Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[Peterbard]

Jon

 

Yes a major Amendment has been presented to the grand commitee of the HL on the 19th of december which totally removes most of the outragous aspects of this bill. Lets hope it get through I have given a samlpe below but the complete document is on the HMO website. I Think I will start a new thread on this.

 

"24 (1) Nothing in this Act shall permit the entry by force to

a dwelling house by a civil enforcement agent where—

(a) the door is locked or secured against entry;

(b) a householder has indicated to a civil enforcement officer or

enforcement agent that such entry is refused; or

© where a dwelling is occupied or appears to be occupied by a

person or persons under 16 or by a person lacking the mental

capacity to understand

 

Regards Peter

[Number6]

Peter

 

Do you have a web link to the amendments?

 

Pete

[elsinore]

I think this is it Number 6.

 

Bills and Legislation - Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

This one relates too!

 

Bills and Legislation - Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill

 

Elsinore

[JonCris]

Hi peterbard

 

I do hope the HL succeed. The framers of this bill really must be terrible people being willing to inflict such distress & injustice on their fellow citizens

[Peterbard]

Gosh every one is so quick on here i have only just found the link I used

 

Bills and Legislation - Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill

 

Cheers

Peter

[Peterbard]

I do hope the HL succeed. The framers of this bill really must be terrible people being willing to inflict such distress & injustice on their fellow citizens

 

Hi Jon

 

Don't get me started,

 

I am awaiting a letter from my MP about exactly where the legislature is now in the system and the time adate of the next debate. I will keep you posted

 

Peter

 

.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Lord Lucas has done a great job, however I still hold concern.

 

Firstly again, it is not a regulatory body that will have teeth. As many people find, the OFT and many other regulatory bodies are not given teeth to see through the issues and problems that arise, merely there to advise and monitor and what we believe to some point, look to be a body of authority when in fact they have so few powers. I do hope this is given the powers it needs.

 

Under section 14 of the bill it is not very clear and again, the only concerns are that while a body of some sort is needed to regulate the industry properly, I hope each section becomes extremely clear and regulated about costs and charges as that is the main issue.

 

I would have hoped for an independent body. The ACEA and ESA are clearly not and the OFT struggles to make them compliant as many people presume that civil debts and bailiffs and collections and debt collectors are the same as Bailiffs who work for the courts and they are not.

 

Whatever happens, as long as it is an improvement, it is good. Just looking for holes that I hope are patched up before it is all final and making people aware that there are some and thats how the industry got as unruly as it is today.

 

There really are some great bailiffs out there, we speak to them daily that go out of their way to be understanding and empathetic and bailiff companies that have given us advice and help to understand the system, they are rather looking forward to the changes.

 

Yay it might mean retirement in a year or at least less mayhem!I hope so for all those that have been affected by a bad apple in the industry.....will look forward to Lord Lucas and the Lords back to debate the bill!

[Peterbard]

I Have just received the following Emil from the TBE by coincidence my MP3’s secretary rang me with the same information just prior to me receiving it.

 

Dear Mr Bardsley

 

The only amendments that were approved in Grand Committee were the government amendments. All other amendments were either withdrawn or not moved.

 

The next stage of the Bill, Report, is scheduled for 23 January.

 

 

 

**********

Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill Manager

Department for Constitutional Affairs

 

 

The sections of the Bill relating to bailiff powers were not moved and therefore were not approved in grand committee and will not appear in the amended bill presented in the report stage which gives a detailed review of the Bill as amended.

 

That is not to say that the amendments were withdrawn just that they were not pushed to a vote as just one vote against would have had that result. This way there will be another chance to present them before the third reading at the HL.

 

The chap from the TCE was extremely helpful and advised me of contacts where i could talk to people who drafted individual aspects of the bill . I will be corresponding with them shortly.

 

As mentioned the bill has reached the report stage it will then have a third reading at the lords before being presented to the Commons.

