LADER report on Local Authorities and Bailiffs

[caro]

I'll let the contents of this report speak for themselves. Suffice to say it's nothing short of scandalous.

Lader White Paper.pdf

Edited November 16, 2011 by caro

[seanamarts]

Says it all really and just confirms what I have said all along. I shall be passing this on.

Thanks for posting it up. Its a very interesting read

[seanamarts]

DP sorry

Edited November 16, 2011 by seanamarts
gremlins again

[brassnecked]

A wholly abhorrent situation, but then it's seen as alright for them to bend the rules to a debtors detriment, after all a debtor is a cash cow to be milked regardless of the fact they cannot afford the debt let alone ludicrous charges added on top.

[tomtubby]

Caro,

 

Trying to send you a pm but the message is coming back that your inbox is FULL UP....

[BankFodder]

Can we make this generally available?

[ploddertom]

This certainly raises some important issues - especially the comments from the Councils where everything is referred back to the Baililiffs. Would certainly make some interesting reading of FOI requests.

 

PT

[seanamarts]

Would have to agree with PT there

[silverfox1961]

Quite an interesting report.

 

I live in East Anglia and I'm wondering if any of the councils referred to are mine and if so would a FOI request bring about any relevant info.

 

The thing that does strike me is that before a bailiff gets involved, the council has already added its costs so why would they want a share of the bailiffs money. It does smell a little of 'kickback'

[brassnecked]

This report is most unsettling

 

The councils want revenue period, so they will see nothing wrong on asking a bailiff company for cream off the top, until a council is prosecuted, along with their agent, the bailiff for fraud, and the culpable officials are jailed. Mind you as the police see the councils and bailiffs as being on the same side as them, they will ignore as well, and even aid and abet, as shown in threads on here. They see the Law as mere guidelines for them to interpret to maximise revenue imho

[ploddertom]

The thing that does strike me is that before a bailiff gets involved, the council has already added its costs so why would they want a share of the bailiffs money. It does smell a little of 'kickback'

 

Of course when you submit your FOI one of the questions has to be to they abide by The National Standards for Enforcement Agents, if they are then demanding a kickback then already they have lied. The Fees Bailiffs can charge for CT recovery are set by the Regulations - if it aint there they can't charge it - in my view they are inciting the Bailiff and in consequence his Company to apply Fees that are not allowed or lawful.

 

I remember a guy back in the 60's/70's called Andrew Cunningham who along with T Dan Smith had a starring role in the Poulson affair which led to the demise of Tory Home Secretary Reginald Maudling. It could be the case that the powers to be need reminding of these events.

 

PT

[caro]

Caro,

 

Trying to send you a pm but the message is coming back that your inbox is FULL UP....

 

There's some space now or I think you have my CAG email addy.

 

Can we make this generally available?

 

I have an email showing permission to post this on CAG, which puts it in the public domain. I can check if you have something else in mind.

[caro]

Further information/discussion on the practice of LA's taking a cut of bailiff's fees here. http://lader.org.uk/groups/how-to-get-the-best-from-bailiffs

[pixwix]

It's even worse up here north of the Border, where court judgments can be obtained at the drop of a clerk's rubber stamp - nothing a civilised person would call due process. They'vce been promising to change the system for years, but of course it never happens - too many snouts in the trough. If the council have made a mistake (shockingly common) you have no opportunity to plead a case. The first clue you get is often a huge bill followed by the arrival of the bailiffs. They're supposed to tell you in advance - they rarely do but of course the council's computer record of correspondence will always say what they want it to say. As for the relationship between council and bailiffs - around here you need look no further than the local Freemason's Lodge, where more council business is done than in chambers.

[ploddertom]

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/12160/online-news/council-costs-driving-bailiff-bad-practice

[brassnecked]

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/12160/online-news/council-costs-driving-bailiff-bad-practice

Most interesting thanks ploddertom

[bazm]

Not wishing to knock John Kruse's god-like status on here (and yes i do accept he knows a lot on bailiff law). Isn't anyone concerned that lader is a closed shop - funded and run by jamie waller? By getting Messrs Kruse and Evans to front it gives it a respectable front.

 

Whats in it for him? Just saying like

 

And for the record I think its about time the LGO stepped in where councils refuse to control their bailiff agents and just pass the buck. This is a much better course than waiting for MoJ to do do something

[outlawla]

.....Whats in it for him? Just saying like

 

And for the record I think its about time the LGO stepped in where councils refuse to control their bailiff agents and just pass the buck. This is a much better course than waiting for MoJ to do do something

 

There is apparently going to be some money:

 

I see from the forums there's a Cruse/Evans collaboration offering courses on bailiff law to local authority back office staff at an envisaged £100 per head for up to 15 delegates for the 5 hour duration. A potential £300 an hour then is not a bad business proposition. It seems ironic though, how many businesses can be sustained on the strength of those unfortunate enough to be landed with financial hardship.

 

A couple of the topics on the forum are private and not viewable by non-subscribers, one of them "Council Tax Recovery"

 

The LGO is just insurance cover for local authorities against reputational risk and legal challenge which comes at a cost of £millions each year unfortunately paid by the taxpayer.

[Fair-Parking]

Anybody who has been to LADER's website will be aware that a section of it was dedicated to The Times article of 16th April wherein LB Southwark were held responsible for the actions of JBW and were forced to return a car via injunction and ordered to pay costs of £550. LADER was going to comment on any appeal by LB Southwark, but never did.

 

Unfortunately I'm not privileged to have access to their site, so they live in ignorance that the appeal failed (along with the fake warrant that suddenly appeared in court) and a further £925 costs were awarded against LB Southwark. On top of that LB Southwark have been ordered to pay for damage to the car (estimated at £2100).

 

But then if you run a closed shop........

[Dlanodyor]

My first time on this forum. You refer ro the "LADER report on Local Authorities and Bailiffs" but whenever I click on that or search on Google it just comes back to this forum. Can you tell me where I can find a copy of this report, is it on the CAG website? or at least a précisof it.

[citizenB]

My first time on this forum. You refer ro the "LADER report on Local Authorities and Bailiffs" but whenever I click on that or search on Google it just comes back to this forum. Can you tell me where I can find a copy of this report, is it on the CAG website? or at least a précisof it.

 

 

Post 13 above.

 

The full report is in the first post of this thread !

[Dlanodyor]

OK. I didn't see the attachment (light blue doesn't show up very well on my old PC!)

 

Many thanks

[citizenB]

OK. I didn't see the attachment (light blue doesn't show up very well on my old PC!)

 

Many thanks

 

No problem.. it is a bit light

[caro]

I understand that there may have been one or two people who post on CAG at the conference. Would be good to get some feedback.

[GuidoT]

Bump