Bailiff Discussion II (moved from other thread)

[Guest MizzPiggy]

I got damn cross at how he picks and is not thoughtful with his critisicms.

 

Probably a mistake but never been so frustrated with a discussion before.!

 

I couldnt say a thing right and things were twisted so I have given up and felt that Nightrider was who we were helping, to which the discussion lost that. Deleting the posts I thought would show Bailiff UK's knowledge that is obviously unquestionable, to which the thread was shorter and perhaps more would post for advice that was constructive.

 

Perhaps upon reflection, I should have kept them where they were. Sorry.

[rambo]

blfuk1 has the decency to come on her and defend his corner, which I agree with.

Just a quick one, as far as I am aware, the up to the value of £150 for tools of the trade has been changed.

The 1981 magistrates crt act, rule 54 no longer puts an amount on tools of the trade. The way I understand it is that bailiffs cannot take the tools of your trade full stop.

I may be wrong.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

For Bailiff UK

 

Just to clarify what the Department of Constitutional Affairs has clarified with our office this morning.

 

1) There are two type of Magistrates Court Bailiffs

 

- Court Employed

 

- Under Contract

 

2) That at present, there is no laws or legislation that in fact protect or cover the public for Complaints or about regulation issues of Bailiffs within this area for those employed under contract.

 

The TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT BILL: REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Bill is not and will not go through as they said "all being well" till 2008.

 

Each Court area manages their own Bailiffs. So rather than keep something in legislation that proteceted the public, the system allowed for nothing while they decipher what standards and codes would be worked under.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

I am genuinly interested in a reply, not a reply that is possibly nasty and would prefer a private email if it is.

 

I am also happy to learn tid bits of information that increases our knowledge here too.

 

Claire

[blfuk1]

Grow up Bailiff UK.

 

When that conversation was had you know full well it was relating to Road Traffic Debts and the companies that collect on them.

 

You twist things and this arguement is over. According to you now Bailiff Companies do not need Credit licences. I never stated Bailiffs did, I did mean the companies they work for to which you knew.

 

You are always right sir, your a Bailiff. Apologies. I will bow out gracefully and leave you to be the advisor and mentor of the site with all the answers everyone seeks.

 

I will remove my other posts as you have so kindly copied them and manipulated them accordingly and not taken the whole of what has been written. As I said, have your last word. This isn't even constructive anymore.

 

As for the statement of the OFT, again twisted. As I stated in my PM to you, its not what you say its how you say it. You do yourself no favours to rubbish others, but to support them and further their knowledge with kindness when taught, is a choice of a wiser man.

 

Take care,

 

Alison

 

Epictetus

Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.

 

I've taken the trouble to have a look at your site Alison and it seems you like to use provocative language quite a bit! You ask that I 'grow up' and your site ridicules bailiffs for behaving like children.

 

You accuse me of twisting and turning yet you do exactly that. The thread which began our 'set to' was from Nightrider regarding a FINE. Your advice was inappropriate for a fine and worse still, hardly appropriate for a parking penalty - re your draft letter citing a RENT act!

 

You now comment on the conumer credit licence issue that you didn't mean bailiffs need licences but meant to say it was the companies they work for that needed to be licenced. Again, unless the company in question collects debts arising from consumer credit agreements, then NO THEY DON'T! A consumer credit licence is not required to enforce warrants issued/orders issued by a court.

 

I did not set out to do battle with you but simply corrected an obvious error which mis-advised (in my opinion) Nightrider. That's why I posted on the thread - to assist Nightrider.

 

I think it is rather childish, as you put it, to remove your posts and then accuse me of manipulating them; I simply copied and pasted your words and made comment. It is also childish to go off in a sulk saying I should be mentor for this site. It's a bit high handed to believe any one of us can assume such a role as the site is made up of postings from a large number of individuals many of whom offer excellent advice on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge of.

 

I simply answer questions and offer a viewpoint on a subject I am fairly familiar with - because I am a bailiff.

[PriorityOne]

Children! Children! I get the impression that Bailiff UK is trying to help, whereas The Watchdog... you seem to be trying very hard just to have the last word ! Your last post indicates you are not that sure what you are on about anyway !

 

VALID information from both sides of the fence is surely the best way to help folk on here ?

[PriorityOne]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

 

By the way, the above comment repeated over and over again by you, was precisely what I pulled you up on in the first place on this thread ! Perhaps it is you that needs to grow up, lose some of the ego and start responding in an adult manner to folk.

[blfuk1]

For Bailiff UK

 

Just to clarify what the Department of Constitutional Affairs has clarified with our office this morning.

 

1) There are two type of Magistrates Court Bailiffs

 

- Court Employed

 

- Under Contract

 

2) That at present, there is no laws or legislation that in fact protect or cover the public for Complaints or about regulation issues of Bailiffs within this area for those employed under contract.

