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

laguna_2

i do not agree with the new regulations. if people are avoiding paying their debt then why are bailiffs and dca companys making so much money.bailiffs need to be properly regulated by law so that they cant try and intimidate and lie to people as they do now. i think a lot of people get confused between a bailiff and a dca. if the new regs come in, it doesnt mean bailiffs can come around without a court order, they willstill need one but power of entry may be attached to the warrant. dcas will threaten people all the time with bailiffs, more than they do now if the bill goes through and lie about their new supposed powers.
IF A BAILIFF TRIED TO FORCE HIS WAY INTO MY PROPERTY, I WOULD ACT IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT MYSELF. IN OTHER WORDS I WOULD CAVE HAIS HEAD IN AND HE WOULD SERIOUSLY NEED PARAMEDICS AND SOD THE POLICE.

wherediditallgo

I am totally against the part of this bill that would give bailiffs more freedom. They don't need more rights, they need to be more answerable. My particular gripe is with bailiffs who are there for council debts.

• I know of a bailiff company that doesn't send out receipts for payments you make to them. That should come to you automatically. And if you're on a payment agreement with them, they should send you a receipt that shows how much you've paid & how much is still outstanding, together with details of what's been deducted for their charges. You shouldn't have to be asking for this information & then fight to get it months down the road.

• I understand the need for bailiffs, but I don't see why they should be in a position to terrorise people. Many of them already abuse the law, & use the person's ignorance of the law & natural fear against them. If a council engages a bailiff, they should send you a document detailing what the bailiff can & cannot do, bailiff charges etc & where to get advice with the same letter that tells you the bailiffs have been called in.

• Bailiffs should be subject to independent investigation. They fund the organisations they're members of, so complaints to those organisations rarely result in redress - the only time I've ever seen bailiffs publicly respond is when they get embarrassed in the media.

• Councils have a right to seek payment of money owed to them, but the public are entitled to expect the council & bailiffs to have their facts straight. People have had bailiffs called in when housing benefit claims haven't been sorted out properly! The same applies to private individuals or businesses who are owed money - they should follow the law, & make sure they've got their facts straight, including the identity of the person living in the property. I had a bailiff come round at my old address looking for a man that I'd never even heard of, & he expected me to prove I didn't know his whereabouts or anything about him. How was I supposed to do that? It should be for the bailiff & the person who's engaged him to do that. I told him again that I'd never heard of the person, & that if he came back or telephoned I would record any future conversations I had with him or anyone else from his company, & would give the recordings to the police & the national press. A neighbour got her camcorder & said she was prepared to stand there for as long as the bailiff did. But why should we have been in that position? The onus should be on the person booking the bailiff to ensure they've got the correct details for the debtor, & should be on the bailiff to prove he's at the correct address speaking to the correct people.

• Where there is dispute with a bailiff engaged by a council, people should have the automatic right to pay the council direct either by phone, in person or via their website until the dispute is resolved. Once the bailiffs have been called in, a charge should be levied for them taking on the case, & if you owe the money you should pay that whether you pay the council direct or not. But if you're complaining about the bailiff's charges & conduct you shouldn't be in a position where a bailiff can add more charges to the bill or possibly subject you to more unacceptable behaviour.

• Councils who don't properly respond when complaints are made about bailiffs they've engaged should be subject to censure & made to pay compensation in cases where they or the bailiff are proved to be at fault, especially if the law has been broken. The bailiff should also have to pay up. It doesn't have to be a huge amount, but the amount should be recorded in the Local Ombudsman's local authority records or on a central register that any member of the public can look at.

wherediditallgo

Storm wrote: »

One question that I wondered though from seeing bits of 'Beat the Bailiff' on BBC1 was why do they take all CDs/videos etc even though they won't raise any money - surely the bailiffs must know what sells & what doesn't, and if it's not going to pay off the debt it appears to me to be more a form of punishment than anything else!

That's what it is to me too, a way of maximising your discomfort in your home following their visit. It's not for the bailiff to punish you - the law is there to deal with that side of things. As far as I'm concerned bailiffs are power-mad thugs.

After my dealings with them, I printed off copies of a document on what bailiffs can & can't do, & distributed them to all my friends & family. If this new bill becomes law, I'll do the same again with the updated version. It's vital that people are aware of the law & their rights - no bailiff is going to tell them.

