Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[blfuk1]

A fine cannot be "recovered" as it was never spent in the first place.

 

Pete

 

If splitting hairs is the best you can come back with I'm not sure why you bothered. Not like you Pete!

[blfuk1]

Obviously you don't want to answer the question which is perfectly straightforward.This leads me to beleive that you would go for option one which is hypocritical to your postings

 

You can obviously believe what you want but you cannot answer for me and consequently accuse me of being hypocritical!

[Number6]

If splitting hairs is the best you can come back with I'm not sure why you bothered. Not like you Pete!

 

Please don't be patronising.

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

A seperate issue altogether but the annual cost of the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq would cover all of the UK's bad debt three times over.

 

That assumes of course that the Government (which has spent this money wisely or otherwise in armed conflict) will instead pay off the individual debts of those currently indebted. Great, I'll get my cards out now, knowing that the Government will pay my bills for me from the money they save in warfare - not!

 

The amount of money wasted in mismanagement of and provision of non health related treatment by the NHS would again more than cover all of the UK bad debt provisions. Again, why should NHS savings be used to pay off the debts of individuals?

 

I could go on.

 

There are many other ways to "recover" monies that bailiffs collect on.... attachment of earnings, withdrawl of benefit, etc. Bailiffs are an anachronism. AoE is good but only if the debtor is working. Deduction from state benefits works but only to a point. Some people wouldn't get any benefits at all if their debts were dealt with this way.

 

To state that bailiffs are crucial to the UK economy is laughable and egotistical in the extreme. I don't think even Gordon Browns ego would be big enough to claim that.

 

Pete

 

The concept is not mine but that of civil servants.

[blfuk1]

Bailiff Uk, I do beg to differ and you can hold your opinions or state them here, to which people can read. You have every right to do so and state and quote the law and state and quote how you interpret it.

 

The difference is, that without our service like that of others such as the CAB no one would know their rights and you would be a law unto yourselves.

 

Bailiffs - your comment about how the country would be affected without you does make me laugh a little as without you, the consumer would be in less financial debt.

 

Oh Please!!!How did everyone survive before decriminalised parking and parking wardens that are like the Grinch!? There was a civilised system of fairness where you got a fine and there was a judge and you had a hearing and there was order. Now you are judged by a computer...that is like the show Little Britian...computer says..no.....

 

I challenge you to ask anyone that has received help from our service, while you quote facts and law and how it is, and put fear into them, that has not seen a more reasonable side of the system when we have dealt with them. Our only role is to factually, and I mean factually, to which again you will come back with the words misleading and I will correct you, a fair look at the system as it really is in the year 2000 and it is not half as rigid as you state.

 

You stated...

The role of debt advice agencies is to assist debtors in meeting their obligations in the most practical and least painful manner - not avoiding them.

 

How do you expect bailiffs to be agreeable and enter into arrangements with debtors more suitable to their terms when all you do is attack their very being?

 

We don't attack unless they do something wrong, I assure you many bailiffs know this and there are great companies out there.

 

We help and assist with people with organising payments and not avoiding their debts. We do not condone avoidance.

 

However, for every bailiff that is a rogue, thinks and behaves out of the law or guidelines, we will object to accordingly. Why shouldn't we have reasonableness.....what is fair to us...after all.....we are paying your wages!

 

Again you have avoided answering my statement....

 

So don't be fooled. The Bailiff Companies do in fact negotiate, why it is not in the interests of the Bailiff to negotiate as our office holds proof of, is that the Bailiff himself, remembering you are paying their wages, does not receive money till it is paid in full. No incentive to make agreements which is why we suggest at all times, phone the Bailiff office direct not the Bailiff.

 

And please note...................

 

I WILL NOT COME ON HERE AND ADVISE AS YOU DO. PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS TO WHICH YOU TRY USING LAW AND LEGISLATION TO UNDERMINE OR HAVE INTERPRETED IN YOUR HISTORIC WAY TO INTIMIDATE TO GAIN PAYMENT. BAILIFFS ARE NOT UNREASONABLE, YES THEY ARE NEEDED, HOWEVER COSTS NEED TO BE REASONABLE AND RESPONSABILITY FOR THEIR BEHAVIOUR BETTER MONITORED.

 

Interesting to note as you stated before....some spoil it for others...you are right...but look at your own industry..the public are not the enemy..they pay your wages remember, so we are the good guys! winks....

