Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3584 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Do we know the timetable for regulation of bailiffs? Will this be retrospective on past debts?

 

 

I assumed it is retrospective, in that it's new extra powers not a new punishment, though it's clearly punitive for the debtor.

I also do not believe "the industry" has any serious reservations about the changes, other than the need to clarify some points.

 

I suspect they will be very welcoming and keen to "tackle the backlog"

although I do hope I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack Straw is talking about, the right to defend yourself being reconsidered to be fairer to those defending themselves in their own homes for example against burglars - will this extend to defending ourselves from overzealous bailiffs I wonder?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites
With regard to Mr Bardsley’s further point regarding uncertificated bailiffs being contracted to enforce income tax, vat and fines, whilst that may be the present legal position, the contracts between Her Majesty’s Court Service and the bailiff companies employed to enforce the payment of fines stipulate that any bailiff so employed must be certificate within six months of commencing employment

 

Does this mean any clown can do the job?

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Straw is talking about, the right to defend yourself being reconsidered to be fairer to those defending themselves in their own homes for example against burglars - will this extend to defending ourselves from overzealous bailiffs I wonder?

 

Could be an interesting situation, maybelline !

 

If you are expecting bailiffs - could they argue that you should ASSUME that any stanger MAY be the bailiff and take no action (thereby opening the floodgates to burglars) ?

 

Or will people assume that ANY menacing-looking thug is a burglar - when it could actually be your friendly neighbourhood bailiff - and take appropriate action ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

more like - each case to be considered on its own merits!

 

which is jargon for do as we say

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi Just thought i would share this it is the press release following a discussion about the TCE the motion was ‘This house believes the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 will be good for debtors and bad for creditors'.

 

South East Discussion Forum

 

PRESS NOTICE

 

Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act – A Wasted Opportunity

 

At the South East Discussion Forum’s Conference a motion that the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 is ‘good for debtors and bad for creditors’ was soundly defeated by 35 votes to seven. But most embarrassing to the Government was that out of 100 delegates, 37 felt they had to abstain and only 27 thought the Act useful. As the Conference chair, Philip Evans, observed, this was inevitable because the legislation was pushed through in the face of opposition from all stakeholders.

 

The audience was evenly split between delegates from the advice sector and from the credit industry and creditor groups. Lord Lucas, who led Opposition attempts in the House of Lords to improve the bailiff law in the Act, proposed the motion. He was supported by Peter Tutton from Citizens’ Advice.

 

Austin Mitchell MP opposed the motion. When the Act reached the House of Commons, he and two other Labour MPs voted against their own party on key bailiff issues. His arguments were supported by Brian Havercroft, the new chair of the Civil Court Users’ Association. At times, it was hard to believe they were arguing on the same side but that only highlighted the problem faced by most of those present. Almost everyone, from credit managers to debt advisers, agreed what’s bad in the Act and that it was a wasted opportunity to make good law.

 

During the debate, local councils were repeatedly criticised for putting themselves and their bailiffs ‘above the law’ by awarding enforcement contracts that purport to authorise bailiffs to impose on debtors fees that are contrary to the Regulations.

 

In the afternoon, the conference split into three workshops to examine some of the detailed proposals in the Act.

 

John Kruse, a leading writer on bailiff law and practice, explained the increased use of force by bailiffs in the Act and his audience unanimously agreed that proper bailiff regulation was urgently needed for everyone's sake. Nobody believed the Act would produce this and few thought the Security Industry Authority would prove an effective regulator.

 

There was serious concern expressed about the imposition of an up-front fee. Bailiffs agreed that the present situation whereby councils do not pay for bailiff work was iniquitous and a proper fee structure was indispensable. However, the proposed ‘up-front fee’ for every case passed to a bailiff had serious implications and crucial to its success would be the impact on local councils and their contractors.

