Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[TideTurner]

Blfuk1,

 

You are making great efforts to justify your corner. I refer you to post #89. Have you EVER accepted cash on the door in full or partial settlement?

 

Your silence speaks volumes

[blfuk1]

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 .

 

The point I was making is that the vast majority of issues declared by CAB are 'complaints' that have neither been investigated nor upheld and yet are treated as if they have been.

 

It is misleading to quote something as a factual matter when it is not. I'm not sure what you mean by "the CAB only use these files to show what can be done" and "if there is a problem they refer other people to them"?

 

The problem is that if you rely on uncorroborated claims and paint everything the same, then all debtors are simply avoiding payment when they could in fact pay and all are likely to assault any one authorised to pursue them - which of course is not the case - is it?

[blfuk1]

Blfuk1,

 

You are making great efforts to justify your corner. I refer you to post #89. Have you EVER accepted cash on the door in full or partial settlement?

 

Your silence speaks volumes

 

I'm sorry Tideturner but I have obviously missed that one:

 

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'm not sure what your point is but of course I have accepted cash in settlement of the outstanding sums due on a warrant including all appropriate costs. If someone prefers to pay to avoid the seizure of goods, it would be wrong of me to continue to attempt seizure and add further costs when the debtor is prepared to stop the process by satisfying the warrant.

 

The question regarding a consumer credit licence is irrelevant in this context as one is only required if you collect debt in respect of a [defaulted] consumer credit agreement. I only operate as a bailiff in respect of court orders, so do not need one.

[Guest The Terminator]

Two our two friendly baliffs a very quick question. Do you carry id with you including proof of who your working for?

Even if you did you still would'nt get your foot over my door threshold. LOL

[demon_x_slash]

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.

 

I still can't believe that in this country, 'in this day and age', that you can be given a custodial sentence if you're too poor to pay a criminal fine. I believe that it is another example of the justice system favouring the well-off. Giving a person living in poverty a choice between paying, and prison, is not really a choice at all.

 

And before you say that they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place, I agree. However, in a fair system there should be nothing in the punishment that allows one person to get away more lightly than the other just because they have a fatter wallet.

[blfuk1]

Two our two friendly baliffs a very quick question. Do you carry id with you including proof of who your working for?

Even if you did you still would'nt get your foot over my door threshold. LOL

 

Yes I carry formal ID and my bailiffs carry both client ID and company ID (both photographic) as well as their court issued certificates (also photographic).

[blfuk1]

I still can't believe that in this country, 'in this day and age', that you can be given a custodial sentence if you're too poor to pay a criminal fine. I believe that it is another example of the justice system favouring the well-off. Giving a person living in poverty a choice between paying, and prison, is not really a choice at all.

 

And before you say that they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place, I agree. However, in a fair system there should be nothing in the punishment that allows one person to get away more lightly than the other just because they have a fatter wallet.

 

What would you suggest then?

[TideTurner]

This would probably apply where a judgement is obtained in the absence of the Defendant, in which case there is no opportunity for the Defendant (who may simply feel very intimidated by the whole Court process) to provide a means test. How is it the Police may instantly be able to check the identity, whether a person has tax, insurance or mot, outstanding warrants from a registration number as they pass them at 70mph on a motorway, but there is a lack of investment in technology to inform the Court beforehand whether the Defendant has a genuine reason why they have been unable to pay a tax or other bill.

 

It's not about understanding, but money. 99% of people do not find themselves in their predicament because they are trying to dodge a tax or fine, we'd all like the money to be able to make the problem simply go away, or not happen in the first place.

 

The more you hit a piece of steel, the harder it becomes. It's called tempering.

 

If you do not invest in ways of establishing peoples ability to pay before sending some clog around to frighten the living sh!t out of him and his household, you can expect a tempered response.

 

You don't do your homework (it's an unnecessary expense) and you quite often get it wrong, even attending premises looking for the previous owner. Probably surprising since the system you rely upon for your information is archaic.

