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

ZTD

Broken_hearted wrote:

No they pretend to, they send people who lie, frighten and bully people to get money.

Yep, that's right, they threaten to send them (as I said in my message), and people come round pretending to have the rights of bailiffs.

But again - please don't feed the trolls.

Tootsie_Roll

ZTD wrote:

Yep, that's right, they threaten to send them (as I said in my message), and people come round pretending to have the rights of bailiffs.

But again - please don't feed the trolls.

Again I think it is your ignorance here that is causing the problem; how often do DCA's threaten to send bailiffs round unless it is part of the same conversation/letter regarding legal action ? Never is the answer - they do threaten to send people round to collect debt and this is entirely different - but hey, remain ignorant, I couldn't care less.

ZTD

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Again I think it is your ignorance here that is causing the problem; how often do DCA's threaten to send bailiffs round unless it is part of the same conversation/letter regarding legal action ? Never is the answer - they do threaten to send people round to collect debt and this is entirely different - but hey, remain ignorant, I couldn't care less.

Since you're being almost civil - I'm going to answer it. I'm not going to give a whole list (if anyone is interested - use the search function), but...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=4107198

Note the "sending out officers to assess my assets with a view to seizure". Who are they trying to pretend to be? The OP gives the game away by mentioning the word "bailiffs". They aren't bailiffs because "added to this was talk of CCJ's". You need the CCJ first before the bailiff, just like the horse before the cart. But you could just dress up and pretend couldn't you?

Note the second post: "it sounds like theyre trying to frighten you into paying up."

And the third: "this is the usual scare tactics to try to make you pay more than you can afford." <my emphasis>

There was such shock and surprise the DCAs would lie like that. :rolleyes:

CFC

Apart from anything else, this government is seeking to take away ancient rights, and as many traditions, as it can manage to get hold of in its endless sucking up to 'big business bankrolling cronies'.

Not to mention that this is another plank in the National Identity Register Row (what is commonly shortened to ID cards and interviews for biometric passports). Once this system is up and running, everyone who changes address (eg sells old home, buys new home, changes name (eg on marraige) etc will have to register that change with the National Identity Register and pay for the privilege of doing so. Anyone who refuses to update their details or to register/attend the registration interview when required to enter their details, will be fined £2500. The government is not making it a criminal offence not to register because they want to avoid accusations of Stalinism or Nazi-ism. They are doing the compulsion elements through fines. So it becomes a civil fine and will be enforced by bailiffs.

Many people think that this is the root reason for the proposed changes in bailiff's powers.

The point of this post being that you don't have to owe money to believe that these changes are not a good thing.

Especially as the government are not bringing in statutory control of bailiffs but are hoping to build up a self-regulating framework. This does not exist in any realistic sense. Once bailiffs are allowed to use restraint against the person, there will be violence against the person. Think how many bouncers at night clubs have been found guilty of assault when removing patrons, sometimes inflicting horrific injuries. And they aren't even paid by the number of people that they chuck out of a night club! The finances involved will make the interaction between bailiff and target very volatile and it will be only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or possibly even dies under restraint. It's quite likely a by-standing child will be injured sooner or later.

Therefore any posts saying, bring it on, pay yer money back, are missing the point of the substantial undercurrents at work here. It's not a simplistic way to get money out of debtors and people are not against it only if they owe money which they are avoiding repaying.

I have no debts which I need to repay, but I have signed the petition, for all the above reasons.

Tootsie_Roll

ZTD wrote:

Since you're being almost civil - I'm going to answer it. I'm not going to give a whole list (if anyone is interested - use the search function), but...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=4107198

Note the "sending out officers to assess my assets with a view to seizure". Who are they trying to pretend to be? The OP gives the game away by mentioning the word "bailiffs". They aren't bailiffs because "added to this was talk of CCJ's". You need the CCJ first before the bailiff, just like the horse before the cart. But you could just dress up and pretend couldn't you?

Note the second post: "it sounds like theyre trying to frighten you into paying up."

And the third: "this is the usual scare tactics to try to make you pay more than you can afford." <my emphasis>

There was such shock and surprise the DCAs would lie like that. :rolleyes:

Please point to where the dca mentions sending out a bailiff -errrrr, they don't. It is common for dca's to send round an 'officer' or 'agent' to assess the value of goods. I have done it myself on many occasions, this is nothing like sending out a bailiff.

