Bailiffs Forcing Entry and Using Restraint - Please Read, Important - Deadline

[demon_x_slash]

I couldn't see this in this forum, and it's so important so I thought I'd post it again. Peterbard is in talks with representatives from the House of Lords about a petition showing support for amendments to a bill that allows bailiffs in certain cases to force entry to collect on a debt - even if you are not there. If you are there, and try to stop them, you yourself will be forcibly restrained. If the phrase 'An Englishman's home is his castle' has ever meant anything to you, please take the time to sign this petition or mail the Lords and Baroness in question to show your support for the amendments needed to remove this bailiff carte-blanche.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/61524-baliff-petition-stop-them.html

[demon_x_slash]

Good post on the matter from the bailiff Watchdog here.

[blacksheep1979]

Sorry but as someone who is being given the runaround by someone who can afford to pay but is using every trick in the book not to this is something that I would like seeing happen to them. Obviously it should only be allowed in extreme circumstances but I think as a last resort it should be permitted.

[demon_x_slash]

Really? Sorry, blacksheep, I've lost all respect for you. Nothing personal.

 

Anyway.

 

From peterbard's post, thanks peter:

 

Hi

I have just been reading the response that Reverend Paul Nicolson got back from the DCA when he asked them just exactly who would decide what would be reasonable force and when it would be appropriate.

Unfortunately I do not have a scanner but I will borrow one at the first opportunity and post the whole thing.

 

Firstly there is a covering letter which thanks him for his initial request under the freedom of information act and giving the following reasons why the report was withheld.

 

“To release it could prejudice the administration of justice by sharing guidance which provides advice to CEO’s on what do in specific situations:

The disclosure of methods used by Enforcement Agents could assist defaulters to evade Enforcement Officers in the execution of their duties.”

 

Rev Paul Then wrote back demanding an internal Review regarding the DCA handling of the request

After which they relented and issued a copy of Search and entry powers (Domestic violence, crime and victims act (2004)

You would think that this was a good thing until you open the document.

First page Contents

 

Heading

During the visit:

Blanked out

 

Transport of female Prisoners

Blanked out

 

When Powers may be used

Blanked out

 

Retention of removed articles

Blanked out

 

Complaints

Blanked out

There then follows some thirty pages of completely or partially blanked out non information

 

So much for the freedom of information act

 

Peter

[blacksheep1979]

I do agree that in most cases that this should not be used, but you have to see how frustrating it can be knowing that someone is earning enough money but still not paying what is owed, has gone back to the court twice to get the amount reduced, still not paid and as the baliffs cannot gain entry without force cannot confiscate goods that they squanders their wages on. By rights and confirmed by a court a fair chunk of this persons money is legal my friend and myselfs but we have no real way of getting it.

 

If someone can afford to pay what they owe yet still try every trick in the book to get out of paying then in my view they deserve all they get - if this includes bailiffs effectively burgaling them then they brought it upon themselves. Obviously this should come with sufficient warning to the person but if they still ignore the warnings so be it.

[Seminole]

I do agree that in most cases that this should not be used, but you have to see how frustrating it can be knowing that someone is earning enough money but still not paying what is owed, has gone back to the court twice to get the amount reduced, still not paid and as the baliffs cannot gain entry without force cannot confiscate goods that they squanders their wages on. By rights and confirmed by a court a fair chunk of this persons money is legal my friend and myselfs but we have no real way of getting it.

 

If someone can afford to pay what they owe yet still try every trick in the book to get out of paying then in my view they deserve all they get - if this includes bailiffs effectively burgaling them then they brought it upon themselves. Obviously this should come with sufficient warning to the person but if they still ignore the warnings so be it.

 

No I completely disagree. The state should not have the right to force entry to your home unless there is suspicion of criminal activity. There are plenty of other means of recovering monies from debtors without having to stoop to state sponsored burglaries.

[blacksheep1979]

But surely once the fact that the person owes the money is determined by the court and the fact that they can pay it then they are pretty much committing theft - which is a criminal offence.