 

The TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT BILL: REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Bill is not and will not go through as they said "all being well" till 2008.

 

Each Court area manages their own Bailiffs. So rather than keep something in legislation that proteceted the public, the system allowed for nothing while they decipher what standards and codes would be worked under.

 

In response:

 

1) I'm afraid you must be misquoting what DCA have advised you. HMCS does not directly employ any bailiffs. They do employ enforcement officers, as I've previously noted, often referred to as Warrant Officers to execute warrants of arrest. No directly employed person at HMCS, to the best of my knowledge, enforces warrants of distress (bailiff warrants).

 

HMCS use three contracted companies to provide bailiff services, Drakes, Phillips and Swift. Contracted bailiffs also, in some areas, undertake the execution of warrants of arrest and clamping orders.

 

These three companies operate under seven Regional Contracts (Drakes under 4, Phillips under 2 and Swift under 1). Within each Region there are Areas which, by and large, mirror the old Magistrates' Courts' Committees' areas which were replaced by HM Courts Service in April 2005.

 

The bailiffs under contract are 'managed' locally by HMCS Area Directors but under the ultimate direction of the HMCS Regional Director.

 

2) It is correct, as I have stated before, that bailiffs acting under the current contracts isued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs for HMCS do not have to be certificated by law - but they do under the terms of the contracts. It is not correct to say that there is no regulation governing bailiffs acting for HMCS as there is a plethora of case law, established common law, civil law and of course the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 with amendments under the Courts Act 2003.

 

Finally, as the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcment Bill is currently being heard in the House of Lords and will 'debated' by the Grand Committee shortly, I'm not sure that officials at DCA can say whether it will or will not become an Act as it is a decision for Parliament - not DCA. By the way, the 'Regulatory Impact Assessments' wording is not part of the Bill's title!

[PriorityOne]

It is clear the The Watchdog replaced her full posts with this comment.

 

Then it was a very childish thing to do ! Let's hope that we see no more of such behaviour, for all our sakes. Thanks moderator.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Priority one, your comment about growing up is very unfair.

 

Bailiff Law is about interpretation. Bailiff uk interprets it his way, it is seen differently from our service. We will always disagree.

 

Obviously your opinion is that of supporting Bailiff uk to which I only did as he did and posted with our views. Daily we are up against the industry and I mean daily. I come here to be helpful like Bailiff UK however, obviously to your distaste.

 

Ours is a very lone battle to fight for the information that you all seek collectively placing it on one site and pro active to understand you have rights is our aim. The law can work in your favour as it is interpreted by others to present to you as they see it such in Bailiff Uks wording.

 

Obviously my posts are of little use and you have no idea how little ego is in every post, however again misjudged. Bailiff UK has his views and on this forum are important, but without balance, you only see it one way.

 

I am not in any of this to battle with Bailiff UK about beliefs. Childish is having emotion and frustration and outrage at daily what is heard and seen?If that is how it is viewed, then I walk away from this sight childish.

 

Bailiff uk, your need for control and battling you I don't need. So I won't post here to know I will be shot down, there is little point. Energy saved for the day to day battles of all bailiffs not just you with your views stating it is fact and law according to you, however knowing there is interpretation to it all.

 

Watchdog bows out - The site is yours to preach as you will Bailiff UK.

[PriorityOne]

An interpretation is one thing Watchdog, but were you really using an out of date "bible" from which to advise vulnerable people... and then charging them for a service from you ?

 

I see your site now runs on donations.

[anon1]

I think it is important that both you alison and bailiff uk remain active on the threads as both of you add to this discussion and your posts that were edited on the site have shown on the thread. I don;t quite understand the arguments but diverse and opposing interpretations of viewpoints are what make the CAG an addictive site to read. I hope you remain on the site because both yourself and bailiff uk make valuable contributions to the site albeit from opposing viewpoints.

[iwannabedebtfree]

after reading this thread with intrepidation and at times concern, i have to agree that yes there will always be different viewpoints. Legislation is written in stone (until amended or updated by caselaw), it is then interpretted by us mere mortals, often with a different view, so it then comes down to the judiciary to make a decision on the correct interpretation and understanding of the legislation, often through the courts, with two sides each with a differing opinion. Whilst i have valued and understood from both sides of this argument, i have to admit that i do prefer getting information relating to legislation, and do prefer legislative arguments, rather than what at times has seemed like points scoring.

 

I know exactly what it is like working in the minority for the defenceless and ensuring their voice is heard. This site like others, is there to help the minority understand their rights, and to an extent support others who are going through similar situations.

 

I have learned from both the watchdog and the bailiff, however, i do think it is time to move on, accept both sides have different opinions, and look back to the initial question in which someone wanted support. yes there may be different ways to answer the question but at the end of the day it is all about helping one another.