Bailiffs to be allowed to use force on debtors.

bobalob

Hi there,

Certainly in Scotland half of the things dopester lists couldn't be taken by Sheriff Officers or Messengers-at-Arms. To obtain anything from a dwellinghouse, an Exceptional Attachment Order needs to be granted by the Court.

An officer may not, in executing an exceptional attachment order, attach any articles which the officer considers likely to be of sentimental value to the debtor. Other items exempted include (a) beds or bedding; (b) household linen; (c) chairs or settees; (d) tables; (e) food; (f) lights or light fittings; (g) heating appliances; (h) curtains; (i) floor coverings; (j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for storing, cooking or eating food; (k) refrigerators; (l) articles used for cleaning, drying, mending, or pressing clothes; (m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; (n) furniture used for storing— (i) clothing, bedding or household linen; (ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or (iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food; (o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse; (p) tools used for maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse or of household articles; (q) computers and accessory equipment; (r) microwave ovens; (s) radios; (t) telephones; (u) televisions.

Source: Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, Office of the Queen's Printer for Scotland www.oqps.gov.uk

In Scotland we have the common law crime of Deforcement of Messengers, which applies when people stop Officers of Court from performing their duties.

Whereas technically anyone in England and Wales can become a bailiff (though not a certificated bailiff), in Scotland all Officers of Court have to undergo examination procedures, a period of apprenticeship and are subject to complaints and supervision procedures supervised by the judiciary. (SSI 1991/1937)

epz_2

bobalob wrote: »

Hi there,

Certainly in Scotland half of the things dopester lists couldn't be taken by Sheriff Officers or Messengers-at-Arms. To obtain anything from a dwellinghouse, an Exceptional Attachment Order needs to be granted by the Court.

An officer may not, in executing an exceptional attachment order, attach any articles which the officer considers likely to be of sentimental value to the debtor. Other items exempted include (a) beds or bedding; (b) household linen; (c) chairs or settees; (d) tables; (e) food; (f) lights or light fittings; (g) heating appliances; (h) curtains; (i) floor coverings; (j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for storing, cooking or eating food; (k) refrigerators; (l) articles used for cleaning, drying, mending, or pressing clothes; (m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; (n) furniture used for storing— (i) clothing, bedding or household linen; (ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or (iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food; (o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse; (p) tools used for maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse or of household articles; (q) computers and accessory equipment; (r) microwave ovens; (s) radios; (t) telephones; (u) televisions.

Source: Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, Office of the Queen's Printer for Scotland www.oqps.gov.uk

In Scotland we have the common law crime of Deforcement of Messengers, which applies when people stop Officers of Court from performing their duties.

Whereas technically anyone in England and Wales can become a bailiff (though not a certificated bailiff), in Scotland all Officers of Court have to undergo examination procedures, a period of apprenticeship and are subject to complaints and supervision procedures supervised by the judiciary. (SSI 1991/1937)

im not sure theres much not on that list except the change down the back of the couch.

mewbie_2

epz wrote: »

im not sure theres much not on that list except the change down the back of the couch.

Not much good if they've taken the couch.

olly300

mewbie wrote: »

Not much good if they've taken the couch.

Nice to know they can only take away your living room furniture and if you are canny you will store bedding or clothing in it so they can't even that.

epz_2

mewbie wrote: »

Not much good if they've taken the couch.

isnt that covered by (c) chairs or settees;

ive seen home insurance cover less comprehensive than that list.

frankly i kind of agree as i reckon the money recouped by selling a 2nd hand telly will be minuscule vs most peoples debts these days and the effect of losing possessions can be pretty harsh potentially making further repayment less likely.

RobertoMoir

dopester wrote: »

I've not been a massive spendaholic in the last 10 years, but even if bailiffs took what I'd bought in recent years, they'd only get a fraction of the value for them at any liquidation sale.

My 2006 LCD TV (36" - with a slight fault), my 3 desktop computers, my three PDAs (2001, 2004, 2005), digital cameras (2002 + 2006) washing machine, tumble drier, DVD collection, Playstation MK1, books, clothes, furniture, car, mountain bike, DIY tools (which I reckon unemployed tradesmen might now be sell off cheaply lesser used tools and depress prices further) food store...

