New Sticky...Bailiff Enforcement about being vulnerable

[brassnecked]

Only that as far as enforcment is concerned, the inability to speak or be understood only places a duty on the EA to provide adequate means of communication are in place, it is not a means of halting the enforcment.

It could only be delayed whilst translation etc is provided and the situation explained and an offer of payment made.

[Peterbard]

It could only be delayed whilst translation etc is provided and the situation explained and an offer of payment made.

 

Yes there is provision in the TCoG regulations for just that, there is even a sanction for the bailiff if he doesn't, he looses the enforcement fee.

[brassnecked]

Yes there is provision in the TCoG regulations for just that, there is even a sanction for the bailiff if he doesn't, he looses the enforcement fee.

So the TCoG Act protects the debtor in that circumstance, so why would an EA go in hard in a non English speaking situation other than he thinks he can, when his fees are at stake?

[Peterbard]

So the TCoG Act protects the debtor in that circumstance, so why would an EA go in hard in a non English speaking situation other than he thinks he can, when his fees are at stake?

 

Absolutely no idea BN

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Bailiff enforcement and vulnerable households.

 

Unfortunately, there are a number of internet sites that encourage people to send a letter to the enforcement agent to claim that they are from a vulnerable household in the mistaken belief that the enforcement agent will return the debt back to the council or court. These letters are mass produced and accordingly, have become popular on many of the Freeman on the Land/debt avoidance websites. Given the serious misrepresentation of the regulations in the letter, it is hardly surprising that the majority of enforcement companies do not take the letter seriously.

 

As if to prove the point a debtor on one of the dreadful 'bailiff' Facebook pages today posted the following letter that she had received from Jacobs Bailiffs:

 

Dear Madam,

 

I am in receipt of your emails.

 

Again you have obtained a standard email from a website which is incorrect. You (they) need to revisit the Regulations and the national standards.

 

Firstly, we haven’t got an ‘implied right’ of access, we have a ‘statutory right’ of access.

 

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 implemented on 6th April 2014. Paragraph 14(1) states ‘An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods". You cannot take away a right to enter given by Parliament.

 

There is no such thing as a ‘vulnerable’ household’ in the Regulations. Single parents are not defined as vulnerable and in fact the Regulations do not stop enforcement against vulnerable persons (not that it is actually accepted that you are vulnerable).

 

You have paid the debt due to the Council and deliberately ignored the statutory costs of Enforcement. You managed to pay £348.61 to the Council on 14th November 2015. You now need to pay £75 to ourselves.

 

We will no longer be responding to the emails below. You have chosen not to pay and we will as previously stated be proceeding to the Enforcement Stage if you do not pay as requested.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Director

 

Jacobs

[brassnecked]

"Firstly, we haven’t got an ‘implied right’ of access, we have a ‘statutory right’ of access."

 

Not if they are not permitted in or can't gain Peaceful Entry, jacobs imply they can get in whatever.

[Peterbard]

"Firstly, we haven’t got an ‘implied right’ of access, we have a ‘statutory right’ of access."

 

Not if they are not permitted in or can't gain Peaceful Entry, jacobs imply they can get in whatever.

 

They are talking about the general right to attend and make peaceful entry BN.

[outlawla]

....You have paid the debt due to the Council and deliberately ignored the statutory costs of Enforcement. You managed to pay £348.61 to the Council on 14th November 2015. You now need to pay £75 to ourselves...

 

The council obviously has no intention of parting with this presumably £75 compliance fee then?

[Peterbard]

The council obviously has no intention of parting with this presumably £75 compliance fee then?

 

The £75 would represent the "amount outstanding" as per section 50 of the tce regulations, this would be the balance required to complete the payment of the debt owed to the bailiff.

[Peterbard]

As I have said before this section of the act is not complicated, it is one of the easiest sections to understand, unless you wish to make it so.

[brassnecked]

They are talking about the general right to attend and make peaceful entry BN.

 

Yes they are DB, but people who don't know their rights would take that to mean th bailiffs have a right of entry end of so must be let in whatever.

[Peterbard]

Yes BN, but I dont think that the bailiff can be criticised for quoting the act as it is written

 

There are reasons why the act was drafted in this way, which is probably off topic on a thread about vulnerability so I will not bring it up here.

