Have you experience or a view on what action bailiffs should take?

rog2

Alfonso_Skinarelli wrote: »

I'm a self employed bailiff collecting fines and penalties on behalf of HMCS and HMRC so I thought I'd make a few comments on some of the points I've read. I have a dirty and difficult job to do at times but it's a job that has to be done at the end of the day. While I may not agree with the actions of some bailiffs highlighted in recent programs, the majority I know do the job properly in the face of extreme adversity.

I can only assume, therefore, that you either enjoy your job, or that you earn 'shedloads of money'.


While I agree with your comments about the need for fully trained people to conduct this business and welcome further regulation of existing bailiffs, one has to bare in mind that the Police don't and won't ever have the resources to run a seperate "enforcement" branch. What you propose would undoubtedly end in a "catalogue" style collection service costing the tax payer millions in wasted man hours.

I would suggest that the 'fees' and commissions that baliffs charge, under the current system, would go a long way towards funding the additional manpower required by the police, in order to carry out this service.


NB: Insulting the bailiff = Water off a ducks back.
This is a totally unwarranted statement and to post it on the DFW board is 'condescending' to say the least, especially given the insulting language used by the bailiffs, to creditors, as highlighted on the BBC 'Whistleblower' programme.

I have no personal battle with you AS, but your arguments simply don't justify what is, after all, a hastily cobbled bill to give unlicenced and often untrained people, motivated purely by profit, the same powers as certified court officers, whose primary duty is to uphold the rule of law.

OberonSH

I think we should all commit one months debt payments to pay someone to go round to Rossendales and subject them to the sort of abuse and mistreatment they seem to love dishing out. I know that it's a job at the end of the day, but all apart from one bailiff I've had the misfortune to deal with have been arrogant, rude, abusive and sometimes downright inimidating. They've all bar the one (who I'm sure was maybe just high or something) has forced a payemtn with threats, not shown warrants, blatantly lied about having a warrant, called me 'ungrateful' and a 'debt dodger' and when complained about was old 'You owe us money, what do you want us to do about this?' As far as I can tell, it's the only profession school bullys and the guys who pull flies wings off go into.

I vote for Martin beating up the owner of Rossendales. I would pay to watch that.

I'm usually a happy, laid back positive person, but I wouldn't pee on a bailiff if he was on fire. We can't allow these 'people' to have even more powers. I think they should have more laws limiting their power, and make them send out an info sheet to new accounts detailling what they can and can't do.

If I ever become rich enough, I'm going to start 'The Friendly Bailiff Co.', not frighten people and make sure payments are in line with what people can afford, offer debt counselling and basically make sure the process is as painfree as possible.

Alfonso_Skinarelli

rog2 wrote: »

I can only assume, therefore, that you either enjoy your job, or that you earn 'shedloads of money'.

You assume wrong my friend. As I said in my opening post, I collect on behalf of HMCS and HMRC (government bodies). Your response makes me assume you've had dealings with bailiffs in the past. Maybe I've "assumed" wrong......

rog2 wrote: »

I would suggest that the 'fees' and commissions that baliffs charge, under the current system, would go a long way towards funding the additional manpower required by the police, in order to carry out this service.

A somewhat naive opinion IMHO. If the Police were forced to charge the same "justifiable" fees to collect the debt (which the tax payer pays no contribution towards) wouldn't you just protest about the fees in the same way?

rog2 wrote: »

This is a totally unwarranted statement and to post it on the DFW board is 'condescending' to say the least, especially given the insulting language used by the bailiffs, to creditors, as highlighted on the BBC 'Whistleblower' programme.

