Bailiffs - the true horrors - The Exposure TV documentary - Rossendales - Comments

[brassnecked]

Without betraying a confidence, I can tell you that the nature of this programme has changed to that of under cover operations and that the interviews with the four people I know will no longer be featured.

So more nitty-grtity down and dirty rather than chatty chatty then?

[tomtubby]

As many people on here know, I have a commercial business providing bailiff advice to the public and given that all bailiff companies would appear to be aware that this programme is being shown in approx 10 days time, I am shocked at the leval of complaints concerning bailiff behavoiur and the the fees being charged that we receive and this is also confirmed by the astonishing increase in complaint being posted here on the forum.

[1Loretta]

What surprises me is the blatant illegal charging - fraud, and the aggression and violence that seems to go completely unchallenged by both Council and police

[Clunks]

As there seems to be a few people in the know on here advertising the programme, and providing "bit part" details about the programme can anyone confirm what sort of angle the programme is taking? Which company/companies are involved? And is the programme having a two sided balanced view?

[brassnecked]

As there seems to be a few people in the know on here advertising the programme, and providing "bit part" details about the programme can anyone confirm what sort of angle the programme is taking? Which company/companies are involved? And is the programme having a two sided balanced view?

 

 

Im hoping it shows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, whatever it may be, as bailiffs do themselves no favours, if you read some of the horrific encounters people have had on here with these legalised burglars

[Clunks]

Im hoping it shows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, whatever it may be, as bailiffs do themselves no favours, if you read some of the horrific encounters people have had on here with these legalised burglars

 

I would like to think that it will be a truthful programme aswell. I am just not sure it will be, because of the Production Team involved, and that other programmes in the Exposure Series are already under scrutiny - IRA/Gadaffi one for example.

[brassnecked]

I wish I had videoed the encounter I had with a bailiff whilst parked up in a motor on the phone, when he thought I was the debtor at a house he had just left, and had clamped a car. He seemed to want to levy my motor. that would have been on youtube quick smart. I passed his car index number to the police as a bogus official suspect.

[YANO BEMUSE]

Don’t get your hopes up about what this programme might achieve. Even if it exposes genuine problems, if the Ministry of Justice has another knee-jerk reaction, like in 2006 after the Whistleblower programme, everyone will be worse off than ever.

 

Don’t forget that most bailiffs collect most money for Government and it won’t do anything that will risk bailiffs collecting less.

 

If MoJ react by implementing the bailiff law in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, that it forced through Parliament after Whistleblower, the new law will be harder on people that what we have now. It will make it harder for bailiffs to take goods, which means they will do it the very first opportunity they have. It will require bailiffs to follow a timetable so that enforcement is concluded quickly, which means there will be less opportunity for people to find payment.

 

The new law will include new bailiff charges that will be much higher than now. This will let bailiffs to charge even more than now.

 

Even a proper regulator won’t be able to help if bailiffs are doing just what the new law requires. The Government keeps talking about stopping agressive bailiffs but that's just an excuse for doing nothing.

 

Watch out! If MoJ have a knee-jerk reaction to this programme, a lot of people are going to get kicked hard!

Edited October 21, 2011 by YANO BEMUSE

[brassnecked]

Don’t get your hopes up about what this programme might achieve. Even if it exposes genuine problems, if the Ministry of Justice has another knee-jerk reaction, like in 2006 after the Whistleblower programme, everyone will be worse off than ever.

 

Don’t forget that most bailiffs collect most money for Government and it won’t do anything that will risk bailiffs collecting less.

 

If MoJ react by implementing the bailiff law in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, that it forced through Parliament after Whistleblower, the new law will be harder on people that what we have now. It will make it harder for bailiffs to take goods, which means they will do it the very first opportunity they have. It will require bailiffs to follow a timetable so that enforcement is concluded quickly, which means there will be less opportunity for people to find payment.

 

The new law will include new bailiff charges that will be much higher than now. This will let bailiffs to charge even more than now.

 

Even a proper regulator won’t be able to help if bailiffs are doing just what the new law requires. The Government keeps talking about stopping agressive bailiffs but that's just an excuse for doing nothing.

 

Watch out! If MoJ have a knee-jerk reaction to this programme, a lot of people are going to get kicked hard!

 

 

So it's a cautionary "Be Careful What You Wish For " then

[brassnecked]

oops sorry double post

 

Mind you, any exposure to public scrutuiny of their actions, and any knee jerk and strengthening of bailiff powers by MOJ may well make bailiffs the subject of various agencies Supercomplaints and the MOJ will sorely regret the mess they have brought upon themselves when someone else dies by suicide or a heart attack, or a stroke due to pressure from bailiffs whilst they are actually on the doorstep

Edited October 21, 2011 by brassnecked

[YANO BEMUSE]

Yes!