 

Alison

 

It would be easier to respond if you calmed down and focussed on one issue at a time - and certainly easier for folk to follow.

 

Stating 'you would be a law unto yourself' assumes that all bailiffs are rogues and the system cannot control them in any way at all. Rubbish!

 

There are, and have been for many years, a wide range of advice agencies (even a Federation which represents them) which have assisted people fairly successfully and long before the internet was even thought of. I really don't think that The Watchdog has now become the supreme champion of debtors or ever will, especially when its boss spends a great deal of time posting anti-bailiff messages all over the web.

 

To say that consumers would be better off without bailiffs existing is to speak without thinking. The only bailiffs involved with consumer debt are county court bailiffs and (on high values) High Court Enforcement Officers. We (bailiffs) only deal with taxes, fines and penalties. If they are left unpaid then how would that make anyone better off (aside from the debtor of course). The cost would instead be borne by everyone else in higher taxes - the 'consumer' as you put it would suffer!

 

On one hand you clearly support bailiffs (great companies out there) provided they do not breach regulations. I can't argue with that and never have done! Conversley, you imply that all bailiffs are rogues.

 

Funnily enough the bulk of work undertaken by bailiffs has been decided by 'judges' whereas, the rest (parking penalties) are decided by the laws of the land and subject to countless stages of appeal. You either support the law or you don't.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your call for me to answer your statement. If you would phrase it as a question, I will.

 

Finally, as this response is becomming as jumbled as your post, I do not post anything with a purpose to undermine or intimidate anyone. Quite the contrary. I post to give accurate information on issues which arise, although obviously I am also pressed for, and consequently express, opinion.

[blfuk1]

Please don't be patronising.

 

Pete

 

Fair enough. What would you call picking up on single word in terms of its context when it is clear enough what it means?

[Number6]

Some people wouldn't get any benefits at all if their debts were dealt with this way.

 

You've just confirmed by this that there are some that shouldn't be pursued because their incomes are too low.

 

Pete

[Number6]

Fair enough. What would you call picking up on single word in terms of its context when it is clear enough what it means?

 

Stating that a fine can be "recovered" is not clarity it is disingenuity. It implies that the "transgressor" has somehow spent the fine. I was clarifying that this is not in fact the case.

 

Pete

[Number6]

The concept is not mine but that of civil servants.

 

So you're quoting someone elses unsubstatiated opinion as fact then?

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

You've just confirmed by this that there are some that shouldn't be pursued because their incomes are too low.

 

Pete

 

That's not what I said at all. The level of income is not relevant to the seizure of goods. It may well be relevant when deciding what level of fine is imposed or how much council tax has to be paid but once a warrant is issued for non-payment of whatever that sum is, then the bailiff weighs up the value of goods not the level of income.

[blfuk1]

Stating that a fine can be "recovered" is not clarity it is disingenuity. It implies that the "transgressor" has somehow spent the fine. I was clarifying that this is not in fact the case.

 

Pete

 

Fair enough - not worth arguing over. I was wrong! Permit me to retract that part of the statement and insert 'collected' - in line with the 'COLLECTION of Fines Scheme.

[blfuk1]

So you're quoting someone elses unsubstatiated opinion as fact then?

 

Pete

 

Again, not worth arguing over. Either accept it or not. Not - clearly. It changes nothing.

[Number6]

Interesting how points become not worth arguing over when inaccuracies are pointed out.

 

Pete

[Number6]

Again, not worth arguing over. Either accept it or not. Not - clearly. It changes nothing.

 

That's a vacuous reply; of course it changes things. One of your points was that bailiffs are vital to the UK economy, you presented that as fact. Now it turns out that it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Pete

[blfuk1]

Interesting how points become not worth arguing over when inaccuracies are pointed out.

 

Pete

 

Oh come on! One was a figure of speech and the other an opinion. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm quite happy to debate issues with you Pete but not if they are irrelevant and you are just sniping for the sake of it.

[blfuk1]

That's a vacuous reply; of course it changes things. One of your points was that bailiffs are vital to the UK economy, you presented that as fact. Now it turns out that it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Pete

 

Even if I was able to provide you with a down to the penny figure of sums recovered, sorry - collected - by bailiffs which feed into the economy, we would still be arguing about what if this and what if that. It's an argument neither of us would be able to win. My comment was based on private conversations with Government economists. Like I said, take it or leave it. I chose to believe it, you choose not to. Fine. Let's agree to disagree......

