Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[Guest The Terminator]

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.

 

I think in all fairness you have to go back to Number 6's last post to find the middle chapter.We are both working class people we go through the thick and thin of everything just wanting to lead our daily lives.Now I beleive in being fair and looking at everything logically and because I posed a question and you gave an honest answer I am more than willing to have a serious disscussion.Both you and I have admitted on a public forum that we are both in debt.Is that correct? Now this may not be the way of looking at it but is there a contridiction here.We have one of us in debt who is trying to collect a debt and another who is in debt but decided to take the banks on.Or to put it another way how much doe's it cost to administrate the community charge? Twice as much as what people are charged.What im saying here is that the average 5 grand debt is costing 10 to get back and I think you will find that I am spot on!!

[tamadus]

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.

 

I dont care who it is if somebody walks into my home without my invitation or a court warrant with police support I will personally throw him right back where he came from. If they enter my home in my absence or without my permission to enter in my absence then I will report it to the police as a burglary.

[Guest The Terminator]

I dont care who it is if somebody walks into my home without my invitation or a court warrant with police support I will personally throw him right back where he came from. If they enter my home in my absence or without my permission to enter in my absence then I will report it to the police as a burglary.

 

An Englishmans home is his castle and he will take whatever to defend it.

[tamadus]

glancing through the thread quickly one thing keeps coming into my mind. blfuk has on a couple of occasions stated that his primary concern is not to decide who can and can't pay but to enforce a warrant regadless, he has then gone on to say the opposite quote:

 

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".

 

so my question is are you there to enforce a warrant by taking goods and chattels or to make judgements as to whether the person can affoird to pay and report your decision back to the creditor? If you have a warrant to seize goods, what gives you the right to make some other decision which could actually be in opposition to the warrant issued by a court.

[tamadus]

An Englishmans home is his castle and he will take whatever to defend it.

 

Exactly Terminator and I will always plead I was feeling intimidated and in fear of my personal safety

[fairblf]

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

 

 

Sounds like you watch too much telly Number6 ... hunted animal !?!

[blfuk1]

This thread has been busy - hello fairblf - I hope you are!

 

Blfuk1 is of course, like most in the UK, in debt. To banks, mortgage companies, HP companies - but not to the taxman or the council. Those to me are priority bills which must be paid as the law directs. Have I ever defaulted on payments - yes, we all have our ups and downs. What concerns me is that if someone's circumstances are such that they cannot afford to pay their taxes, then surely the system will take account by way of benefits, tax credits, etc.

 

As Fairblf says, when a debt is passed to a bailiff by way of a court order, then it should be that all other avenues of reaching agreement to pay taxes, fines and other public debts which we deal with have failed.

 

For example, I have collected unpaid fines from people who have defaulted on their weekly payments and find them living reasonably comfortably and able to pay in cash from their pockets at the doorstep when push comes to shove. That demonstrates they could have paid but preferred to keep their money for another purpose. This is not a minority of debtors - I know from experience.

 

In council tax, Herbie pointed out that 4 million liability orders are granted by the courts each year. Less than half go to the bailiff so there is a stage in between obtaining the order and the 'final solution' where around 2 million liability orders are dealt with without the need for bailiff action.

 

Anyway, I previously asked Tideturner and Number6 a straight question, which I note neither have given a straight answer to, if at all. Interesting!

[tamadus]

Sounds like you watch too much telly Number6 ... hunted animal !?!

 

A lot of us including myself have felt this way when the postman arrives in the morning, almost scared to open the mail knowing its from some credit company. Yes hunted animal is a fairly good analogy. I have never had a visit from a bailiff but I know people who have and they described a similar feeling of being hunted.

[blfuk1]

glancing through the thread quickly one thing keeps coming into my mind. blfuk has on a couple of occasions stated that his primary concern is not to decide who can and can't pay but to enforce a warrant regadless, he has then gone on to say the opposite quote:

 

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".

 

so my question is are you there to enforce a warrant by taking goods and chattels or to make judgements as to whether the person can affoird to pay and report your decision back to the creditor? If you have a warrant to seize goods, what gives you the right to make some other decision which could actually be in opposition to the warrant issued by a court.

 

Just to pick up and clarify this particular point.

 

As I said, it is not me who decides who can and can't pay. I execute a warrant regardless of that issue. BUT, executing a warrant is not about the collection of money (as it is for a debt collector) but the seizure of goods. It is entirely within my remit to decide if a debtor has sufficient goods (excluding basic needs and exempt goods). It is in fact my absolute duty.

 

If a debtor does not have the means to pay (in cash), that is not my concern. I am only concerned with the terms of the warrant which are to seize goods. My job is to decide whether there are sufficient or insufficient goods. In most cases where there are insufficient goods, the circumstances of the debtor are often equally dire and my job is to inform the creditor that distress is an inappropriate solution.