 

Peter Madge, a specialist money adviser and principal author of the Debt Advice Handbook, explained the proposed procedure for Charging Orders. Among the concerns expressed by delegates were the opportunities Charging Orders gave creditors who cared little for their reputation, the impact on falling house prices and the risk of forcing more people into negative equity.

 

Vicky Bagnall from the Insolvency Service explained that the proposed Debt Relief Orders would benefit debtors who are socially excluded: small borrowers who are unable to pay what they owe and unable to use the existing insolvency. She disagreed with some in her audience that insolvency is an easy way to escape debt but that the detail to appear in regulations would be key to the success of the new Orders.

 

The South East Discussion Forum is one of a number of regional fora that brings together representatives from the advice sector with lenders and other organisations concerned with credit and personal debt. Its aim is to improve communication and promote understanding among the various groups.

 

The Conference was sponsored by Grant Thornton and held at their central London office on Tuesday 30 October 2007.

 

 

 

progress.gif

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pray that it is NOT RETROPSPECTIVE.

 

There is more to the bailiff law being passed then just forced entry, in my court, we have forced entry powers anyway, the only reason we don't use them is because the judge will not grant a breaking in order, because of costs, i have never applied to the judge for a breaking in order, i'm repulsed by the thought of it.

 

The bigger problem, What do members think of :-

 

Powers to send a Data Disclosure Order to Credit Reference Agencies and the DWP.

 

Credit Ref Agency to assertain any credit cards, and bank accounts held, so they can freeze your accounts.

 

DWP so that if the creditor wants to do an attachment of earnings then it does not need to go chasing the debtor it can be done automatically, in addition to that, the debt will follow the debtor no matter which job he/she went to because the DWP will be obliged to inform the court when requested for the new details, so the debt will follow the debtor for years to come.

 

Having said all of that, I don't believe any one my co-workers as a HMCS bailiff, want any of the new laws, we have sufficient powers to enforce the warrants.

 

I feel sick at the thought of the new laws, i can not help thinking that these laws can ONLY benefit the Creditor.

 

I have always maintained and always will, the law makers WILL NEVER have to live with the laws they make, they will never have to be questioned about their ID so passing ID card law is not a problem, NO MP will ever have to deal with a Bailiff.

 

MP Austin Mitchell only screamed about bailiffs because his daughter got caught out by JBW, would he of made it a big issue prior to that, NO!

 

Its easy to introduce all these sickening laws if you never have to live with them.

 

No pettition is going to stop anything, its going to bulldoze its way thru parliament, and land on our door steps.

 

** Credentials **

 

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

** Credentials **

 

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

South East Discussion Forum

 

 

Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act – A Wasted Opportunity

 

Peter, I am so glad that Philip Evans has copied the press release to be included on your excellent thread.

 

I was very fortunate to attend the above meeting ( with Recyler) and not at all surprised to hear so much opposition to the Bill.

 

Even though this Bill received Royal Assent on July 19th, only certain parts of the Bill have actually been introduced. One of the main stumbling blocks is of course the right of forced entry etc.

 

Thankfully, there are many people who will continue to push for changes in Part 3 of the bill and we are very fortunate to have Austin Mitchell and Lord Lucas on our side. Austin Mitchell is the first to acknowledge that he was unaware of bailiffs etc until such time as his daughter's car was clamped by bailiffs. He has been a great support since that time.

 

Many of you reading this thread will know that this Bill was hastily passed in the House of Commons on the very afternoon that Tony Blair left government. Another great day to pass bad news!!

 

In addition to this, Vera Baird, the Minister responsible for this bill , also left office that same afternoon !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the recent press activity concerning the matter of the thousand's of illegal immigrants who have been cleared to work as security guards in the UK, many of you will find the following letter of interest.

 

This letter was sent to Lord Falconer and Baroness Ashton to outline why I believe that the SIA is not suitable to be the future regulator of all bailiffs.

 

The following is my personal view only.

...................................

 

 

 

Dear All

 

June 20, 2007

 

Re: The Security Industry Authority from: Sheila xxxxxx.

