New Sticky...Bailiff Enforcement about being vulnerable

[Peterbard]

[quote=mikeymack2002;4833830

 

 

Which brings right back to the main question has an EA the LEGAL right to diagnose a vulnerable person?

 

I will answer this again for you though, since it is relavant to this thread, and you can relay this back to your puppet masters.

 

Eas do not need to be able to diagnose anyone, their job is to collect the debt. This is what some people do not understand. When the debtor claims vulnerability or exemption or third party ownership. It is for them to prove their assertions, the bailiff is legally required to recover goods or the money owed that is all.

 

If you wish to take advantage of any of the protections and temporarily halt enforcment, you must show that they apply.

 

The bailiffs only duty in regards to vulnerability is that they are required to be able to recognise signs and indication and evaluate the proof presented, they do not have to investigate based on some claim or other. At this stage the requirement for providing proof rests with the debtor.

[mikeymack2002]

What do you mean by this? I will answer this again for you though, since it is relavant to this thread, and you can relay this back to your puppet masters.

 

Whom is my puppet master? Prey tell! Finally please use autocorrect as your spelling is wrong....

 

 

FYI I am a single minded person and able to make my own posts I do not need any assistance from 3rd parties unlike you....

 

 

Again your need to be spiteful shows how little you think of your fellow humans and proves just how nasty you really are....

[mikeymack2002]

Finally your observations are incorrect the proof goes to the LA as they are ultimately responsible if things go pear shaped.... The EA has NO legal right to sensitive medical information.

[silverfox1961]

If I say pretty please, will you two knock the bickering off?

 

It is far easier to agree to disagree.

[mikeymack2002]

silverfox1961

 

 

I am trying to let this poster know in the best way I can that what I have posted can be read as either way this is a huge problem with legislation. As far as enforcement goes the EA can take a debtors proof with a pinch of salt. A point in question is with NOMINAL training the EA cannot fully understand what the document/s actually mean. This is why I have stated that the proof should go to the LA.

 

 

The reason for my passion on this subject is because it COULD affect me, although at this time it does not. I would hate to see anyone misread my condition and act in an inappropriate manner as this could have dire consequences. I for one hope that the EA if attending took this in to account. I do live in the community but have little or no support. I have asked for this numerous times but always fall through the gaps. Is this my fault? No it just happens.

 

 

Many people are vulnerable and do need help. This help is not always forthcoming. These are the people that I want to see get the help that is needed. If it takes the views of an EA then at least someone has taken some notice. The EA could be what is needed to get help that someone needs. The law is clear but as we all know it is sometimes not right....

 

 

TBH I would hate to be an EA as their job in some situations must be very difficult.....

[Peterbard]

What do you mean by this? I will answer this again for you though, since it is relavant to this thread, and you can relay this back to your puppet masters.

 

Whom is my puppet master? Prey tell! Finally please use autocorrect as your spelling is wrong....

 

 

FYI I am a single minded person and able to make my own posts I do not need any assistance from 3rd parties unlike you....

 

 

Again your need to be spiteful shows how little you think of your fellow humans and proves just how nasty you really are....

 

MM i have no view on he character of my " fellow humans", in the main on here because I do not know them, however i do know about the issues. As for the spell checker, that , in this case was the source of the error.

That wasn't a spiteful remark was it, nah couldn't be.

[Peterbard]

Finally your observations are incorrect the proof goes to the LA as they are ultimately responsible if things go pear shaped.... The EA has NO legal right to sensitive medical information.

 

MM You failed to understand, the EA are not trying to prove the vulnerability of the debtor, it is the debtor who needs to disclose and prove his vulnerability.

The bailiff is quite happy not to see any proof, as he is then justified in enforcing if the debtor does not comply.

[Peterbard]

If I say pretty please, will you two knock the bickering off?

 

It is far easier to agree to disagree.

 

If you look back SF it was not I who started with the confrontational stuff, however i will ignore future posts, if you wish. It would be a shame however to see this thread go off topic like so many others.

Yes, in anticipation of your reply , i will leave that to the site team