Baliff petition;Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry;Peter Bard

[parisgal]

No most baliff law is quite clear and grey area probably wasnt the best way of expressing myself. All I meant is that there are certain circumstances where bailiffs can force entry following signed WP. Often the CAB themselves get confused by this!

However most bailiff companies actually dont do this re collection of ctax arrears particuarly where the debtor is classed as OAP or vulnerable.

Its your vehicles you need to be careful about as most bailiffs prefer to clamp a vehicle outside the property as this is far easier and effective. If you have bailiffs on your back, hide your car! Be aware they can levy on a vehicle very easily.

The CAB are already very good at spreading this message and because people are becoming wiser this has made our type of debt collection more problematic (you'll be pleased to know) They have produced many documents/leaflets in relation to this subject. Some private firms are now beggining to opt out of local taxation collection as it is becoming too difficult to actually enforce the debt.

Most files passed to us are not for vulnerable people as these files are often identified by the council, or identified by us soon after the debt is passed. We then return to the council or if unable (due to client instruction) a minimum arrangement is made.

On the rare occasions we remove vehicles or goods it is when we have been persistantly ignored and the debtor actually has the goods to remove e.g. a ferrari!!

And whats so secret about a walking possession agreement???????????? As this is on the reverse of all our notices its hardly a secret weapon. Its a bit sneaky to claim goods belong to a third party when they dont and cant understand why a person wouldnt just address the debt! There is no need to go to such lengths in most cases! Maybe hide your car though or sell it to your mate for a quid (this is a very popular trick)

[JonCris]

parisgal you probably realising that admitting to being a collector of debt your not going to get much sympathy here but please don't let that put you off posting.

 

You comments though sometimes misguided in law are still very welcome as not only does it let us see that not all such agencies are peopled by bar-stewards but that some would like to help

 

Having said that I have to take issue with you on the practises of bailiffs in general & for a start would like to ask you to think on this.

 

If you who appears to be sympathetic toward consumers actually thought that putting a foot in the door is lawful what must those who couldn't care less think is lawful or even those who like you do care think is lawful when it's not

[caledfwlch]

Parisgal, you specifically said that foot in the door is a "grey area" a Bailiff only needs/tries on the foot in the door on a first visit, before he HAS a walking posession.

 

Everyone knows and understands that a Bailiff can force entry to get "his" goods after a walking posession has been signed and an agreement broken, I doubt that CAB gets confused over this. Where the problem lies, is Bailiffs breaking the law to GET that walking posession in the first place, ie your "grey area" of a foot in the door on a first or second visit which in fact is against the law being as its not a peaceful entry.

 

Given how the vast majority of bailiffs and their companies operate and the complete ignorance/wilfull breaking of the floor that they carry out day in and day out, I think it would be entirely fair to consider ANYONE getting a bailiff visit to be vulnerable and at risk, vulnerable and at risk to violence, fraud and criminal actions.

 

You suggest that the council identify vulnerable people and dont send them to you? that is the biggest laugh of all, apart from anything, it comes dangerously close to suggest councils are doing their jobs, and with efficiency too

 

Change secret weapon to ONLY weapon, its the only tool that gives a bailiff any real power other than levying on cars. Statutory Declarations would simply remove that bit of power, leaving bailiffs in the position of visiting homes, expending the time and fuel, but not actually getting anything, and even if they gain entry not being able to levy.

 

I have no respect whatsoever for Bailiffs and watch with glee anything bad that happens. There are some good apples, the most corrupt system will always still somehow manage to let some decent people in, despite its best efforts, and I hope they are busy considering new employment opportunities, as is 1 decent bailiff that I know off through friends, he apparantly doesnt really want to be around when the new laws come into effect, predicting it may make the job far more violent and risky, when outraged "clients" defend their properties or the 6ft 8 skinhead takes exception to a bailiffs attempted mugging.