 

What the creditor does with my information is not my concern according to my duties but it is a fact that I have on many occasions advised various bodies beyond my credior client when I feel the debtor needs additonal help which he or she is clearly not aware of. I have informed Christian groups, social services (for people I think are at risk - personnaly) and other bodies who function to help people in such circumstances. The fact that some people are not even trying to deal with a debt problem, usually means they have buried their head in the sand and not sought help. I have often advised people who I cannot deal with as a bailiff as there would be little point in removing goods of little value, that they should contact such and such an organisation and get help.

 

The only times I have ever removed goods is when it is entirely appropriate. It's a very good and warm feeling when as a bailiff dealing with some of life's less fortunate amongst us, they say 'thanks' when you walk out the door.

 

Now I'm not so stupid to think there are only decent bailiffs doing a valuable job out there - but it is not a minority. There are lots of us who collect lost of money for creditors - but not at any cost.

[Number6]

Sounds like you watch too much telly Number6 ... hunted animal !?!

 

Well, that's a very intelligent answer to what I thought was a pretty fair point! NOT!

 

That simply proves to me the moral level that bailiffs operate on.

 

Pete

[Number6]

 

Anyway, I previously asked Tideturner and Number6 a straight question, which I note neither have given a straight answer to, if at all. Interesting!

 

What's interesting about it??

 

There's nothing to answer.

 

I'm not a moneylender so no-one owes me anything.

 

If someone else in my area hasn't paid their council tax, so what? It costs more for the council to attempt to collect than the amount they recover so that's meaningless. Anyway, council tax defaulters are ususally in the "simply cannot pay" group.

 

What concerns me is that if someone's circumstances are such that they cannot afford to pay their taxes, then surely the system will take account by way of benefits, tax credits, etc.

 

Yeah, right! Even pensioners on £150 a week can't get council tax rebate! We get Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, I'm self employed and work has been so light this year that I currently don't owe any income tax. Can we get council tax rebate - can we hell. No, we still have to find a large percentage of our gross income to pay council tax of £150 a month (five years ago it was £50 a month!). That's on top of our (like everyone elses) fuel bills doubling over the past two years. Don't tell me that the benefit system takes care of people.

 

I am careful not to allow my customers to run up large bills and I'm carefull with whom I do business. I have only ever three times had to raise a county court action against a business debtor and all were settled immediately without need for recourse to bailiffs.

 

If it's a criminal fine you are collecting then that doesn't help me, even if it's a fine against someone that's injured me so again I couldn't care less whether it's collected or not.

 

If it's a parking fine or a clamping "fine" then I view both of those as legalised extortion anyway.

 

So in answer to your question I don't allow myself to get into the position on having to collect money.

 

The big creditors, the banks and CC companies know what they're letting themselves in for when they lend. Statistically there will always be a percentage of bad debt. If a lender is prepared to lend and it goes bad through no fault of the debtor (illness or unemployment for example) then that's tough luck on the lender, it's a cost of doing business IMO.

 

I also maintain (from prior knowledge) that those that won't pay usually have it sussed so that there's nothing for the bailiff to collect anyway. It's the poor sods that fall on hard times that the bailiffs turn over.

 

Pete

[Number6]

Sounds like you watch too much telly Number6 ... hunted animal !?!

 

No, sorry. I REALLY do not like this comment. It's insulting to me and others!

 

I've been in the situation - have you?????

 

I had a long-running battle with the CSA who claimed £13,000 off me in unpaid maintenance. It was total rubbish but ended up going to bailiffs before they finally agreed I actually owed the £1200 that I originally said I did, AND that I had already paid.

 

I suffered several weeks of feeling like a hunted animal through NO FAULT of my own. I was afraid to leave the house for fear that they'd call while my wife and / or kids were in. I had threats shouted through the letterbox by tatooed gorillas, I had threats of physical violence - the usual crap of "we'll be back with a locksmith and the police"!! Etc., etc.

 

fairblf - don't make insulting comments when you obviously either know nothing or do know but couldn't care less.

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

What's interesting about it?? There's nothing to answer. I'm not a moneylender so no-one owes me anything.

 

If someone else in my area hasn't paid their council tax, so what? It costs more for the council to attempt to collect than the amount they recover so that's meaningless. Anyway, council tax defaulters are ususally in the "simply cannot pay" group.

 

I am careful not to allow my customers to run up large bills and I'm carefull with whom I do business. I have only ever three times had to raise a county court action against a business debtor and all were settled immediately without need for recourse to bailiffs.

 

If it's a criminal fine you are collecting then that doesn't help me, even if it's a fine against someone that's injured me so again I couldn't care less whether it's collected or not.

 

If it's a parking fine or a clamping "fine" then I view both of those as legalised extortion anyway.

 

Pete

 

The question was if you were owed compensation as a victim of crime, would you side with the bailiff trying to collect your money or the debtor trying to avoid it?

 

I wonder what you would have done if the threat of bailiff action on the three business debts had not worked. Would you have not pursued them further out of principle?