As with all "gospel truth" programmes, they only ever highlight the bad in industry. If my attitude seems "condescending" I apologise but it's been moulded by the vast majority of people I have contact with (collecting court fines) that lie and do anything in their power to avade paying their debt(s). As I've already said, IMO I do the job properly but sometimes when faced with personal insults and EXTREME threats of violence involving objects that make your bum cheeks contract, you have to be forceful in this society full of "victims". Once upon a time if someone was fined by the courts, society would expect that person to pay immediately. These days, the liberal minded folk of this country think debtors should be given time (years) to pay their dues. Where do we draw the line? My original comment was born from dealing with that person down the road from you. You know, the person you dare not say boo to or fear local reprisals from and their lawless cronies. If you don't kow this person, you don't have a right to comment.........

rog2 wrote: »

I have no personal battle with you AS, but your arguments simply don't justify what is, after all, a hastily cobbled bill to give unlicenced and often untrained people, motivated purely by profit, the same powers as certified court officers, whose primary duty is to uphold the rule of law.

I'm not trying to justify the commercial bailiff's behaviour but it's a fact of the modern capitalist society that if you embrace that ideology you're motivated by money just as much as the next man (regardless of occupation). However, for those that wish to stay in their chosen occupation, they have to conduct themselves accordingly or be out of a job at the end of the day. I've already stated I welcome further regulation of existing bailiffs.

OberonSH wrote: »

If I ever become rich enough, I'm going to start 'The Friendly Bailiff Co.', not frighten people and make sure payments are in line with what people can afford, offer debt counselling and basically make sure the process is as painfree as possible.

And I suspect you'll send them letters demanding payment with cherries on top and a few kisses. Get real my friend, debt recovery is far from civilised.....

immoral_angeluk

The trouble with those proposals is that they're so open to abuse. Baliffs push their luck too much as it is.... that would only get worse if this new law was to go through.

rog2

Alfonso_Skinarelli wrote: »

You assume wrong my friend. As I said in my opening post, I collect on behalf of HMCS and HMRC (government bodies). Your response makes me assume you've had dealings with bailiffs in the past. Maybe I've "assumed" wrong......

I have made no secret of the fact that I HAVE had dealings with bailiffs. In fact that is the primary reason for posting in this thread (See Martin's Title question).
The 'dealings' that I have had with bailffs, including those who purport to be collecting on behalf of the same government bodies who are providing you with an income, have merely served to re-inforce my opinion of the dubious manner in which the overriding majority of bailiffs carry out their 'duties'.
Which, and by the way I don't believe that I am your friend, is why I posted my views, when asked.

rog2

Alfonso_Skinarelli wrote: »

A somewhat naive opinion IMHO. If the Police were forced to charge the same "justifiable" fees to collect the debt (which the tax payer pays no contribution towards) wouldn't you just protest about the fees in the same way?

We probably have differing opinions on what constitutes 'justifiable'. There are MANY examples, on this forum, where so-called 'Bailiffs' have imposed exorbitant costs on people who have no means of paying.

Once upon a time if someone was fined by the courts, society would expect that person to pay immediately. These days, the liberal minded folk of this country think debtors should be given time (years) to pay their dues.

Certainly in living memory, and probably for centuries, British Law has allowed Courts to give time to pay fines. I fail to see your point.

If you don't kow this person, you don't have a right to comment.........

I have EVERY right to comment.

Back in the days of the Poll Tax, when my son was 16 and still at school, I was visited by a 'Freddy Krueger' lookalike, who told me he was a certified bailiff and was collecting a 'debt' on behalf of the local council.
He tried to force his way past me and into the house, WITHOUT showing any identification, or authorisation. I told him that if he set one foot inside my house, without explaining the reason for his visit, I would call the Police, and would, justifiably, defend my property from an unauthorised user.
At no time did I insult him, or threaten him with violence.
It turned out that this 'thug' had called to collect an assumed debt of just £10.00 :mad: :mad: . It must have cost more for him to come to my house.
One telephone call, to the council, confirmed that my son was NOT liable for this 'debt' and the bailiff left - with no apology.

That was my first dealing with people from your 'profession' AS. Yes it probably did influence any future judgement of bailiffs, but it was not the last time that I was to come into contact with bailiffs and, to date, I have found no reason to change my opinion.