 

A modern civilised technology reliant democracy like the UK simply does not need the middleman of the Bailiff anymore, they are an anachronism, they do not serve any longer to collect monies due, but to PUNISH people for being in debt, how does siezing all of someones goods, and selling it for 10% of the value which wouldnt even cover the cost of goods removal help anyone? therefore its simply a punishment for something thats not actually an offence. Council/court/CCJ debts could be efficiently, quickly, and extremely cheaply recovered through fair deductions at source.. everyone is either working and paying tax, or claiming benefits.

 

No most baliff law is quite clear and grey area probably wasnt the best way of expressing myself. All I meant is that there are certain circumstances where bailiffs can force entry following signed WP. Often the CAB themselves get confused by this!

However most bailiff companies actually dont do this re collection of ctax arrears particuarly where the debtor is classed as OAP or vulnerable.

Its your vehicles you need to be careful about as most bailiffs prefer to clamp a vehicle outside the property as this is far easier and effective. If you have bailiffs on your back, hide your car! Be aware they can levy on a vehicle very easily.

The CAB are already very good at spreading this message and because people are becoming wiser this has made our type of debt collection more problematic (you'll be pleased to know) They have produced many documents/leaflets in relation to this subject. Some private firms are now beggining to opt out of local taxation collection as it is becoming too difficult to actually enforce the debt.

Most files passed to us are not for vulnerable people as these files are often identified by the council, or identified by us soon after the debt is passed. We then return to the council or if unable (due to client instruction) a minimum arrangement is made.

On the rare occasions we remove vehicles or goods it is when we have been persistantly ignored and the debtor actually has the goods to remove e.g. a ferrari!!

And whats so secret about a walking possession agreement???????????? As this is on the reverse of all our notices its hardly a secret weapon. Its a bit sneaky to claim goods belong to a third party when they dont and cant understand why a person wouldnt just address the debt! There is no need to go to such lengths in most cases! Maybe hide your car though or sell it to your mate for a quid (this is a very popular trick)

[parisgal]

Parisgal, you specifically said that foot in the door is a "grey area" a Bailiff only needs/tries on the foot in the door on a first visit, before he HAS a walking posession.

 

Everyone knows and understands that a Bailiff can force entry to get "his" goods after a walking posession has been signed and an agreement broken, I doubt that CAB gets confused over this. Where the problem lies, is Bailiffs breaking the law to GET that walking posession in the first place, ie your "grey area" of a foot in the door on a first or second visit which in fact is against the law being as its not a peaceful entry.

 

Given how the vast majority of bailiffs and their companies operate and the complete ignorance/wilfull breaking of the floor that they carry out day in and day out, I think it would be entirely fair to consider ANYONE getting a bailiff visit to be vulnerable and at risk, vulnerable and at risk to violence, fraud and criminal actions.

 

You suggest that the council identify vulnerable people and dont send them to you? that is the biggest laugh of all, apart from anything, it comes dangerously close to suggest councils are doing their jobs, and with efficiency too

 

Change secret weapon to ONLY weapon, its the only tool that gives a bailiff any real power other than levying on cars. Statutory Declarations would simply remove that bit of power, leaving bailiffs in the position of visiting homes, expending the time and fuel, but not actually getting anything, and even if they gain entry not being able to levy.

 

I have no respect whatsoever for Bailiffs and watch with glee anything bad that happens. There are some good apples, the most corrupt system will always still somehow manage to let some decent people in, despite its best efforts, and I hope they are busy considering new employment opportunities, as is 1 decent bailiff that I know off through friends, he apparantly doesnt really want to be around when the new laws come into effect, predicting it may make the job far more violent and risky, when outraged "clients" defend their properties or the 6ft 8 skinhead takes exception to a bailiffs attempted mugging.