[Number6]

Oh come on! One was a figure of speech and the other an opinion. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm quite happy to debate issues with you Pete but not if they are irrelevant and you are just sniping for the sake of it.

 

IMO precision is important. In a legal document a misplaced comma or an ill-chosen word can distort the meaning of an entire document. On here we deal with primarily legal issues so we should all endeavour to portray the correct meaning.

 

Pete

[Number6]

Even if I was able to provide you with a down to the penny figure of sums recovered, sorry - collected - by bailiffs which feed into the economy, we would still be arguing about what if this and what if that.

 

Of course we would.

 

Whomever was of the opinion that you portrayed displayed a fundamental misunderstanding. Any monies collected by bailiffs have an economically neutral effect at best because the act of confiscation removes that spending power from the individual and transfers it to the state, it merely deflects private spending into public spending which in itself tends to distort the entire economy into a depressive state as public spending tends to be less supportive of general wealth creation than private spending.

 

So at best the effects of the activities of bailiffs on the general economy are economically neutral and at worst are economically negative.

 

Pete

[Guest The Terminator]

You can obviously believe what you want but you cannot answer for me and consequently accuse me of being hypocritical!

 

But thats the whole point blfuk1 you are a hypocrite and obviously you don't like the truth.You stated that you would never get into the position of a baliff coming to your door so what are you a prophet.It is obvious that you are trying to justify your position and most proberly enjoy putting other members down.I note that you haven't answered the points made by Number 6, Watchdog and myself to name a few.A poster mentioned the HRA(1998) which should be your bible because it states what you can't do and if you read it there is one thing which crops up time and time again"public authority" I suggest you read it and post something constructive.

[blfuk1]

But thats the whole point blfuk1 you are a hypocrite and obviously you don't like the truth.You stated that you would never get into the position of a baliff coming to your door so what are you a prophet.It is obvious that you are trying to justify your position and most proberly enjoy putting other members down.I note that you haven't answered the points made by Number 6, Watchdog and myself to name a few.A poster mentioned the HRA(1998) which should be your bible because it states what you can't do and if you read it there is one thing which crops up time and time again"public authority" I suggest you read it and post something constructive.

 

OK. Now you're getting personal and whatever I state on this site with good intention is always put down by a handful like yourself and No. 6 and the saviour of all, The Watchdog. Apologies to those who have PM'd me with thanks for the private help and to those who have pressed the scales and posted even handed and fair comment. I really can't be bothered with it anymore.

 

Merry Christmas......

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Bailiff Uk I for one would be dissapointed if you departed and did not input to the site.

 

While I don't agree with some of your views, I have appreciated often the information you have placed on the site.

 

I am not a savour of any sort I like many other services just try to help those in trouble to take responsability in a way that encourages them to take control of their situation. By empowering people to know they have some rights, means that are encouraged in dealing with things.

 

The powers you hold I have never questioned. I will always try and fight for someones rights. It is 1am and I am only just leaving the office now after a day of battles. Not battles for Bailiffs like you that genuinly seem to be fair with your opinions at times, but the rogues that are Bailiffs and their Companies that do make your job much harder.

 

Keep posting...I would be lost without you! You have kicked me at times and had me searching for information for a debate with you. Sorely missed for your opinions if you choose to not post again. Now going home at last.

 

Merry Christmas Bailiff UK. Alison x

[niterider]

There are many other ways to "recover" monies that bailiffs collect on.... attachment of earnings, withdrawl of benefit, etc. Bailiffs are an anachronism.

 

I've been thinking of this solution all along, Pete! Surely it would be cheaper in the long run, and less bureaucratic! Well Done for bringing them to everyones attention!

 

nite:)

[Number6]

OK. Now you're getting personal and whatever I state on this site with good intention is always put down by a handful like yourself and No. 6 and the saviour of all, The Watchdog. Apologies to those who have PM'd me with thanks for the private help and to those who have pressed the scales and posted even handed and fair comment. I really can't be bothered with it anymore.

 

Merry Christmas......

 

This is simply surreal.

