Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[blfuk1]

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

 

Pete

 

Perhaps fairblf is not around to see your question. In any event Pete, you seem to have skirted around giving an answer ro 113!

 

In fact, no one has really answered the original question but continue to tar all bailiffs with the same brush and heap scorn upon us all rather than give an honest answer. Pete, it is regrettable you have had bad experiences with bailiffs overstepping the mark, making malicious threats etc., but what if???

 

Come on... there are plenty of you on this thread with nothing good to say about any bailiff - like you know us all.......

 

The specific question I posed, which requires an equally specific answer was this:

 

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]

We are all fair minded people, or at least I know I am so perhaps we have no good words to say about bailiffs because we have never come across a bailiff worthy of good words. If I had I would say so, but I haven't.

 

I thought I had answered your point but to clarify:

 

I disagree with the use of distress against those that are vulnerable and cannot pay. Distress against a debtors goods is a medieval anachronism and has no place in a moral and just society.

 

Pete

[fairblf]

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.

 

 

Number6

First of all I have re read your post and it does not appear to be a question at all but two assumptions made by you - I know nothing or I don't care. Am I right so far?

So, before I address both of your assumptions, I would be interested, for my own satisfaction and also for the benefit of the other posters, what EXACTLY is the depth and breadth of your knowledge of the Laws of Distress. I ask this because you make lots of comments and seem to have very strong opinions on the subject. My second question is simple, EXACTLY how many bailiffs have you met in person? Perhaps your answers to my questions will help me better understand your stance in this discussion and help other posters to decide whether your opinions are based on facts (things that have really happened) or fiction (things that might happen if the the whole industry conformed to the stereotypical "bad bailiff" profile described in your messages{tattooed gorillas etc.})

My reason for joining this forum is to try and demonstrate to members of the public that with a little more accurate information regarding this industry and a few less rumours and gossip stoking the fires of the lynchmobs the bad bailiffs would not be able to continue to get away with unacceptable practises and the good bailiffs would be seen as getting on with a difficult job.

Regards

[fairblf]

Number6

Deafening silence it is then?

[blfuk1]

We are all fair minded people, or at least I know I am so perhaps we have no good words to say about bailiffs because we have never come across a bailiff worthy of good words. If I had I would say so, but I haven't.

 

I thought I had answered your point but to clarify:

 

I disagree with the use of distress against those that are vulnerable and cannot pay. Distress against a debtors goods is a medieval anachronism and has no place in a moral and just society.

 

Pete

 

Sorry Pete but you are still avoiding the specific question. It's hypothetical so you don't have to abandon your principles - just assume the debtor should pay because the courts directed that you are due compensation for his actions which caused you injury. Then assume that I will do my job properly and only use distress if I find it is appropriate when I knock on the door. I promise you, in this hypothetical situation, that I will not use my authority on any vulnerable person who has no visible means to pay or goods to seize. So, if I do my job properly and there is no other means to make this person pay what you are owed, do you back me or him if he simply refuses to pay - even if he can?

[Guest The Terminator]

Perhaps fairblf is not around to see your question. In any event Pete, you seem to have skirted around giving an answer ro 113!

 

 

The specific question I posed, which requires an equally specific answer was this:

 

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?

 

Thanks blfuk1: Not only have you made a libilous statement but also committed defamation of charactor.I am now going to ask for your IP address under S35 DPA(1998) and if necessary that will give me you postal address so I can then serve papers on you and no doubt damages will be involved.Obviously you are the one now who's gonna have a baliff knocking on your door.

[blfuk1]

Thanks blfuk1: Not only have you made a libilous statement but also committed defamation of charactor.I am now going to ask for your IP address under S35 Data Protection Act(1998) and if necessary that will give me you postal address so I can then serve papers on you and no doubt damages will be involved.Obviously you are the one now who's gonna have a baliff knocking on your door.

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I stated, you have made your position quite clear regarding bailiffs on many occasions. I quote an example:

 

 

Bailiff's come to my door and your find the true meaning of termination you've been warned.