 

It then has to go through similar procedures and readings after any of which it can be referred back to the Lords this is apparently called ping-ponging

I questioned whether he thought there would be enough time in this sitting for the bill to be passed and he said that since the bill was produced in the lords there would be very little PPing between the houses and even though it had to go through all the stages in the LH it would be law before close of parliament this year.

 

Regards

Peter

[tevion]

i was at my sisters once when baliff called regarding unpaid fine. my bro in law told him it wasnt his debt. baliff wasnt interested and told my bro in law e was here to collect or remove goods etc. my bro in law told him to do one or else. baliff gave it the big un said what e could do and made threats. my bro in law was about to deck him but i got in first. baliff ran as i tried to [edited by moderator] stop him. done one in neighbours 4 a while in case old bill showed but they didnt.

[Scott1976]

Just outta interest if a balliff vists to claim goods can he take things that have been brought as presents for kids, for example 10 yrs and under even if brought by the parents whos goods the balliff is after. After all these things would be a gift.?

[brunny]

A bailiff would never remove goods that obviously belonged to a child.

[tevion]

Understood.

 

This is unreasonable.

 

Do you have any copies of letters written etc? If not, a subject access request to the council can work to view what documentation they have on file. This will verify that you have tried to deal with the matter and make appropriate payment. £10 is the cost though often the councils refund it.

 

The Bailiff Company will accept installments on the amount. We deal with this every day negotiating with bailiff companies to which, we have found the Bailiff companies are reasonable to start on a much lower amount that is reasonable and review in three months. This gives the opportunity to deal with the matter.

 

The first issue is to make an offer of payment so the Bailiff knows you are acting on the matter.

 

Secondly is to tackle the council so that the issue of the debt is highlighted to be theirs not yours and work to get the matter from the Bailiff back to the Council, to which we have had 4 councils this week that have done this on the basis of being wrong! Liability orders that were not in fact valid or mistakingly sought.

 

Firstly though, as said, phone the Bailiff Company immediately and explain the situation in that you are wanting to arrange payment to defuse the crisis of the Bailiff thinking you are avoiding dealing with the issue. It is important that they believe and know that responsability is not the disputed, the way the debt has crept up etc and managed is.

 

Till you make the call to the Bailiff Company they can still pursue and still charge for costs incurred!!

 

Hope this helps. Message me if you need further help or would like the Subject Access request.

 

Alison

 

 

 

 

 

how about tell the baliffs to do one they concil tax recovery charges are set by law and if they are trying to break it inform the council. i was informed that councils are legally liable for the actions of baliffs they employ. baliffs work on intimidation if they cant intimidate you they dont like it. pay the baliffs nothing take no notice of their threats and dont answer the door to them is the general advice given. they cant break in no matter what they say. sooner or latter the debt will be passed back to the council who will then try to sort it with you

[oz4725]

As an outsider looking into this long and at times heated debate! May i ask a question and make an opinion! When someone assumes the job title "Bailiff" why does it affect the brain into thinking that they are 8ft tall hard as nails and built like Garth, they're quite similar to Bouncers and Doorman i find in that respect? Being a soldier back in the early 90's as a young soldier we used to get bailiffs turning up at the camp gates all the time. Normally coz the lads hadnt paid council tax while doing 6 months in Bosnia or the Gulf but the council were always too thick to understand. When the said bailiffs used to turn up at camp i remember them using every crap line and bully boy tactic under the sun to try and gain entry to camp.Every time the gate gaurd would take great pleasure in politely telling them that they had no authority to cross into camp and to do one, with a gentle reminder about tresspassing on MOD Property and what Rules of Engagement were!! It was worth paying to see most of the time!! My advice to anyone out there having to deal with Bailiffs, Do not be intimidated by them, its all bravado, put them in a REAL enforcer type scenario like the lads in Iraq do everyday and the vast majority would have a brown trouser moment. The standard issue MAX and PADDY bomber jacket is only for there ego, look beyond it, and more than anything try and keep your cool and be really polite. We found they didnt like that coz they are meant to be big and tough and showing you how menacing they are!!! Law enforcers??? go and train enforcing the law in Baghdad then i might have some respect for the profession, see how far strongarm tactics get you in that environment, what you would learn is to treat others as you expect to be treat yourself. Yes i know the whole trade is not bad, but you all get tarred with the same brush, so self regulate and get rid of the bad eggs or are they whats needed to keep the "Image" going? It would have to be a very brave or stupid bailiff who turned up at my door and did not show the utmost respect for me, my family and my property. Never is there an excuse for not having common decency and manners, maybe some should remember that.