 

I have refrained from commenting but I do disagree with some of the more personal comments posted against you, BUT I resent the accusation that I am putting you down! All that I have ever done is to pick up on points that I find to be inaccurate or misleading and attempt to clarify them. It would appear that because you do not agree with my counter arguments that you then consider this to be "putting you down" in some personal way..??

 

Oh well.

 

Pete

[JonCris]

If nothing this thread has given an insight to the minds who enforce the collection of fines penalties etc. Without attacking anyone it's clear that most think they are at worst above the law or at least that they interperate the law to suit a purpose. Their purpose.

 

Yes there is some case law that supports the bailiffs in some respects but the bailiff industry has taken that law & misinterpreted it or even bent it to justify their conduct.

 

The fact that their conduct has been directed at the vunerable in our society has meant that they have got away with it for years.

 

Now the more educated the more articulate are fiinding themselves caught up in simular situations in what was once the preserve of the uneducated & poor. This has caused the DCA's be up against people who are no longer prepared to be pushed around & are fighting back & much like the banks they don't like it.

 

My advice to any bailiffs & DCA's is to ensure beyond all reasonable doubt that your activities are above reproach otherwise more & more of you may find yourselves being asked to explain yourselves in a court of law. Much because of the authorities failure to take on the banks it's only a matter of time before consumers start bringing civil cases against the DCA's

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You spoke what I thought JonCris.

 

Civil actions -11 we have in going into court in January 2007. People that we have encouraged to fight back at the system because of over charged fees and unreasonable demands.

 

None of them care if they win or lose, it is the point of making the stand that is the issue. You are right. Years ago it was the poor and vunerable that were their easy prey. Now it is Doctors and Policeman, teachers and Nurses, well to do people that find it outrageous.

 

A debt collector would have the same result. The Councils are greedy and using an old antiquated law that now more and more has society outraged at the damage of what it leaves behind when they are gone.

 

People that encounter a Bailiff, whether good or bad, so often tell us they feel violated and invaded, embarrassed and humiliated. Many did not even see it coming with the collection on parking fines let alone a bill that was overlooked.

 

I do miss Bailiff UK's input in many ways, as I could relate a little sometimes to what he had written as I spent a day out in training with a Bailiff to learn the other side. I did see people with contempt for the system but most did not realise the seriousness of what a Bailiff meant or their powers till you are at their door. I did feel somewhat powerfull for a day with a bullett proof vest on and the element of power that I felt I had with working alongside this Bailiff, as no matter what he said he was in control.

 

What I also saw, was the fear with people, when they realised how far something had gone, wanting to fix the problem immediatley but by then it was too late and they were the people I identified more with for what I do.

 

I took the vest off that day and debriefed with the Bailiff to which I was honest and said, for a day I felt empowered and that I could do their job! However, I would do it differently.

 

If I had my way, I would open my own Bailiff Company. I would employ only people that had had a Bailiff to their door and felt trapped and in a vulnerable position, as I am sure, that they would treat people the right way for collection, still getting a result, but leaving people with dignity and self respect and knowing that they were in control, not that they had just had what little they had left in self esteem or goods were taken.

 

Anyone want a job? laughs....

 

Bailiff UK is sorely missed from here I believe. As for all the values that were different, heated debates of interpretation of law, as that is what law is. A set of rules that are like elastic and can be pulled in different ways and stretches and is about logical arguement. I enjoy reading the posts for the logical arguement everyone has, to which many gather so much strength and information from.

 

Bailiffs will become a thing of the past. Debt Collectors or a half way point between the two will be found, or the outcry from the public and the accident waiting to happen where something will go, terribly wrong to hit the headlines, will be when it begins to change for good.

 

Bailiff UK, has made it clear that he owns a Bailiff Company. I am sure a good one as from his posts he does have a set of values, to which he feels he remedies it for all, with collection. It is the bad boys we have encountered the issue. Yes we as I had a bailiff for a parking fine that costs me £400! the fine was only £30. Council said they wrote letters, well I can tell you they didn't!!

 

So I don't know about you all, but I kind of miss Bailiff UK's input and logical arguements, as I genuinly learnt from him, as he is the key to us all learning rightly or wrongly what we think of his views. As it is those on the inside that share their knowledge, with respect we learn to fight back a little and find our own logic.

 

Sorely missed Bailiff UK. I do hope you return. Alison