Coventry City Council Bailiff Equita ( Off topic posts )

[wilko52]

Well let's return the swerve then.

 

Write to them and advise that no correspondence has been received. Whilst not legally obliged to send notice, the council really ought to be trying for an AOE before using enforcement agents. To do this, they would have to write in orders to ask for employment details. In addition, the national standards advise creditors that they should contact the debtor, warning of the consequences if payment is not forthcoming. Failure to do so is in breach of the NS.

 

Forget about all this nonsense about the costs in sending a letter, they are covered in the costs claimed in obtaining a LO

[Peterbard]

Well let's return the swerve then.

 

Write to them and advise that no correspondence has been received. Whilst not legally obliged to send notice, the council really ought to be trying for an AOE before using enforcement agents. To do this, they would have to write in orders to ask for employment details. In addition, the national standards advise creditors that they should contact the debtor, warning of the consequences if payment is not forthcoming. Failure to do so is in breach of the NS.

 

Forget about all this nonsense about the costs in sending a letter, they are covered in the costs claimed in obtaining a LO

 

No they are no such thing, they should consider, that is all it is entirely up to them which method of enforcement they take. In any case why is it considered a soft option , an AOE can be far worse than n agreed repayment schedule with the EA

[wilko52]

Actually, there are guidelines issued by Government bodies such as the CAB and DCLG that recommend AOE 's are considered before enforcement. This is because in many cases, enforcement simply places an added financial burden on someone who is already struggling with debt.

 

AOE 's are much preferable than enforcement. They do not add bailiff fees and the repayments are nearly always lower, without the constant worry of a bailiff visiting if you are late making a payment.

[Bailiff Advice]

Actually, there are guidelines issued by Government bodies such as the CAB and DCLG that recommend AOE 's are considered before enforcement. This is because in many cases, enforcement simply places an added financial burden on someone who is already struggling with debt.

 

AOE 's are much preferable than enforcement. They do not add bailiff fees and the repayments are nearly always lower, without the constant worry of a bailiff visiting if you are late making a payment.

 

Blimey, you have picked up a lot of knowledge since first posting on here. Always very welcome though.

[Peterbard]

Yes i know , I think wiko is getting a bit "giddy" lol,

 

The debtor is supposed to complain that the LA is not considering a guideline, that will have him shaking in his boots.

[wilko52]

Plus of course that the NS have not been adhered to.

 

Remind us all again of your advice to the debtor

[Peterbard]

Plus of course that the NS have not been adhered to.

 

Remind us all again of your advice to the debtor

 

Are you in debt mark, anything i can do to help ?

[wilko52]

You Could really help by posting something constructive for the benefit of the OP. Failing that, you could take your petty squabbles elsewhere-that would also be helpful.

 

There is a certain obligation for councils to follow guidelines. If no notification or request for information has been received, then this is a clear breach and the OP is entitled to question this. He/she may not want an AOE but the correct correspondence would at least have alerted him/her to the arrears.

 

Then there is the question of the NS breach. This is more serious because not only is the guidance issued by the MOJ but councils require their agents to work under this guidance. It naturally follows that they should do the same.

 

I Think a formal letter in the first instance would be appropriate. A request to suspend enforcement whilst the letter is being considered should be added. If the OP is not happy with the response, then a formal complaint should be considered

[wonkeydonkey]

You Could really help by posting something constructive for the benefit of the OP. Failing that, you could take your petty squabbles elsewhere-that would also be helpful.

 

There is a certain obligation for councils to follow guidelines. If no notification or request for information has been received, then this is a clear breach and the OP is entitled to question this. He/she may not want an AOE but the correct correspondence would at least have alerted him/her to the arrears.

 

Then there is the question of the NS breach. This is more serious because not only is the guidance issued by the MOJ but councils require their agents to work under this guidance. It naturally follows that they should do the same.

 

I Think a formal letter in the first instance would be appropriate. A request to suspend enforcement whilst the letter is being considered should be added. If the OP is not happy with the response, then a formal complaint should be considered

 

Being that you are the OP and appear more than capable of answering your own questions, why would anyone want to waste their time advising you?

[Peterbard]

You Could really help by posting something constructive for the benefit of the OP. Failing that, you could take your petty squabbles elsewhere-that would also be helpful.