I also found it shocking that some organisations dealing with poverty & providing debt counselling had little or no idea of this bill until I e-mailed them about it. How were they going to advise people when they hadn't kept up-to-date on things themselves?

rickbonar

I gather there are frequent assaults from bailiffs and indeed on bailiffs which seem to be airbrushed from the press and internet.

The whistleblower programme last year highlighted many faults with this system and you would expect the "whiter than white" new labour to actually regulate to limit their power instead of legitimise these bad practises.

Probably the programme proved the lawbreaking and that a blind eye is shown by the courts and Police, now as an aftermath the governments reaction is simply change the law to allow it!

I guess council tax which you can't get out of paying (even by bankruptcy) is one of the reasons behind this, coupled with the fact that it costs more to imprison people for non payment than it's worth.

The attacks on bailiffs yes I remember a case some years ago now where a man shot 2 bailiffs a solicitor with them dead and then killed himself. I can't find that on the net anywhere though. Strange.

I nearly forget, one of the earlier posts stated that it was due to be law by the 23 March 2007. It is now the 25 March 2007.

So can anyone tell me whether or not it has passed into law yet?

Thank you

Rick

roob_the_doob

yogaboy wrote: »

I was taken to court by the Inland Revenue for unpaid taxes. I didn't turn up and the bailiffs visited me and I had to pay £1300 on unpaid taxes that were originally £700, because of bailiff's charges and court fines.

The reason the taxes were unpaid was because the IR had paid the cheque in to the wrong account, so I'd payed but not been credited as having paid. They then sent letters chasing me TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. An address I'd left over 4 years ago. Why they used this, I don't know, as they'd been able to send letters to the right address previously, and at the other address I'd been at since!

Then, when I didn't reply they took me to court. Of course, I knew nothing about this so I didn't turn up as the court were obviously sending letters to that address too - a bunch of idiots, all of them.

Of course, the bailiffs managed to find the right address, which compounds the stupidity of both the court and the IR.

And I'm left with a huge bill and a couple of very rude bailiffs on my doorstep. If I ever have the good fortune to have a bailiff try and break into my property I'm going to use force to stop him and then say I thought it was a burgler. Muppets.

This happens a lot, and is very easily reversed if you know what to do.

What is required is that, within 21 days of you first becoming aware of the problem, you arrange to make a statutory declaration in front of magistrates to the effect that you had no knowledge of the summons and that you were therefore unable to respond. The magistrates then make an order annulling the previous court order, and you can then serve this on the offending party (in this case the IR). The bailliffs fees are no longer your problem, as the court order which legitimised them has been erased.

System

Yeah tough one. While we all realise that we have a responsibility to repay our debt BUT, an English man's home has been his castle for a thousand years and should remain so. Some Baliffs are genuine and some are corrupt. If this bill was passed which it shouldnt be in my opinion, Baliffs should be regulated BY the government and the police should play some part - and this isnt going to happen. The UK has by far the biggest debt mountain in Europe and cannot be ignored.

Alfonso_Skinarelli

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....

Storm wrote: »

If bailiffs can enter without the occupier present then they should have to accompanied by the police, who will counter-sign the list of goods taken and be able to settle any disputes.

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.

Storm wrote: »

The industry needs to be regulated properly, and whilst it will never be perfect one measure has to be absolute certainty that the person in the property is the right one!

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.

rog2 wrote: »

Yes, I do agree that Court Orders should be pursued, but that they should be pursued by genuine, fully trained, officers in law, such as a uniformed branch of the Police, who are fully aware of the rights, not only of the creditor, but also of the debtor, or alleged debtor, and whose paramount responsibility is to uphold the rule of law.
Unfortunately, and in spite of all of our petitions - I have written to my MP - this bill will go through Parliament and will, probably, get no more than a summary mention by the Press.
I agree fully with those who say that what this 'SYSTEM' needs is a Total Overhaul, not legislation to exonerate the already unacceptable behaviour of these thugs. :mad:

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.

Warriorsith wrote: »

Hi All

I've recieved a letter from Rossendales who are Bailiffs stating that an outstanding amount of £378 for Council Tax is due and that they'll send a bailiff around to collect 'goods' totalling that amount, we have just this week sent a payment off which brings the remaining total to £252.

As I've never been in this situation can someone explain what will happen, will the bailiff breakdown the door, what rights do I have?

