Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[Peterbard]

Thanks Elsinore

 

I have been promised a full transcript of the discusion and will post it together with a list of contributers and members who attended.

This may be the make or break for the ammendments so it is essential that we get the e-mails to all the piers who might be against adopting it. Unfortunately it just takes one vote against to defeat the bill and that would mean it would be withdrawn.

 

Peter

Moved to new thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/61524-we-can-make-difference.html#post519324

Peter

[JonCris]

sent as follows

 

Dear Sir

 

I am appalled by the bill now passing through Parliament which will not only trample on the rights of the private citizens to enjoy the privacy of their homes by allowing debt collectors to force entry & invite other non-qualified non-vetted staff into peoples homes. One more hard won ancient right removed

 

I could go through this bill blow by blow picking it apart but where to start. However I can demonstrate the lunacy of this bill by drawing your particular attention to the part that allows debt collectors to remove not only goods but also family pets.

 

This is disgraceful I hope you will agree and makes me wonder has this government gone mad. The debt collectors many of whom, as we have recently witnessed on TV have very unsavoury and deserved bad reputations will be able to blackmail debtors into paying up no matter what their circumstances or ability to pay.

 

Therefore I plead that you somehow force this government to exercise some restraint in their assault on our civil liberties of the weak and the improverished

 

Regards

[tamadus]

Email sent Peter and I'll also email Lord Bradford tomorrow and ask his oposition on this one.

[Peterbard]

Here is a copyuof my letter.

Many thanks to those who contributed and it's fingers crossed for Wednesday

 

Dear

 

Re: The Tribunals Coutts and Enforcement Bill.

 

As a long time member of my local credit Union holding the positions of Chair, development worker and loan officer and working alongside other voluntary organisation in the Greater Manchester area. I have worked for half my adult life within the poorer sections of the community.

 

My experience has made me aware of the fear that Bailiffs engender to the less able members of our society. Unfortunately from experience I have found that the old infirmed or disabled are the ones who are usually targeted by Private Bailiffs as they are easy pickings and moist easily intimidated.

 

Unfortunately people usually call us for help to late the bailiff has been and removed goods and they are on the brink of despair.

 

Perhaps if I give you an instance of what happened to me and is happening to thousands of people every day.

 

We were called by a member whose friend had just been visited by the bailiffs and was in some distress. A colleague and I arrived latter that afternoon to find the woman, a young girl in her early thirties sat in a bare room except for a table and two chars, and she had gone past crying and was sat in a state of shock.

 

What had happened was the husband had incurred a great deal of debt on credit cards which he had applied for in joint names he had subsequently left the household leaving the wife with two children behind.

 

The woman was poorly educated and to a large extent had buried her head in the sand about the debts; since the finance companies could not trace the husband they had turned their attention on her.

 

They eventually obtained a warrant and sent the bailiffs in. Initially the bailiffs persuaded the woman that they had to be let in or else they would call the Police and a locksmith (this is the usual first piece of intimidation that is used), if hey don’t gain entry straight a way they sit in front of the house as if waiting for the police.

Of course we know that this intimidation is totally illegal but unfortunately the woman does not so she lets them in and signs an order on her goods also giving them all the money she had in the house.

Two weeks later they were back the pushed their way in and took most of her furniture TV and other goods.

So there she was waiting for the children to come back from school with no money no furniture defeated.

 

This is by no means an isolated incident and illustrates the flagrant disregard the bailiffs have for the law or their own guidelines.

 

In a reply from Harriet Harman to a letter sent on my behalf by my local MP she stated that the new bill will “prevent people from evading paying their debts by simply closing the door.”

With all respect this illustrates a basic misunderstanding of debt as it applies to the poorer in the community. The people I deal with every day do not have fancy cars or large screen TV’s usually they are at the end of their tether just trying to pay the bills and if they do (god forbid) want a holiday or some clothes for the kids then it’s the local loan shark they turn to offering interest rates of up to 350%.

 

They way out of debt and for the creditors to obtain payment is the same as it as always been. The first thing is to acknowledge that no-one wants to be in debt and in fact there fore the Grace of God go I. The next is to sit down and examine the financial situating contact the creditors and make payment plans.

 

The new bill empowers Enforcement Officers to use force to gain entry or restrain residents. Can we really condone legislation that will allow someone to legally assault someone in there own home?

 

What must be remembered is the debtor is usually at the end of their tether when these threats of violence are made and some consider that they have nothing to loose, the resultant situation does not bear thinking about. And all to gain access to a few sticks of furniture that at auction will not make enough even to cover the Bailiff fees.

 

I know the new legislation will contain stricter penalties against enforcement agents for breaking the codes of practice and these are welcomed. Unfortunately the record of any guidelines applying to bailiffs being enforced is very poor and most bailiffs do whatever they feel they can get away. I wish it were otherwise.