 

A modern civilised technology reliant democracy like the UK simply does not need the middleman of the Bailiff anymore, they are an anachronism, they do not serve any longer to collect monies due, but to PUNISH people for being in debt, how does siezing all of someones goods, and selling it for 10% of the value which wouldnt even cover the cost of goods removal help anyone? therefore its simply a punishment for something thats not actually an offence. Council/court/CCJ debts could be efficiently, quickly, and extremely cheaply recovered through fair deductions at source.. everyone is either working and paying tax, or claiming benefits.

 

Do you propose we get rid of all bailiffs regardless of what they are collecting? or just for the purposes of local authority debt.

Many people believe bailiffs shouldnt be used and you are entitled to your opinion. I was prompted to post on here to make it clear that not all bailiffs are the same. It seemed to me to be a very one sided discussion

Most are just trying to earn a living and pay the rent the same as the next person we dont do it for fun! Forgive me if I didnt understand you already knew bailiffs could force entry follwing WP etc but there maybe people out there who do not realise this and allow a bailiff access to their home. Ive already apologised twice on here for not being clear about that when I stated 'grey area'!!

As a lone parent with no financial support from the absent father I have been in financial difficulties myself and have had experiences with bailiffs attending my property. I therefore do understand what is like to struggle and take absolutely no delight in collecting debts from people in a similar position. As Ive said repeatedly suitable arrangements can be made if you approach the bailiffs office in the first instance.

Some councils are more politically correct than others and have a different approach to dealing with vulnerable cases. Often the problem is the council arent aware of the circumstances as the Chargepayer has not contacted them to discuss the situation. As bailiffs we are keen to return the files but yes some councils insist we proceed anyway. (in my experience)

I maintain those who wont pay (of which there are many, whether you believe me or not) should have their goods removed to discharge the debt if they persisteantly refuse to even call the council or bailiff to discuss payment. Our firm only remove goods if the goods are ample to cover the value of the debt.

We also collect commercial rent debts, business rates & county court orders, what is your opinion on using bailiffs to enforce debts of this type? what alternative can you suggest?

[parisgal]

Parisgal, you specifically said that foot in the door is a "grey area" a Bailiff only needs/tries on the foot in the door on a first visit, before he HAS a walking posession.

 

Everyone knows and understands that a Bailiff can force entry to get "his" goods after a walking posession has been signed and an agreement broken, I doubt that CAB gets confused over this. Where the problem lies, is Bailiffs breaking the law to GET that walking posession in the first place, ie your "grey area" of a foot in the door on a first or second visit which in fact is against the law being as its not a peaceful entry.

 

Given how the vast majority of bailiffs and their companies operate and the complete ignorance/wilfull breaking of the floor that they carry out day in and day out, I think it would be entirely fair to consider ANYONE getting a bailiff visit to be vulnerable and at risk, vulnerable and at risk to

iolence, fraud and criminal actions.

 

You suggest that the council identify vulnerable people and dont send them to you? that is the biggest laugh of all, apart from anything, it comes dangerously close to suggest councils are doing their jobs, and with efficiency too

 

Change secret weapon to ONLY weapon, its the only tool that gives a bailiff any real power other than levying on cars. Statutory Declarations would simply remove that bit of power, leaving bailiffs in the position of visiting homes, expending the time and fuel, but not actually getting anything, and even if they gain entry not being able to levy.

 

I have no respect whatsoever for Bailiffs and watch with glee anything bad that happens. There are some good apples, the most corrupt system will always still somehow manage to let some decent people in, despite its best efforts, and I hope they are busy considering new employment opportunities, as is 1 decent bailiff that I know off through friends, he apparantly doesnt really want to be around when the new laws come into effect, predicting it may make the job far more violent and risky, when outraged "clients" defend their properties or the 6ft 8 skinhead takes exception to a bailiffs attempted mugging.