[blfuk1]

It's not about understanding, but money. 99% of people do not find themselves in their predicament because they are trying to dodge a tax or fine, we'd all like the money to be able to make the problem simply go away, or not happen in the first place.

 

I have no idea what research you are relying on to support this claim but I can tell you that after dealing with hundreds of thousands of unpaid fines over the years this is simply not the case.

 

In my contention, from the hard evidence of actually collecting unpaid fines, only a very small percentage, possibly around 7-8%, of fine defaulters have no means to pay and no goods to remove. I can give you thousands upon thousands of examples where cash is magically found the moment seizure is about to happen. People I have dealt with are often in reasonably good financial shape but would rather avoid payment although they are quite able to pay when I arrive. That is based on doorstep research and difficult to dispute.

[TideTurner]

Research is based on personal experience and family telephoning me to say a gentleman is refusing to leave and frightening the kids by upsetting the household, despite the debtor not residing at the premises.

 

Where is the cross-referencing? How many checks are made before you send in the troops? How much unnecessary stress does this cause? Who has to deal with the piece of steel once it's been tempered?

 

Trust me, I know about the lack of investment in the back office, and the pro-active investment in the front.

[rambo]

blfuk1, I agree with alot of what you say, the problem I have is with illegally issued parking tickets, despite writing to the councils involved they still will not back down. I have to keep doing late stat dec's until I can get in front of the adjudicator, and the adjudicator always finds in my favour.

Whilst all this is going on I have bailiffs chasing me and trying to break the law.

I understand the need for bailiffs, the problem I have is when they break the law to do thier job.

[TideTurner]

Fore-armed is fore-warned, I go back to an earlier post. If you do not have precise information, you cannot possibly know what you are sending your staff into, particularly if you don't have a history (just an Order from the Court).

 

With respect to investment, the Courts system has wasted millions in failed projects for computerisation.

 

You obviously have no knowledge of this. Do you simply receive a job sheet and claim ignorance as to its legitimacy?

[blfuk1]

Research is based on personal experience and family telephoning me to say a gentleman is refusing to leave and frightening the kids by upsetting the household, despite the debtor not residing at the premises.

 

Where is the cross-referencing? How many checks are made before you send in the troops? How much unnecessary stress does this cause? Who has to deal with the piece of steel once it's been tempered?

 

Trust me, I know about the lack of investment in the back office, and the pro-active investment in the front.

 

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you Tideturner but I have invested far more in back office support than in front line resources. You don't know my company and I doubt you know the detailed infrastructure or investment history of any bailiff company, let alone that of the 150 or so companies operating today.

 

The bottom line is that a bailiff must go where the warrant directs him - in the first instance - unless he has prior knowledge of the debtor's whereabouts (at an alternative address) from previous experience.

 

The obvious difference between good and bad [bailiffs] is that best practice is to confirm the identity of the householder as that of the debtor before taking any enforcement action. Once the identity of the householder is established as the debtor then the bailiff is able to enforce the warrant. No decent bailiff in his right mind will enforce a warrant against property at an address without confirming the address [and property/goods] is that of the debtor!

 

Finally, with respect, the exeriences of yourself and family (and/or people you know) cannot match the depth of experience of 3 decades of enforcing warrants at the doorstep - can it?

 

The fact that your limited experiences appear to be of bailiffs operating in less than best practice fashion does not mean we all operate in that way.

[blfuk1]

blfuk1, I agree with alot of what you say, the problem I have is with illegally issued parking tickets, despite writing to the councils involved they still will not back down. I have to keep doing late stat dec's until I can get in front of the adjudicator, and the adjudicator always finds in my favour.

Whilst all this is going on I have bailiffs chasing me and trying to break the law.

I understand the need for bailiffs, the problem I have is when they break the law to do thier job.

 

I cannot argue about illegally issued parking penalties but as a bailiff have a duty to execute a warrant authorised by a court of law - until that court directs otherwise. Bailiffs cannot and should not act as judges in terms of the validity of a warrant and must confine themselves (if they must judge anything) to judging whether enforcement [at the door-step] is appropriate or not.