[JonCris]

oz as far as I'm concerned they ARE ALL bad.

 

Anyone who can get up on the morning & spend their day harassing the often sick & vunerable deserves not one jot of sympathy if their life goes wrong.

[oz4725]

Jon Cris

 

Was just being the diplomat mate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think my thoughts are laid out plainly enough!!!

 

(Spent 7 great years at Hamworthy Poole Dorset)

[JonCris]

No doubt you where but having dealt with these people & witnessed their bullyboy behaviour coupled with their lies & deceit I have absolutley no time for them. & if I come across one, even in a social setting, I let them know what I think of them without hesitation............much to the embarassment of the Missus bless her!

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Oz your post made me smile!

 

You have worded it well and my thoughts match yours precisely. Be nice to them, and don't let them get under your skin. You pay their wages yet they want it all on their terms, bah not!

 

The more and more people know their rights the better it will be as the Industry will be forced to change or everyone will keep their doors closed hide their cars and they will get nothing! Be nice as I was always taught and you get what you want, the bad apples need to look at that!

 

Oh to have seen a bailiff at the gates being told politely to "go away!", i think would be amusing as they have lots of tricks they will try at the door let alone a gate of the forces.

 

Money money money is this country and I for one see that the use of Bailiffs in this country is nothing short of creating a new money making venture at the publics cost. The Industry as I have found, is like a pack of children the way they behave and need to self regulate, but that would mean not as much money around for them which would be such a shame, but would give credability!

 

As I say...if I gave you an envelope and said, post this and you can have £13.20 but don't post it and I will give you £100.....would you post it?

 

If I gave you a piece of paper and said, put it in the letterbox of a house and you can earn £100 but don't put it in and you can have £500 would you put the piece of paper in the letterbox?

 

Your in a job that you are beyond question, backed by a company that will lie and cover for you every step of the way, your instructing body doesn't care so at what point will you post the letter or will you put that piece of paper through the door!

 

Welcome, to the world of private bailiffs.

[JonCris]

Watchdog How did court go

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Court was fine. It amazes me that JBW think they have any grounds and is only done to seriously bring our Company into question because they don't like what we do.

 

Course they won't...we challenge them!

 

So it is ongoing and will be months away yet. We are honest and credible and have nothing to hide and the most recent development of which I cannot go into, I assure you, it proves again how we were right and how manipulative the industry is! If you looked on our forum, no wonder we have been having problems.

 

It appears the Bailiff Industry have directly attempted to copy our Company and have used an email address which is the basis of all the hassles...couldn't believe it. The closer we get to the truth and pointing out the issues the more we come under fire. OH well, always knew it was going to be long hours and up against it.

 

Thanks for asking tho!

[TideTurner]

Watchdog, of course it is money orientated, right down to your parking tickets, especially the private enforcers. There seems to be a big club, which is now being uncovered.

 

Years ago, I asked the County Court Sheriff if I could and pay them in person. They declined. Shortly afterwards I got a visit from one of the bomber jacket boys.

 

All they left with was a message, and that was in 1994.

 

Oz, 100% correct. You must have experienced real problems before you can decide when it is necessary to throw your weight around. Respect.

 

Ignorance is no defence, and I note that these people tend to make statements and vigorously pursue the law pertaining to what they are entitled to do and ignore those parts of the law which offer any form of protection to the lay person.

 

Tide

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Yes the ever ongoing saga.