 

There is a certain obligation for councils to follow guidelines. If no notification or request for information has been received, then this is a clear breach and the OP is entitled to question this. He/she may not want an AOE but the correct correspondence would at least have alerted him/her to the arrears.

 

Then there is the question of the NS breach. This is more serious because not only is the guidance issued by the MOJ but councils require their agents to work under this guidance. It naturally follows that they should do the same.

 

I Think a formal letter in the first instance would be appropriate. A request to suspend enforcement whilst the letter is being considered should be added. If the OP is not happy with the response, then a formal complaint should be considered

There is an obligation to consider guidelines there is no obligation to follow them , it depends on the individual case.

 

Just refresh my memory about which NS standard you are referring to. INcidentally you cannot "breach" guideline it is not legislation. I am sorry mark you mean like the posts you have been making from the cesspit, someone else come back today with another huge fee because of your advice i see how many is that , lost count ?

 

You seem very keen on sending formal letter all over the place, when has it ever done any good, it is the debt that needs addressing in most cases, of course you FMoTL do not like this idea but it is the only CURE in then end. There is a place for letters of complaint of course. but not when the only complaint is i cannot or do not want to pay, and certainly not in every case as you seem to think.

 

Also Mark considering the amount you have to say in criticizing and abusing this forum, why is it you are so intent on posting here.

 

Just for clarity which OP are you talking about here as it seems your post was yet another spoof.

[wilko52]

Being that you are the OP and appear more than capable of answering your own questions, why would anyone want to waste their time advising you?

 

 

For someone who is so fond of "pin the tail", you really are not very good at it are you?

 

 

I'm not sure why or how you've arrived at the conclusion that the post is a spoof but it certainly has nothing to do with me and I certainly have no idea who the OP is.

 

 

Might I suggest that you ensure that you are 100% correct in your facts before posting? Failure to be can very easily result in one page transforming to 70 pages in a very short period.

 

 

I am assuming that the OP is genuine. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and people need to ascertain what has gone on here. You don't jump from missing a payment to enforcement. There must have been notices and a summons before a LO was granted-It would be almost unheard of for this to all happen within 2 months, especially as the Xmas period was sandwiched in there.

[Peterbard]

For someone who is so fond of "pin the tail", you really are not very good at it are you?

 

 

I'm not sure why or how you've arrived at the conclusion that the post is a spoof but it certainly has nothing to do with me and I certainly have no idea who the OP is.

 

 

Might I suggest that you ensure that you are 100% correct in your facts before posting? Failure to be can very easily result in one page transforming to 70 pages in a very short period.

 

 

I am assuming that the OP is genuine. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and people need to ascertain what has gone on here. You don't jump from missing a payment to enforcement. There must have been notices and a summons before a LO was granted-It would be almost unheard of for this to all happen within 2 months, especially as the Xmas period was sandwiched in there.

 

Still not explained why you felt it necessary to post spoof posts on here and waste everyones time Mark, or post n here at all really.

[Peterbard]

For someone who is so fond of "pin the tail", you really are not very good at it are you?

 

 

I'm not sure why or how you've arrived at the conclusion that the post is a spoof but it certainly has nothing to do with me and I certainly have no idea who the OP is.

 

 

Might I suggest that you ensure that you are 100% correct in your facts before posting? Failure to be can very easily result in one page transforming to 70 pages in a very short period.

 

 

I am assuming that the OP is genuine. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and people need to ascertain what has gone on here. You don't jump from missing a payment to enforcement. There must have been notices and a summons before a LO was granted-It would be almost unheard of for this to all happen within 2 months, especially as the Xmas period was sandwiched in there.

 

"pin the tail" another FMoTL favourite term , be calling yourself strawman mark in a bit.

 

It really is a bit strong you of all people stating that others are stating wrong advice and views mark. You make a profession of the practice.

[wonkeydonkey]

For someone who is so fond of "pin the tail", you really are not very good at it are you?