 

There is nothing more annoying than attempting to execute a warrant which you suspect may be recalled due to error in issue and to be paid nothing for all the work involved. I would be much happier working on warrants with confidence but the law tells me that until a warrant is actually withdrawn it MUST be executed and it IS valid.

 

A bailiff executing a warrant properly will only be breaking the law if he does not follow the rules. Provided the warrant is still 'live', and he conducts himself according to law, he cannot be breaking the law.

 

This issue is with the councils - not the bailiffs (at least not the ones acting correctly).

[TideTurner]

Point taken, however, I have two decades of experience in my field, and what was considered as best practice then cannot even be considered now. Your experience is with human nature. I am talking about how your industry has made efforts to improve in line with technology. I also understand that you can only act on the information you are given. That's where the jobsheet question comes in. Do you do any checks yourself or go straight into battle with the information provided?

[blfuk1]

Fore-armed is fore-warned, I go back to an earlier post. If you do not have precise information, you cannot possibly know what you are sending your staff into, particularly if you don't have a history (just an Order from the Court).

 

With respect to investment, the Courts system has wasted millions in failed projects for computerisation.

 

You obviously have no knowledge of this. Do you simply receive a job sheet and claim ignorance as to its legitimacy?

 

Bailiffs recieve warrants commanding them to execute a warrant against a named person at a named address for a named offence/penalty/tax. That is the only starting point the bailiff has. He is not paid to enter into pre-enforcement enquiries or to establish to his own satisfaction the validity of the warrant. That's not his job or his place.

 

If you were, for example, a soldier, do you think you should ask to check the inteligence reports personally before undertaking orders? Or, ask for another recon patrol to make sure the objectives are clear? Of course not. And neither can bailiffs be guily of 'ignorance' for not having pre-sentence reports etc before deciding whether to undertake what the courts have ordered.

 

Yes, the courts system has wasted millions on IT projects but that's not an issue for me as a bailiff. I know exactly what projects they commissioned (then de-commissioned) and what systems they use which are often worse than the systems they replaced. But that's quite usual for Governments and I can only work on what I'm given. Unless we know the debtor from experience (which is often the case), then yes we are going in blind - we always have! Never a dull day as abailiff!!

[blfuk1]

Point taken, however, I have two decades of experience in my field, and what was considered as best practice then cannot even be considered now. Your experience is with human nature. I am talking about how your industry has made efforts to improve in line with technology. I also understand that you can only act on the information you are given. That's where the jobsheet question comes in. Do you do any checks yourself or go straight into battle with the information provided?

 

The only checks which can be undertaken, and are as a matter of course, are against one's own system and any historical data concerning either the address or the debtor. Obviously, if we know [historically] that a debtor is not at the given address then we will not go there but try to find an alternative address.

 

I imagine you will not be surprised to know that I can return a warrant as 'gone' from an address only to have another warrant issued shortly after for the same debtor at the same 'wrong' address. Very annoying but we can deal with it by checking our own systems. Beyond that, we are still blind!

[TideTurner]

Are the checks you make made via any of the Debt Collection Agencies?

[blfuk1]

Are the checks you make made via any of the Debt Collection Agencies?

 

Bailiffs do not, in the main, interact with debt collection agencies. We have no protocol and no authority to pass information to DCAs. In attempting to locate an absconded debtor we may use credit reference agencies (equifax) etc, as the courts themselves do but get better access and information, via the courts, from DWP, DVLA etc.

[TideTurner]

Are you aware that the data you access was and is collated unlawfully?

 

If you interact with Equifax, you automatically interact with DCA's and others. You have a contract with them and you may be sued if you provide this information to another, store it without permission, process it without the express permission of the subject etc. as you have received no authority from the subject.