 

Perhaps you could explain how I have defamed you!!! You might also look up malicious threats while you're at it.

 

 

"To those who think that the law of gravity interferes with their freedom, there is nothing to say." Lionel Tiger

[Number6]

Number6

Deafening silence it is then?

 

Perhaps the more liklely option is that I went to bed???

 

Pete

[fairblf]

Number6

You were still online at the time of my last posting

[Number6]

Number6

You were still online at the time of my last posting

 

Don't think so!!, at least my wife tells me I was in bed by 10.45!!

 

Apart from which I'm not hanging on every word of this thread, you might have noticed I'm a SH and am posting on lots of threads that are actually trying to help people, not on an apologist thread for those that claim to be "just obeying orders".

 

Pete

[Number6]

I promise you, in this hypothetical situation, that I will not use my authority on any vulnerable person who has no visible means to pay or goods to seize.

 

We go round and round in circles here and your questions are always couched in political double-speak and evasion tactics.

 

Your quote above tells it all. You've stated before that you don't have the option - if there are goods to sieze then it's your "duty" to do your best to sieze them so in your hypothetical example you are giving an unsustainable hypothetical promise.

 

There may well be a very limited number of cases where some sort of enforcement is called for but not in the majority of cases and definitely NOT in ANY case of someone falling on hard times through no fault of their own. Even in marginal cases where *maybe* the debtor is being a bit flighty you have to consider the effect of siezure on other members of that debtors family - why should a wife and kids have to suffer for the mistake of the husband say.

 

Again I repeat, *maybe* siezure is not *quite* so bad if an attempt to get a fair price for the goods was made AND if the bailiffs didn't rack up 100's of % in "fees" that are then taken from the auction proceeds before any debt is repaid. "Fees" should be taken only once the debt is paid, perhaps then a bailiff *might* try to get a fair price for the goods (yeah, right!!).

 

You also constantly use the Nuremburg defence. Sorry but that doesn't wash; you don't have to be a bailiff. IMO it takes someone with a warped mindset to be able to barge into a vulnerable young family's home that are in debt through no fault of theirs and take everything they've worked for.

 

Pete

[Guest The Terminator]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I stated, you have made your position quite clear regarding bailiffs on many occasions. I quote an example:

 

As I have the knowledge(not a little) I am in the position to share that knowledge which I do on this site(litigation is a very useful vocation to have).Having the knowledge is a dangerous thing in my case not the other way around.Your example below mean's nothing as I have not named anyone where as you did and implied that I have no respect for the law.

 

Bailiff's come to my door and your find the true meaning of termination you've been warned.

 

For starters you or any baliff wouldn't get over my door threshold and that is not a threat that is a fact.

 

Perhaps you could explain how I have defamed you!!! You might also look up malicious threats while you're at it.

 

Read above

 

 

"To those who think that the law of gravity interferes with their freedom, there is nothing to say." Lionel Tiger

 

Really you can post until your blue in the face because I and most proberly others on this thread will not take in any of what you are trying to justify.As another poster posted "What if you were to go to a property to seize goods only to find that the person was a baliff.I don't seem to recall you answering that question.Also I'd be interested what you would do if you came to someone's door and they waved a deed saying that they didn't own the goods so you couldn't take them or they had gone bankrupt what would your next move be.

[Guest The Terminator]

Obviously our two freindly baliffs have lost their bottle:D

[blfuk1]

Obviously our two freindly baliffs have lost their bottle:D

 

As you stated: Really you can post until your blue in the face because I and most proberly others on this thread will not take in any of what you are trying to justify.

 

Not a lot of point 'debating' with you is there? We appear to be wasting each other's time and this thread is worn out!

 

That's all!!

[elsinore]

this thread is worn out!

 

Hear hear.

 

Time to unsubscribe

 

Elsinore

[fagashlil]

Hmmmmmmm, think he might have been trying to help us all really?

 

LIL XX.

 

I was seduced by him at any rate

[fagashlil]

Hey who is that banging on my door?