 

A modern civilised technology reliant democracy like the UK simply does not need the middleman of the Bailiff anymore, they are an anachronism, they do not serve any longer to collect monies due, but to PUNISH people for being in debt, how does siezing all of someones goods, and selling it for 10% of the value which wouldnt even cover the cost of goods removal help anyone? therefore its simply a punishment for something thats not actually an offence. Council/court/CCJ debts could be efficiently, quickly, and extremely cheaply recovered through fair deductions at source.. everyone is either working and paying tax, or claiming benefits.

sorry just reread your last paragraph which answers my question! This is only any good if the debtors contact the council and provide them with the relevant details. Many of our clients request we obtain employment details and return file for attachement of earnings, but this can be like getting blood out of a stone quite literally! Many peoiple actually prefer to just deal with the bailffs rather than get their employers involved. Although agree t would be a good idea to make supplying of details compulsory when registering for council tax. his could be a good deterrent as Id hate for my employers to be aware I was in debt but maybe this matters to me more than other people!! (for obvious reasons)

and attachment of benefits is defnetely a good idea and I have always argued this should be the case.

[parisgal]

parisgal you probably realising that admitting to being a collector of debt your not going to get much sympathy here but please don't let that put you off posting.

 

You comments though sometimes misguided in law are still very welcome as not only does it let us see that not all such agencies are peopled by bar-stewards but that some would like to help

 

Having said that I have to take issue with you on the practises of bailiffs in general & for a start would like to ask you to think on this.

 

If you who appears to be sympathetic toward consumers actually thought that putting a foot in the door is lawful what must those who couldn't care less think is lawful or even those who like you do care think is lawful when it's not

 

Its only lawful following peaceful entry and walking possesion agreement I know! And as previously stated this is extremely rare. As a bailiff company we only actually remove from about 2% of council tax cases passed to us. Im aware its illegal for a bailiff to force entry prior to peaceful access being gained.

Somebody on here may have made the mistake of opening the door and invitng people in, surely its important they realise not to do this as then a bailiff could technically force entry (usually with a locksmith)

Thanks for acknowledging Im not necessarily a monster just because I work for a bailiff company.

and yes there are some rogue bailiffs out there but I only wanted to make the point that there are many who follow the letter of the law precisely.

e.g. my colleagues and I were disgusted by the BBC whistleblower programme exposing mal practiced of some individual bailiffs. Shocking!

[JonCris]

By those that 'won't pay' I suppose you mean those who have a choice of either feeding the kids, keeping a roof over their heads or paying the bailiff

 

If you really do believe 'there are many who won't' then I'm sorry you don't live in the real world You live in the world of the debt collector where most debtors are seen as feckless wasters.

 

The majority don't pay not because they can & won't but because they can't. Do you really think the majority of debtors want to spend every waking day fearful of every phone call or every knock at the door......... Of course not please get real

 

As for contacting the council to sort it before the bailiff arrives don't make me laugh. The number of times debtors are told by the council Muppet's they can't help or as it's now with the bailiffs it's now't to do with them are infinitum

 

As for the vulnerable contacting the council why do you think the are referred to as being vulnerable. Being vulnerable means not being to do anything for yourself also if the council did it's job properly they would know who the vulnerable are in their community without having to be told

 

If you really want to see the real world of the debtor I suggest you volunteer to help debtors at your local CAB. Believe me when I say each day you will be enraged by what you hear so you better be prepared to have your beliefs about the great majority of your colleagues changed forever

Edited May 24, 2008 by JonCris

[parisgal]

By those that 'won't pay' I suppose you mean those who have a choice of either feeding the kids, keeping a roof over their heads or paying the bailiff

 

If you really do believe 'there are many who won't' then I'm sorry you don't live in the real world You live in the world of the debt collector where most debtors are seen as feckless wasters.