 

If we must have enforcement officers they should be there to advise and help people out of a difficult and time in their lives not to threaten and in many cases drive them deeper into debt.

 

This section of the act will be the final blow for a lot of people who are in debt and struggling everyday to survive it will remove their only place of safety and refuge, their home

 

I believe that there are many useful aspects to the proposed bill but the thinking behind the construction of section 12 is seriously flawed and it is for this reason that I would commend the Amendments Tabled by Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

 

Kind Regards

 

Peter F.Bardsley

[Number6]

Bugger!!!

 

I've been off the site for a while and missed this latest development.

 

Peter - what can I do tomorrow that will have a positive effect here? Please let me know urgently.

 

Thanks.

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

HI

I will PM you

 

Peter

[Number6]

Hansard snippet

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Yes very cagey not much contiversy there obviousley waiting for the outcome today.

 

Peter

[Number6]

Lords Debate from Wednesday 31st

 

HERE

 

Doesn't look too good on a first (very brief) scan.

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

No Six

See my posting on the other thread

 

peter

[Number6]

Sorry Peter - got so many threads and forums and jobs in my head at the moment....

 

Which other thread?

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

Hi no 6 We could do with some mod incorporating these i think this is going to be a long do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/61524-we-can-make-difference.html#post519324

[maybelline]

I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but I do want to restate my belief that siezure of goods in lieu of debts in the modern age is totally beyond the pale.

 

Why?

 

The bailiff system is an anachronism left over from the middle ages when goods and chattels = money. In other words a cow or a chair were worth exactly the same whether you exchanged them in barter for other goods or whether you sold them for cash. So, if someone owed a debt and refused to pay then it was probably fair enough to sieze goods to the same value as the debt.

 

This situation has not been current for at least 50 years. Goods today (unless it's antiques, or an original Renoir or a Lamborghini, etc) are next to worthless as a medium of barter. The average Joe's complete houseful of goods would probably fetch less than a grand at forced auction but probably cost 10 - 20 times that to buy.

 

It maybe wouldn't be quite so bad if the goods that were siezed were sold with some attempt to get a decent price for them, not sold to the lowest bidder, or to the bailifs uncle for peanuts. I've personally known cars worth thousands to be siezed and sold at auction for a few hundred quid.

 

The only media of exchange worth anything today (apart from the aforementioned antiques etc) are cash and labour.

 

The whole system is iniquitous and unfair and should be scrapped.

 

Yes I'm sure there are people that simply refuse to pay rather than can't pay but these are in the minority and probably make sure they have no goods worth siezing anyway - they are the clued up ones. It's the poor average guy that gets into financial difficulties that gets screwed by the bailiff system.

 

This is all well known information. Those that run the system, and the bailiffs themselves are well aware of the serious iniquities inherent in it which is why I think that a bailiff, any bailiff is the lowest of the low and I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. No-one with a conscience would ever be a bailiff, I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

 

Pete

Number 6, I agree with the points you make, agree with Peter and Terminator, it is a shame that bailiffs often do not realise that they are misguided and build a wall of legislative knowledge against any possibility of discovering what they are truly doing, I believe this is the sort of mental denial one has to engage in to make unpleasant acts possible.

 

the sad reality is that life is not perfect, the law is not perfect and things go wrong, you simply cannot just say, oh the law says this or its due process, if we do that then we are no more than automatons, no longer human.

 

also, relying on the moral highground is a dangerous place to be, how many moral crusades can you think of in the world today, very often, when someone continues on a course contrary to the evidence, it has been invested with some other part of ones life or experience and is just being acted out through their crusade.

[TideTurner]

What surprises me is that they continue to leave a paper trail - literally. If you look in the classifieds in any local rag, you'll find the same telephone number selling numerous goods. They change this number periodically, or may even use pay as you go. Not only are these traceable, but they have provided a record by date for them to be traced.

 

If you go into a house and there is something of real value, does that go to Mr Big who provides the work or do you keep this yourself?

 

You obviously haven't got a consciense, so wouldn't be welcome in my team. Mind you, you send in surveyors first on a possession, who assess the property and decide whether there is anything of any value. Do they take it first?

 

And can I have the stamp collection given to me by my Great Uncle please. I note you didn't put this against my arrears.

[maybelline]

problem with putting 'value' on things is that peoples possessions have other value, items left them from deceased family members that have sentimental value, the reality is that our possessions represent more than just money, they represent our sense of who we are, if this was not so we would not acknowledge how terrible people feel when their homes are burgled, often the family has to move to recover any sense of security. I am afraid for me, having bailifs come into your home and cataloge and remove items, is the same process.

[TideTurner]

I agree Maybelline, they broke in and changed my locks. Then denied me access. They then gave me ONE HOUR to remove all possessions from a three bedroomed house. The rest was sold, and I didn't have the chance to go into my attic or under the stairs. They got all my tools, most of my personals, all of my furniture and fittings, then sold my property to a local builder for a pittance who sold it same year for 3 times the price paid.

