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

[sillygirl1]

Wonder why Rossendales bailiff company are already whining on Credit Today

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/11153/online-news/rossendales-rebuffs-malpractice-claims

[brassnecked]

Wonder why Rossendales bailiff company are already whining on Credit Today

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/11153/online-news/rossendales-rebuffs-malpractice-claims

 

Obviously they are worried, haven't they already been shown to be naughty and been spanked by the LGO as posted in one of tomtubby's missives

[outlawla]

......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?

 

Your comments seem to be from someone who believes the situation to be black & white, which could be excused had you not researched the subject. However, you have said "Debt collection" is a favoured subject of yours and have looked at these forums for a while.

 

A revealing report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled "Council Tax Collection Good Practice", deals with improving council tax performance and collection rates. It throws light on why certain actions are taken by local authorities in connection with enforcement. Section 7.1 and "8.3. Commitment by the council", indicates why private bailiff firms are using bailiffs for enforcement even when Attachment to earnings/Benefits, is available.

 

"7.1 Several revenue managers said they have limited time and resources, and cannot do as much as they would like to in all areas".

 

"8.3.3 Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases".

 

Sadly there are alot of non-payers out there with a large number being "won't pay" rather than "can't pay", and people like me, and some of the users on here who pay our bills on time, are subsidising these people. I don't agree with that what so ever, they should be pursued and if that means having a visit from a Bailiff then so be it......

 

It sounds like you have either been brainwashed by the council or work for the revenue collections department of some local authority. As I mentioned in a previous post, this is one of the council's favourite tactics to play people off against one another. You also appear not to have researched any figures relating to liability orders that Magistrates' courts issue on behalf of councils, with the corresponding level of outstanding debt. Obviously if you had you would realise your above statement can not realistically be qualified.

 

The following is taken from the supplied data from North East Lincolnshire Council, and represents the number of Liability Orders and the amount of debt which was outstanding for the last 5 years:

 

• 6,580 Liability Orders issued for debt less than £100

 

Of those,

 

• 1,387 were for a debt less than £25

• 981 for less than £20

• 544 for less than £15

• 82 for less than £10

• 45 for less than £5

• 12 for less than £1

 

And,

• 3 Liability Orders were issued for debt of only 1p

 

 

 

Do you all believe them to be rogues? Whether or not they are, why would anyone want to do this job?

Do any of you know any Bailiffs personally (friend/family)? Not knowingly

 

Do you believe Bailiffs should not be used to collect debt? - If not what should Council's and other organisations do? Councils appointed bailiffs are paid commission from the debtors they collect from, this can not encourage a responsible debt collecting industry.

Is it right you pay your Bills and others dont? Of course not, but what has this got to do with bailiffs and councils defrauding residents?

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone looked into the Producers/Production Company of this programme on Bailiffs in the Exposure series? I don't think it will be anywhere near as good as the BBC one in 2006.

 

One would hope that if the BBC is not associated with this programme then there will be less chance it will be propaganda.

[Clunks]

I agree that Attachments should be used when availabe, but where that recovery action has been exhausted for what ever reason, or where that method of recovery is unavailable then Bailiff action has to be used.

 

Also with the current law, a council cannot take Committal action without the debt being referred to a firm of Bailiffs for collection.

 

I have not been brainwashed in any way. It is my opinion, which I am entitled to, exactly like you are entitled to yours.

[Clunks]

Wonder why Rossendales bailiff company are already whining on Credit Today

 

 

Rossendales are obviously involved in the programme then.

 

Are there others involved or is it solely Rossendales?

[brassnecked]

@ Outlawa:

 

"• 3 Liability Orders were issued for debt of only 1p"

 

Which when passed to bailiffs would magically increase exponentially to £ 500 or so due to fees

 

Rossers must be worried as the rebuttals on Credit Today on the link posted by sillygirl1 smack of desperate denial of corporate wrongdoing and damage limitation. God help those sent those unexpected HMRC bills for PAYE if Rossers get the job of collecting on them.

 

A system is seriously broken if a Liability is obtained for a trifling amount of less than a tenner...

[Clunks]

@ Outlawa:

 

"• 3 Liability Orders were issued for debt of only 1p"

 

Which when passed to bailiffs would magically increase exponentially to £ 500 or so due to fees

 

Rossers must be worried as the rebuttals on Credit Today on the link posted by sillygirl1 smack of desperate denial of corporate wrongdoing and damage limitation. God help those sent those unexpected HMRC bills for PAYE if Rossers get the job of collecting on them.