 

And, if council tax defaulters were not made to pay, would you be happy paying more council tax to compensate for the shortfall in providing services? And where do you get your statistics proving it costs more to attempt collection of unpaid council tax than it achieves in recovering lost revenue? As the cost of recovering council tax is born by the defaulter, whatever the cost, it does not add to the council tax burden at all.

 

Finally, would you not care if people parked wherever they liked with no regulation - even if they blocked a road and a fire engine or ambulance couldn't get through to the scene of an emergency? That used to happen a lot in London at least!

 

I don't expect you will see these issues as valid reasons to have an enforcement solution as all you seem to do is disagree point blank with any positive aspect of credit control. I think most people on this site are just against bad bailiffing - not the principle itself.

[Bailiffchaser]

blf has started his own thread and everybody seems to be roasting him. If i were him i would do the decent thing and give up being a bailiff and become an advisor on bailiff law. Make money that way but i cant actually see that happening!!!!

[Peterbard]

No, sorry. I REALLY do not like this comment. It's insulting to me and others!

 

As someone sruggling along on dissablement benifit who is currently deciding whether to pay a parking fine issued because my blue badge was not totally visable or pay the gas bill. I know exactly where you are coming from

 

Peter

 

 

[Guest The Terminator]

I'd like to know and it's not a stupid question but what is the difference between a bailiff and a debt collector.

[Guest The Terminator]

Sounds like you watch too much telly Number6 ... hunted animal !?!

 

Yes but hunted animals have a tendancy to bite back.

[Peterbard]

I'd like to know and it's not a stupid question but what is the difference between a bailiff and a debt collector.

 

I can think of a number of flippant answers to this most involving questioning parentage but I will resist.

 

A bailif tries to recover a debt after a court judjment has been issued.

and works to enforce a warrant issued by the court.

 

A debt collector generally can be the orriginal creditor or someome hired by them to recover the debt prior to going to court.

[Number6]

I'd like to know and it's not a stupid question but what is the difference between a bailiff and a debt collector.

 

I can think of a number of flippant answers to this most involving questioning parentage but I will resist.

 

A bailif tries to recover a debt after a court judjment has been issued.

and works to enforce a warrant issued by the court.

 

A debt collector generally can be the orriginal creditor or someome hired by them to recover the debt prior to going to court.

 

The major difference is that a debt collector has NO legal rights whereas a bailiff has.

 

A debt collector has no right to phone you or to call at your house. You can tell a debt collector to go away and only communicate with you in writing.

 

A bailiff has the right to call at your home and to take goods if he gains lawful entry.

 

Pete

[Guest The Terminator]

 

And where do you get your statistics proving it costs more to attempt collection of unpaid council tax than it achieves in recovering lost revenue? As the cost of recovering council tax is born by the defaulter, whatever the cost, it does not add to the council tax burden at all.

 

That is complete and utter rubbish and you know it is.I'm not going to back track but as I've already posted take in all the costs of collecting unpaid council tax and it works out to nearly double and I know because I work for an LA.For someone who has a unpaid council tax bill of say £100 to collect that £100 will cost in the region of £200 and if you break it down with letters,court cost's,collection fees etc you will find that is about right.Although the council can claim the court costs i.e the summons they cannot claim any other cost's and I know because I've been there.

 

 

Finally, would you not care if people parked wherever they liked with no regulation - even if they blocked a road and a fire engine or ambulance couldn't get through to the scene of an emergency? That used to happen a lot in London at least!

 

Anyone with any sense would'nt park where it is going to obstruct emergency services

I don't expect you will see these issues as valid reasons to have an enforcement solution as all you seem to do is disagree point blank with any positive aspect of credit control. I think most people on this site are just against bad bailiffing - not the principle itself.

 

Whereever did you get that idea from:lol:

[Peterbard]

The major difference is that a debt collector has NO legal rights whereas a bailiff has.

Steady everyone has some legal rights;)

 

Peter

[Number6]

Steady everyone has some legal rights;)

 

Peter

 

Even a debt collector???

 

Well, you learn something every day

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

I don't know if this information is available already on here but i have found it most useful to quote bits of it to uppity debt collectors.

 

SECTION 40 OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-

· harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

· falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

· falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

· utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE

This includes:

· Contacting you too frequently

· Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt

· Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company

· Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford

· Making threatening gestures or statements

· Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money

· Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family

THOSE VISITING DEBTORS MUST NOT ACT IN AN UNCLEAR OR THREATENING MANNER

· Collectors should explain the reason for any visit and give you notice of the time and date they will call

· They shouldn’t visit if they know you are ill or vulnerable and if they find you are unwell or distressed they should leave

· They should not come in if you do not want them to and should leave when you ask them to

· They shouldn’t visit you at work or somewhere like a hospital

[Number6]

I note there's been no response to my post #112

 

Pete

[Number6]

Deafening silence it is then!

 

Pete