Baliff's - what's the point og Goods removal

[jimbo45]

Hi all

What IS the point of the Council sending in the Bailiff's

 

How much money do they actually make from removing goods - even if they DO carry out the threat.

 

Most people who have got to THIS stage will probably only have goods of a VERY small fraction of the outstanding Bill - apart from the hassle of taking stuff to auction and paying the auctioneers fees often 10 - 12% of the value of the goods sold --assuming anybody bothers to bid on them.

 

Small electronics are of such little value these days (for example I've seen DVD players in TESCO's being given away FREE) that even the BURGULARS don't want them any more.

 

Jewllery and other small stuff can easily be "hidden" before a Visit in any case -- so to me apart from the BULLY BOY tactics baliff's use the whole procedure is a TOTAL EXERCISE IN FUTILITY - and what happens to the rest of the outstanding debt -- is it written off or what.

 

 

BUT PLEASE IN ANY CASE NEVER EVER LET THESE SCUMBAGS IN -EVER EVER EVER.

 

THEY CAN'T FORCE THEIR WAY IN, VAN FEES, ETC ARE ILLEGAL AND THREATS OF IMPRISONMENT AND LOCKSMITHS ARE ALSO TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND MEANINGLESS.

 

Let's put an end to this totally DISGUSTING and FEUDAL system.

 

Never ever co-operate - or even acknowledge the existence of these miserable vermin. Deal with the council directly -- they HAVE to take back the debt eventually.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[High Court Enforcer]

The council (and the bailiffs) hope that the threat of removal will prompt payment. Simple.

 

If they have a signed WP they can force their way in and van fees are legal.

 

Once again, you are talking the tosh of a bitter twisted man.

[ploddertom]

Here's an interesting point:

 

"The bailiff will have to ascertain that any goods seized comply with the General Product Safety Regs 1994, which will apply to again items such as sofas as, unless these items have the required notices re. Fire hazards etc, they could not be sold at auction and this will, obviously, apply to electrical items as well."

 

Have come to find out how awkward this can be having had to deal with my mother's effects recently.

 

PT

[gstanny]

I wonder why he,s bitter

[gstanny]

He may be bitter but he,s right

[jimbo45]

He may be bitter but he,s right

 

Hi all

Who'se bitter

I've always managed to keep the Bailiff's at bay.

 

My point here is what is the point in using an outmoded system which actually COSTS MORE to use than the amount the councils are likely to collect.

 

There really ISN'T ANY point in using Bailiff's in cases where people DON'T have any money --and in the case of those who CAN and WON'T pay --well they will have already executed their "Escape Plans".

 

So I re-state what is actually the POINT of this rediculous system other than possibly giving back some feeling of power to some inadequate males (and unfortunately some wannabe "Laddette" type ladies as well).

 

Why on Earth would any WOMAN want to be a Bailiff is totally beyond my realm of comprehension -- but that's life I suppose.

 

However if a Woman DID turn up at my place she would be dealt with just the same as anybody else too -- maybe I'd probably treat here worse on the grounds one would normally expect women to be more compassionate than men in these situations.

 

Of course I'd expect the "Enforcer" to uphold this Ludicrous system of so called "21st Century Justice". He's got a vested interest of course in the "Status Quo" and doesn't like the fact that mere working class blokes can "impede" his "Cash Cow" system by merely informing people AT NO COST of their LEGAL RIGHTS. We can't all afford to pay fees of 100 GBP / Hr or so for "Legal Advice".

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited February 16, 2010 by jimbo45

[hazza]

it's "a profession built on fear and intimidation"

 

the police could be said to be a bit like that in the past - but the ipcc made it all fairer - and the police name got much much better

 

we need an ibcc - at the very very minimum

 

£100 an hour is cheap!

 

£350ph is the going rate i believe - at newlyns

[Jamberson]

Bailiffs are private firms. If they didn't make a profit they wouldn't continue to exist.

 

As for the point of it - there has to be some means of enforcement or no-one would pay Council Tax, debts, PCNs and so on. They have to make us pay somehow!

[High Court Enforcer]

My point here is what is the point in using an outmoded system which actually COSTS MORE to use than the amount the councils are likely to collect.

 

What makes you think it costs the council more than it collects?

[BLF]

What makes you think it costs the council more than it collects?

 

Yeah... It costs the council nothing apart from the summons costs, usually £65, and even that is added to the debt. Some of the summons costs will be lost through nulla bona, but, no way do they lose money.

[tomtubby]

Yeah... It costs the council nothing apart from the summons costs, usually £65, and even that is added to the debt. Some of the summons costs will be lost through nulla bona, but, no way do they lose money.

 

The council DO NOT pay the summons cost. They charge this amount to the debtor . They do incur a fee from The Magistrates Court of £3 for obtaining the Liability Order but again this is charged to the debtor in the separate charge that is imposed. Typically, most local authorities charge approx. £95 to the debtor when obtaining the Liability Order and of this they have to incur a total of £3 !!!

 

They do not pay any fees to the bailiff and in fact there are (unconfirmed) reports of a couple of councils who in fact ask the bailiff company to pay them a percentage of bailiffs fees that they recover !! (not allowed of course...but they do appear to do want they want).