 

Were these 3 crazy liability orders passed to Bailiffs then?

 

For the Council to get 3 Liability Orders for that amount in the first place is disgraceful. Was the Ombudsman involved?

[wonkeydonkey]

:thumb:

 

Excellent reply and very interesting statistics..ty

 

WD

[brassnecked]

Were these 3 crazy liability orders passed to Bailiffs then?

 

For the Council to get 3 Liability Orders for that amount in the first place is disgraceful. Was the Ombudsman involved?

 

We don't know, but due to the automated conveyor belt system used and the automatically issued documents by computer, based on most likely a balance on an Excel spreadsheet it is probable that they would end up with the bailiffs.

 

The system also may not recognise a positive closing balance, as a council tried to get a Liability order against me for an OVERPAYMENT of £2 When I turned up at court the council were most anxious to keep me away from any actual magistrates, as basically they take over a portion of the court and have their own kangaroo rubber stamp procedure.

[outlawla]

Clunks

 

The "Council Tax Collection Good Practice" that I quoted from in my previous post, more than implies that bailiffs are used by councils as an easy option and by-pass the Attachment of Earnings Orders (AEO) to save time.

 

......Also with the current law, a council cannot take Committal action without the debt being referred to a firm of Bailiffs for collection........

 

Do you know something I don't? My council have mysteriously called off Rossendales several weeks ago with no indication that any other action is going to be carried out. Are they planning their prosecution would you say?

 

EDIT:

 

brassnecked,

 

NELC are not unique in sending residents with such trivially low outstanding debts to court. FOI any of them and I'm sure there will be similar results.

 

EDIT AGAIN:

 

• Council Tax Court Summons

Sham court hearing 1

Sham court hearing 2

 

• Council Tax Courtroom

In the courtroom 1

In the courtroom 2

Edited October 21, 2011 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Clunks

 

The "Council Tax Collection Good Practice" that I quoted from in my previous post, more than implies that bailiffs are used by councils as an easy option and by-pass the Attachment of Earnings Orders (AEO) to save time.

 

EDIT:

 

brassnecked,

 

NELC are not unique in sending residents with such trivially low outstanding debts to court. FOI any of them and I'm sure there will be similar results.

 

 

That is as I thought it would be, due to the automation and reliance of computer generated paperwork, legal pursuit of trivial amounts by councils will be endemic nationwide.

 

that however isn't the fault of the bailiff per-se, but the issuing council.

[Clunks]

Clunks

 

Do you know something I don't? My council have mysteriously called off Rossendales several weeks ago with no indication that any other action is going to be carried out. Are they planning their prosecution would you say?

 

As far as I am aware a Council can only take Committal action against a debtor if the debt has been to the Bailiffs. The Bailiff Company have to sign a Nulla Bona Certificate to confirm that they were unable to collect the debt as they were unable to gain legal access or there were insufficient goods/chattels to remove to clear the debt.

 

The Council then have the power with this Certificate to issue a Committal Summons for your Committal to prison.

 

You say that the Council have mysteriously called the Bailiffs off without any indication. Well it might be the reason above. It would not neccessarily be the Council taking the case back it would be Rossendales returning the case for Committal as they have exhausted their recovery action.

 

Could it however be that the Council may have asked Rossendales to return for an arrangement direct between you and the Council?

 

(I think I have the Committal bit right! )

[Clunks]

Don't you just love the internet - Decided to have a look into the Production Company - So much information and details out there!!

 

I mentioned previously about hoping the programme was going to be truthful in what it shows.

 

Thought I would have a look what I could find on the Production Company, Snapper TV and its owners.

 

Snapper TV - Owners are Philip Clothier and Rosemary Millard.

 

Some of you may remember the BBC Undercover Programme into Football Hooligans in 1999/2000?

 

Philip Clothier was in Court regarding that programme and was questioned about skillfull editing to mislead and that the programme was a fraud because of the said editing techniques. Without those clever little edits his programme would have been flawed.

 

They also have a history of debt - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1589196/The-truth-about-broke-Rosie-Millard.html When you see what they were in debt with aswell, its taking the pee, especially when you see some of the users on here asking for advice cause they really are struggling through no fault of their own (job loss etc). This couple bought property, ran up debts, knowing fine well what they were doing!

 

It does indeed make you wonder about this programme - is it just an act of revenge, as I suppose having debts to the scale they did, they must have been subjected to Debt Collectors (and rightly so!), and how trustworthy is the programmes editing, bearing in mind Philip Clothier has been questionned in Court about his editing on a previous documentary.