[Bailiff Advice]

As if to prove the point a debtor on one of the dreadful 'bailiff' Facebook pages today posted the following letter that she had received from Jacobs Bailiffs:

 

Dear Madam,

 

Again you have obtained a standard email from a website which is incorrect. You (they) need to revisit the Regulations and the national standards.

 

There is no such thing as a ‘vulnerable’ household’ in the Regulations.

]

 

In the first instance the debtor had followed instruction to send the 'vulnerable household' letter to the owner and Director of Jacobs.

 

The template letter that she sent was this one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454898-What-is-a-vulnerable-person-group&p=4817116&viewfull=1#post4817116

 

From her posts it would seem that she had also followed instruction to sent a Removal of Implied Right of Access Notice to Jacobs as well. It is well established that these notices are not taken seriously by any of the enforcement companies.

[outlawla]

The £75 would represent the "amount outstanding" as per section 50 of the tce regulations, this would be the balance required to complete the payment of the debt owed to the bailiff.

 

As I have said before this section of the act is not complicated, it is one of the easiest sections to understand, unless you wish to make it so.

 

The important point is that it suggests that bailiff fees are optional and that election to pay the fees is determined entirely on whether the debtor chooses to engage with the bailiff.

 

Provided a cautious approach is taken, i.e., the debtor categorically refuses to allow the bailiff into his home and it is communicated in writing to the council that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of his council tax liability (not bailiff charges) and the debtor made aware of the possibility of goods outside being taken control of whilst the debt is outstanding, it would be madness to lay out an additional £300+ on top of whatever council tax liability is outstanding (and court costs) just to pay indirectly.

[Peterbard]

This is off topic isn't it. But again the debt is under an enorcment power, so all the sum (the amount outstanding) is due to the EA. There is no facility for the LA to allocate the debt other than the one prescribed in section 13 of the regulations, again the debt is under an enforcment power.

[EWHC1362]

This is off topic isn't it. But again the debt is under an enorcment power, so all the sum (the amount outstanding) is due to the EA. There is no facility for the LA to allocate the debt other than the one prescribed in section 13 of the regulations, again the debt is under an enforcment power.

 

How many bailiff companies do you have shares in?

[Peterbard]

How many bailiff companies do you have shares in?

 

How many FMoTL forums do you post on ?

[Peterbard]

 

Providing a cautious approach is taken, i.e., the debtor categorically refuses to allow the bailiff into his home and it is communicated in writing to the council that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of his council tax liability (not bailiff charges) and the debtor made aware of the possibility of goods outside being taken control of whilst the debt is outstanding, it would be madness to lay out an additional £300+ on top of whatever council tax liability is outstanding (and court costs) just to pay indirectly.

 

I suppose I should address this drivel which is also from a template I have seen before.

 

Any sums paid to the LA or the EA will be deducted from the amount outstanding as per section 13 of the fees regulations. So if the amount outstanding is not paid in full the amount due under the order will be minus the compliance fee(as this will have been paid to the bailiff), the LO will not be settled.

This has happens time and time again on various forums, the debtor is advised to pay the LA direct and leave of the fees. The bailiff company hands the debt back. Six months later the debtor comes back saying, guess what, the bailiff is pursing the £75 on a new order.

[Bailiff Advice]

The important point is that it suggests that bailiff fees are optional and that election to pay the fees is determined entirely on whether the debtor chooses to engage with the bailiff.

 

Providing a cautious approach is taken, i.e., the debtor categorically refuses to allow the bailiff into his home and it is communicated in writing to the council that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of his council tax liability (not bailiff charges) and the debtor made aware of the possibility of goods outside being taken control of whilst the debt is outstanding, it would be madness to lay out an additional £300+ on top of whatever council tax liability is outstanding (and court costs) just to pay indirectly.

 

This thread has nothing at all to do with your endless pursuit of the subject of direct payments and should be reserved for a separate thread. I will start one for you.

[Peterbard]

Getting back to the ridiculous notion that households can be vulnerable in an enforcment context.

I saw it stated somewhere that because the term vulnerable household was used in the housing act and associated enactments and guidence it also applies to enforcment, of course this is tosh.

Enforcement apples to the debtor, as said no mention of vulnerable household anywhere in the TCE, nor should there be.

 

The letter above says. "I am a vulnerable household", now even if you knew nothing about any legislation this would strike any reasonably intelligent person as being wrong you would have thought. No mention of this in section 10 either of course, as also stated.