 

If you take time to read the post you wish to quote from, you might just notice I said pin the 'tale' on the donkey. As that seems to have gone over all of your heads I will explain further......some desperate soul on DWB created a 'tale' using highly inaccurate information then looked to put my name to it....hence 'tale' on donkey, I laugh every time you lot use it out of context.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435546-A-Show-of-Support&highlight=pin+tale

[wilko52]

The link doesn't work for me but I was referring to your use of it on GOODF in any case. You ought to be more careful with your choice of words and phrases.-The loony element amongst us will start calling you fmotl

 

 

Anyway, unless there is concrete proof that the OP is a spoof poster, I would urge you to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and not hijack the thread for your own means. For clarity, I have never suggested you are that person and I am not any "lot"-I post to help debtors, not indulge in your pathetic trivia.

[Peterbard]

The link doesn't work for me but I was referring to your use of it on GOODF in any case. You ought to be more careful with your choice of words and phrases.-The loony element amongst us will start calling you fmotl

 

 

Anyway, unless there is concrete proof that the OP is a spoof poster, I would urge you to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and not hijack the thread for your own means. For clarity, I have never suggested you are that person and I am not any "lot"-I post to help debtors, not indulge in your pathetic trivia.

 

You're thes spoof poster mark and it is you who hijacked the thread with your "i live in a council flat" nonsense, which was nothing more than another pathetic attempt to push one of your silly misconceptions as usual. Your contributions so far help no one.

[wilko52]

There is of course another side to this:

 

 

The only desperation I can see is from two individuals who appear to be praying that this poor woman has to pay the £235 enforcement fee.

 

 

Councils and bailiff companies deliberately make it hard for debtors to complain or dispute matters. They hope that by sending letters to act as buffers, that the debtor will give up the will to continue, and sadly many so. One of the most important pieces of advice that I could give a debtor is to never give in, never accept what a council or bailiff company are saying and to continue until there is no avenue left open. Evert time you receive a knock back, dust yourself down and go again. Most of these disputes are marathons, not sprints.

 

 

In this particular case, nobody appears to have picked up on two vital things. Firstly, the council had the opportunity to set up a second attachment. They didn't do so, probably because it is easier for them to simply pass the case over for the bailiffs to do all the work. This was wrong and should be challenged. Secondly, JBW are going to argue that the OP is not a lodger, but co-habiting with the house owner. The welfare team would be powerless to intervene. In any case, why should this woman be expected to pay a £75 compliance fee when an AOE could have and should have been set up? Isn't this the exact scenario that the CAB & DCLG were looking at when they urged councils to look at attachments before using bailiffs? Isn't this exactly why the Government are now under growing pressure to ensure that attachments are implemented wherever possible before bailiffs are used? This poor woman was recently homeless for Gods sake. It is clear that she is in a dark place financially.

 

 

The current situation is that the woman has no goods of value. The bailiffs have been notified that they do not have permission to enter the property and the council have been asked to explain why an AOE was not considered. JBW have indeed added a £235 fee. This is currently being challenged. There is also a question as to whether a visit has actually taken place as no paperwork has been left at the property.

 

 

There is certainly no desperation here. In fact, there is more concern regarding the existing AOE as there appears to be problems with that. A request is in, asking for the account to be taken back and a second AOE implemented (as per Government guidelines) No, it is not law but I would expect the LGO to take a very dim view if the council continue in this vein. Currently, the OP is better off, as she is not having to pay the demands made by JBW (an AOE would see her paying almost half) and she is not going to pay ANY bailiff fees, let alone the £235 enforcement fee.

 

 

I would hope that most people would be supportive here. Councils do not care about their debtors or their circumstances. If Government bodies have issued reports and implemented guidelines, one would expect a council, who are supposed to act with morals and decency to adhere to them. This council have thus far acted in a particularly reprehensible way.

[Peterbard]

sorry not going to read all that

[wilko52]

Awwww

 

 

I'd deliberately kept the big words down to a minimum just for you as well.

 

 

Thanks for letting us know anyway-I'm really interested.

[wonkeydonkey]

There is of course another side to this:

 

The only desperation I can see is from two individuals who appear to be praying that this poor woman has to pay the £235 enforcement fee.

 

 

Councils and bailiff companies deliberately make it hard for debtors to complain or dispute matters. They hope that by sending letters to act as buffers, that the debtor will give up the will to continue, and sadly many so. One of the most important pieces of advice that I could give a debtor is to never give in, never accept what a council or bailiff company are saying and to continue until there is no avenue left open. Evert time you receive a knock back, dust yourself down and go again. Most of these disputes are marathons, not sprints.

