I agree with tonycee. More strict legislation is needed. boycotting bailiffs is just going to get the councils back up which will result in more committal proceedings as it shows a refusal to pay. encouraging a boycott is a bad idea. It appears to me that there are certain people on this site who are very narrow minded and just because they have been upset by a bailiff think it is reasonable to attack the industry as a whole. people fail to see the bigger picture which is that taxes must be paid. why should i pay my taxes and you not pay yours? what makes you different from everybody else? it's obvious that the people on here arent as badly off as they make out. they can still afford internet access.

I don't share your enthusiasm that there are "good bailiffs out there" - there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. What KIND of person would want such a job anyway? Dont forget that its only the bad ones we ever hear about. Nobody is going to compliment a bailiff for taking money off them! its not a nice job but somebody has to do it! the problem is that the only people who want to do it are people who think they're something or have a chip on their shoulder etc. probably got bullied at school or something. please dont get me wrong, i'm not defending bad bailiffs. just trying to bring a balanced arguement to the thread. and also get other people alternatives to bailiffing.

So you agree that bulling people into paying a debt is the right way to go, charging extortionate fees that people quite simply cant afford to pay, clamping cars that people need to use for work or clamping disabled cars that some people need to carry on with their everyday lives, threatening people with bankruptcy for a £75 debt, threats of prison to people that really cant afford to pay the debts. Half the time the councils dont get their money until the bailiff has taken his chunk, yeah way to go you You dont seem to understand that not all bailiffs are bullies etc.etc This site is for people who have had trouble with such bailiffs, which are a minority, therefore misrepresenting the facts. I am not denying are condoning such practices however, malpractice occurs in practically ever profession. I was asking for suggestions as to what other methods could be used, you clearly missed the point. You say >> but that isn't the quickest way - the bailiffs have their cut first and only pass onto the Council money collected AFTER their fees have been paid. Thanks for answering watcher. I agree with your statement but its not always that way, some councils want paying first. Obviously the bailiffs will want their money first as they are private companies and there is a risk of not recieving their money if they do not operate this way. If goods are removed for sale - they rarely fetch enough to cover the bailiff fees - and result in NO return for the Council at all ! Goods should not be removed unless they can cover the debt. However, because goods are sold at public auction you cannot be certain of their value. Other methods of recovery could include deduction from earnings (by the employer). It's already a fact that if someone is on benefits then the Council only get a small amount - set by law - and paid direct by the benefits office. Most councils will try for an AOE before passing the case onto the bailiffs. and still if a person is on a low income or is paid in cash then the debt will not be recovered quickly. Also there is an administrative cost to the council for doing this whereas there isnt with bailiffing. Councils should not be passing cases where people are on benefits to the bailiffs. You suggest prisons as a further "punishment" (as it certainly isn't a method of enforcement) - in such cases the Council do not get paid at all - and it costs (substancial amounts) to send a person to prison ! Thats what i was implying, prison is no good but if the threat of prison was there then people are more likely to pay their taxes, fines etc. The present system lines the pockets of the bailiffs - and encourages mis-behaviour by them (and certainly does not benefit the Council). I see where you're coming from but my personal opinion is that bailiffs must be beneficial to the council, they collect around a BILLION in unpaid debts each year. Thats more than a couple of hospitals!

What other way is there of collecting unpaid taxes? If the threat of bailiff action wasnt there then people would most certainly not pay their taxes. Councils cannot afford to begin committal proceedings on all non-payers. Prisons are overcrowded anyway. what other methods of debt recovery do you think would work? are there any other methods that would give such good results at no cost to the Council? I cant think of any method that will result in quck, full payments of debts.

bailiffs work on commission, if they dont collect they dont get paid more than min wage. some LAs will pay the bailiffs fees if a case is returned others wont. And people wonder why bailiffs get ratty when they dont pay...........its their livelihood!! i'd be ratty

just to throw a spanner in the works...... the law states a bailiff must be certificated to levy distress. therefore if a bailiff is not certificates he can still visit to obtain payment/ setup installments etc, even if he does not have his certificate... what's your views??

Just like to add my 2p: I dont think it is a good idea to advise people not to deal with bailiffs as when the case is referred back to the council for committal proceedings does it not show refusal to pay? i would of thought it best to find out how much you owe and pay as much as you possibly can off it as quickly as possible. it wont be easy but then again its not meant to be.

It appears that the bailiff has retained your card details from the first payment and then on the second occassion he has rung Rossendales office to make the second payment and told them he was with you or something along those lines. Have you questioned the bailiff about the payment? i would ring him and ask him why he has retained your card details and gently remind him that we he has done is blatently theft!

Gemini, When you made the payment did the bailiff get your card details from you or did you pay over the phone straight to Rossendales office?

well why is not theft on the husbands part? if you are saying he didnt have permission to use the card, that is surely theft. Paying off your own debts with somebody elses card???

Using your logic that would mean Gemini's husband has committed fraud by using her card without permission?

If you read Gemini's post you will see that when the £500 was paid, she was asked to speak to the bailiffs to authorise the transaction Gemini says that they asked her husband if it was ok to process the second payment. if she has given her husband authority to act previously then it is it not unreasonable to assume that he still has that authority? The 2.5% transaction fee doesn't apply to debit cards, there is usually a flat rate fee for these. ermmm. not sure about this one now. what if it was a credit card? is that not 2.5%?

Surely the question is why should the 3% not have to pay their tax when the other 97% do?

If you gave your husband the authority to act on your behalf then unless you stipulated previously they can take his word as yours. 2.5% will be the transaction costs. most banks charge it but with shops etc this cost is integrated into the price of the product you buy. in my opinion i wouldnt say they acted illegally but i would say they had acted unfairly. dont know what you could do about it though. probably just pay as quick as pos and have nothing further to do with them!

If you the case is referred back to the council the bailiffs are entitled (depending on what is stipulated in the contract) to bill the council for their costs and inturn the council will bill you. if they cannot recover the costs from the council they will proceed with the action against you in order to cover their expenses.