Bailiff discussion ( moved from hijacked thread )

[Peterbard]

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate.

 

I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

[Peterbard]

You do it for the good of the state.

Where have i heard that before.

You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far.

I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't.

I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind.

Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

[Peterbard]

The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong.

 

I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could.

Peter

[Peterbard]

He!He!

 

By The way i got the same letter back from Hariet as you did .

Particullarily liked the bit about refusing to open their door. I thought that was what doors were for so you had the option who you wanted to grant access to your property or otherwise.

[Peterbard]

Sorry, what bit about doors?

 

Pete

 

Sorry nimber 6 there seems to be a paragraph extra in my response it is inserted after your red highlighted bit it goes;

 

"The aim of the Government propsoals relating to enforcement is to ensure that people who cand afford to pay their judgment debt are not able to avoid doing so by refusing to open their door when an enforcement agent (bailiff) visits."

It goes on about only using this as a last resort and ensuring complience with the Human rights act and then continues with the following paragraph as per yours.

 

If you like i will PM you a complete copy together with my reply.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

(under the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act).

I know the section you refer to exists but i cannot find it in the act could you help.

 

(Listen, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them!!!)

Do i sense a bit of conscience breaking through.

 

Seriously I think your imput in this thead has been invaluable and given many of us a clearer understanding of what we are up against .

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

No, sorry. I REALLY do not like this comment. It's insulting to me and others!

 

As someone sruggling along on dissablement benifit who is currently deciding whether to pay a parking fine issued because my blue badge was not totally visable or pay the gas bill. I know exactly where you are coming from

 

Peter

 

 

[Peterbard]

I'd like to know and it's not a stupid question but what is the difference between a bailiff and a debt collector.

 

I can think of a number of flippant answers to this most involving questioning parentage but I will resist.

 

A bailif tries to recover a debt after a court judjment has been issued.

and works to enforce a warrant issued by the court.

 

A debt collector generally can be the orriginal creditor or someome hired by them to recover the debt prior to going to court.

[Peterbard]

The major difference is that a debt collector has NO legal rights whereas a bailiff has.

Steady everyone has some legal rights;)

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

I don't know if this information is available already on here but i have found it most useful to quote bits of it to uppity debt collectors.

 

SECTION 40 OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-

· harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

· falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

· falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

· utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE

This includes:

· Contacting you too frequently

· Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt

· Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company

· Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford

· Making threatening gestures or statements

· Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money

· Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family

THOSE VISITING DEBTORS MUST NOT ACT IN AN UNCLEAR OR THREATENING MANNER

· Collectors should explain the reason for any visit and give you notice of the time and date they will call

· They shouldn’t visit if they know you are ill or vulnerable and if they find you are unwell or distressed they should leave

· They should not come in if you do not want them to and should leave when you ask them to

· They shouldn’t visit you at work or somewhere like a hospital

[Peterbard]

simply by closing the door

 

Is anyone else getting sick of hearing this used in such a dissmissive fashion i saw this statement in the letter i recieved from Ms Harmen and it made me cringe.

 

Yes simply shutting the door gives us the right to exclude whosoever we like,and so it should.

How many people in how many wars have faught and died to give us that right.

 

MY Door My House I decide who enters it

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

I have been away sick for a while and am just catching up I must admit that I for one will be sorry to lose the imput from bliffuk i did not agree with most of his opinions but i thought it gave a good insight into what i would call an honest bailifs minsdset and how he jusifies what he and his industry does.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

If you have warning signs up if you havent stick them up. then they are entering at their own risk. If no signs up they can enter and cause your dogs serious problems

 

This probably legally correct although imo i would resent having to put signs up in my own home in order to protect somone from entering who i didn't want to be there.