 

The majority don't pay not because they can't but because they can't. Do you really think the majority of debtors want to spend every waking day fearful of every phone call or every knock at the door......... Of course not please get real

 

As for contacting the council to sort it before the bailiff arrives don't make me laugh. The number of times debtors are told by the council Muppet's they can't help or as it's now with the bailiffs it's now't to do with them are infinitum

 

As for the vulnerable contacting the council why do you think the are referred to as being vulnerable. Being vulnerable means not being to do anything for yourself also if the council did it's job properly they would know who the vulnerable are in their community & not have to told

 

If you really want to see the real world of the debtor I suggest you volunteer to help debtors at your local CAB. Believe me when I say each day you will be enraged by what you hear so be prepared to have your beliefs about your colleagues changed forever

 

NO NO NO, wont pay really means wont pay! It means theyd rather pay for their expensive cars, house, TV, holidays, villas, yachts etc!! Im talking about people who are RICH!! Not somebody ordainary. Believe me I see it every single day. and if you cant pay then our company will make an arrangement. Maybe other bailiff companies dont but we do!!

And lots of councils wont send vulnerable cases to bailiffs and if they do thats not the fault of the bailiff. If it wasnt more than my jobs worth I could give yopu a list of celebrities, local councillers, business people who havent paid their council tax!! Only Friday I was on the phone to a certian celebrities PA trying to arrange payment of a debt which had been outstding 6 months! Most people who call the office are earning twice what I earn and I pay my council tax!!!! Ive missed it a few times but always called the council and sorted it out, maybe my councils just more helpful than most?

I dont want to stick up for councils as bailiffs are often the victim of their incompetency and often have to carry the can for the councils mistake. but to be fair some councils are very good some are very poor.

Right this is my last post as everyone seems to delibarately misunderstand me and twist my words!

[parisgal]

By those that 'won't pay' I suppose you mean those who have a choice of either feeding the kids, keeping a roof over their heads or paying the bailiff

 

If you really do believe 'there are many who won't' then I'm sorry you don't live in the real world You live in the world of the debt collector where most debtors are seen as feckless wasters.

 

The majority don't pay not because they can & won't but because they can't. Do you really think the majority of debtors want to spend every waking day fearful of every phone call or every knock at the door......... Of course not please get real

 

As for contacting the council to sort it before the bailiff arrives don't make me laugh. The number of times debtors are told by the council Muppet's

 

 

 

they can't help or as it's now with the bailiffs it's now't to do with them are infinitum

 

As for the vulnerable contacting the council why do you think the are referred to as being vulnerable. Being vulnerable means not being to do anything for yourself also if the council did it's job properly they would know who the vulnerable are in their community without having to be told

 

If you really want to see the real world of the debtor I suggest you volunteer to help debtors at your local CAB. Believe me when I say each day you will be enraged by what you hear so you better be prepared to have your beliefs about the great majority of your colleagues changed forever

 

Oh forgot to say I cant afford to vounteer for CAB as lone parent working full time, but it would definetely interest me! But perhaps you could come and be a bailiff for the day and meet all them rich debtors I told you about:p seeing as you dont beleive me.

CAB are great and actually our firm has a very good relationship with several CAB offices accross the country. We have great respect for them and always appreciate it when they bring any issues to our attention.

[JonCris]

I think your being a little unfair on us as when you referred to the 'won't pay' debtors we all assumed without any evidence to the contrary that you meant the ordinary debtor. How are we to know you refer to the wealthy celebs. We ain't mind readers you know

[JonCris]

OK pars I'll come clean. In my long career I have worked both sides of the fence but then I decided I wanted to sleep at nights so decided to try & help the oppressed rather than the oppressor. So you see I don't need to work your side as I already have & didn't like it one bit but hey it was a living I suppose

[caledfwlch]

Oh any details of employment etc should be kept WELL out of the hands of Councils, they deserve and should get only the bare minimum of facts, given that their data security is probably the most lax of all, as an employee of one council simply inputting surveys i actually had unnecessary access to all the housing records, tenants names, history you name it! just to file invoices between depts!