 

As you all know I am a member of the Enforcement Law Reform Group and fully support your views and objections and have attended many of your meetings.

 

As it would appear that the government is forging ahead with its plan to use the SIA as the future regulator of certificated bailiff’s , I felt that it may be appropriate to make members aware of the recent difficulties that our business has had with this organisation and further areas of concern that we have.

 

Background to SIA

The SIA was established by Parliament on 1st April 2003 under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to raise the professional standards and probity of those working in the private security industry and to help protect and reassure the public by preventing unsuitable people from holding positions of trust.

 

Many will know that the Home Office Minister with responsibility for the SIA is Vernon Coaker, and in December 2006 the Home Secretary, John Reid announced the appointment of Baroness Ruth Henig as Chair for a three year period. The SIA is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body that employs 110 staff with operating costs of approx: £22 million per annum.

 

As at April 2007, there have been 202,000 licenses granted. Although their website states that an application takes approx 6 weeks, I am reliably informed that the waiting time is closer to 10 weeks.

 

The SIA acknowledges also that 50% of all applications are rejected as the supporting documentation does not match the name of the applicant. !! I personally believe that this is a shocking statistic.

 

SIA Income and future funding.

 

The SIA’s income is generated primarily by the issue of licences and from Grant in Aid from the Home Office. Only from close reading of each years Annual Accounts are you able to establish the amount of Grant in Aid funding that has been provided by the government which is as follows:

 

Year: 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6

Licences: £1,000 £4,637,558 £18,900,250

Grant in Aid £13,250.000 £18,500,000 £19,500,000

(see notes below)

 

In total, the Home Office has so far provided £51,250,000 in either Revenue Grants or Capital Grants to the SIA. According to their recent accounts, although SIA are required to be self funding through licence fees, this is not yet possible and they require an additional amount of approx; £8 million of Grant in Aid for the current year 2007/8. The notes to their accounts state that this is because application numbers are expected to reduce significantly in 2006/07 as high volumes of the manned guarding sectors have now been licensed.

 

Future business includes the extension of the remit to include Scotland in licensing which is anticipated to bring in 15,000 applications with future proposals in the pipeline to regulate Northern Ireland also.

 

Telephone contact with the SIA.

 

The Contact Centre is managed by BT and it is fair to say that there are enormous problems with making contact with SIA. Their Annual Report states that despite setting a target of calls being answered within 20 seconds, BT did not meet this level. The Contact Centre has a capacity to handle 1.000 calls per day but by March 2006 the number of telephone enquiries stood at 4,500 per day!!! Confirmation of this is also provided in the Annual Report that states that:

there is current customer dissatisfaction”……….primarily related to licence processing times and call centre performance”

 

SIA Changing Agenda Conference in Leicester re: Complaints

 

At the above recent conference, Baroness Henig said the following:

 

“The SIA faced a lower licensable population than expected, which of course led to tremendous financial problems for the SIA and in turn that led to extremely difficult relations with the Home Office. I think I can say with some confidence that figures are more accurate, although there is disagreement on the annual rate of churn in the industry."

 

In answer to the criticism at the lack of prosecutions within SIA, this was met with the response by Andy Drane; Deputy Chief Executive, that:

“Prosecution is hugely expensive and time-consuming and not always with a guarantee of success’. He reported hearing concerns over the last six months that the SIA was picking on ‘easy targets’, not prosecuting enough, and not acting on information. He responded by confirming that SIA will normally give cautions only, which although many people may find intimidating was necessary as the Private Security Act 2001 stipulate that offences are criminal”

 

Mr Drane also confirmed that most interventions made had been informal, ranging from conversations and advice, to written warnings. For the period to April 2007 just 350 such warnings had been given and only 37 improvement notices issued!!

 

If following an investigation of a complaint, the outcome is found in favour of the complainant the release fee will be repaid.

 

On line search for names

Section 12 of the Private Security Industry Act, provides that a register must be in place of all licence holders for members of the public to inspect.