I'm just thinking that, other than perhaps some big debtors who bought stuff which might hold price (jewellery and art maybe - although those markets are said to be crashing too), your average £10K, £20K, £50K debtor might have very little by way of possessions of real value to show for it.

Leaving aside what a bailiff could or couldn't take for now, the fact is that a lot of bailiff 'business' is related to smaller debts such as council tax (Smaller is a relative term, 'cos I'm well aware it doesn't feel like a small debt to someone with virtually no income and someone who's a much worse version of what I used to be on their doorstep) and as such a removal might be worth a punt for the bailiff.

IIRC (and I'm not sure if this is law or just 'best practice' because it has been a while now) a bailiff shouldn't be removing goods unless they think there really is a decent chance of their auction recovering all or at least a sizeable portion of a debt.

Most bailiffs, regardless of what kind and what they're collecting for, don't actually want to remove goods, precisely because of what you say about the low value. The threat of removing goods is an effective method of getting people to pay who do have the money but just don't want to pay. I tried to avoid removing goods wherever I could because I disliked doing so but I once recovered council tax debts from a very stubborn "won't pay" debtor because I gained entry to his house, figured out the only thing in the world he gave a crap about was his stereo and record collection, and just removed those. He had the money sorted and was on the phone before we got 3 miles away afterwards.

I know some people will probably be thinking about how rotten I am at this point because I removed someone's goods, but those people should keep in mind that people like the one above who could pay any time they wanted but simply didn't want to are (a small) part of the reason your council tax is as high as it is, and part of the reason debt recovery generally presumes the worse of the person owing the debt.

But for larger debts, bailiffs are unlikely to be effective if the only thing they do is turn up and remove goods. Even a large successful business is unlikely to have enough assets around to make removal and auction of goods for a large debt worthwhile. This is part of the reason why bailiffs employed by the county court don't generally move to this stance if they can help it, because for the majority of cases they deal with it's unlikely to help.

dopester

Wow Roberto. Interesting stuff.

So..

!!!!!!? wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.

Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.

The government, which wants to crack down on people who evade debts, says the new powers would be overseen by a robust industry watchdog. However, the laws are being criticised as the latest erosion of the rights of the householder in his own home.

“These laws strip away tried and tested protections that make a person’s home his castle, and which have stood for centuries,” said Paul Nicolson, chairman of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, a London-based welfare charity. “They could clearly lead to violent confrontations and undermine fundamental liberties.”

What is all this about then? Is it less to do with bailiffs using force to actually take stuff - unless it is of obvious good resale value..

..and more to do with strongly focussing the mind of debtor, to find the money to pay for bills like council tax (which we already know the authority of the land will not tolerate much by way of non-payment due to people, even pensioners being jailed for refusing to pay).

RobertoMoir

dopester wrote: »

Wow Roberto. Interesting stuff.

So..



What is all this about then? Is it less to do with bailiffs using force to actually take stuff - unless it is of obvious good resale value..

..and more to do with strongly focussing the mind of debtor, to find the money to pay for bills like council tax (which we already know the authority of the land will not tolerate much by way of non-payment due to people, even pensioners being jailed for refusing to pay).

My opinion is that it's not even that good. This very much sounds like an idea dreamed up by someone who has never been in serious debt, or for that matter, has never tried to recover serious debt. The only time I ever felt the need to use force as a bailiff was in self defence, and then only rarely. I can't think of a single case I dealt with that would have been improved by these ideas.

SEE

Airwolf1 wrote: »

Part of the problem is probably all the bad debt that companies/banks etc have being written off from time to time. However, a different approach is needed to what is being proposed. I've read enough stories on here already about Bailiffs collecting for C/Tax etc. They would need severely watching over if this came to pass.

But there's no such thing as debt. Debt is created from nothing, the money never existed.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ojwlDFSdy8I&feature=related

Renfro

Ten Minute Bill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l2gm1/Ten_Minute_Rule_Bill_Bailiffs/