuk1]

Referring to my last post, how are the goods you seize disposed of and do you have regular contacts / regular auctions where you achieve the best price possible? I am aware that you are required to attain a measly amount for goods received. That does not make it morally 'right'. My question is ' have you ever given a mate, or family member the "NOD"'?

 

I can honestly say I haven't but even if I had, what difference would it make in a PUBLIC auction? Bailiffs are duty bound to obtain the best possible price and, specifically for parking penalties are required by statute to offer the goods for public auction. My goods go into reputable auctions houses and I never attend auctions where I have placed goods nor permit my staff to - not because it's illegal but because I think it's unethical. I have heard many arguements against my stance - mainly that a public auction is open to anyone inlcuding debtors and bailiffs - but I am perhaps a little old fashioned!

 

I do recall one instance many years ago when a bailiff company auctioned goods and didn't advertise them very well - except to friends and family. While clearly there has been an instance then of what you claim, I am not aware that such things still happen - but I would not rule it out either. What I'm saying is that the majority of us do not interfere with the sale of goods in any way shape or form.

[TideTurner]

Your answer is 'vague'. You have not provided any inclination as to how the goods you sieze are disposed of. Is this how you really make your money?

[Guest The Terminator]

It is not the case that simply advising a bailiff he is not welcome and that you intend to avoid the due process of law by avoiding the bailiff will mean that the bailiff is committing any offence under the PHA 1997.

 

As you will be aware, the Act does not apply where a bailiff is acting under 'an enactment or rule of law' (such as council tax, unpaid fine, etc etc).

 

In order to commit an offence under Section 5 there must first be a restarining order which a court will not issue against a bailiff who is acting under an enactment or rule of law - providing he/she is acting within the bounds of that enactment or rule of law.

 

I think it is wrong to advise anyone that bailiffs are liable to breach of PHA 1977 when they are undertaking a lawful duty. It is simply not the case as is clearly demonstrated by the simple fact that statue permits more than one visit fee in order to execute a warrant!

 

If you believe I have incorrectly quoted any bailiff related law, please say what it was so I may rectify any possible mistake. I wouldn't want to give anyone false or misleading information.

 

I suggest you read the law again because it is obvious from your postings that you are only trying to justify your position, and don't come out with the crap that you wouldn't want to give anyone false or misleading information which quiet clearly is what your doing.As I have already posted the debtor has many options under the law and to be quite frank a baliff well steal cheat and plunder unless he is stood up to I think the word im looking for is "bully" I suggest no ones takes any advice from this prat if he comes to your door kick him!!

[Guest Herbie]

Terminator,

 

If this forum had individuals with problems concerning Inland Revenue enforcement as an example....and one of our contributors was a Tax Inspector (annonymous of course), and that person was offering his advice on relevant aspects of tax law as he saw it....would you complain.....I hope not, so why the hostilities now with Bluk1 , it is neither nice to read or indeed appropriate.

 

But take a look at the bigger picture. There have been approx: 4 million Liability Orders granted last year. The court fees for these are £40 each. 4 million x £40 is a huge sum of money going straight into the governments pockets. That money is ADDED to each liability order before it gets sent to the bailiff.

 

And remember, the bailiff is collecting a government debt and charging fees agreed by the government.

 

Local authorities are getting a "Free Debt Collection business, of that there is no doubt.

 

All of us are trying to help each other in various ways according to our own experience....so stop the attacking please...

[blfuk1]

Your answer is 'vague'. You have not provided any inclination as to how the goods you sieze are disposed of. Is this how you really make your money?

 

I'm not sure what else I can say. Goods seized are sold at public auction. That means I submit them and the auction house sells them. The auction house may be any reputable auction house which can be found in, for example, the Yellow Pages.

 

I make my money by being paid for executing warrants as issued by a court of law. If someone pays on the first visit I am paid for that visit. If they do not pay and I have to remove goods, I get paid for doing that. I'm sure you'll agree that anyone who does a job, any job, should be paid!