 

To comply with this requirement, SIA have an online searching facility that can be used to check whether or not a licence has been granted. I used this to check on 3 vehicle immobilisers. The surnames were Carter, Day and Miller. Each search confirmed that there were no matching entries for either of these names. This could not be possible. As many of you will know, the Department of Constitutional Affairs has provided our company with a copy of the official register of all certificated bailiff’s in England & Wales and this register lists 8 entries for Carter, 13 for Day and 6 for Miller and yet contains just 1.600 bailiffs names as opposed to 202,000 holders of SIA licences.

 

For this reason I eventually managed to get through to the press office at SIA. They confirmed to me that in order to search for a licence holder you would need to enter the FULL name. I explained that if your car had been immobilised or if you had cause to complain about a nightclub bouncer etc, you would be very lucky indeed to be given a surname; the chances of getting a first and middle name was remote, in particular if they knew that they were unlicensed. The press office confirmed to me that they had received many complaints about their search facility, but that their legal advice was that despite having 202,000 licence holders, SIA had an obligation to protect the identities of the 1,200 holders of Goods in Transit licences as there could be a possibility of the public obtaining the names of such licence holder which could, in theory, be used to hold that person or his family hostage in the event of a raid on a security vehicle etc. I argued that surely therefore there should be an exemption from this small group being searched online and that any such enquiries should instead be limited to telephone enquiries only. This would enable searches on the remaining 201,000 licence holders to continue.

 

I was advised to submit an e-mail request to enquire into the licenses of the three individuals. I did this 9 days ago, and so far I have not even received an acknowledgment. The link below will take you to the online search facility.

 

http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home/licensing/register/register.htm

 

Complaints.

 

This is an area that I believe is fraught with difficulties. If you wish to complain about the activities of a licence holder, the SIA website advise that this can be done in any of the following three ways:

  • Telephoning Crimestoppers
  • Online to SIA
  • By telephone to SIA

Crimestoppers:

 

I made a general enquiry to Crimestoppers as advised on the website. The operator informed me that calls should NOT be directed to them as they can only deal with the calls if you wanted to remain anonymous.

 

Online:

As mentioned earlier, I wished to see if three vehicle immobilisers have the required licences. I am reliably informed that the SIA aims to respond to e-mail’s in 10 days, which I personally consider unacceptable.

 

Telephone contact with the SIA.

The Contact Centre is managed by BT and it is fair to say that there are enormous problems with making contact with the SIA. Their Annual Report states that despite setting a target of calls being answered within 20 seconds, BT did not meet this level. The Contact Centre has a capacity to handle 1.000 calls per day but by March 2006 the number of telephone enquiries stood at 4,500 per day!!! Confirmation of this is also provided in the Annual Report that states that:

there is current customer dissatisfaction”……….primarily related to licence processing times and call centre performance”

During my conversation with the SIA press office, they confirmed to me that if a member of the public had a complaint to make about a licence holder, then the matter would be investigated by the relevant department but that the person making the complaint would be exclude from knowing how the investigation was progressing. I was told that this was because of security issues and data protection rights. If following any investigation, it was felt necessary to revoke or suspend a licence; detail of the name only of the licence holder would appear on the website. 502 licences have been suspended or revoked in the past year.

 

Summary

Although I was aware that the Home Office provided some funding to the SIA, I was simply astounded at the level of taxpayers money that is being provided to a company that we must remember, merely provides licenses to private companies and individuals within the security sector, many of them self employed vehicle immobilisers and nightclub bouncers.

 

What is very clear is that; unless the SIA are going to drastically increase their licence fee, change to yearly licences, or introduce a further group of individuals (for example bailiff’s?) that require licensing, then they are almost certainly going to be dependant on the Home Office for further funding in the coming years.

 

It is clear that the government’s choice of regulator for all Certificated Bailiff’s is the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Both the bailiff industry and advice agencies are very opposed to this. Bailiffs have long been tarred with an image akin to that of a nightclub bouncer, or worse. How ironic therefore that the SIA is the same regulatory body who are currently licensing these same people.