 

I'm well focused, right down to the house clearers who make a living out of others misery.

 

The bank have denied me invoices. I have obtained some of these elsewhere.

 

I will therefore force them to Court - to justify the bills and provide the names.

[maybelline]

how dreadful TT, the reality is, IMHO that bailiffs ARE all about punishment, the whole family is punished and the fallout and recovery goes on for some time with no assistance.

 

if a bailiff cannot gain entry then the debt should go back to the originator, and they, I believe, can take it to the next stage which is imprisonment which seems incredible and no one really wants to take it that far), but we have come a long way since we locked people up and criminalised them for debt?? (or so I thought) now we are criminalised for certain kinds of debt, however, some kind of means assessment would have to be put before the judge who would be able see if your inability to pay is out of genuine hardship. there are always alternatives to bailiffs and certainly NO NEED for bailiff to break locks and so on.

[maybelline]

The Distress for Rent Rules 1988

 

fitness to hold a certificate.

[maybelline]

the incompetent council that caused us so much distress last year has just said I am in arrears WHICH I AM NOT as paid on their own online payment scheme!!!!

 

THEY ARE SO INCOMPETENT THEY MAKE ME SO CROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bailiffchaser]

It really peas me off when i hear of council screwing up big time and its you the customer who has to bear the brunt of their focking up !!!

[maybelline]

me too! they never apologised for all the grief they caused me or acknowledged that they were heavy handed, the bailiff is their agent and they have to take responsibility. I have found my council totally deaf and dumb to the genuine worries of those suffering genuine hardship, they are a disgrace!

[Peterbard]

problem with putting 'value' on things is that peoples possessions have other value, items left them from deceased family members that have sentimental value, the reality is that our possessions represent more than just money, they represent our sense of who we are, if this was not so we would not acknowledge how terrible people feel when their homes are burgled, often the family has to move to recover any sense of security. I am afraid for me, having bailifs come into your home and cataloge and remove items, is the same process.

 

HI

I am sure that if we can get the message over in the commons with as much power as you have here we will stand a good chance of changing thngs

 

Kind regards

Peter

[maybelline]

very good luck with it:)

[Bailiffchaser]

Lets hope Somthing positive is done. !!!!!!

[Givuzagame]

Reading your comments and replies...

I don't think anyone is here is actually anti establishment as such?

(are they?)

Surely it is more a matter of logic and "common sense"

(perhaps thats a class statement?)

Quite simply

STOP PENALISING THE WORKING CLASSES

(and no matter what "class" you put yourself in, if you work for a living - you are "working class" and a tax payer.)

 

Obviously if people fail to pay their bills there should be penalty, but within reason rather than by dictatorship.

When people are hard up or having any financial difficulty and it's not just "the poor people" as sickness/redundancy and other matters prevail here Provision should be made. Not everyone is entitled to benefit from the state.

As long as a payment schedule of any small amount is being maintained then that should be acceptable in most circumstances. The amount should be a true reflection of what can be truly afforded at the time and not what is requested!

IVA is there, true, but will still take your equity eventually....despite government promise of reducing your debt by 75%. Now, maybe, but later you pay!

 

No debt can be paid when charges/penalties/fees etc are constantly added. This does not solve anything.

Look at the statistics for bankrupcy!

 

I agree that there should be no baliffs or parking attendants.

Not when they become a law unto themselves.

There should be tighter regulation on these people rather than brownie points for tickets issued, a bonus colour TV etc. Thats a joke! (well it would be funny if not true)

 

WHAT WE NEED IS:

1.A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO HELPING PEOPLE OUT OF DEBT

2.ASSISTANCE WHEN IN DEBT IF THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN

3.A SET OF STRICT REGULATIONS REGARDING DEBT COLLECTION, IN A LANGUAGE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AND EASILY ACCESSABLE

(your website is a good start for those of us with computers)

4. AN FREE INDEPENDANT ADJUDICATOR FOR WHEN THINGS GO WRONG

5. BETTER CONTROL OVER OUR FINANCES TO HELP AVOID THESE ISSUES

That means by the government stepping in and

a)Taking to task those companies who exploit the consumer by not allowing standing orders and other payment methods (again, dictatorial)

b)Making banks/finance companies reduce unfair excessive charges/penalties

c) Having cheaper charges/less finance available for 18 - 21's as getting into debt is far too easy for them and they don't have the knowhow to argue back.

d) BALIFFS ARE NOT THE ANSWER - HELP PEOPLE Don't oppress them.

 

OK. rant over, sorry guys/gals - this makes me sick.

How can anyone live with themselves after removing someones personal belongings is beyond comprehension. How do these guys sleep at night?