 

Let me ask you a question. If you were, for example, injured by the negligence of someone and were, as a consequence, awarded compensation but the person who should pay your compensation is someone like Terminator who has made his position very clear, and refuses to pay as the courts direct.

 

Do you think I should pursue him as authorised and commanded by the court, or walk away because he calls me names and threatens me? Will you support him in defying the courts or me in upholding your right to justice?

[Number6]

I have been lurking on this thread and watching with interest.

 

Whilst I don't agree with some of the vitriol flying about (please calm that down) I do have severe reservations about the whole bailiff system. I've already posted to the effect that it cannot be justified to sieze someone's worldly goods to sell for a pittance. The system is an anachronistic hangover from medieval times when goods = money; it's no longer the case and hasn't been for many, many years.

 

I've also said that maybe it can be justified if a real effort was made to seperate the can't pay's from the won't pays. Take me as an example; I don't mind saying we're struggling for cash at the moment and as a consequence we're struggling to pay our council tax bill (£150 a month). But we earn "too much" to qualify for any rebate. We may have to decide at some point to feed our kids rather than pay the council tax in which case no doubt our friends the bailiffs will become involved at some point. Now in such circumstances Mr Bailiff will have the full backing of the law when he comes to take away stuff that we've worked hard to buy and which our kids use and need but is Mr Bailiff morally justified when we have made every effort to sort out our finances but failed through no fault of our own? I'm sorry but this smacks of Sherrif of Nottingham tactics rather than the act of a morally upright society.

 

And who makes a person become a bailiff? Who could be a bailiff?? I would never be able to go into someones home who's only crime is to not be able to afford a tax bill and remove everything they own! I couldn't do it if my life depended on it! If no-one volunteered to become a bailiff it wouldn't happen. What character (or lack of character) does someone have to have to be able to do this job AND be able to sleep at night?? I know I'd sooner sweep the streets with my bare hands than be a bailiff.

 

There is a need for enforcement somewhere along the line, but that line is not defined and too many "innocents" are bullied into paying what they can't afford (not WON'T afford) or losing everything they've worked for.

 

So blfuk1 - tell me, why are you a bailiff?

 

Pete

[Guest The Terminator]

Terminator,

 

If this forum had individuals with problems concerning Inland Revenue enforcement as an example....and one of our contributors was a Tax Inspector (annonymous of course), and that person was offering his advice on relevant aspects of tax law as he saw it....would you complain.....I hope not, so why the hostilities now with Bluk1 , it is neither nice to read or indeed appropriate.

 

But take a look at the bigger picture. There have been approx: 4 million Liability Orders granted last year. The court fees for these are £40 each. 4 million x £40 is a huge sum of money going straight into the governments pockets. That money is ADDED to each liability order before it gets sent to the bailiff.

 

And remember, the bailiff is collecting a government debt and charging fees agreed by the government.

 

Local authorities are getting a "Free Debt Collection business, of that there is no doubt.

 

All of us are trying to help each other in various ways according to our own experience....so stop the attacking please...

 

Herbie: Point taken. I can stop hostilites just like that.Like everyone else on this forum I'm here to help other individuals,but when I see false information being given like anyone else I question it.See below and you will find everything you need to know.Also bear in mind that baliffs and tax inspectors are nobody's friend.

 

Bailiffs and Bailiff Laws | Payplan

[blfuk1]

I have been lurking on this thread and watching with interest.

 

Whilst I don't agree with some of the vitriol flying about (please calm that down) I do have severe reservations about the whole bailiff system. I've already posted to the effect that it cannot be justified to sieze someone's worldly goods to sell for a pittance. The system is an anachronistic hangover from medieval times when goods = money; it's no longer the case and hasn't been for many, many years.

 

I've also said that maybe it can be justified if a real effort was made to seperate the can't pay's from the won't pays. Take me as an example; I don't mind saying we're struggling for cash at the moment and as a consequence we're struggling to pay our council tax bill (£150 a month). But we earn "too much" to qualify for any rebate. We may have to decide at some point to feed our kids rather than pay the council tax in which case no doubt our friends the bailiffs will become involved at some point. Now in such circumstances Mr Bailiff will have the full backing of the law when he comes to take away stuff that we've worked hard to buy and which our kids use and need but is Mr Bailiff morally justified when we have made every effort to sort out our finances but failed through no fault of our own? I'm sorry but this smacks of Sherrif of Nottingham tactics rather than the act of a morally upright society.

