Bailiff has licence revoked, after terrifying 12 year old girl.

[Deleted User]

Some people evidently believe in the principle of "the sins of the father".

Country_Cousin

unholyangel wrote: »

Link?

All I found in the story I read was that he was trying to collect a £78 debt for tv licence from 2002. Nothing about the circumstances in how that debt came to be or whether it is indeed owed.

The link is the story.
Further down in the story it says that the debt was eventually paid around 26 September, which was after the bailiff visited the house.


In this instance I agree with tomtontom - pay your bills or make reasonable efforts to come to a payment agreement - and the bailiffs won't come knocking

fed_up_and_stressed

halibut2209 wrote: »

And yet you cite "bullies" as a pet peeve in your sig. That's exactly what this person is

If they had paid up then the balliff wouldnt have come round ..bully or not.

[Deleted User]

That doesn't excuse him terrifying a 12 year old girl, and breaching the DPA.

unholyangel

Country_Cousin wrote: »

The link is the story.
Further down in the story it says that the debt was eventually paid around 26 September, which was after the bailiff visited the house.


In this instance I agree with tomtontom - pay your bills or make reasonable efforts to come to a payment agreement - and the bailiffs won't come knocking

Yes they paid on 26 september, but where does it state they were low life types trying to avoid paying that tomtontom stated?

What I meant by my post is we have no idea how the debt came to be. Whether they were trying to avoid paying or whether perhaps they moved house and tvl "billed" them anyway. Or perhaps they didnt need a licence.

Many people will pay something just to make it go away. So we don't even know if it was indeed owed.

halibut2209

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

If they had paid up then the balliff wouldnt have come round ..bully or not.

So it's fine to bully a non-involved 3rd party if someone else owes money? Gotcha.

fatbelly

The main misdemeanour of the bailiff was to misrepresent the law in his written (unsealed) note that he gave to the 12 year-old.

The courts have to be convinced that a bailiff is a 'fit and proper person' and that they know the law. Obviously the judge wasn't convinced on either count

He wrote on the note: “Police will enter your property to arrest you and detain you in custody. Final warning, I will return with police tonight.”

The court heard the first letter was not sealed in a proper envelope, as it should have been, and that the alterations to the notice and the repeated use of the word “Police” had been made with an intention to cause alarm.

The fact this letter was handed to a 12-year-old girl was an aggravating feature, a judge ruled. The judge also said that his certificate would likely have been revoked even if this note had been handed to an adult.

[Deleted User]

While we are on the subject, I've seen a number of reports about "enforcement officers", ie. the new name for bailiffs.

It keeps referring to "the Council".

Does that mean the new powers only apply to CT debts?

hallowitch

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

While we are on the subject, I've seen a number of reports about "enforcement officers", ie. the new name for bailiffs.

It keeps referring to "the Council".

Does that mean the new powers only apply to CT debts?

no CT PCN Magistrate court fines

Morglin

Pretty disgusting behaviour by the bailiff, but then it does take a certain type to be a bailiff - bottom feeders, feasting off those that can least afford it.

Glad he lost his license, and perhaps (but not hopeful) that the new regs will weed out the lowlifes that bully and harass.

Panorama had a problem on Monday, about bailiffs, and some are truly appalling, relying on the fact that most people do not know their rights..

Lin