[High Court Enforcer]

in fact there are (unconfirmed) reports of a couple of councils who in fact ask the bailiff company to pay them a percentage of bailiffs fees that they recover !! (not allowed of course...but they do appear to do want they want).

 

Sorry TT, but that's just the sort of rumour that get's started on here and is later quoted as fact.

[High Court Enforcer]

it's "a profession built on fear and intimidation"

 

It's an industry built on people cheating the system and not paying their dues in life.

[little_evo]

It's an industry built on people cheating the system and not paying their dues in life.

 

 

Sorry HCE, but that's just the sort of rumour that get's started on here and is later quoted as fact.

[tomtubby]

Sorry TT, but that's just the sort of rumour that get's started on here and is later quoted as fact.

 

I am always careful of what I write.

 

Sadly, we did actually have confirmation of this by way of an FOI report last year that related to two local authorities. SHAMEFUL.

[ploddertom]

I am always careful of what I write.

 

Sadly, we did actually have confirmation of this by way of an FOI report last year that related to two local authorities. SHAMEFUL.

 

In that case they should be named and shamed!

 

PT

[High Court Enforcer]

In that case they should be named and shamed!PT

 

If that really is true TT, then apologies, and I agree with PT.

 

Were any proceedings brought against them if you have the evidence?

[High Court Enforcer]

Sorry HCE, but that's just the sort of rumour that get's started on here and is later quoted as fact.

[tomtubby]

If that really is true TT, then apologies, and I agree with PT.

 

Were any proceedings brought against them if you have the evidence?

 

At the time the press were given the story but the relevant local authorities gave assurances that this practice had "apparently" ceased.

 

However, please believe me...there are a few more that have been brought to our attention and FOI requests were sent shortly after xmas !!

[jimbo45]

Hi all

I think the point of the post has been missed.

"The enforcer" says some mechanism must be made to ensure payment - probably the ONLY time I'll agree.

 

However the BAILIFF METHOD of enforcement is rediculous.

 

Say you have an outstanding CT bill of 800 GBP and if the Bailiff did seize goods which might only realize 250 GBP then as I said the whole system is USELESS.

 

In fact the typical amount raised - excluding Cars - would probably be well under 100 GBP if that -- there is almost ZERO market for worn second hand tatty furniture and domestic electronics -- even LCD TV sets don't raise that much and most second hand electronics is only fit for the tip anyway.

 

The Bailiff's can't take goods needed for work which would preclude them from touching computers etc --and these make almost ZERO second hand in any case.

 

The Council don't get their 800 GBP, the person who'se had goods seized either has had a cheap rubbish clearance service or is now in an even LESS likely position to EVER be able to pay off any arrears and even if the Council force Bankruptcy procedings (the debt in any case I think has to be over 750 GBP for this to actually work) it would cost the council money too.

 

If the person is forced out of a house by this action then that council has to re-house them and will probably have to give them 100% CT relief

 

so the whole thing is LOSE-LOSE.

 

I'm talking about the CAN'T pay not those who WON'T pay - the majority of these rarely will get Bailiff's visits as they've already made other arrangements.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited February 18, 2010 by jimbo45

[High Court Enforcer]

I'd still make the point that it is the threat of removal that prompts payment in 99% of cases. Very rarely are goods removed and sold.

 

Further, just because a computer may be used for work does not mean it cannot be taken.

 

I think you're missing the point.

 

But, you have a point if household goods end up getting removed...

Edited February 18, 2010 by High Court Enforcer

[Another Jack]

Hi all

What IS the point of the Council sending in the Bailiff's

 

How much money do they actually make from removing goods - even if they DO carry out the threat.

 

Most people who have got to THIS stage will probably only have goods of a VERY small fraction of the outstanding Bill - apart from the hassle of taking stuff to auction and paying the auctioneers fees often 10 - 12% of the value of the goods sold --assuming anybody bothers to bid on them.

 

Small electronics are of such little value these days (for example I've seen DVD players in TESCO's being given away FREE) that even the BURGULARS don't want them any more.

 

Jewllery and other small stuff can easily be "hidden" before a Visit in any case -- so to me apart from the BULLY BOY tactics baliff's use the whole procedure is a TOTAL EXERCISE IN FUTILITY - and what happens to the rest of the outstanding debt -- is it written off or what.

 

 

BUT PLEASE IN ANY CASE NEVER EVER LET THESE SCUMBAGS IN -EVER EVER EVER.

 

THEY CAN'T FORCE THEIR WAY IN, VAN FEES, ETC ARE ILLEGAL AND THREATS OF IMPRISONMENT AND LOCKSMITHS ARE ALSO TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND MEANINGLESS.

 

Let's put an end to this totally DISGUSTING and FEUDAL system.

 

Never ever co-operate - or even acknowledge the existence of these miserable vermin. Deal with the council directly -- they HAVE to take back the debt eventually.

 

Cheers

jimbo

 

 

Even the cagers who think we should have some bailiffs for the times when there's no other to make RICH debtors pay think they should be controlled properly and not used to bully ordinary people.

 

If what is happening is uncivilised, why don't we just stop doing it even if we can't think of a better system? Isn't that what you would expect a civilised society to do?