New Sticky...Bailiff Enforcement about being vulnerable

[mikeymack2002]

I hope not but the EA does. This is clear and precise as far as I am concerned. No misunderstanding here....

[Peterbard]

No MM this is precise

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/regulation/10/made

 

 

Circumstances in which the enforcement agent may not take control of goods

10.—(1) The enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor where—

(a)the debtor is a child;

(b)a child or vulnerable person (whether more than one or a combination of both) is the only person present in the relevant or specified premises in which the goods are located; or

[mikeymack2002]

Ok so let's now confirm from you a guidance is worthless? A simple yes or no only!

[mikeymack2002]

Going by your post above DB if a debtor is at home AND is vulnerable AND has a single visitor they can talk through the door to enquire whom is calling.

 

If the EA announced that he is there to collect then from what I can see the is a clear and easy way out of not letting the EA in it is simple.

 

The debtor simply asks the visitor to leave and come back later. Then the only person present is the debtor whom is vulnerable. Which brings us full circle does the EA legally have the power to decide on whether or not a person is vulnerable...

[Peterbard]

Going by your post above DB if a debtor is at home AND is vulnerable AND has a single visitor they can talk through the door to enquire whom is calling.

 

If the EA announced that he is there to collect then from what I can see the is a clear and easy way out of not letting the EA in it is simple.

 

The debtor simply asks the visitor to leave and come back later. Then the only person present is the debtor whom is vulnerable. Which brings us full circle does the EA legally have the power to decide on whether or not a person is vulnerable...

 

Sorry MM, bit I co not have a clue what you are talking about, I will leave you to it

[mikeymack2002]

It was a simple question DB is the new guidance worthless? It is a simple yes or no here why is that complicated?

[Peterbard]

Give it a rest MM you are embarrassing yourself.

[mikeymack2002]

Any way you have openly proved you are very shallow and unable to have a civil discussion and hate it when something is plain and simple and you turn it to being complicated..

 

Vulnerabilities are complicated and complex until you understand this then please continue to post your personal attacks...

 

I for one am not embarrassed but open to learning and discussion are you?... TTFN

[Peterbard]

Ahem. Anywayyyy.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Mm, do you understand the difference between guidance and regulation?

Could you explain to me what the difference is please.

[mikeymack2002]

Since you are an enforcement agent why should I explain to you as you are fully trained! Like many times before the readings of Acts are open to interpretation by all and sundry, including me you and anyone else....

 

 

Back on topic please before the thread gets closed. All I did was post information that was concerning and on topic too. TTFN

[Peterbard]

. All I did was post information that was concerning and on topic too. TTFN

 

Yes indeed you did and it is very interesting, but it does not mean that we cannot comment on it. No one is expecting you to be personally responsible for its accuracy.

[mikeymack2002]

Well that's a good read then. But what does offend me is you saying what you did in post #82 there was no need for you to say this. It was not needed and uncalled for, this was wrong. But heyho lets move on.

 

 

By the way, off topic and tuff, happy xmas to all... Wishing you all a happy time and plenty of fun.....

[Peterbard]

I think that this thread has at least gone some way to dispel the notion that just stating," I am a a vulnerable person" removes the obligation to, A pay the debt and B to interact with the enforcment agent(even if through a third party)

 

Genuine vulnerability will be quite rare IMO,as most will have been picked up far earlier by the care system.

 

If it exists the enforcment officer may have to make arrangement to ensure that the vulnerable person is protected when enforcing. In severe cases it should be referred back so the authority of course.

 

As for the role of the EA in detecting vulnerability, frankly i do not buy a lot of the arguments put forward. For instance the thought of the debtor standing on the doorstep arguing that he is vulnerable is absurd.

 

Equally so the idea that the medically venerable person has no means at hand to prove their condition.

 

I have even seen if put forward that the EA should be able to detect a previously undiagnosed condition, this defies all logic.

[outlawla]

I think that this thread has at least gone some way to dispel the notion that just stating," I am a a vulnerable person" removes the obligation to, A pay the debt and B to interact with the enforcment agent(even if through a third party)...

 

Is it a commonly held belief that being a vulnerable person removes the obligation to pay the debt ?

 

P.S. You don't have to be (or claim to be) a vulnerable person if you would rather not interact with the bailiff. You just don't.

[Peterbard]

Is it a commonly held belief that being a vulnerable person removes the obligation to pay the debt?

 

P.S. You don't have to be (or claim to be) a vulnerable person if you would rather not interact with the bailiff. You just don't.

 

commonly held by who ? Please tell me I need to know, because someone owes me a lot of money.

 

Not having to interact with a EA is also bowlex, you have to interact, even if it only to say you are not speaking to him.

[outlawla]

commonly held by who ? Please tell me I need to know, because someone owes me a lot of money.

 

Not having to interact with a EA is also bowlex, you have to interact, even if it only to say you are not speaking to him.

 

Put your glasses on and engage the proverbial before posting.

[mikeymack2002]

To save myself more embarrassment I thought I would ASK what people think of this before asking detailed questions for this you will need to read from the link which is here> >> http://www.lgo.org.uk/downloads/CO%20Benefits%20and%20tax/2015-2016/2193-13-019-267-Bury-MBC-22-July-2015.pdf

 

 

A good point of argument is on page 5 bullet 2 see below

 

 

the bailiff should at all times use his professional judgement to refer back to the

Council if he considers that, due to the personal circumstances of the debtor, it would

be inappropriate to proceed to levy distress. In particular, cases such as: […] is

unemployed and provides proof that they are in receipt of Income Support or Job

Seekers Allowance or Pension Credit from the DWP and details are obtained of the

debtors N.I. number. (point 14)(emphasis as per original)

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

[Peterbard]

How odd, I was just reading this.

 

I think the section refers to the debtors ability to pay rather than vulnerability MM, the old , cant get blood out of a stone syndrome.

Being unable to pay or even being poor is not vulnerably in enforcment terms, would that it were.

[mikeymack2002]

Well DB I have read it for a 3rd time and can see so many arguments good and bad. Like turning off the camera and the like. This may be relevant and that the parts contained there in are of use for the vulnerable debtor and therefor should be made available for all to read....

 

 

This is why there is currently this discussion on vulnerability. It has to be said that all those concerned i.e. the creditor/debtor/EA really need to find a way around this current issue. Failure to do so could see even more cases like the one in my link....

 

 

Its not so black and white is it? More like many shades of grey! We can only assume what led to this complaint but for me the outcome of it is pretty damning for the EA and LA. Lessons learned I hope?...

[mikeymack2002]

The vulnerability was the debtor was actually homeless and was 'staying' at D's home. The full read up can be found here http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/13508384.Bury_Council_rebuked_after__quot_aggressive_bailiff_threatening_to_take_uninvolved_man_s_property/

[Peterbard]

Not sure what you were reading mm but the article you link to was in reference to third party goods and EAs behaviour.

 

have fun.

[Peterbard]

Put your glasses on and engage the proverbial before posting.

 

Yes , sorry mate, got hold of the wrong end of the stick .

[citizenB]

Why is it that the question of vulnerability is only raised at the point of the bailiff visit ?

[Peterbard]

Why is it that the question of vulnerability is only raised at the point of the bailiff visit ?

 

I dont think it is CB. I have no figures but I would imagine that most genuine cases are picked up by the care services or the authority.

 

The genuine ones that slip through, represent only a small percentage of those the EA has to deal with, the majority following advice on the internet in order to avoid payment.

 

The more the bailiff sees of these, the less likely he is to believe genuine cases.

 

Human nature.