[outlawla]

YANO,

 

You could also view this programme as an effective way of making the public in general aware of the situation (if it shows the bailiffs in their true light). Despite there being hundreds of thousands affected by bailiff action each year, the majority of UK citizens live their lives bailiff free and consequently this majority group have no support for those affected by bailiff crime. They don't want to know about the illegal practices they get away with, only that they collect money from the residents they believe they're subsidising, this is obviously what the government play on – play one group off against another "divide and rule".

 

I believe there are thousands unwilling to highlight their cases, while prefering to keep their affairs low profile for fear of reprisals or the stigma associated with having to deal with bailiffs.

 

This coupled with many thousands of residents being unaware of their rights must have a major significance as to why this systematic fraud can continue. These factors ensure that many of the millions throughout the country who are affected by bailiff fraud fail to report it, this makes it so much easier for the Police and council’s to keep the situation from public awareness.

 

Unfortunately many are afraid of embarrassing their family and friends and feel a social responsibility not to speak out against the fraud. Of course, the stigma attached here is largely undeserved because in many cases the so called debtor is not refusing or unable to pay, they have just been victims of reckless council’s automated, date triggered recovery systems which mechanically activate court and subsequently bailiff action without hesitation.

 

Because there are so many residents who do not complain about council and bailiff fraud, almost all of these crimes go undetected, with the bailiff firms encouraged by local authorities, profiting from money fraudulently obtained from these council taxpayers.

 

.......Even a proper regulator won’t be able to help if bailiffs are doing just what the new law requires. The Government keeps talking about stopping agressive bailiffs but that's just an excuse for doing nothing.....

I don't think they will be able to resist fiddling just that little bit extra, even if their fees are reviewed. Perhaps everyone should concentrate on the source of the problem, i.e. the largely dubious practice of the local authorities enforcing council tax debt through the Magistrates' courts.

[brassnecked]

@ Otlawa "Unfortunately many are afraid of embarrassing their family and friends and feel a social responsibility not to speak out against the fraud. Of course, the stigma attached here is largely undeserved because in many cases the so called debtor is not refusing or unable to pay, they have just been victims of reckless council’s automated, date triggered recovery systems which mechanically activate court and subsequently bailiff action without hesitation.

 

Because there are so many residents who do not complain about council and bailiff fraud, almost all of these crimes go undetected, with the bailiff firms encouraged by local authorities, profiting from money fraudulently obtained from these council taxpayers."

 

Absolutely this is where the big problem is, these automated systems and the whole Liability Order process breaches Human rights, and the right to a fair trial on so many levels, that it suits the council, the police and the bailiffs to keep it away from any meaningful, or intense scrutiny.

[Clunks]

Does everyone on here firmly believe that all Bailiffs are 'rogues'? Do you believe that Bailiffs should not be used what so ever? Some of the things I have read on here in my time, have been shocking, particularly from the people who actually owe the debt. I seen a post a while ago from someone who had had a visit from the Bailiff as the Council had caught up with them. The debt was from two years ago and they were only sorry, not because they owed the debt but because they had been found and traced by the Local Authority. That for me is a disgrace and shocking behaviour.Bailiffs in my opinion should be used, there are far too many non-payers of Council Tax and Business Rates in the country and they should be rightly pursued for the debts. We, the payers, are subsidising these people, its a joke.There is bound to be the odd bad egg with regards to Bailiffs, there is everywhere in all walks of life and occupations, however, I would not tar them all with the same brush, that is unfair.

[brassnecked]

Does everyone on here firmly believe that all Bailiffs are 'rogues'? Do you believe that Bailiffs should not be used what so ever? Some of the things I have read on here in my time, have been shocking, particularly from the people who actually owe the debt. I seen a post a while ago from someone who had had a visit from the Bailiff as the Council had caught up with them. The debt was from two years ago and they were only sorry, not because they owed the debt but because they had been found and traced by the Local Authority. That for me is a disgrace and shocking behaviour.Bailiffs in my opinion should be used, there are far too many non-payers of Council Tax and Business Rates in the country and they should be rightly pursued for the debts. We, the payers, are subsidising these people, its a joke.There is bound to be the odd bad egg with regards to Bailiffs, there is everywhere in all walks of life and occupations, however, I would not tar them all with the same brush, that is unfair.

 

There are good and bad on both sides, but as I dealt with bailiffs as an advice worker in the 1990's they have not come on one iota, many are no better than the seedy end of nightclub bouncers, but no not all bailiffs are bad.