 

I personally feel I have been robbed by this person, it would be different if they couldn't afford to pay us back, but the fact that they can and are out there spending money that isn't really theirs is a bit annoying.

[PriorityOne]

I personally feel I have been robbed by this person, it would be different if they couldn't afford to pay us back, but the fact that they can and are out there spending money that isn't really theirs is a bit annoying.

 

 

"Pay us back", blacksheep ? I assume you mean legally owned debts ?

[blacksheep1979]

us meaning more than one person, that jointly took the person to court won without even a defence - the amount was admitted without contest, just another delaying tactic very similar to the banks yet people think it would be hilarious to send a bailiff into a bank but not in a situation like this? The only difference is that a bank has its doors open.

[PriorityOne]

Are you talking about someone that you personally took to court for money that was owed to you personally ?

 

I think you need to make this a bit clearer, otherwise folk will assume that you are either a bailiff yourself, or work for a DCA...

[caledfwlch]

The problem is, Blacksheep these people who can afford to pay the debt off in one go were the bailiffs to break in, they will ooze out of it somehow... As usual, if these facist laws are brought in, and frankly if they are then the United Kingdom will officially be a dictatorship - no modern 21st century democracy allows nor should allow these actions.

 

And the most important thing of all, is, as is always the way, its the vulnerable, and the people who DONT have the money who will suffer. The rich as always will get away with it, sure the bailiffs might kick the door down, and get cash or a check within 2 mins. What about the people who genuinly cant afford it? Bailiffs will kick the door in and they WILL threaten to use violence unless you pay, and they WILL give kickings to people for not paying, thats what will happen, afterall, all they do once the police turn up is "he attacked me officer" and the police will back away, understanding that bailiffs now have powers even they themselves as officers dont posess.

 

In a way it would be poetic if the first bailiffs to use the powers got murdered/severely injured by outraged tentants.. but the way these things go, it would end up being one of the very few decent bailiffs that got the chop.

 

But surely once the fact that the person owes the money is determined by the court and the fact that they can pay it then they are pretty much committing theft - which is a criminal offence.

 

I personally feel I have been robbed by this person, it would be different if they couldn't afford to pay us back, but the fact that they can and are out there spending money that isn't really theirs is a bit annoying.

[demon_x_slash]

I think Lord Beaumont's scenario is what I fear will happen.

 

"I have been told of a case in which a lone mother with two children under 16 was fined £175 in her absence for the truancy of one of them. The enforcement agent put her on bail to appear in court on a certain day. It was discovered by a volunteer who prepared her means statement that that the child in question was deaf, the mother was long term unemployed on Income Support, which is below the government’s poverty threshold, and their home was over three and a half miles away from the school. They were vulnerable. The education authority had failed to inform the magistrates of these essential facts. When they heard them the magistrates’ set their decision set aside. The case tried again and she was acquitted.

Under the present regime of collection orders and warrants to force entry, the most likely outcome was that the fine would have been enforced threats will be made to force entry, goods could have been be seized and the magistrates never know the facts.

...

"Such a bad law will certainly be used and abused. I can visualise the possibility of an unemployed lone parent with several children receiving benefit and under stress because of her poverty. The DCA has been shown a copy of answer to the PQ showing that all unemployment benefits are below the government’s poverty threshold. She has been fined for failure to pay her TV licence (now referred to by the DCA as a criminal fine when such fines have in the past been enforced as a civil debt - being a debt to the Crown). She has debts to Provident Plc, the leading home credit company, for £500 on which she is paying £300 interest over a year; HM Revenue and Customs was late in cancelling the child benefit for he eldest son when he reached the age of 18, finished full time education and left home so she repaying an £800 overpayment.

She has not responded to the summons about the TV licence because she is semi literate and cannot afford the transport to the courts and there is no one to look after the children while she is out. She was fined disproportionately in her absence. The male civil enforcement officer/bailiff has a warrant to seize her goods to cover the fine and his fees; he forcibly enters the property with a male colleague; she threatens to punch him on the nose; the two men hold her down and a fight ensues; the children join in defence of their mother and are traumatised. (In different circumstances Social Services put children on the “at risk list” when they are traumatised by domestic violence between partners). Any complaint will be her word against the bailiffs; the chances of her having advice or legal aid are very, very slim. Repercussions in the community against the bailiffs are more likely than any appeal. "

Still okay with this going through?

