Rogue Bailiffs

[wonkeydonkey]

https://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events/GA28-PPE

 

BA would you know if anything of interest resulted from the above conference?

 

More haste less speed......I meant to post this in the discussion forum, perhaps a moderator would be kind enough to move it over for me?

 

Thanks WD

[silverfox1961]

Thread moved.

 

The one name popped out and my thinking is 'How the hell did he get on the panel'

[Bailiff Advice]

Thread moved.

 

The one name popped out and my thinking is 'How the hell did he get on the panel'

 

That person did not attend.

 

The Conference was extremely interesting (not least because only half a dozen people attended).

 

About 5 minutes ago I received a copy of John Kruse's latest Newsletter and he has written a report about the Conference. As soon as I have finished reading his comment I will update the thread.

[wonkeydonkey]

Thread moved.

 

The one name popped out and my thinking is 'How the hell did he get on the panel'

 

Someone trying to inflate their ego? or just plain lying as usual ...Director of a non existent company, what a joke he is, almost on par to his claims of being a 'lawyer'

[Bailiff Advice]

https://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events/GA28-PPE

 

BA would you know if anything of interest resulted from the above conference?

 

In the first instance, the reference to Bailiff Advice as being one of the Speakers is nothing to do with me or my website. Despite the alarming similarity to my own site name, they are an entirely separate organisation.

 

In the same way as last year, I was invited to attend in December but for reasons that I will explain shortly, I declined (for the 2nd year running I hasten to add).

 

Only three speakers were on the Panel: (Mr Powell, Ms Stabler and Ms Beech) and two of them spoke only twice !!

 

Mr Kruse commented in his Newsletter that one of the speakers referred to the current review (the 'One Year' review) and inaccurately stated that the Ministry of Justice has concluded that:

There's a pattern of agents consistently not accepting payment offers:

 

Threats and intimidation of debtors apparently continue to be reported

 

Inappropiate and disproportinate fees are still being charged

 

Inappropriate takings into control still occur

 

Entry rights are still abused

 

Vulnerability is ignored.

In fact, the speaker was not correct. The Ministry of Justice have not made any conclusions. The report that the speaker was referring to was compiled by the Citizens Advice Bureau late last year!!

[Peterbard]

In the first instance, the reference to Bailiff Advice as being one of the Speakers is nothing to do with me or my website. Despite the alarming similarity to my own site name, they are an entirely separate organisation.

 

In the same way as last year, I was invited to attend in December but for reasons that I will explain shortly, I declined (for the 2nd year running I hasten to add).

 

Only three speakers were on the Panel: (Mr Powell, Ms Stabler and Ms Beech) and two of them spoke only twice !!

 

Mr Kruse commented in his Newsletter that one of the speakers referred to the current review (the 'One Year' review) and inaccurately stated that the Ministry of Justice has concluded that:

There's a pattern of agents consistently not accepting payment offers:

 

Threats and intimidation of debtors apparently continue to be reported

 

Inappropiate and disproportinate fees are still being charged

 

Inappropriate takings into control still occur

 

Entry rights are still abused

 

Vulnerability is ignored.

In fact, the speaker was not correct. The Ministry of Justice have not made any conclusions. The report that the speaker was referring to was compiled by the Citizens Advice Bureau late last year!!

 

Wonder why so many pulled out ?

[Peterbard]

Someone trying to inflate their ego? or just plain lying as usual ...Director of a non existent company, what a joke he is, almost on par to his claims of being a 'lawyer'

 

Lawyer, deep sea pearl diver. commercial jet pilot, bailiff expert. Hard to chose which is the more unlikely.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thread moved.

 

The one name popped out and my thinking is 'How the hell did he get on the panel'

 

I will discuss the important matter of the agenda later but in answer to your above comment, the individual who you are referring to had been invited as a speaker to the same event last year. His invitation was made the day before the event. His attendance was only known when he posted details on the internet about questions that he had supposedly 'fielded' from the delegates in attendance.

 

It would seem that what he posted was not a true reflection of the events that day and led to formal complaints being made by some delegates. Because of staff changes, the organisers /researches were only aware of the previous complaints in late January. Nothing further needs to be said on the subject.

[wonkeydonkey]

Lawyer, deep sea pearl diver. commercial jet pilot, bailiff expert. Hard to chose which is the more unlikely.

 

Ah but, claims to being a stipendiary magistrate, paralegal and a law firm must come top of the list along with being resident in France, Dubai and of course his West London home complete with electronic gates and resident housekeeper, strangely enough there is little mention to reality..... in that he lives in a semi in Crawley.

[wonkeydonkey]

Wonder why so many pulled out ?

 

It's not hard to work out why the conference was so poorly attended given the agenda was geared to discussion of events that have not as yet reached a conclusion. £300+ is a lot of money for a ticket to hear nothing of advantage....mind you if 'he' had attended he could have been listed as the entertainment..... a Pinocchio tribute act springs to mind.

[mikeymack2002]

In the first instance, the reference to Bailiff Advice as being one of the Speakers is nothing to do with me or my website. Despite the alarming similarity to my own site name, they are an entirely separate organisation.

 

In the same way as last year, I was invited to attend in December but for reasons that I will explain shortly, I declined (for the 2nd year running I hasten to add).

 

Only three speakers were on the Panel: (Mr Powell, Ms Stabler and Ms Beech) and two of them spoke only twice !!

 

Mr Kruse commented in his Newsletter that one of the speakers referred to the current review (the 'One Year' review) and inaccurately stated that the Ministry of Justice has concluded that:

There's a pattern of agents consistently not accepting payment offers:

 

Threats and intimidation of debtors apparently continue to be reported

 

Inappropiate and disproportinate fees are still being charged

 

Inappropriate takings into control still occur

 

Entry rights are still abused

 

Vulnerability is ignored.