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.

wherediditallgo

You might not want to remove goods, but some do & will use nasty tactics to get at you. A bailiff came to my home when no-one was in a couple of months ago (Council Tax arrears that have now been sorted out), & he left a handwritten letter saying that he had "called to remove goods". They'd never been in my home, so had no idea what goods were inside it. I'd also never spoken to the individual himself, only to the office. So why come to remove goods, presumably with transport to put them in, for which I'd be expected to pay? Either he came with the transport, intent on taking goods the same day that he didn't even know existed, or he didn't come to remove goods in which case the statement in the letter was a lie to intimidate me into paying. Well, it didn't work.

The code of practice for the ESA, which this particular company is a member of, says "Members should on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtors property which incurs the debtor in a fee, leave a notice setting out in detail how the fee was made up and retain a record of the said issue of the notice for a minimum period of 12 months, after the date of issue." This was not done. I pointed this out in a fax to them the same night, & said I therefore do not expect a charge to be levied for the visit, & would not be paying it if it was. I sent a copy of the fax to the council's Complaints Dept.

As for talking to the bailiff, that's a great idea if you can get hold of them. The same company put me in a position where two bailiffs (months apart) wouldn't respond to messages left on their mobiles - one actually told me that he was very busy, & whether he called me or not I still owed the money! He was wrong on that score too - I owed nothing like as much as he said, because he hadn't got his facts straight. As this company don't send out receipts or account statements, I was only able to prove what I'd paid & when because (a) I'd kept my own record including screenshots of my bank statement showing the payment, & (b) I repeatedly insisted on getting a detailed statement of account until they gave in, & made sure that the council also got a copy of every fax I sent to them. My fervent complaints to the council by fax resulted in not only the case being removed from them, but me also getting the court fees back.

Had I been a vulnerable person, or less able to defend myself than I am, one of two things would have happened. I would have either overpaid on the account in panic, or my goods would have been out the door, unlikely to be ever seen again.

You may operate within the law, but take it from me, not all bailiffs do. Many play on the ignorance of the public, & manipulate the situation to suit themselves. Someone I know had a bailiff on her doorstep - when she wouldn't open the door, he started shouting her business for all the neighbours to hear (against his company's code of practice), clearly thinking that she'd let him in to lessen her embarrassment & then he'd be able to get his "walking possession" agreement sorted. He came unstuck, because she didn't care who heard what, & yelled at him through an open upstairs window that all he was doing was increasing her chances of getting a good recording of his voice on her video. Neighbours gathered, told him he was being a !!!!!! & that he should get a better-fitting suit as the one he had on was totally below standard for the area he was walking in. Teenagers joined in & made him look totally stupid (as only they can :rolleyes:) - several choruses of the Akon song "Locked Up" modified to become "Locked out, she won't let me in" , cackles of "Is she coming downstairs, mate?" & "What are you going to do if you need to wee?" & neighbours repeatedly asking him if he was feeling daft standing there like that yelling at a shut door shifted him after about 20 minutes. Water off a duck's back? This chap was bright red & sweating buckets by the time he left, especially when his car stalled as he tried to drive away.

I don't hold with physical attacks except in self defence. However, if a bailiff can't operate within the law & earn his pay without being a power-mad pillock, then he's clearly not right for the job & he deserves whatever the public can legally throw at him.

quietcarlos

Not all bailiffs are imtimidating bullies, some do actually take the time to help those who are in financial turmoil. They are human and like all humans they have a tolerance level to verbal and physical abuse. I think that bailiffs should be made accountable for their actions as Door supervisors now are. They should be allowed to gain lawful entry but only as a very last resort. I've had bailiffs on my doorstep chasing a debt where someone used my address to register a vehicle and clocked up several parking fines. I can only speak as i find and to be honest they were very polite and understanding. Once i had proved who i was and the person concerned didn't reside at my address i've not heard from them since. If my experience had have been different then maybe so would my opinion!

rog2

quietcarlos wrote: »

Not all bailiffs are imtimidating bullies, some do actually take the time to help those who are in financial turmoil. They are human and like all humans they have a tolerance level to verbal and physical abuse.
If my experience had have been different then maybe so would my opinion!

NOBODY here is saying that ALL bailiffs are intimidating bullies, and I am pleased to see that YOU have had a good experience with a bailiff.
UNFORTUNATELY, as confirmed by the experiences of many people not only on this board but alsowell documented and recorded by the media, a VERY LARGE proportion of Bailiffs DO abuse their power. Why else would the government even be considering further legislation/regulation?
I am pleased to notice that you say that your opinion would have been different had your own experiences een different. At least you will appreciate the views of those amongst us who HAVE had bad experience at the hands of these 'people'.