[Peterbard]

As if to prove the point a debtor on one of the dreadful 'bailiff' Facebook pages today posted the following letter that she had received from Jacobs Bailiffs:

 

Dear Madam,

 

I am in receipt of your emails.

 

Again you have obtained a standard email from a website which is incorrect. You (they) need to revisit the Regulations and the national standards.

 

Firstly, we haven’t got an ‘implied right’ of access, we have a ‘statutory right’ of access.

 

Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 implemented on 6th April 2014. Paragraph 14(1) states ‘An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods". You cannot take away a right to enter given by Parliament.

 

There is no such thing as a ‘vulnerable’ household’ in the Regulations. Single parents are not defined as vulnerable and in fact the Regulations do not stop enforcement against vulnerable persons (not that it is actually accepted that you are vulnerable).

 

You have paid the debt due to the Council and deliberately ignored the statutory costs of Enforcement. You managed to pay £348.61 to the Council on 14th November 2015. You now need to pay £75 to ourselves.

 

We will no longer be responding to the emails below. You have chosen not to pay and we will as previously stated be proceeding to the Enforcement Stage if you do not pay as requested.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Director

 

 

Jacobs

 

Re the highlighted sections.

 

I must comment also on the way that certain people with an axe to grind pick out selected sections of a statement which may be misinterpreted in order to support their strange idea.

 

The member here and people elsewhere pick up on the second highlighted paragraph to mean that the payment in question was due to the LA. whereas the paragraph merely tells the story of what occurred.

The previous paragraph says unambiguously that there is " no such thing as a vulnerable household" this is of course ignored.

 

There is a misconception(really a delusion) amongst these FMoTL websites that the ideas such as the paying to the creditor or the silly notices of denial of implied rights are something of an issue, they are sadly deluded.

Serous practitioners do not regard any of this nonsense worthy of intelligent debate, it is not worthy of debate.

 

It constantly surprises me that they take the time to bother explaining the situation for the benefit of the public.

They do so of course solely because these misguided individuals continue to push this nonsense via FOI questions and daft template letters, to the point that it is taking up valuable time and resources and for no other reason.

[outlawla]

This thread has nothing at all to do with your endless pursuit of the subject of direct payments and should be reserved for a separate thread. I will start one for you.

 

Start one then, but don't do it on my behalf.

 

I'm pretty sure you've threatened to do this before but not followed through with it because you know you are on to a loser.

 

I'm calling your bluff. Give us the evidence that people can rely on your advice that effectively states that choosing to enrich the enforcement industry is the only way round settling council tax liability one it has been outsourced to these opportunists crooks?

[Peterbard]

Start one then, but don't do it on my behalf.

 

I'm pretty sure you've threatened to do this before but not followed through with it because you know you are on to a loser.

 

I'm calling your bluff. Give us the evidence that people can rely on your advice that effectively states that choosing to enrich the enforcement industry is the only way round settling council tax liability one it has been outsourced to these opportunists crooks?

 

There have been countless threads addressing this, mostly closed down because of your and others failure to accept that your case is wrong. How many FOI requests have been sent and how many have agreed with your view, hundreds ? thousands and still no one wants to give you the answer you want, time to wake up and smell the proverbial.

 

I for one am tired of repeating the same old information just for the three or four of you, you didn't understand it 12 months ago and there is little prospect of you understanding it now, no one else anywhere has a problem with this, most are fed up trying to get you and your friends see the blindingly obvious.

[outlawla]

There have been countless threads addressing this, mostly closed down because of your and others failure to accept that your case is wrong. How many FOI requests have been sent and how many have agreed with your view, hundreds ? thousands and still no one wants to give you the answer you want, time to wake up and smell the proverbial.

 

I for one am tired of repeating the same old information just for the three or four of you, you didn't understand it 12 months ago and there is little prospect of you understanding it now, no one else anywhere has a problem with this, most are fed up trying to get you and your friends see the blindingly obvious.

 

Just to make it plain, I don't take you seriously, but for the sake of others taken in with your B.S. you never provide any evidence of your spurious claims. NEVER!

[Peterbard]

Just to make it plain, I don't take you seriously, but for the sake of others taken in with your B.S. you never provide any evidence of your spurious claims. NEVER!

 

and you do ?