The Arrogance of Bailiff Companies

[Fair-Parking]

The Arrogance of Bailiff Companies

 

 

 

We receive many letters from bailiff companies – the vast majority of them exposing two dimensional thought and objectives as their strange version of being ‘normal’. However one received last weekend from Collect Services is worthy of public comment as it perceptibly shows why bailiff companies have no idea how to conduct themselves either responsibly or courteously even when they asking for favours. It also shows why assistance and protection from bailiff companies’ aggressive behaviour is offered.

 

In the normal course of events a letter whose sole purpose is to ask another for cooperation would – at the very minimum – be expected to be courteous and perhaps grateful. Not this one. Addressed to ‘The Occupier’ - which indicates that Collect Services didn’t know to whom it was addressing, its first three words commenced its message with bold and capital enhanced DO NOT IGNORE.

 

The letter had taken just five words to establish itself as being wholly offensive and unlikely to create any empathy from the person it hoped would supply personal information about itself along with details of a named third party which Collect Services would find to be of great use to them.

 

The introduction commenced with ‘INFORMATION REQUIRED’ and not as most people would say in the circumstances, ‘Information Requested’. Other shortcomings in this letter included not identifying just exactly who Collect Services was or why it required any information, or bothering to make clear that it was just a private company with no legal authority or official certification attempting to make pecuniary gain for itself. Nor did it state why it felt it had the any right or authority to ask anything of a member of the public – let alone one it did not know.

 

It did stop there, having failed to put its request courteously, Collect Services went on to say that it had ‘been advised that this person/company are no longer at this address but to date no proof has been provided to confirm this’. In reality Collect Services had been advised on several occasions that far from ‘no longer’ being at this address the person concerned had never resided here, but as is the nature of bailiff companies, Collect Services chose to ignore this information and preferred to make unsustainable presumptions.

 

This ill-mannered epistle then went on to demand evidence be supplied concerning the current occupiers and used a threat of an enforcement agent visit to enhance its bloated misconceptions – even to the point of expecting a form to be completed and returned with a current tenancy agreement, council tax or utility bill.

 

If ever there was a lesson in how not to obtain cooperation from the public, this letter would be it – and as it was facsimile one can reasonably assume that Collect Services ignorantly send these letters out at regular intervals.

 

My response is very simple;- a heartfelt thank you to a company that has irrationally provided an opportunity to publicly expose its haughty and insolent arrogance without having to warn other potential recipients on how to deal with what is a blatant but ultimately useless threat.

 

Two days later Collect Services then added to its lengthening list of contemptuous methods when another member – completely unconnected with first letter, forwarded a copy of a threatening letter again written by Collect Services - which this time was threatening to force a collection of £512 for a PCN whereby any warrant that should have been issued but had not been, had expired several months ago.

 

A letter advising Collect Services of this and citing other reasons why the enforcement was unlawful had been sent in August, but as usual with less than savoury people whose first instinct is treat anybody who stands up to it with disdain, it was ignored - though not with any advantage to this bullying bailiff company or indeed any other which foolishly treads in this direction.

[citizenB]

Would you be able to complain to the Council who employs them ?

[Fair-Parking]

You would think so, but the reality is that local authorities don't give a damn. The first problem is that when anybody tries to contact the local authority's 'parking department' is that the inquiry is immediately diverted to the its undisclosed outsourced company which has offered its services to the authority on the basis of 'maximising their income' through parking enforcement

 

The local authority may never be made aware of the complaint.

[brassnecked]

You would think so, but the reality is that local authorities don't give a damn. The first problem is that when anybody tries to contact the local authority's 'parking department' is that the inquiry is immediately diverted to the its undisclosed outsourced company which has offered its services to the authority on the basis of 'maximising their income' through parking enforcement

 

The local authority may never be made aware of the complaint.

 

Unless a Formal Complaint hits the desk of the CEO and Elected Leader, of the issuing council and affected person's local member. Remember that the person being chased may not even have owned the vehicle when the PCN was issued, and may not even live in the same council area.

 

That letter needs to be tested for compliance with Human Rights and other transgressions.

 

Personally I would write back as Mr T.H.E Occupier stating the intended target does not and never has residd in the address, dso please foxtrot oscar and go phishing elsewhere.

[ploddertom]

Maybe the Councils should be reminded of http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2015/jul/councils-urged-ensure-complaints-about-contractors-handled-properly/ - the chances are few of them have even seen this.

[citizenB]

Perhaps print out a copy of that press release to send with any complaint, ploddertom.

[Fair-Parking]

Its rather a pity that the LGO doesn't follow its own advice. Perfectly legitimate complaints about bailiff behaviour when acting on behalf of local authorities are being batted back under the shallow LGO excuse that 'this should be resolved in a court'.

 

In other words - don't bother us

[lookinforinfo]

FP-I don't suppose a stamped adddressed envelope was enclosed?

[Fair-Parking]

That would have required an act of decency bailiff companies are not renowned for

[Coughdrop]

FP - I agree this is disgusting behaviour, but surely it doesn't surprise you?

 

There is no doubt a fair amount of back story to this issue to which we are not party?

 

PT - a good article. I've saved a copy of that - thank you.

[caledfwlch]

Send them a reply point out that tracing agencies charge X amount, therefore if they require your help, then they must contract you for that fee.

 

If they wish to engage your services, for £200 a go, all they need do is send another letter