 

 

In this particular case, nobody appears to have picked up on two vital things. Firstly, the council had the opportunity to set up a second attachment. They didn't do so, probably because it is easier for them to simply pass the case over for the bailiffs to do all the work. This was wrong and should be challenged. Secondly, JBW are going to argue that the OP is not a lodger, but co-habiting with the house owner. The welfare team would be powerless to intervene. In any case, why should this woman be expected to pay a £75 compliance fee when an AOE could have and should have been set up? Isn't this the exact scenario that the CAB & DCLG were looking at when they urged councils to look at attachments before using bailiffs? Isn't this exactly why the Government are now under growing pressure to ensure that attachments are implemented wherever possible before bailiffs are used? This poor woman was recently homeless for Gods sake. It is clear that she is in a dark place financially.

 

 

The current situation is that the woman has no goods of value. The bailiffs have been notified that they do not have permission to enter the property and the council have been asked to explain why an AOE was not considered. JBW have indeed added a £235 fee. This is currently being challenged. There is also a question as to whether a visit has actually taken place as no paperwork has been left at the property.

 

 

There is certainly no desperation here. In fact, there is more concern regarding the existing AOE as there appears to be problems with that. A request is in, asking for the account to be taken back and a second AOE implemented (as per Government guidelines) No, it is not law but I would expect the LGO to take a very dim view if the council continue in this vein. Currently, the OP is better off, as she is not having to pay the demands made by JBW (an AOE would see her paying almost half) and she is not going to pay ANY bailiff fees, let alone the £235 enforcement fee.

 

 

I would hope that most people would be supportive here. Councils do not care about their debtors or their circumstances. If Government bodies have issued reports and implemented guidelines, one would expect a council, who are supposed to act with morals and decency to adhere to them. This council have thus far acted in a particularly reprehensible way.

 

I have taken time to read this post but, until you learn self control and stop making inflammatory remarks I for one will not be responding to it.

[Peterbard]

Just skimmed this and TBH it seems to be more abut you than the poster, ask yourself this, is the poster in a better or worse situation after your "advice", be honest .

 

Is she any nearer sorting out her debt ?

[wilko52]

Just skimmed this and TBH it seems to be more abut you than the poster, ask yourself this, is the poster in a better or worse situation after your "advice", be honest .

 

Is she any nearer sorting out her debt ?

 

 

Far better.

 

 

If she followed the (incorrect) advice given on here, she would have been at the mercy of JBW. She would have been forced to pay £20 per week and an extra £75 in bailiff fees. One slip up and another £235 would have been added as well.

 

 

The way she is going, she is currently paying nothing, which gives her the opportunity to put a bit aside in a savings account as back up later on. The £235 fee will be removed, as well as the £75 fee. An AOE will be implemented at around £12.50 a week. So she will be paying 50% less and the bailiff fees will be removed. In addition, there is not the potential for the enforcement fee to be added later on if a £20 payment is missed.

 

 

Its a no brainer. It makes no difference whether the repayments start tomorrow, next month or next year but they will be starting. There will be no bailiff fees paid on this one.

 

 

I would venture that it is all about you actually, and the other individual of course-You are the ones who are continually "bumping" the thread, despite the fact that you both know that the OP will not be posting again.

[Peterbard]

So currntly she owes an extra 235, i would suggest you stop helping whilst she still had any money at all.

 

As for all your promises of what should happen, we have heard all this from others of your little group and it never seems to come to fruition, although it does earn a few bob for some of you in the process.

 

As for the OP not posting again, generally the experience [posters have with you tends to put them off on line help, but we do see the remnants of your advice and the mess you have left behind on occaision.

[Peterbard]

Anyway, you seem to have hyjacked yet another thread for your silliness. So no more on here from me, we have a section for discussion here.

[wilko52]

If you can point me to one post or thread of mine that has cost a debtor money, I will stop posting for good on bailiff help issues.

 

 

You have already succeeded in getting one thread locked today-Shouldn't you be resting on your laurels?

 

 

You are a self confessed liar-You never advise debtors-You simply exist to antagonise others. If its not me, its MM.

 

 

Have a good look at yourself in the mirror.