caledfwlch
-
Posts
1,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by caledfwlch
-
If this is a personal judgement against the individual, then the Bailiff's can turn up to their workplace if its the only contact, but they cannot seize any goods belonging to the business, unless they are personally owned by the named Debtor, and Equally, if its a personal judgement, they wont have any right to force entry to the business property. I think it depends what sort of company it is. It's the same way that the bailiffs can visit a business owner at their residential address to speak to them, but they cannot enforce or take control on any personal goods at the address, they can only seize goods belonging to the business. You or the Bailiff's will need to make absolutely sure you know exactly what is what, as obviously, should the Bailiffs force entry into a commercial property, where all the goods are owned by a business to enforce a personal debt, it could get very expensive, and you as the Creditor/Instructor of the Bailiffs, are equally, jointly, civilly and criminally responsible for any mistakes they make and potentially catastrophic costs if they mess up big style, as in the infamous airline food supply business case, where Bailiff's ignored paperwork showing a new company was trading at the address, and ended up costing hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages - I wish I could remember the case name, but the enforcement company went sobbing to the high court to get "protection" from being sued, and were told to go away, that little rule was to protect bailiffs from genuine mistakes, not hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages caused by refusing to look at the documents providing this was a new company at the site, being waved at them by company solicitors.
-
I would have thought a Landlord could go in without a warrant, since they can do so for emergency issues, such as a potential gas problem, flooding etc.
-
I don't see how her behaviour is lawful. If someone has a problem, civil or criminal, they have no way of seeking redress - if you want to sue her for the actions of her EO's you cannot, as the Court's cannot issue a claim against someone not resident within the UK.
-
Don't see what the point would be since they would not have any greater powers than an EA, nor could they charge any more than one.
-
Armed Officers is a bit of overkill surely? Or does it just mean they had Tasers, as I think they are considered armed weapons as such.
-
They can however legally stop access by a utility company using a Warrant based on the 1950 something Gas Act, as it does not allow forced entry beyond drilling the lock, so fitting a bolt or two means they cannot legally gain access. The utility companies are misusing legislation and purjering Courts to get the Warrant, they have no reasonable suspicion that there is a sagety issue, they want entry to fit a payment meter. The bloke in Lancashire gets pretty much all Warrant requests refused if the debtor contacts him in time for the hearing (a reason why certain companies are behaving extremely dodgily to prevent debtor going to the court hearing) because he always gets them to hire an electrcian or gas plumber to certify the meters, then show it to the court, so the court cannot issue a warrant, as the debtor has proven the meter is safe. There is a warrant to replace meters with payment ones, but it does not confer or allow forced entry, only entry with the debtors permission. In some of the letters sent to the debtor, as by law they have to give the debtor a chance to attend the hearing and oppose the warrant, every date including when they will enact the warrant if granted uses British date format, but the court hearing date used american format.... its all a clerical error of course, because a system will accidently use 2 different dating formats its a well known problem, in other news pigs have started flying.
-
One of the "Open" Beat the Bailiff Social Media Sites pages, the one attached to the Forum now has a leaflet posted, claiming that they will be able to "write off" all your debts for £99. This surely by now should be a matter for the Police to Investigate, as they are offering a service that cannot possibly exist, lawfully. They could be talking about Debt Relief Orders? But I doubt that Site is an approved 3rd party for instigating a DRO like CAB.
-
We really need someone "Neutral" like Citizens Advice to issue posters and leaflets in the local areas of their branches, to give the basic real facts on enforcement, and warning people about FMOTL to try and protect the people who are being deliberately misguided by Freeman idiots using them as pawns for their twisted games, it's getting beyond a joke, the lives being further damaged either financially, or criminally because of these people. I have no problem with "boots on the ground" in the sense of a peaceful demonstration, that does not in any way obstruct the Enforcement, is not threatening or criminal but is simply there in the hope of raising media interest in how brutal the enforcement regime now is.