As I explained, it is your belief that they have said bailiffs when it is not what they mean nor is it mentioned or implied anywhere.

Yours is typical of the ignorance that 'believes' dca's do all sorts of horrible things when really it is nothing of the sort. Why deliberately try to confuse the issue and score a few cheap shots ? This has absolutely nothing to do with dca's.

Sloppy_Saver

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Please point to where the dca mentions sending out a bailiff -errrrr, they don't. It is common for dca's to send round an 'officer' or 'agent' to assess the value of goods. I have done it myself on many occasions, this is nothing like sending out a bailiff.

As I explained, it is your belief that they have said bailiffs when it is not what they mean nor is it mentioned or implied anywhere.

Yours is typical of the ignorance that 'believes' dca's do all sorts of horrible things when really it is nothing of the sort. Why deliberately try to confuse the issue and score a few cheap shots ? This has absolutely nothing to do with dca's.

I'd give it up if I were you. I'm finding that many people who provide input on this website are so entrenched in their beliefs that you may as well talk to the fireplace. This is not the website to subscribe to if you want debate, that's for sure.

ZTD

CFC wrote:

Not to mention that this is another plank in the National Identity Register Row (what is commonly shortened to ID cards and interviews for biometric passports). Once this system is up and running, everyone who changes address (eg sells old home, buys new home, changes name (eg on marraige) etc will have to register that change with the National Identity Register and pay for the privilege of doing so. Anyone who refuses to update their details or to register/attend the registration interview when required to enter their details, will be fined £2500. The government is not making it a criminal offence not to register because they want to avoid accusations of Stalinism or Nazi-ism. They are doing the compulsion elements through fines. So it becomes a civil fine and will be enforced by bailiffs.

Thanks for sharing this - I didn't know this at all.

Especially as the government are not bringing in statutory control of bailiffs but are hoping to build up a self-regulating framework. This does not exist in any realistic sense. Once bailiffs are allowed to use restraint against the person, there will be violence against the person. Think how many bouncers at night clubs have been found guilty of assault when removing patrons, sometimes inflicting horrific injuries. And they aren't even paid by the number of people that they chuck out of a night club! The finances involved will make the interaction between bailiff and target very volatile and it will be only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or possibly even dies under restraint. It's quite likely a by-standing child will be injured sooner or later.[/QUOTE]

Well this was along my train of thought for the "restraint" part of it. People will die. Government will do nothing until someone important, or someone related to someone important die. After all, the little people die all the time. Also, the DCAs will undoubtedly add this "power" to their list of threats.

It's interesting to think of how this fits in with the larger political/economic picture.

Tootsie_Roll

Sloppy_Saver wrote:

I'd give it up if I were you. I'm finding that many people who provide input on this website are so entrenched in their beliefs that you may as well talk to the fireplace. This is not the website to subscribe to if you want debate, that's for sure.

You do make a very valid point - what really concerns me though is the number of people coming to this site for advice and receiving completely inaccurate information based on the ignorance and bias of a small number of people with an axe to grind.

Sloppy_Saver

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

You do make a very valid point - what really concerns me though is the number of people coming to this site for advice and receiving completely inaccurate information based on the ignorance and bias of a small number of people with an axe to grind.

Agreed. To my knowledge most contributors have no financial or legal experience yet spout off half-baked schemes as through they had been Independant Financial Advisors or Solicitors for 20 years. Then a load of other people jump on the bandwagon and they all jolly themselves along into a financial or legal disaster.

One example of this is the "Pay your mortgage off ASAP" forum. They're shoving all their savings and as much of their earnings as possible into their mortgage, and goading each other on to do it. If they lose their jobs they have no accessible savings to tide them over until they get back on their feet and so will go to their mortgage providers to try and get some of their money back. Their lenders will refuse because they're unemployed and a bad risk. They'll have to try to borrow money elsewhere at higher rates and risk losing their houses if they can't meet their repayments ending up in this forum with us lot.

I have to say, there is nothing like struggling to get out out of debt to make you damned sure you'll never get back into it. Decent amount of cash savings for me before I even think of tackling the mortgage!

CFC

Sloppysaver, Tootsie, I don't know what DCAs can or can't do, I've never dealt with them. Either way though, I don't really think it's immensely relevant to this thread, or even worth getting yourself worked up about.

Sloppysaver, your comments re people wanting to pay their mortgages off -you have made a point that people perhaps should think about before they leave themselves with nothing in the bank, but it's not relevant to this thread.