[Sparkie1723]

If this Act goes through it will mean that civil offences /problems cross over into the criminal act.

Now that will be bad newsfor everyone, once that happens EVERYONE has got problems, because civil courts cannot deal with criminal offences, we have that problem now and thats bad enough.

If a creditor does not supply a copy of the executed CCA on a request under sections 77 & 78 of the Consumenr Credit Act that's a criminal offence BUT the Consumer cant take the creditor to court in a civil court for the offence.

I'm trying to help someone now with a case against Littlewoods when it was put to the Judge at the pre trial hearing about Littlewoods committing the offence under the Consumer Credit Act by not supplying a copy of the CCA agreement, he just said civil courts dont deal with offences, square one syndrome..

 

If this act goes through sometime or other a bailiff is going to hurt a debtor and the debtor wont be able to takle action against the Bailiff because I know that the bailiffs will have all their defences ready, NO way should this happen.

 

sparkie 1723

[bigfatcahoonas]

how do i sign petition, sorry new today and have problems enough with baliffs at the moment with the rights they all ready have

[demon_x_slash]

You need to download the word document on this page here. Sign it, then scan it and email to peterbard or snailmail it to the address on the document.

[MARTIN3030]

Peters thread is on all 3 Debt sections.

I have tried to bump it a few times so thanks for bringing it up again.

Time is running out for Peters petition.

I urge all that have not already done so........to get it signed.

I have asked my neigbours to do it as well

[blacksheep1979]

Are you talking about someone that you personally took to court for money that was owed to you personally ?

 

I think you need to make this a bit clearer, otherwise folk will assume that you are either a bailiff yourself, or work for a DCA...

 

Yes it was a personal matter - but I still think this is irrelevant. If a person owes money for an item purchased, screwing someone over, breech of contract or any other real reason, can afford to pay then they should and if they refuse continually then the money should be taken from them by any means possible - but only if they truely can afford to pay. I'm not talking about taking some single mothers last slice of bread and tin of beans but going into someones house and confiscating a plasma screen tv or hifi etc should be perfectly fine - they aren't necessary for living the persons life.

[PriorityOne]

Yes it was a personal matter - but I still think this is irrelevant. If a person owes money for an item purchased, screwing someone over, breech of contract or any other real reason, can afford to pay then they should and if they refuse continually then the money should be taken from them by any means possible - but only if they truely can afford to pay. I'm not talking about taking some single mothers last slice of bread and tin of beans but going into someones house and confiscating a plasma screen tv or hifi etc should be perfectly fine - they aren't necessary for living the persons life.

 

As it was a personal matter blacksheep, I can understand your frustrations. You need to sort this out through the courts... again, if necessary.

 

In your post however, you are assuming that bailiffs would be operating within a softly, softly framework of understanding. If bailiffs do not operate within the law now, what makes you think that they will do so when armed with the right to break into people's homes and take what they like ? How could these actions be regulated anyway ? A system that is based on such unfairness.... and aimed directly at persecuting the poor and vulnerable will never work in practice.

 

I therefore suggest that you try and find alternative ways of sorting out your own issues... which I do understand as being extremely frustrating for you.... before supporting methods that would effectively transport most of us right back into the Middle Ages and beyond...

 

All the very best to you....

[blacksheep1979]

It would be fairly easy to assess - you have a court official go to your house and take a list of any items he finds within certain lists (electrical goods like tvs/computers etc) that aren't necessities. If enough is found to cover the debt and the person has refused/supposedly been unable to pay (maybe an assessment of their bank records) then the bailiffs are allowed to gain entry (under supervision of the police) to take these items on a set list. Obviously don't have this as the first you've missed a payment send in the bailiffs type action but this should be a further instruction above the initial bailiff action.