 

NI Number is all they need, get into debt, the court issues the liability order then contacts the Inland Revenue who then issue a new tax code taking a set and fair amount out of the persons pay. No attachment to earnings embarressment with your employer, no Bailiffs threatening to take your cat or have your firstborn stolen by gremlins, just a simple bit of computer action. anyone having trouble and genuinely trying to sort it, could themselves contact the council and set in motion the tax process, without gaining a costly liability order. Quick, efficient, and cheap, so of course they would never go for it. The same for those on benefits, automatic deduction from those.

 

The only people this wouldnt effect are those working cash in hand, but lets be honest, exactly what can the courts etc do about those anyway, you cant exactly do an AOE on cash in hand can ya?

 

Giving the Bailiffs all these new powers at the same time as a credit crunch is starting to bite seems to be an almost insane approach, especially since the crunch has now started to get its teeth into the middle classes backsides. Noone seems to care when its terrified single mothers, or the jobless being mercilessly hounded and bullied, but when Daily Mail readers from the home counties start getting the same treatment you can bet something will be done!

 

One change I would agree with is to make Bailiff companies criminally and financially liable for the actions of its bailiffs.

 

sorry just reread your last paragraph which answers my question! This is only any good if the debtors contact the council and provide them with the relevant details. Many of our clients request we obtain employment details and return file for attachement of earnings, but this can be like getting blood out of a stone quite literally! Many peoiple actually prefer to just deal with the bailffs rather than get their employers involved. Although agree t would be a good idea to make supplying of details compulsory when registering for council tax. his could be a good deterrent as Id hate for my employers to be aware I was in debt but maybe this matters to me more than other people!! (for obvious reasons)

and attachment of benefits is defnetely a good idea and I have always argued this should be the case.

[JonCris]

cal You mention the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn hates them with a real passion. Refers to them as **** of the earth & knows exactly how they operate, phantom visits, unlawful entry & all

[Tryst]

From past experience, most bailiffs are no better than thieves. Not only should they never have the right to enter forceably but also I believe that the entire profession should be removed from service.

 

They are the worst criminals you could imagine, removing goods that they know are valued at far in excess of the 'estimation' and removing goods that they particularly want for themselves, (ie: your nice 1500 quid PC in the corner that they promtly value at 150). They pay the 150 estimated value themselves so they can keep it, knowing it was worth far in excess of that, it never sees the auction rooms. Removing curtains, childrens toys and a whole lot more. They manage this because many people don't realise that the bailiff is not actually allowed to take these goods and they are not allowed to make false estimations to obtain high value goods.

 

The government actually want to give these crooks the power to enter your home without your permission? Why don't they just legalise theft and be done with it? Oh sorry they did, the bailiff...

 

I refuse to answer the door to a bailiff. If this law gets passed at any time in the future, the first bailiff who enters my house will be a dead bailiff. My dog does not bark when anyone knocks, he will however, tear anyone to shreds who enters without me near. If my dog doesn't manage it, I will finish the job. If I go to prison for it then so be it but I'm sure it will put a lot of bailiffs off trying it on other peoples property. I am sure there will be a lot of people who will also defend their property just as fiercely. When enough bailiffs have died as a result of this stupid law, although it would be no great loss as far as I'm concerned, maybe the gov't will think to abolish it.

[Tryst]

On a side note though, I am quite happy to negotiate with the company I owe the debt to. I will not pay bailiff fees as I feel that people get bailiffs in without even trying to negotiate terms. I have had Aberdeen council send me one letter regarding council tax. I spoke to them to try to negotiate payment terms but they refused. The next letter was from a bailiff.

 

Suddenly, I am deluged with bailiff notices for fines I know nothing about and such. WTF is this? I am trying to stretch a very meagre budget here and everyone wants their hand in my pocket for absolutely no reason.

[FairPlay77]

I know that these thugs and criminals are going to get the so-called 'right' to barge into other people's homes and steal their property, but there must be a number of loopholes that the idiots who framed this new, oppressive law have not thought of (it wouldn't be the first law to run into problems in this way).