 

And who makes a person become a bailiff? Who could be a bailiff?? I would never be able to go into someones home who's only crime is to not be able to afford a tax bill and remove everything they own! I couldn't do it if my life depended on it! If no-one volunteered to become a bailiff it wouldn't happen. What character (or lack of character) does someone have to have to be able to do this job AND be able to sleep at night?? I know I'd sooner sweep the streets with my bare hands than be a bailiff.

 

There is a need for enforcement somewhere along the line, but that line is not defined and too many "innocents" are bullied into paying what they can't afford (not WON'T afford) or losing everything they've worked for.

 

So blfuk1 - tell me, why are you a bailiff?

 

Pete

 

Swords drawn again Pete! We have discussed the why's and wherefore's of distress before and have (I think) agreed to disagree about why distress still exists in a modern society - accross most of the civilised world. Putting aside that argument (for the moment), you have posed an almost impossible question, "Why are you a bailiff". The short answer might be that I'd rather not have to sweep the streets with my bare hands, but in truth, I have no idea. I certainly didn't grow up with the ambition of being one nor did I give bailiffs any thought at all until I became one - which like the jobs most people do, is something that just happened.

 

Why am I still a bailiff, might be more to the point.

 

I think bailiffs are essential in a country with the highest debt levels in Europe as a final sanction to those who could have paid or can pay but chose or choose not to. I emphasise the 'could have & chose' in the past tense as I have seen, over the years, many instances of debts being accrued without much care in favour of more popular spending such as luxury electrical goods and holidays. As a bailiff, I have been told by debtor's that they cannot pay a fine when I call on them as they've just got back from 2 weeks in the USA or some other far away place which I haven't been to, and have no money left! Stories of a similar nature are fairly commonplace such as the tenants who could not pay the bailiff the rent, but spent that evening at a pub and travelled by taxi. For many people it's a case of poor priority.

 

For others, there are genuine difficulties and most bailiffs will identify that and withdraw. For some, while they cannot pay with available cash, they have sufficient goods to seize instead and that is what the law directs.

 

But I am in danger of arguing the point again when I should be answering your (modified) question. I am comfortable with what I do because I only do that which the law states should be done. I provide a useful service in identifying cases where distress is inappropriate and bringing information to a creditor which was not previously avaiable - thereby stopping all inappropiate actions against a perhaps vulnerable debtor.

 

I assist people in dealing with an issue of debt which will not otherwise go away and whenever possible, provide a solution which suits the debtor, the creditor and pays my reasonable fees so I may also earn a living.

 

If and when the laws of the land make what I do redundant, I will probably 'fall into' another line of work - until then I will continue to assist the economy of the country by recovering unpaid taxes, fines and penalties in what I hope is a fair and humane manner and continue to sleep at night. After all, it keeps me of the streets (or at least from having to clean them with my bare hands).

 

I am still waiting with interest for the response of Tideturner to that all revealing question - what would he do as a creditor? What would you do Pete?

[Number6]

blfuk1

 

Thanks for replying.

 

I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to do so but you do not answer the questions fully. You make no comment upon my example. We have very genuine reasons for not earning much at the moment, and for the past while. We are not "avoiding" paying any debts but we have a choice between feeding the children or paying council tax. Our worldly posessions are few and in all probability if you siezed everything of value we own and auctioned everything it would barely make the equivalent of a years council tax. Now the law will side with the council and therefore with the bailiff but HOW COULD YOU BARGE INTO A SITUATION LIKE THAT AND TAKE EVERYTHING????? I could not!! How can you possibly justify it?

 

I'm sorry if this offends but I cannot understand how any person could voluntarily do that to another.