-
Are SD's where a 3rd party caught in the awkward situation of either cohabiting with someone who has received a fine, or once lived at the address but no longer, is stating that goods are theirs being turned down though? I don't see how a Court could possibly overturn an Inventory of Goods owned by innocent 3rd party SD, unless they have security camera footage from the shop at the exact time of purchase, showing who actually bought X goods. BA, sounds like your TVL Fine Lady had the misfortune of running into another of those evil old anachronistic ****** magistrates with absolutely no concept or idea what the real world is like. It is perfectly possible for multiple letters to go missing - for a start they might not have even been posted, I bet they don't keep a database where they sign or tick to say for every single recipient one at a time, that the letter has been physically transferred to the Post Office. Still these days, the Courts appear to have little regard for awkward things like "the Law", "Civil Rights enshrined in Law" and so on. The places supposed to protect those things are doing the worst damage to them.
-
I can't see that the Providers can demand full access to your Universal Jobsmatch Account!! And I certainly would not allow it. I record all my jobsearching info on UJM, because it's easier, plus I have problems with hand writing. When I go to sign on, my Jobcentreplus Advisor enters a numeric code, which gives her very limited access to my Work Activity section, where I record all information - there is an option within UJM which you tick to either allow or disallow JCP Access. The Jobcentre itself cannot demand access to your UJM Account, it's up to you, so the Providers sure as hell cannot. If you don't want them having access, especially the full access that giving them your login & password gives, then write out your search details or use Word, Wordpad or whatever to record your info and bring it on a memory stick, email it, or stick it on something like Google Drive or Dropbox. I don't know if providers systems allow access to google drive, but it's been a pain at my jobcentre, because the version of Firefox all their systems have is blocked from accessing google drive as its "out of date" It is a bit worrying that JCP Systems are all using out of date browsers, since an out of date browser is more at risk of being attacked, falling victim to viruses/malware etc.
-
Connif, you would be mad to leave a handbag lying around regardless of whether someone who shoplifted 17 years ago was working there or not! Someone who has never broken the law before but is going through a financially bad time might see that handbag and help themselves. Someone who did something stupid in their youth does not deserve to have their lives marred for the rest of their natural existence.
-
A Custodial Sentence can replace the fine, but that is down to and done by an individual Magistrate on the day - facing an addict with either no or little income, who's offence carries a £200 fine for example, the Mag, if decent may well order the Addict be kept in the Court's Cells till close of business, and that replaces having to pay the fine. But actually being sent to prison afaik does not wipe out the fine, it is in addition to it, and presumably continued non payment once released could see you sent back AGAIN for a custodial.
-
BA - in fairness an EA is not going to just take the word of the OP - a properly notorised Stat Dec is at least something an EA should take seriously, in the absence of receipts for everything, and in fairness, many receipts could be anyones as they normally dont have a name on them, then SD is a way for the OP to protect their goods. Surely the fact that they are receiving loads does not give the EA companies the right to simply disregard them? People are happy to lie or be a little creative with the truth to an EA at the door, but very few would be prepared to lie on an SD and risk a potential custodial sentence for Perjury or whatever. Let's be realistic, if the EA forced entry, he indeed will know that not everything will belong to the son, but as you say, if the OP has some decent technology in the living room, the EA may well "assume" it belongs to the son. How else is the OP to prove ownership, and equally how would the EA prove non ownership by the OP, but that the Son is the owner? Going without an SD could well see the bailiffs taking all the technology in the house, and leaving the OP their clothes. There is no alternative to an SD. And people are paying £125 for an SD when a local solicitor will do it for £10???? WTF!!!!
-
Seizing Cats and other Pets? We can't be too Sneery, Labour desperately wanted to give Bailiffs the right to seize family pets in their thankfully mostly aborted attempt which also included giving Bailiffs the power to use Force to physically restrain a debtor in order to search for their wallet and seize any cash and mobile phones on their person. I think it may have been around that time that they sneaked the right for Bailiffs collecting fines to use forced entry in the Domestic Abuse Bill.