 

Then you have the other programmes already shown in the ITV Exposure series. Take the IRA and Gadaffi one for example which is under scrutiny. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/27/ira-footage-video-game-itv

 

All this hype about this programme at the moment, yet all the above does make you wonder, are we going to see the truth about the company/companies involved, or are we going to see a one sided load of lies?

 

For me it does make you wonder whether we will get the truth or whether the public will be misled and that all Bailiffs are the same. But lets hope that is not the case!

 

If you are going to make a programme like this, you would expect the Production Company and the people involved in making the programme would be squeeky clean. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[brassnecked]

Don't you just love the internet - Decided to have a look into the Production Company - So much information and details out there!!

 

I mentioned previously about hoping the programme was going to be truthful in what it shows.

 

Thought I would have a look what I could find on the Production Company, Snapper TV and its owners.

 

Snapper TV - Owners are Philip Clothier and Rosemary Millard.

 

Some of you may remember the BBC Undercover Programme into Football Hooligans in 1999/2000?

 

Philip Clothier was in Court regarding that programme and was questioned about skillfull editing to mislead and that the programme was a fraud because of the said editing techniques. Without those clever little edits his programme would have been flawed.

 

They also have a history of debt - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1589196/The-truth-about-broke-Rosie-Millard.html When you see what they were in debt with aswell, its taking the pee, especially when you see some of the users on here asking for advice cause they really are struggling through no fault of their own (job loss etc). This couple bought property, ran up debts, knowing fine well what they were doing!

 

It does indeed make you wonder about this programme - is it just an act of revenge, as I suppose having debts to the scale they did, they must have been subjected to Debt Collectors (and rightly so!), and how trustworthy is the programmes editing, bearing in mind Philip Clothier has been questionned in Court about his editing on a previous documentary.

 

Then you have the other programmes already shown in the ITV Exposure series. Take the IRA and Gadaffi one for example which is under scrutiny. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/27/ira-footage-video-game-itv

 

All this hype about this programme at the moment, yet all the above does make you wonder, are we going to see the truth about the company/companies involved, or are we going to see a one sided load of lies?

 

For me it does make you wonder whether we will get the truth or whether the public will be misled and that all Bailiffs are the same. But lets hope that is not the case!

 

If you are going to make a programme like this, you would expect the Production Company and the people involved in making the programme would be squeeky clean. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

I've got an idea, lets wait until it has been shown before commenting on why's and wherefores of production.

 

The bailiff who approached me on the phone, Do you suggest I should have paid him then sued Jacobs as he was hassling a randomer who had nothing to do with the debt he was enforcing?

 

From what i have seen you may be defending the indefensible, I have dealt with bailiffs in an advice work capacity, and found County Court Salaried bailiffs to be OK, but private ones can be a nightmare. Just my experience

[SURFBOY]

Thats it then!I guess i will have to rethink my views on bailiffs!The production team are the rogues and all baliffs are totaly profesional and law abbiding.I dont know why i ever thought that baliffs were bullys and greedy?

[YANO BEMUSE]

Don't you just love the internet - Decided to have a look into the Production Company - So much information and details out there!!

 

It does indeed make you wonder about this programme - is it just an act of revenge, as I suppose having debts to the scale they did, they must have been subjected to Debt Collectors (and rightly so!), and how trustworthy is the programmes editing, bearing in mind Philip Clothier has been questionned in Court about his editing on a previous documentary.

 

Then you have the other programmes already shown in the ITV Exposure series. Take the IRA and Gadaffi one for example which is under scrutiny. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/27/ira-footage-video-game-itv

 

For me it does make you wonder whether we will get the truth or whether the public will be misled and that all Bailiffs are the same. But lets hope that is not the case!

 

If you are going to make a programme like this, you would expect the Production Company and the people involved in making the programme would be squeeky clean. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

 

 

I’d like to be proved wrong but I’m not expecting much from this documentary and certainly not serious journalism that exposes what Government expects from bailiffs and it’s negligent attitude to the way some of them exploit the free hand they have.

 

I think we’re likely to see some secret filming of bailiffs being abusive/sexist/racist/ageist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/classist or something else that we deplore but who really are no worse than the rank and file members of any group like police or military. We will hear from some debtors with a grudge and probably, a few weeks later, if we’re still listening, hear that they were actually the authors of their own misfortune. We’re probably get a couple of ‘experts’ being vague or just wrong about the law. We will be told the bailiffs are overcharging but then find that we were told only part of the story.