[anon1]

This is quite an interesting thread and I'm sure people who have had dealings with bailiffs get angry with those who are bailiffs themselves. Sorry for the understatement. I would comment on the last few posts but I have seen weekend argument threads which you always read but yet you spot where it is descending(and i think it is, IMHO).

[Bailiffchaser]

Personally all bailiffs should get a perfect life. Loose their certificates and then let a new breed of bailiffs come chasing them. So urm what does happen if one bailiff accidently stumbles accross another bailiff ? Do they make luv or do they just tell each other which positions to use ? Or do they like try and scare one another of their turf ? Just a bit intresting thats all ?

[Number6]

I wonder if anyone would like to comment on this extract from the House of Lords debate on the 29th November on the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, this is from the address by Lord Beaumont of Whitley:

 

Bailiffs' powers are already excessive and the Bill increases them. In neither House was there any mention of neither Semayne's case in 1604 nor Lord Denning's judgment in Southam v Smout, in which he cited William Pitt the Elder, the first Earl of Chatham. He said that it was the classic passage on the principle that an Englishman's house is his castle. In 1767, William Pitt said:

 

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".

 

Neither the enforcement nor the creditors nor the advice sector were consulted, and no notice was given to the public. Even though the citizen has a right to refuse forced entry, 76 per cent of fines were collected. A substantial part of the balance was due to disproportionate fines that could not be paid in full; to fines that should have been reduced or remitteddue to a change of circumstances such as illness, unemployment or bankruptcy; and to fines directed to the wrong person or address which cannot be collected. Apparently, enforcement agencies are quite unable to read. I have been advising one enforcement agency that the person whom they are trying to pursue has not, to my knowledge, lived in my house for the past 20 years. It is quite unable to take this in, and continues to serve me with dark threats.

 

The reason given for allowing forced entry, as reported at col. 239 of the House of Lords Official Report for 2 November, was to enforce criminal penalties. We were not told that many of the criminal penalties involving fines were simply for petty shoplifting, truancy, having no TV licence, fare-dodging or having no tax disc on a car—offences very often fuelled by poverty. A parliamentary Question, answered on 20 July 2004, illustrates that all unemployment benefits are below the Government's poverty threshold. They remain so. Magistrates' courts are faced with fining the jobseeker's allowance, of £45.50 a week, of unemployed single adults aged between 18 and 24. It is very likely that a social fund loan is being deducted from that allowance, at £10 a week, when the allowance is already at half the level of the Government's poverty threshold. The fine is then deducted at £5 a week, leaving the person with £30.50. When it is not paid, a warrant is issued to the bailiff. We have created such poverty in this country that all fines for unemployed people, who are struggling to survive below the poverty line on state benefits, are disproportionate.

 

What do our bailiff friends have to say?

 

Pete

[Number6]

And comments on this extract from the same debate:

 

If the fine is not paid, a warrant is given to the bailiffs to smash and grab. Z2K has been told by officials at the Department for Constitutional Affairs that forced entry will be used only as a last resort, but the DCA will not say who decides, and in what circumstances, that that time has been reached. I ask the Minister to write to me with that information.

 

Z2K asked the Department for Constitutional Affairs for a copy of the civilian enforcement officers' guidance. On 31 October, it received a letter from Her Majesty's Court Service, which states that, to release a copy,

 

"would prejudice the administration of justice by sharing guidance which provides advice to CEOs on what to do in specific situations. The disclosure of methods used by enforcement agents could assist defaulters to evade enforcement officers in the execution of their duties. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 31(1)© of the Freedom of Information Act 1999".

 

These days, "civil enforcement officers" is the official upmarket vernacular for bailiffs, which means that they have secret instructions from the Government about how to break into your home and seize your goods.

 

Z2K has sought an internal review by the Access Rights Unit at the DCA on the grounds that justice on the doorstep and in the home by bailiffs, like everywhere else, should be seen to be done; and fine defaulters or their advisers cannot call the bailiffs to account for failing to carry out the correct procedures if they do not know what procedures the Government require the bailiffs to implement. The effect is to make the bailiffs untouchable. Z2K has not yet had a reply. Perhaps the Minister would like to expedite that.