In fact, the speaker was not correct. The Ministry of Justice have not made any conclusions. The report that the speaker was referring to was compiled by the Citizens Advice Bureau late last year!!

 

 

Nothing new here then. Same ol' same ol' Looks like the organiser was again the only one to get anything from this conference...

[Peterbard]

It's not hard to work out why the conference was so poorly attended given the agenda was geared to discussion of events that have not as yet reached a conclusion. £300+ is a lot of money for a ticket to hear nothing of advantage....mind you if 'he' had attended he could have been listed as the entertainment..... a Pinocchio tribute act springs to mind.

 

I was wondering if the reason that so many pulled out was because of the misunderstanding regarding who was speaking.........

[Bailiff Advice]

It's not hard to work out why the conference was so poorly attended given the agenda was geared to discussion of events that have not as yet reached a conclusion. £300+ is a lot of money for a ticket to hear nothing of advantage.

 

At this present time, there was nothing of substance that could be reported. The Ministry of Justice have not as yet reported back on the outcome of the 'One Year' review. Analysts are still reviewing the evidence provided to them. There is also the ongoing matter of the National Standards.

 

Most importantly, two very important Consultations have only just concluded which could affect bailiff enforcement and almost certainly, will affect debtors on a low income. These are the Consultations on the increase in court fees (which will affect N244 Applications etc) and the one regarding HMRC data sharing to enable local authorities to obtain employment details for debtors subject to a Liability Order. There is also a further Consultation that will significantly affect Magistrate Court fines.

 

Additionally, there are ongoing discussions regarding 'in house' bailiff enforcement and 'body worn cameras'. (both subjects are on the agenda for a one day Conference at the end of March).

 

Just taking the above into consideration, the recent Conference on 'Rouge Bailiffs' was very premature indeed.

[ploddertom]

 

Just taking the above into consideration, the recent Conference on 'Rouge Bailiffs' was very premature indeed.

 

 

I note much has been made of Rouge Bailiffs but wonder if the perfectionists really meant it when they said "depravation" whereas in actual fact it should have been "deprivation" - there being a big difference in the meaning.

[Peterbard]

I note much has been made of Rouge Bailiffs but wonder if the perfectionists really meant it when they said "depravation" whereas in actual fact it should have been "deprivation" - there being a big difference in the meaning.

 

Yes an indication of over reliance on the spell checker as both words would be ok as far as it was concerned.

These People get on my wick, dont have the skills to comment on the subject matter so they pick on the only thing they are capable of giving an opinion on, the spelling.

Even then they use a spell checker, pathetic.

[honeybee13]

Yes an indication of over reliance on the spell checker as both words would be ok as far as it was concerned.

These People get on my wick, dont have the skills to comment on the subject matter so they pick on the only thing they are capable of giving an opinion on, the spelling.

Even then they use a spell checker, pathetic.

 

A spell checker doesn't necessarily tell you if you have the right word though, does it? Just that you've spelled that particular word correctly.

 

HB

[Peterbard]

A spell checker doesn't necessarily tell you if you have the right word though, does it? Just that you've spelled that particular word correctly.

 

HB

 

Yes exactly my point and it is why the error pointed out by PT occurred.

[ploddertom]

Never mind a spell checker - the majority use Americanisms anyway - but many times a grammar checker wouldn't go amiss - worst complaints probably being "to & too" & "there, their & they're".

[Bailiff Advice]

I note much has been made of Rouge Bailiffs.

 

I only make two types of posts:

 

Accurate and reliable information without any spelling mistakes.

 

or:

 

Accurate and reliable information with spelling mistakes.

 

As long as the information remains accurate. That is all that matters.

[wonkeydonkey]

I only make two types of posts:

 

Accurate and reliable information without any spelling mistakes.

 

or:

 

Accurate and reliable information with spelling mistakes.

 

As long as the information remains accurate. That is all that matters.

 

Exactly BA......spelling errors that appear on another forum must be due to the faulty PHABLET he uses:lol:

[doggone it]

I only make two types of posts:

 

Accurate and reliable information without any spelling mistakes.

 

or:

 

Accurate and reliable information with spelling mistakes.

 

As long as the information remains accurate. That is all that matters.

 

I usually blame any I make on my dyslexic fingers.

[Bailiff Advice]

I usually blame any I make on my dyslexic fingers.

 

The problem that we all have is that up until around a month ago, it had been the case that any poster could edit or correct any mistakes in their posts for a period of 24 hours. Once that period had passed, any edits (or corrections) could only be made by the site team.

 

There was a serious computer glitch in January and the edit facility reverted back to it's initial setting whereby edits or correction may only be made within a strict period of just 10 minutes as outlined under item 3.3 of the Consumer Action terms and conditions (see below):

 

3.3 Please note that you may edit a post you have made (provided that your account is not subject to moderation or restriction) for a period of 10 minutes after posting - in order to allow for corrections on spelling etc, however you cannot edit a post after that time, or remove, rename, or edit a thread that you have started.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?9-Forum-rules.-Please-read-these-before-posting

[citizenB]

A spell checker doesn't necessarily tell you if you have the right word though, does it? Just that you've spelled that particular word correctly.

 

HB

 

 

[citizenB]

I note much has been made of Rouge Bailiffs but wonder if the perfectionists really meant it when they said "depravation" whereas in actual fact it should have been "deprivation" - there being a big difference in the meaning.

 

Red Bailiffs ??

[honeybee13]

I like the attachment in #23, CB.

 

HB