 

It will all make our blood boil but it won’t provoke any clear thinking or sensible options for doing things better. One or two firms will go through a rough patch, and may even go out of business, but they will have been no worse than the rest that will continue as before.

 

I hope I am wrong but I expect this because ITV wants exactly what the councils and the bailiffs want, to make lots of money.

[Clunks]

Woah Woah !!

 

I only put this information out there, to show is there a case that, yes, we know that some Bailiffs are rogues, but not all, and that therefore are we going to see an effective set up and clever editing. We will have to see.

 

I do not in anyway condone any Bailiff who acts outside the law, far fromt it! I only put this factual information out there about the Production Company and some of the Production Team.

 

But at the end of the day, surely you want to see a truthful piece of filming not clever edits (there is a history there) by the Production Team?

 

We all know how good the programme in 2006 on the BBC was. I am unsure on this one because of who is involved in the making of it, but we'll see.

[joe1965]

Link posted to Facebook for all to see .

[brassnecked]

I think yes we should wait and see what is broadcast before passing judgment, and then there will be something concrete to go on. I can see merit in Clunks, SURFBOY and Yano Bemuse's viewpoints, but until we see what is presented we can only try to second guess and may get it completely wrong.

 

The truth will be out there on all Hallows 'even when we could put to sea in seives and put a hex on whoever we want by the light of a dead man's candle

[brassnecked]

Link posted to Facebook for all to see .

 

Ok Quagmire..... good plot for Family Guy, Peter gets a job with Rossendales.....

[Notyetavet]

What meter do we use to decipher fact from fiction? If the production team does not have clean hand, then how dirty are the subjects. Surely they people won't go on air and perjure themselves, as politicians regularly do?

[brassnecked]

What meter do we use to decipher fact from fiction? If the production team does not have clean hand, then how dirty are the subjects. Surely they people won't go on air and perjure themselves, as politicians regularly do?

 

Kettles and pots, politicians journos, bailiffs, all are dirty to some degree. Where is Roger Cook when you need him? There is no whiter than white all are varying shades of grey, with the truth somewhere in between.

 

All I know is if a bailiff or someone calls at my address he will be recorded on CCTV, for his protection as much as mine

[1Loretta]

I think that any one of the stories on here is one too many whether it is about untruthful claims about what bailiffs say they can do, arrest etc, threats, intimidation and actual violence, criminal offences, and taking fees that are fraudulent, alos criminal offences, are bad enough but it could maybe just be the bad ones, although there does seem to be rather a lot of bad ones, but the worst part for me is that when these wrong doings are reported to the Council, who instruct them, and to the police, who should be dealing with the criminal aspects of this behaviour, they both seem to not care about these criminal activities but seem to actively support them. There is collusion and that has to publicised and stopped

[brassnecked]

I think that any one of the stories on here is one too many whether it is about untruthful claims about what bailiffs say they can do, arrest etc, threats, intimidation and actual violence, criminal offences, and taking fees that are fraudulent, alos criminal offences, are bad enough but it could maybe just be the bad ones, although there does seem to be rather a lot of bad ones, but the worst part for me is that when these wrong doings are reported to the Council, who instruct them, and to the police, who should be dealing with the criminal aspects of this behaviour, they both seem to not care about these criminal activities but seem to actively support them. There is collusion and that has to publicised and stopped

 

Yes it will mainly be bad behaviour from bailiffs on here as it is an advice site, where desperate people at their wits end will come for help, but judging by what is posted, here and the serious assaults by bailiffs there are a great many bad bailiffs out there who should be in jail not knocking on people's doors imho,

[Notyetavet]

Yes it will mainly be bad behaviour from bailiffs on here as it is an advice site, where desperate people at their wits end will come for help, but judging by what is posted, here and the serious assaults by bailiffs there are a great many bad bailiffs out there who should be in jail not knocking on people's doors imho,

In reply to a question by Austin Mitchell Hansard records this: There is no national body that supervises the activities and charges made by private bailiffs' companies recovering debts owing to local authorities. These activities and charges are governed by a combination of statute, secondary legislation and the individual contract arrangements agreed between the local authority and the bailiff company concerned. Concerns about the activities and charges of bailiffs, acting on behalf of a local authority, should be directed to the local authority or if appropriate, to the court for review. There are no figures available detailing the number of prosecutions against bailiffs for illegal action. The Government are clear that aggressive bailiff activity is unacceptable and are committed to bringing forward effective proposals which protect the public and ensure that bailiff action is proportionate. We will announce the details of these measures in due course.