-
I suspect it really is down to the Gun thing. Imagine the most batpoo crazy, Federal Government hating Libertarian Christian bigoted Southern State American you can think of. For a Texan, double that picture. Except when it suits their purposes, I think a lot of Texans dont even particularly consider themselves to even be American, they seem to identify with their State far more than people in any other State, the Republic of Texas movement has even set up its own State Senate iirc, it of course has no power, but, where Southerners still claim that the "South will Rise Again" the Texans want Texas to rise again, as a sovereign Nation. We are talking about people who would scare the pants of the most fierce Appalachian Rednecks. http://thetexasrepublic.com/ Ironically, the Confederate States were legally speaking in the Right to Secede, it is a voluntary Union and Abraham Lincoln broke the law by declaring War to force them back into the Union.
-
This Gem, from a US Debt Board sums up exactly why they dont have Bailiffs and Debt Collectors don't show up unless they know their potential victim is vulnerable enough to be harassed and threatened. I live in Texas, and would look forward to one of their detectives coming to my door. Oh, I have Texas CWP but at home on my premises I wear my 38 openly at all times, and next to my recliner when sleeping. If they do come to my home, I would not recommend them exhibiting any threatening behavior. My reasons for carrying are carjackers, homeinvaders and jihadists, but I won't be physically threatened but once by a debt collector at my door in which case I will confront and stop the threat. He may serve me any papers he likes however. I have to wonder how likely he thinks "Jihadists" will try and attack his home though. I think the CWP means Covert Weapons Permit, which means he can carry a gun whilst out shopping, or whatever, but keep it hidden. I reckon that the US way of evictions is surprisingly perhaps a fair bit better than the UK's - I was watching a show following a Constable in Las Vegas, and he was performing some evictions in a proper rough looking crime ridden ghetto, and yet, he encountered no problems whatsover, the eviction being performed by a polite City Official, rather than some private contractor seems to make quite a difference. In France, Huissiers have much nastier powers than UK Bailiffs, BUT they are very, very rarely used, Huissiers are State Officials, and so not being profit/target driven are generally able to hold amiable negotiations and arrange fair payment plans. The only people who will suffer the wrath of a Huissier scorned are those who are very much in the Won't Pay category. When looking up various things, I was astonished at how backwards some areas around consumer & civil issues and rights was in supposedly modern liberal nations. The German version of a Capita Thug banging on the door to demand to know why you havent bought a licence, wont be stopped by you refusing to answer, he will simply force the door to inspect the property, though again, I think is a state official. The frightening thing for our EU Cousins, is whilst they do have extreme or unfair versions of what we have in the UK, they are also starting to privatise some of them.
-
The EA filming the visit is in the debtors benefit, unless he or she does something criminal to the EA.
-
Who exactly are these amazing Companies that have invested so much in identifying and dealing with vulnerable debtors, and this "generous support" to Debtors? Cause there doesn't seem to be a single whiff of them round these parts. I also find it funny that they are screaming Council operations will be Bent, by describing exactly what is happening where Capita and Equita, private companies like themselves are involved. I can see how a County Council won't have any experience in dealing with Vulnerable people etc, afterall, its not like they have a Social Services Department, is it? Ooh, hang on! And of course County Councils are complete and utter strangers to dealing with and supporting people who lead chaotic lives, and it's not like they have got a special department that has years of dealing with debtors for council tax arrears... Ooh, hang on!
-
Do the Parking Signs state that Penalty charges may be transferred to third party for debt collection? Because surely, the parking companies are on a sticky wicket otherwise, passing private data on without authorisation from the debtor, its not like DCA's collecting bank debts for example, since the Debtor will have signed an agreement which will have included the fact that debts could be sent to third parties.
-
Easily done "Ok, I have switched on my recording device, please state out loud that you give permission for me to record". .