Again totally in my opinion I would let them know i did not want them on my premises and if they ignored my request I would hope hope the dogs gave them serious problems.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Bear in mind that after the comencement of the new bill later this year the bailifs will be able to impound pets and sell them to offset a debt,so they might be geared up to deal with animals by then.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Not joking Honest see The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill

The bill states that when enforcing against the goods of a debtor, enforcement agents will be entitled:

• to break into private dwellings under warrant;
  
• to use force against occupiers;
  
• to invite third parties on to premises; and

to seize money or goods found on premises, including pets

Many of us here are persueing these outragous pieces of legislation with the appropriate authorities as we speak

Peter

[Peterbard]

Yes i had an experiance with a county court bailif some years ago before i new anything about bailif law.

When i asked him in he refused and drank his cup of tea outside. We talked and with his advice i was able to srt everything out to both parties satisfaction.

It was some time later i realised why he didn't come in,unfortunately the private bailifs are a different matter and once even tried to confiscate my car.I let the get it onto the loader before I told them it belonged to motorbility,fortunately most of them arn't very bright.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

we need a revolutionary leader so who is the most revolting among us :grin:

__________________

Come in Number Six Your country needs you

[Peterbard]

Perhaps no.6 could team up With Terminator like Batman and Robin.

 

Hmm Which would be which.

 

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

I say we nominate one person and then have a vote.:grin:

 

Sound democratic thinking ,

 

I agree and nominate Number 6

 

Reasons

Excellent campaigning credentials

legally clued up

articulate

and most importantly,he is not on line at the moment so he can't refuse

 

Inascapable logic I think

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Just a thought but are bailiffs all subject to regular Criminal Record Checks?

 

The reason I ask is that i have just been reading an article where the local councills are starting to insist that CRB checks are done on their employees including councilors.

 

This came as a bit of a shock to me as I presumed that this would have been a requirement for any one working in the public sector especially those with access to our council taxes etc.

 

In the case of bailffs who are put in a position of power over what are sometimes vulnerable people i would have thoutht it would be a pre requisite that they had a enhanced CRB accreditation.

Any of the bailiffs on here help me out

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Just a thought but are bailiffs all subject to regular Criminal Record Checks?

 

I am going to push for an answer to this.

 

As the new law will give the right for them to enter your home it would be nice to knowthat you are not entertaing a convicted thief or worse.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Very sloppy of the bailiff to leave evidence of such a well used and totally illegal practice that they use to scare people who arn't aware of the law.

I would have used that card as evidence to take them to the cleaners.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Now am I correct in saying that they can only force their way into you home if it is with a valid court order.Then of course there is the HRA.

 

Currently Bailiffs can only enter your home without your consent if they are pursuing a criminal warrant issued by the Magistrates court or The Custom and Excise Dept in pursuit of gathering evidence of criminal proceedings. Recently they gained the right to force entry to recover fines imposed by the Magistrates court under warrant.

They also can force entry if they have a signed authority to a lien on goods provided by the householder on a previous visit.

Usually a visit of a bailiff with a warrant issued by the Magistrates court will be accompanied by a police Officer in order to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

This as far as i am aware is the situation at the moment but this all may change when the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill.

This bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords and its initial draft was introduced to the HL in June 2006.

 

I and others on this thread have been in touch with the Department of constitutional affairs raising our concerns on various aspects of the new legislature.

 

Our concerns centre on the apparent disregard for the individuals rights that have existed under common law for 800 years.

 

This law if passed will give Bailiffs (renamed enforcement officers) the right to us force to enter dwellings without the owners permission.

And threaten the owner with a custodial sentence if he should physically interfere.

Amongst other atrocities it will allow enforcement officers to enlist the help of unlicensed individuals to help enforce the warrant also it gives them the righ to enforce a warrant on a public highway which means that they can stop you in the street and use reasonable force to relieve you of your possessions.

 

In a reply i received from the Department of constitutional affairs they stated that this would." stop people from evading paying there debts by simply closing there door.

 

It seems that the right to peace and security in your own home is dependant on you remaining solvent.

 

What next Debtors Prison.

[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

[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