[Number6]

Another snippet:

 

As to the reasons why we need bailiff regulation, many of your Lordships may have received the briefing from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which contains a number of case histories, and may have seen the BBC's "Whistleblower" programme, with which LMAG helped considerably. LMAG has its own experience of the practices of bailiffs. There are phantom and fabricated visits, and work is done that is not required to be done. Letters are pushed through the door by a courier who runs away, and when the letter is opened, it says, "I ... certified bailiff", which the courier clearly was not. That is all done by large and "reputable" firms. We have not regulated the industry and it has taken advantage.

[blfuk1]

I wonder if anyone would like to comment on this extract from the House of Lords debate on the 29th November on the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, this is from the address by Lord Beaumont of Whitley:

 

 

 

What do our bailiff friends have to say?

 

Pete

 

While I agree with Lord Beaumont on other issues such as his support of fox hunting and his opposition to a smoking ban, on this issue I do not fully agree. He quoted Semayne's case but did not place it in any context.

 

Importantly, in Semayne's, the case was found against the Sheriff not because he broke into the plaintiff's house but because he gave no notice to enable the plaintiff to deal with the issue before using the King's power to force entry.

 

The current issue is that defendants have been able to avoid both distress and arrest by hiding behind their closed doors, which is why the DVCV Act was introduced and was provided with various failsafes - such as for criminal offences only. Bearing in mind that fines are punishments and not debts, it cannot be right that anyone can avoid a lawful punishment simply by refusing entry and ignoring the due process of law.

 

The concept of the DVCV Act provisions are that victims of crime should be able to see that justice is done by the imposition being fully implemented - even more crucial in cases where the defendant is ordered but refuses to pay compensation to the victim.

 

Lord Beaumont also argued that many of the criminal penalties involving fines were simply for petty shoplifting, truancy, having no TV licence, fare-dodging or having no tax disc on a car—offences very often fuelled by poverty. He makes an assumption without any basis in fact, that these ofences are often fuelled by poverty. Ridiculous! If you can't afford to tax a car, then you can't afford to run one and should take a bus. If you can't afford the fare, walk. Don't have a TV if you can't licence it.

 

Society makes rules for us all to follow. If we don't follow them we must face the consequences. As you cannot plead ignorance of the law, you cannot, equally, plead you could not afford to run a car in accordance with the law and so didn't bother with taxing your car - or for that matter insuring it. Would it be acceptable, if you can't afford a holiday abroad, to rob a pensioner of his or her savings to fund one?

 

It's all very well claiming a 17th century ruling should be upheld as it suits those (who misinterpret it) who wish to avoid taxes and fines by hiding behind their closed doors but to be even handed, perhaps we should un-repeal other laws of the age. For example, the petty shoplifting which the noble Lord seems to believe is a trifling issue would have earned the 17th century culprit the death penalty probably commuted to deportation.

 

If the magistrates impose a penalty then it should be paid. If a defendant refuses to permit access to his home, which access may well show there is nothing of value - or conversley that there are goods of value - then that process should be permitted to take place despite the defendant's protests.

 

Once that process of entry and search has revealed there are insufficient goods, then the matter can be referred back to the magistrates who can impose an alternative penalty for breaking the law - including the option then of a custodial sentence. If law breakers cannot be 'punished' as the law directs, then only anarchy remains.

[blfuk1]

Another snippet:

 

First it's important to note that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux' "case histories" are mainly anecdotal reports from disgruntled clients.

 

On the other hand we are all well aware that phantom and fabricated vists are a reality which must be stamped out. I wholeheartedly agree that a formal regulatory regime is required so the majority of us who abide by the rules can get on with our jobs without being tainted by the minority who don't.

[Bailiffchaser]

Ok now urm a bailiff is pointing out that the cab files are from disgruntled customers. There you have it. A bailiff and with disgruntled customers ? Tell me one who doesnot have them !!! will make a change !!! The cab only use these files to show what can be done if there is a problem they refer other people to them. I would rather use old files from disgruntles .