 

Taking all of the above into consideration, am I surprised that the government’s preferred regulator of Certificated Bailiff’s is the SIA? Certainly not.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Sheila xxxxxxx.

www.bailiffadvicexxxxxxx.co. (

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi very interesting reading. I think i understand the above post. What you are saying in effect is if a clamper was clamping your car you have no way as such of finding out if he is licensed for about ten days. And difficult to get info on other " Enforcement Officers. Why, If the nursing and Midwifery Council can confirm a PIN number of a nurse with just one phone call, then why the hell cant the SIA get it together in the same way. Appalling. Sorry as you know from previous posts i know what i want to say but writing it down it seems to come out all wrong. And yes i am a nurse. Scary i know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting!

 

the last time I needed a CRB check (in a volunteer role) the organisation photocopied my passport and I filled in a form, this seems standard practice but I couldnt help thinking, is this person in any qualified to know if passports are forgeries and isnt this just a rubber stamping exercise open to abuse, who is checking that all those in a similar role cannot interfere with that part of the process (with ref to the high number of applicants whose name didnt even match!!??)

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont even get me started on the subject of CRB checks. Not on this thread anyway. Do bailiffs need them. And would the have one for each agency they worked for like we do. I have four on the go as i work for 4 seperate nursing agencies. And my PIN can be checked within a very short space of time if its requested by a home or hospital.

Link to post
Share on other sites

those who want access to 'certain material/info' tend to easily gain access to work for organisations that have sensitive information - why?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smashedbobo

 

Bailiff's MUST have a CRB check. In addition they need to provide a recent credit check when applying to be a certificated bailiff.

 

At the moment there is no regulater for bailiff's. In order to "clean up" the industry the govenment want to propose that the SIA be the new regulator.

 

I hope when reading my letter you will agree that the Sia are NOT fit to carry out this most important role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quick summary anyone, cannot get it to open, too busy i guess?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill which is currently before the House of Commons will introduce, in strictly controlled circumstances, a new power allowing bailiffs to force entry for the purpose of enforcing civil judgments. The purpose is to ensure that debtors cannot evade payment just by refusing entry to enforcement agents, thereby refusing justice to the judgment creditor. This will only be allowed with prior judicial authority and as a means of last resort after the judge has considered the case individually and on its merits. The conditions to be satisfied in order for a judge to authorise forced entry will be set out in regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor, on which the Government will consult before laying. The criteria will include:

  • that other relevant methods of enforcement have failed;
  • the property is inhabited by the debtor;
  • normal entry attempts have been unsuccessful;
  • there is reason to believe there are suitable goods on the premises to satisfy the debt (and evidence to support that belief);
  • the enforcement agent has considered the likely means required to gain entry; and
  • the enforcement agent will leave the property in a secure state.

The power will be made available for domestic premises, but only once all non Crown-employed bailiffs are licensed by an independent regulator. The Ministry of Justice together with the Home Office is currently assessing the responses to a recent consultation exercise on this matter.

Removing the provision would, in effect, reward non-co-operation and damage the ability of judgment creditors to exercise their rights.

Similarly, removal from the Bill of the custodial offence of intentionally obstructing a bailiff would result in a debtor being able to deny justice to a judgment creditor. It is not right that a debtor should be able to avoid his or her responsibilities by deliberately obstructing an enforcement agent in the course of their lawful duties. Therefore, the Bill will make it an offence for any person who intentionally obstructs an enforcement agent. A person who is guilty of such an offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding £2500, or both. This provision unifies the current disparate powers and remedies available against debtors who intentionally obstruct enforcement agents in the course of their duties into one single offence applicable to all.

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesnt read any better does it, still shocks.

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in the court service, and the new bill MAKES ME SICK 298235.jpg

 

and ALL my colleagues, we think it will be abused by ALL private bailiffs, regardless of what the government says, regardless of all THE FALSE promises put out by the bailiff companys themselves.