-
I don't actually see that there is necessarily a Privacy issue with Dashcams - they are filming in Public, and filming in Public is allowed, at least where the authorities are concerned, should you complain about the camera crews folowing Bailiffs, or the Police, or indeed about someone with a dashcam, or simply standing in the street filming, as you are in public there is an expectation that you have less privacy. I could be wrong but I have understand the rule of thumb in terms of the law is, I can film the general scene of a street, however, if I focus in on individuals and continue to do so even after they ask me not to, then I am tip toeing over the edge of what is allowed and my actions start to become harassment. It's why I am not so sure that the "campaigning" Cyclists who go out covered with BWV determined to catch bad drivers and shame them by getting good quality footage of their faces, licence plates etc then sticking it on youtube, I suspect that is not in the spirit of the law. It is also why I feel the Camera crew on Can't Pay are also stepping over the line, since when ordered to leave a property by the householder, they simply go to the street and continue focussing their cameras on the house in question, that is not "general" filming, and is bordering harassment if not outright causing it. People in dispute with neighbours are regularly given ASBO's and harrasment warning letters by the Police, simply for standing in the street staring at the home of the neighbour they are in dispute with, something as basic as that can be seen and treated as harrassment these days! The issue is not so much that Cameras and CCTV are becoming widespread, but that there needs to be proper controls on what can be done. I think that the best workaround for EA's is they must all carry the equipment allowing to either video or audio record, have it switched off when they arrive, and be required every time, to inform the debtor that they have that ability, and does the Debtor wish them to switch it on so that the visit can be recorded, and thus protect both parties should a dispute about the visit occur.
-
Mickey - in the US, a "Constable" is not a normal "on the beat" Police Officer, but an Officer of the local Police Department who handles evictions for that area. The reason is mainly A: an armed Law Enforcement Officer is going to get less trouble, and B: Bailiff's or anything like them do not exist in the US - Notice on "Repo" shows the Repo people try to move in grab the car/bike and get the hell out quickly without the debtor noticing. Debt Collectors tend not to visit in person either. This is all because Americans take their homes and their home security extremely seriously, and are allowed guns. If a Bailiff attempted to enforce in the US he would likely get shot and the debtor would get away with it, "Sorry Officer, thought he was a burglar, he didnt identify himself" Bounty Hunters are Civilians given a Warrant, so that if people skip bail, miss court appearences and so on, the Bounty Hunters go after them to arrest and take them to prison. You will notice that the most famous one, Dog and his team never carries anything "stronger"than pepper spray and paint ball guns, because Dog is a convicted Felon who did time in a Federal Penitentiary, and is thus not allowed to own firearms (I don't understand how he even gets a bounty hunter warrant with his conviction) Bounty Hunters don't work for or with the Police, they are passed the arrest requests by Bail Bondsmen - as the Suspect is skipping bail, or not keeping contact with the Bondsman, the Bondsman risks loosing Bail money, thus sends the Bounty Hunters to get that person locked up in the local Jail, and thus save the Bail Bond. It's a bloody stupid system to have, that Bail is provided by a private 3rd party, if you can afford the payments...
-
As I understand it there is no requirement to put up warning notices in private residences, you have every right to covertly record visitors to your property, the same as you have every right to covertly record phone calls. Your only getting into dodgy territory if you have external cameras focussing on a neighbours property, they could then rightfully claim harassment, and you would not be acting within the law, ie you can film your property but not a neighbours. If there are privacy issues with an EA wearing BWV, then surely there are also privacy issues with them using ANPR, surprised the ICO hasn't stuck his oar into that.
-
I would love to see a Lawyer representing DCBL explaining to a Judge why they are attaching "Enforcement Fees" without a legal and valid warrant, on letters marked with their standard EA letterheading to trick people into thinking they are facing Bailiff enforcement. Be interesting if someone with a few quid took THEM to court for using unfair debt collection practices.
-
Surely they already need a Data Controller, since all they deal with is personal data, regardless of whether its text or video? The cost is of no consequence, people deserve to be protected, and if it bites into profits a tiny bit, so what? other companies have to shoulder the costs of security, or protecting the public, why are EA firms special? It's not like they havent had their fees increased by £400, they can easily afford it. The Company/s for example performing medicals for Jobcentreplus had to shoulder the cost of recording the medicals at claimant request. And filming is not permitted, but it's fine for the EA to turn up and seeing kids in their underwear, because they are operating under a business plan that ensures that be the case? I would be interested to see how many active EA's actually have a CRB check done.