 

We are back to having the phones tapped and know I was followed into London the other day, so while it is not all JBW, we have upset some rather large companies.

 

We are talking an industry that is worth a lot and I mean a lot, of money. The four largest Bailiff Companies makes in excess, as just pure profit for its shareholders, in excess of £11 million pounds. They have more money for law suits than us, but when a contract in one borough like wandsworth is a contract worth over £660,000 you can see why we are not popular when they are challenged in any way for fees or behaviour and will do anything to keep us quiet and not raising the issues with the Councils.

 

Shame they don't fight as hard as supporting us like the public does as they may find if they look close enough, we are to put a new face on the industry with accountability!

 

Attacked at every level and at present the Councils won't listen as they want their revenue.....so we gain little support other than from the public who know like in these forums, the real stories of how it is and what goes on.

 

So karnevil, the battle goes on. Should see the paperwork!

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

We have a chance to make a difference here

 

I have been in touch with Lord Beufort of Whitley

 

Dear Sir

 

I wonder if you would bring me up to date on the progress of your excellent amendment to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Court and Enforcement Bill.

 

I understand this was presented to committee an the 19th of December.

 

I have been involved in various capacities both as Chair and paid development worker for Credit Unions operating in the poorer areas of greater Manchester as a result I have been frequently on the front line when dealing with debts and the means that are used to collect them. I am well aware of the shortcomings’ of the present bailiff system as a means of collecting money from people with little or no possessions to offer.

 

The measures in the current version of Schedule 12 are in our opinion not going to help this situation and will certainly not help people get out on the contrary they seem to us to be a further burden on the less well off in society removing even the basic right to security in their own home.

 

To this end I would like to support your amendments and would like, with your permission to present statements of that fact to the house.

 

If you consent we would greatly appreciate your advice as to the most effective method of proceeding.

 

Please feel free to contact me at anytime.

 

Peter F. Bardsley

 

his response was that he was merely the mouthpiece and the author of the amendments was Reverend Paul Nicholson and that I should contact him I emailed him and he rang me back within an hour.

 

It turns out that he writes all the speeches for Lord Baufort including the one quoted from Hansard and posted by The Watchdog.( http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....jacked-11.html ) and is the driving force behind getting the amendments through and onto the bill. The amendments are now scheduled to go to the reports stage on Wednesday 31st of January where they will be voted on.

He then emailed me a list of members of the upper house that he would like as many people as possible to email in order to let them know what the public feeling is both about the bill and particularity section 12 and to recommend his amendments. To This end I have drafted a personal reply which i will send but there are many more worthy and convincing posts on this site that i feel could help enormously. Below is the E-mail sent to me after our conversation.

 

Dear Peter,

 

I was very glad to hear that you are as worried as I am about the powers to forced entry and forcibly restrain debtors and are in support of the amendments to protect vulnerable people tabled by Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am sure the Credit Unions will the first to be picking up the pieces if there is no change of heart by the government.

 

It would be also great help if you would make your views known to the members we discussed who will be debating the amendments on Wednesday.

In our view no permission should be given in the law for bailiffs to resort to violence in private houses.

 

With good wishes,

 

Paul

 

As you can see there is a time element issue here. This is why I propose that anyone who wishes can send there e-mails to me so that i can forward them on. I have not received permission to use the facilities on this site in this regard so i will use one of my own e-mail addresses. [email protected]

Be assured that the participant will get full credit for his /her views.

As I have said there are some excellent posts on this site that demonstrate most peoples position far more eloquently than I could, please go through your postings and if you decide to forward them to me i shall then take that as permission to send them on to the individual lords who will be taking part in the debate in the hl on Wednesday.

 

 

Peter

[Bailiffchaser]

you mention jbw. what you are stating is nothing far from the truth. The various companies want to collect with out any challenges and when you take them to court they would rathar spend £4500 challenging a claim rathar than settling one for £4000. Its probably tax efficient that way no ?

[elsinore]

anyone who wishes can send there e-mails to me so that i can forward them on.

 

Email sent

 

Elsinore