OberonSH

Alfonso_Skinarelli wrote: »

And I suspect you'll send them letters demanding payment with cherries on top and a few kisses. Get real my friend, debt recovery is far from civilised.....

Isn't that the point though? Shouldn't it be a civilised affair, with no-one made to feel threatened. I think, Mr Skinarelli, you have just made our point...from the horses mouth.

OberonSH

Anyway, what are you doing lurking on a debt board? Looking for victims?

rickbonar

What is the situation with the new powers for bailiffs ?

Have the government changed the law to allow them to break and enter or not?

Can someone please update us?

BAILIFFCHASER

Alfonso_Skinarelli wrote: »

I'm a self employed bailiff collecting fines and penalties on behalf of HMCS and HMRC so I thought I'd make a few comments on some of the points I've read. I have a dirty and difficult job to do at times but it's a job that has to be done at the end of the day. While I may not agree with the actions of some bailiffs highlighted in recent programs, the majority I know do the job properly in the face of extreme adversity.

To start with, let's get one thing straight from the off. The last thing a bailiff wants to do is remove property. He would much prefer to seek payment immediately than spend 2 hours in someone's house making a detailed inventory of goods only to spend another 2 hours shifting those goods to an auction house 30 miles away. That's a complete waste of a day. If the debtor hasn't arranged payment by the time his goods are waiting at the front door, chances are he's a "can't payer". Bailiffs are looking for the "won't payers", there's a huge difference. If someone is a genuine "can't payer" I will treat them accordingly and refer them back to the courts.

Unfortunately, in many cases, identifying which category the debtor falls into only comes to light when "distress" has been "levied". In other words, I can usually only make a decision on someone's ability to pay once I've been the nasty man and actually gone through the process of "removing their goods". It's amazing how many people change their mind about paying when their goods are sat by the front door waiting to go. Anyway, that's enough of me justifying my actions, here's a few of my thoughts....




Any new powers to bailiffs chasing commercial debt will effectively bring them in line with the powers that already exist for court bailiffs. Peaceful entry will be a legal requirement meaning that if the debtor doesn't play ball, a locksmith is called out accompanied by the Police to ensure no breach of the peace occurs. Bearing in mind the bailiff wants to get paid (not remove goods if he can help it), this won't happen without the following:

1. Fully confirmed residency.
2. Prior contact with the debtor who refuses to pay.
3. A wealth of goods available to recover the debt and substantial removal costs.




Remember, the bailiff company is there to make money like any commercial operation, They're not going to sanction expensive removal action without:

1. Fully confirmed residency.
2. A wealth of goods available to recover the debt and substantial removal costs.





While I agree with your comments about the need for fully trained people to conduct this business and welcome further regulation of existing bailiffs, one has to bare in mind that the Police don't and won't ever have the resources to run a seperate "enforcement" branch. What you propose would undoubtedly end in a "catalogue" style collection service costing the tax payer millions in wasted man hours.






There aren't many local councils who will sanction the removal of goods for non payment of council tax. They much prefer the bailiffs to do a "walking posession" where they'll seize the goods but leave them on the premesis. This way the debtor gets to keep the goods but knows that non payment can result in those goods being removed at a later date. If you refuse to let the bailiff in and/or are not prepared to deal with the debt, you'll find yourself being summonsed to court. If you fail to turn up in court, expect to be lifted by the Police at 6 in the morning while the neighbours twitch the curtains.

Although you'll incur additional fees if your goods are seized by the bailiffs, it will protect those goods from being removed by anyone else. Once the goods are subject to a walking posession, they're exempt from any other seizure order until the debt is either paid or written off.

My advice? Talk to the bailiff and try and sort a payment arrangement out. It may cost you a little more in fees but depending on the value of your goods, he may let you pay in installments on the basis the goods aren't sufficient to cover the debt in the first place so aren't worth removing.


NB: Insulting the bailiff = Water off a ducks back.

Are you blfuk from the cag ? Had to ask !!!!