 

however the problem is that they are a blunt instrument with no flexibility to deal with the GENUINE Can't Pays imho, my encounter with the bailiff whilst parked in my motor on the phone only confirms in my mind my negative viewpoint of them. now i think I will go back under my bridge and look for three nice tasty bailiffgoats gruff for my dinner.

[ploddertom]

I'd be more inclined to ask for which of the nefarious companies he works for!

 

PT

[brassnecked]

I'd be more inclined to ask for which of the nefarious companies he works for!

 

PT

 

I know which company he works for, Jacobs, and I reported his car index number to plod as a potential bogus official, and also gave details to my MP who happened to be in a meeting I was attending, that very evening, it was details of that meeting that were being discussed in the call the bailiff interrupted.

[ShinySheen]

Bailiffs are a part of the council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

The council use bailiffs to recover the debt as this way council look squeaky clean and the bailiffs look the bad ones….. From a personal point of view the Bailiffs were the bad ones in my case over £1000 in unlawful fees the council defended them to the hilt but I/ We won in the end (thanks GAG) You know wich ones you are

Bailiffs are a 10th century solution trying to solve a 20th century problem

This being said are we actually getting value for money from our councils?

Is the council being fair to the council tax payer?

If I were to start up a massive company tomorrow and charge the same amount as the council do and then delivered the same services…… I would be closed down the trading standards

I could go as far as saying is council tax “legal”…I understand council tax is a contract ….a contract is between 2 parties and I didn’t sight my half

Edited October 21, 2011 by ShinySheen
appreciation given

[brassnecked]

We are getting into the Freeman argument here, although I would like to see what bailiffs made of the Accepted For Value route, based on UK PLC trading in bankruptcy, and FIAT currency.

[ploddertom]

I know which company he works for, Jacobs, and I reported his car index number to plod as a potential bogus official, and also gave details to my MP who happened to be in a meeting I was attending, that very evening, it was details of that meeting that were being discussed in the call the bailiff interrupted.

 

Didn't mean the ones you had the run in with, meant the one supporting the Bailiffs, seems strange only made 3 Posts all within Bailiff Forum and allin support of them.

 

PT

[brassnecked]

Didn't mean the ones you had the run in with, meant the one supporting the Bailiffs, seems strange only made 3 Posts all within Bailiff Forum and allin support of them.

 

PT

Sorry PT was not thinking straight, so yes the one who seemed to be like perky the ppc of 1000 identities that trolls the MSE parking forum, perhaps the logic against bailiffs was too strong medicine for his system

[sillygirl1]

Actually I do know a bailiff as a friend - he had a dubious parking ticket for one of my family, and gave them time to sort it out, it wasn't her parking ticket either but somebody who had bought her car before she left another town many miles away. Her ex didn't bother to forward any post so she had no knowledge of it. All got sorted out very quickly. Had it been another bailiff getting this they would have clamped all the cars at the address given (which wasn't even her address) and caused a lot of grief.

 

Some bailiffs are very very good but others are ****, I also had a run in with a bailiff which was how I came to find CAG, and he was swiftly sorted out, trying to collect on a debt that had already been repaid and trying it on with charges and 'finding fees' etc.

 

Council tax bailiffs have a nasty job and obviously some people can be nasty back, but judging by the internet forums as a whole there are a very large group of people acting as if being a bailiff gave them a god given right to terrorise people over a tiny slip, ie not getting a cheque cleared on a Friday but getting it cleared on a Monday instead earnt me a £150 fee - got that overturned very swiftly.

 

The black sheep of the debt industry (and that includes certain DCAs) will always want the muddied waters to flow their way.

[hallowitch]

I do believe that Bailiffs should be used, how else would Council's collect unpaid debts which they cannot collect through an Attachment to Earnings/Benefit? Sadly there are alot of non-payers out there with a large number being "won't pay" rather than "can't pay",

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 allow for both attachment of earnings /benefits

[Clunks]

I do believe that Bailiffs should be used, how else would Council's collect unpaid debts which they cannot collect through an Attachment to Earnings/Benefit? Sadly there are alot of non-payers out there with a large number being "won't pay" rather than "can't pay",

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 allow for both attachment of earnings /benefits

 

 

 

 

I am aware of that, hence the reason why I have stated "which they cannot collect through an Attachment to Earnings/Benefit" in the quote you have quoted?

[brassnecked]

If they went down the attachment to earnings route, many won't pays may miraculously start paying, which sadly leaves the can't pays who end up in arrears due to DWP cock-ups, and the subsequent hassle with council tax benefit, having their attachments terminated and the computer system automatically initiating the Liability Order,procedure and sending out a bailiff.