 

In particular, can someone answer the following questions:

 

1.If the intended victim refuses point blank to sign anything, will that make it illegal for the bailiffs to invade their homes?

 

2. If a person keeps their name off the electoral register is that likely to sabotage the bailiffs' 'right' to get a court order, i.e. are judges likely to rule that if a person's name does not appear on the register, and the bailiffs have no other proof of who lives at a certain address,that they have provided insufficient proof to be granted a warrant?

 

I like the idea of having a friend make a statutory declaration that everything in a person's home belongs to him rather than the occupant, but there must be lots of other devious but legal ways of putting a spanner in the bailiffs' works. Has anyone tried challenging the new law by referring it to the European Court of Human Rights? Would such an action, in the opinion of any qualified lawyer reading this, stand any chance of success?

[davefirewalker]

........

 

I like the idea of having a friend make a statutory declaration that everything in a person's home belongs to him rather than the occupant, but there must be lots of other devious but legal ways of putting a spanner in the bailiffs' works. Has anyone tried challenging the new law by referring it to the European Court of Human Rights? Would such an action, in the opinion of any qualified lawyer reading this, stand any chance of success?

 

 

I have set up a limited company, and sold all my possesions to it.....then I am renting them back at £1 per year. including the cars. I have a contract to prove it as well.

 

it might work...it may even confuse them, poor little things

 

Dave

[Tryst]

Talking to a friend yesterday about this. He mentioned another trick that bailiffs use.

 

His 9 year old son was approached by a man and offered a fiver to throw a large stone at a window. Luckily his son was not the type to take up on an offer like that and refused and later told his father.

 

They later found out that the man was, in fact, a bailiff. We guess the idea was to use the "open window" clause since the broken window was effectively a means to enter. Nothing would ever be done if this was reported as it was his 9 year old sons word against a "licensed officer acting in accordance with the law" and as such, his license gave him more credibility than a 9 year old.

 

I know how much credibility a license gives you, I am a licensed security officer. I have never abused it but I know how easy it would be to do so. In the same way that a police officer would be listened to more readily than a civilian making a complaint against them.

[robin9342]

That bailiff would have been on very dodgy ground. I believe he would still be classed as breaking in. The law allows peaceful entry through an open/unlocked window, not a broken one. Would be a shame if said bailiff were to cut himself on the broken glass!

[caledfwlch]

I have set up a limited company, and sold all my possesions to it.....then I am renting them back at £1 per year. including the cars. I have a contract to prove it as well.

 

it might work...it may even confuse them, poor little things

 

Dave

 

 

Oh you devious devious man :o how much did it cost to set up? And how much hassle is it to run. You must be the only person in the country to knowingly let a bailiff in with a big smile, and offer him a coffee Maybe you should start selling "rental" contracts to CAG members, hire purchase type agreement maybe, 5 year contract few quid rent payable a year, all upfront! ;-)

[davefirewalker]

Limited company about £40 on the net

£15 per year to post details to companies house

 

I do use the company for other things, so it basically costs me nothing

 

Dave

[davefirewalker]

Just seen this in the Mail on sunday

 

there seems to now be 1043 laws that give power of entry to your home

 

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: These ludicrous, and sinister, snooping laws | Mail Online

 

Dave

[robin9342]

Oops, I shouldn't have taken the energy efficiency label off my fridge. Looks like the fridge police will be paying me a visit soon.

[Wallenstein]

What's going on with this? do bailiffs now have forced entry powers on private judgment debts?

[FairPlay77]

What's going on with this? do bailiffs now have forced entry powers on private judgment debts?

 

I think the confusion arises because a new law, The Courts, Tribunals and Enforcements Act (or something like that) was passed last year which will give bailiffs the power to enter homes under certain circumstances providing they first get permisison from a judge.

 

It's important to realise, though, that this law has not yet come into force and, I understand, will not do so until at least Febraruy next year (or later).