[caledfwlch]

Don't you think the Police would be better used solving crimes, catching murderers, rapists and peadophiles, rather than acting as Shock Troops for Civil matters?

 

Or would you prefer to see this legislation to its logical extension? Since these are medieval style powers (except not even the barbaric medieval times went THIS far with its laws) Why not bring back Debtors Prisons? Afterall we have historical precedent, and we have modern precedent with council taxx, lets just lock them up....

 

 

 

It would be fairly easy to assess - you have a court official go to your house and take a list of any items he finds within certain lists (electrical goods like tvs/computers etc) that aren't necessities. If enough is found to cover the debt and the person has refused/supposedly been unable to pay (maybe an assessment of their bank records) then the bailiffs are allowed to gain entry (under supervision of the police) to take these items on a set list. Obviously don't have this as the first you've missed a payment send in the bailiffs type action but this should be a further instruction above the initial bailiff action.

[blacksheep1979]

Like the police actually bother with real crimes? If they could be bothered they could deal with twice the ammount of problems that they currently do - but thats another point/problem.

 

And yes I believe people who can blatently afford plasma screens or new computers whilst owing money elsewhere and not paying it should be jailed (although then they wouldn't earn any money to pay the debt back).

[JonCris]

I find it amazing that anyone on this site can advocate the forcable entry & legalised assault of their fellow citizens in their own homes...........simply because they are alledged to owe money............particularly as we have seen time & time again how these creditors & their agents operate...........As has been stated there are many other ways a debt can be enforced other than breaking into a persons home assaulting them.......probably in front of their kids.........then selling a debtors furniture & possessions for a pittance..........Did I mention they will also be able to take family pets!!!!!!!!!.........what happens to them if they can't pay..............killed perhaps..........after all who's going to feed them?

 

Oh my gawd I've just read that debtors should be jailed if they have plasma screens or anything of value...........I don't suppose it occurs to the poster that these items might have been bought during happier times when money was available.............I have met a number of debtors who have nice & expensive property/cars bought at a time when they could afford it.........but not anymore

[stan5131]

And, what makes Blacksheep think that bailiffs will properly determine who can and cant pay!!!!!

 

Jeez, anyone who watched Whistleblower just before Christmas knows only too well how these thugs abuse the powers they already have. In the programme the visited a woman about the debt of her son who no longer lived there. They were waffling jargon about how she was responsible for his debt and were wandering about her home taking notes of her furniture. It was only when she made a phone call to her solicitor that they backed down. The bailiffs knew damn well that they were not entitled to take HER possessions for her son's debts but they tried it on anyway.

 

Can you just imagine how they will abuse the ordinary persons rights with these new powers?

[blacksheep1979]

And maybe its these items that they bought that got them into debt - so they don't really own the items anyway. I am no tadvocating taking furniture/clothes etc but items that are really not necesities ie TV, PC, hifi etc. And I am also not saying do this when the person owes money but when they owe it, can pay it but don't or they owe it due to these items ie plasma screen on 0% interest deal that they never paid for - why should they be allowed to keep an item which they haven't paid for?

 

Everyone on this site seems to take the side of the individual, wether their problem is right or wrong but companies aren't just big faceless individuals they employ people and provide services to people. The extra costs incurred by individuals who don't pay their way and what they owe are passed on to the rest of us.

 

Everyone here are very quick to jump on board when a company steps slightly out of line - even a small family run company, yet should someone screw said small family company over, get taken to court and are found wanting this site will quite happily try advise them on how to get their ccj set aside, get the payments reduce or wriggle out of it completely. There is right and there is wrong and if you owe money and can afford to pay it or give up luxury goods to do so then you should.

 

quick edit to reply to stans points - read my earlier reply, did I ever even slightly hint that I think the powers to decide should be in the hands of bailiffs themselves? I think you'll find I said that shouldn't be the case.

[stan5131]

You are missing the point Blacksheep. Bailiffs will not just use these powers on those that CAN and WILL NOT pay. They will inflict their bullying tactics on those who have barely anything of value.