 

MINISTERS WILL, CAN AND DO BRING IN ANY LAWS THEY WANT, BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER BE SUBJECTED TO THEM. SILVER SPOON BARSTEWARDS.

** Credentials **

 

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its justified for people to tar all private bailiff firms with the same brush. Bailiffs can only be instructed following a valid court order from either the county court or magistrates court. Plenty of opportunity is given in most cases to agree an arrangement in accordance with your income either with the original creditor or the bailiff companys themselves

.

Bailiffs have a repsonsibilty to their clients and society and face much unfair press and abuse whilst trying to peform their duty.

 

I work for reputable bailiff company collecting priority local authority debt. All fees applied to council tax or business rate debt is in accordance with very strict guidelines. We are accountable not only to the local authorities themselves (who are very keen to monitor their bailiffs thoroughly), but also governing body ACEA (Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies) plus other bodies e.g The Citizens Advice Bureau

I wouldpoint out that many debtors have had several debts with a particular company for a number of years. Multiple letters, visits and phonecalls are made in an effort to collect the debt and there are strict limitations to what a company can charge. As a bailiff company is not paid by its clients. the fees applied to the file account for all of their income.

However MOST bailiff companies DO work within the law and are peforming a difficult and necessary function. The cost involved in collecting from people who cant or mainly WONT pay is substantial to the councils and also to the bailiff companies they use. Which the rest of end up paying for in our ever increasing council tax bills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry parisgal I was ready to listen to your argument until I got to the bit "mainly won't pay" but that bit says it all.

 

I suggest that before you judge all debtors as feckless you try & find out why they have got into their situation. Whilst some are no doubt feckless it my experience that the vast majority are not but find themselves unable to pay their debts because of changing circumstances, illness, redundancy, etc.

 

Also my experience of debt collectors & I include bailiffs is that they constantly act unlawfully. One of their favorite tricks is to place their foot in the doorway & despite repeated request to remove it refuse. This is unlawful trespass which they seem to think they commit without sanction & they scream assault when the home owner physically removes their foot which the home occupier is perfectly entitled to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

PARISGAL.

 

I am very interested in your response for many reasons. Firstly you work for a reputable company. With resepct, EVERY single bailiff company that I talk with daily will ALL say the same.

 

Secondly, it is as if all bailiff companies have been on a training course to say the same thing, which is to say about the "won't pays". I have been dealing in debt counselling for 14 years and we have a webiste offering assistance on all matters connected with bailiff's.

 

You should be aware that far from people not paying their council tax, the collection rate around the country is a staggering 98.7%. Considering the huge level of debt that people have this is a remarkable achievement and frankly knocks any argument out of the way concerning the fact that there are many who don't pay.

 

What however is clear, is that from enquiries that our office receives every day, over half of all bailiffs are working either without a certificate or else working with a certificate that was provided for a previous employer which of course should have been changed as the bailiff bond would be invalid.

 

Please do not also lose sight of the fact that in the past year there have been 5 mortgage interest rates, gas & electricity have risen by 26% and petrol is at the highest rate in history. Is it any wonder that people are unable to pay their council tax or parking charge notices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

parisgal, I would urge you to read around the bailiff threads and see what kind of situation people are in, absolutely desperate but just dont have the money, being poor is not a crime (????) life happens, and when your income is already desperately low it is easy to find yourself in a spiral of debt, people lose their home, their belongings, their friends look the other way, and their dignity, as a society we need to consider what help and support needs to be provided.

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a key part of the new legislation is: "there is reason to believe there are suitable goods on the premises to satisfy the debt (and evidence to support that belief);".

 

A bailiff may believe all he likes that there are suitable goods on the premises, but how, exactly, is he going to provide the evidence to support his belief?

 

How can a bailiff possibly know, let alone prove to a magistrate how much the goods in my property are worth (or indeed, how much they would fetch at auction)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...