 

Pete

[TideTurner]

blfuk1. I'm afraid my conscience would get the better of me. You have demonstrated that you have a fare understanding of the area of law in which you are involved. My main concerns are where you apply your knowledge and training to your role and ignore what you call peoples 'ignorance of the law'.

 

I would guess that the majoriity of the people you deal with are, or have at some stage been considered as 'under priviliged', particurlarly with respect to education.

 

This leaves them wide open to those who have the knowledge and choose to use it to their advantage, regardless as to the customers circumstances.

 

I refer to previous posts you have made and would ask if you have ever received cash in settlement on any of your visits or if you do indeed ppossess a Consumer Credit License.

 

I also quote from your last post "For others, there are genuine difficulties and most bailiffs will identify that and withdraw. For some, while they cannot pay with available cash, they have sufficient goods to seize instead and that is what the law directs."

 

Do you double as a debt collector when it suits?

 

For a man who knows and understands the rules, you certainly cannot claim ignorance when you are breaking them in the Courts interest.

 

I too would also sweep the streets and have therefore educated my children not to drop litter.

[fairblf]

I too have been watching this debate with interest as I must say this ... just as there are the "can't pay" and "won't pay" types of Debtors out there this thread clearly demonstrates that there are also the "don't understand" and the "don't want to understand" posters on this forum. The information regarding the laws of distress that blkuk1 explains in great detail to anyone that asks is in fact totally accurate. It's a fact, don't believe it? .... look it up. What I see here is a very distinct similarity to the "won't pay" debtor and the "don't want to understand" type of poster inasmuch as they both rely heavily on their own ignorance to justify their attitude to the Law and its remedies.

[Number6]

I too have been watching this debate with interest as I must say this ... just as there are the "can't pay" and "won't pay" types of Debtors out there this thread clearly demonstrates that there are also the "don't understand" and the "don't want to understand" posters on this forum. The information regarding the laws of distress that blkuk1 explains in great detail to anyone that asks is in fact totally accurate. It's a fact, don't believe it? .... look it up. What I see here is a very distinct similarity to the "won't pay" debtor and the "don't want to understand" type of poster inasmuch as they both rely heavily on their own ignorance to justify their attitude to the Law and its remedies.

 

I see.

 

If you're referring to me then I take GREAT exception. I fully understand the law in respect of the rights of entry of bailiffs in collecting the various types of debt and what is allowed to be levied. I am neither a "don't understand" nor a "don't want to understand"!!

 

No-one is disputing "the law" in these cases.

 

What we are taking issue with is the applicability of a medieval and anachronistic process without regard for the moral principles that underpin (though I do begin to wonder) a modern and democratic society. I am also questioning the moral terpitude that allows anyone to do the work of a bailiff in the particular type of circumstance that I describe without their conscience preventing them from ever sleeping!

 

Pete

[TideTurner]

Horlicks

[Guest The Terminator]

blfuk1. I'm afraid my conscience would get the better of me. You have demonstrated that you have a fare understanding of the area of law in which you are involved. My main concerns are where you apply your knowledge and training to your role and ignore what you call peoples 'ignorance of the law'.

 

I would guess that the majoriity of the people you deal with are, or have at some stage been considered as 'under priviliged', particurlarly with respect to education.

 

This leaves them wide open to those who have the knowledge and choose to use it to their advantage, regardless as to the customers circumstances.

 

I refer to previous posts you have made and would ask if you have ever received cash in settlement on any of your visits or if you do indeed ppossess a Consumer Credit License.

 

I also quote from your last post "For others, there are genuine difficulties and most bailiffs will identify that and withdraw. For some, while they cannot pay with available cash, they have sufficient goods to seize instead and that is what the law directs."

 

Do you double as a debt collector when it suits?

 

For a man who knows and understands the rules, you certainly cannot claim ignorance when you are breaking them in the Courts interest.

 

I too would also sweep the streets and have therefore educated my children not to drop litter.

 

Tideturner: That is an exellent post and you have summed it up very well. Now to our friendly baliff I am going to pose a question and I would say that there is proberly no chance of an answer: ARE YOU IN DEBT?