[Bailiffchaser]

Regardless of what everybody thinks blf thinks that the law is smelling of roses as far as bailiffs are concerned. On another threads you are saying that if a warrant has been issued to pay a fine from a magistrates court then the bailiff can force entry ? Where did this one come from ? Can anybody put light on this ? I thought this was only in the case of search warrants/hm customs /vat and utility disconnectiin etc ?

[iwannabedebtfree]

What 'legal authority' must a bailiff have?

A bailiff must be legally authorised to collect the debt on behalf of the creditor. The authority is normally known as a 'warrant', or 'warrant of execution' if the bailiff is recovering money owed under a county court judgment.

Bailiffs used by the magistrates court to collect unpaid council tax, outstanding fines, compensation or unpaid maintenance will be acting on either a 'distress warrant' or a 'liability order' issued by the magistrates court.

If you are in arrears, creditors will sometimes send representatives to your home to try and negotiate repayments with you. These people might be called 'counsellors', 'collectors' or 'advisers'. They do not have powers to enter your home and seize your goods.

Can a bailiff force his/her way into my house?

Most bailiffs do not have the right to force their way into your home to seize your goods. The only exception is that bailiffs from the Collector of Taxes (Inland Revenue) can get a warrant to force entry, but this is very rare.

All other bailiffs have a right of peaceful entry only. This means that they cannot use force to enter your home, for example, by breaking a window or a door. However, they can enter your property through an open door or window (front and back) and can climb over fences and gates, but cannot break them down. See also ''If a bailiff does gain peaceful entry to my house, what will they do?''

You do not have to let a bailiff into your house. A bailiff cannot force their way past you if you answer the door. If all your doors and windows are securely closed they will not be able to gain peaceful entry to your house unless you let them in.

Bailiffs are well aware of their limited powers and may use a variety of different means to gain entry peaceably. They may attempt to walk in as soon as a door is opened. They may ask if they can use your telephone to check if an arrangement is satisfactory with their office. They may simply ask you if you would prefer to discuss matters inside. You do not have to go along with any of these methods.

Can I be arrested or imprisoned for not letting a bailiff into my house?

No. If a bailiff is accompanied by the police, they are only there to prevent a breach of the peace. You cannot be arrested for refusing to allow a bailiff into your home.

 

If a bailiff does gain peaceful entry to my house what will they do?

Once gaining entry to your home, a bailiff will usually try to find and seize any goods of value belonging to the person who owes the debt or who is named on the warrant.

Once in the house the bailiff has the right to go into all rooms and can break open any locked door or cupboard inside your house. If the bailiff gains peaceful entry s/he has the right to call again and enter even without your permission, i.e. s/he can break in and remove your goods.

Any attempt to remove a bailiff from your property once they have gained peaceful entry is assault and you could be taken to court for it.

Once in the house, a bailiff will attempt to seize your goods in order to sell them off at public auction to raise money to pay the debt that you owe. The bailiff will make clear an intention to seize various items, either verbally, or by attaching a mark to them, or by touching them. This is sometimes called levying distress or distraining upon goods.

Once the bailiff has seized goods, they have a number of options. They can either remove items they have seized immediately from the property to be stored and eventually sold at public auction. Alternatively, they can leave someone on the premises to guard the items that have been seized or, in the case of bailiffs collecting rent, secure items that have been seized in your home. These last two options are very rarely used.

The most likely outcome is that the bailiff will ask you to sign a 'walking possession agreement'.

 

Debt Basics - Bailiff Guide

 

just some information off the internet

[Guest The Terminator]

Bailiffs do not, in the main, interact with debt collection agencies. We have no protocol and no authority to pass information to DCAs. In attempting to locate an absconded debtor we may use credit reference agencies (equifax) etc, as the courts themselves do but get better access and information, via the courts, from DWP, DVLA etc.

 

As proved today on another thread DCA'S are not acting illigamatly so who is to say that the whole balliff industry isn't either.

[TideTurner]

Oe n what thread? DCA's have the same rights as you or I

[Guest The Terminator]

Tideturner: Look at the post concerning Mercers.Look what me and FC have brought up then you will get the answer.