[Guest The Terminator]

I too have been watching this debate with interest as I must say this ... just as there are the "can't pay" and "won't pay" types of Debtors out there this thread clearly demonstrates that there are also the "don't understand" and the "don't want to understand" posters on this forum. The information regarding the laws of distress that blkuk1 explains in great detail to anyone that asks is in fact totally accurate. It's a fact, don't believe it? .... look it up. What I see here is a very distinct similarity to the "won't pay" debtor and the "don't want to understand" type of poster inasmuch as they both rely heavily on their own ignorance to justify their attitude to the Law and its remedies.

 

What a complete load of rubbish!!!

[fairblf]

Number6

Please do not take exception if the cap does not fit. However, you have missed the point regarding the explanation that blfuk1 gave regarding the scenario that you and your family find yourselves in. I am referring to the comment blfuk1 made " I provide a useful service in identifying cases where distress is inappropriate and bringing information to a creditor which was not previously avaiable - thereby stopping all inappropiate actions against a perhaps vulnerable debtor".

You say that you " fully understand the law in respect of the rights of entry of bailiffs in collecting the various types of debt and what is allowed to be levied". This point is not about the rights of entry of a Bailiff but of his duty to provide information to the Creditor if he finds that a Debtor is suffering genuine financial hardship. I for one sleep very well at night knowing that I get it right ....

[Guest The Terminator]

Number6

Please do not take exception if the cap does not fit. However, you have missed the point regarding the explanation that blfuk1 gave regarding the scenario that you and your family find yourselves in. I am referring to the comment blfuk1 made " I provide a useful service in identifying cases where distress is inappropriate and bringing information to a creditor which was not previously avaiable - thereby stopping all inappropiate actions against a perhaps vulnerable debtor".

You say that you " fully understand the law in respect of the rights of entry of bailiffs in collecting the various types of debt and what is allowed to be levied". This point is not about the rights of entry of a Bailiff but of his duty to provide information to the Creditor if he finds that a Debtor is suffering genuine financial hardship. I for one sleep very well at night knowing that I get it right ....

 

fairblf would you like to answer the question: ARE YOU IN DEBT!!

[Number6]

I for one sleep very well at night knowing that I get it right ....

 

Then that makes two bailiffs in the UK that claim to "get it right".

 

Now can we get real?

 

If I do not pay council tax and the council obtain a distress warrant then the enforcing bailiff will attempt to sieze goods so who are you trying to kid.

 

And furthermore, even if there is such a thing as a bailiff with a conscience as you describe that does nothing to take away the fear that a family faced with such action lives under the shadow of. Not being able to leave a window open, or a door unlocked, ever, even in stifling heat. Not letting your kids play outside for fear that they'll leave a door open. Telling your kids not to answer the door to anyone. Having to park any vehicles in a lock-up away from home for fear that the bailiff will clamp it or sieze it. The fear that every time you leave the house a bailiff will follow you to find out where your car is, etc. Do you want me to go on? The bailiff system forces people to live like hunted animals!

 

No doubt you will have an answer to that as well.

 

Pete

[fairblf]

Sorry Terminator ... you asked the question after you made a post that referred to blfuk1 and so I assumed you were asking him the question. Of course I am in debt just like everyone else who is honest. ARE YOU IN DEBT?

[Guest The Terminator]

Sorry Terminator ... you asked the question after you made a post that referred to blfuk1 and so I assumed you were asking him the question. Of course I am in debt just like everyone else who is honest. ARE YOU IN DEBT?

 

Yes but only to the banks.I respect your honest answer.

[fairblf]

In all fairness Terminator, I don't think any of us are saying that being in debt is a bad thing. It seems that the general concensus on this site is that in these times when debt is encouraged and made perhaps too readily available we must all be realistic about our individual abilities to manage our debts. After all we are debating toe pro's and con's of the Laws of Distress here which is normally the very last chapter (where entering into the arrangment that creates the debt is the the first chapter). My point is ... its the way that you deal with all the chapters in the middle of the story that really count.