A must read

[unclebulgaria67]

Another one of these argument threads !

 

Enforcement should be last resort and something not routinely entered into. Councils who have cut the number of staff dealing with council tax, are now obtaining LO's more quickly and passing cases to Enforcement companies earlier. Councils now don't even have to issue a letter to residents where a payment has been missed and can move straight to issuing a Court summons. If the summons goes ahead with a hearing not stopping a LO being obtained, then it is passed on for enforcement and such visits after notice of enforcement can happen quite quickly, The non payer might be elderly or vulnerable with low income, yet they are receiving a visit often from two large men to their doors wearing stab proof vests. If this were one of your elderly relatives, i am not sure you would be comfortable with this. Not the fault of enforcement companies, but councils rushing down the enforcement route.

[Peterbard]

I got a speeding ticket once does this make me an expert on police procedure ?

 

Thinking of it , the policeman wa not very nice about it, does that mean he was unfair, was it just part of conspiracy to get points on my license do you think. Do they put the fine towards their policeman's ball perhaps.

[Peterbard]

Another one of these argument threads !

.

 

Another one of those obvious comments.

[Peterbard]

Oh and of course councils do have to send a reminder notice if a payment is missed, section 23 of the council regs or there abouts.

[Leakie]

Sorry DB but your world is not any way near what most of us experience,

 

I have been on both sides so I know how it works both ways.

you are sounding like you are an MP

lol

 

Instead of insulting people opinions, give a reasoned response,

I know you can because most of your posts have been reason arguments,

there are different points of view whether you accept them or not.

end of rant

 

may be the mods need to close yet another thread before it gets out of hand

[stu007]

Warning you either or yet again this is another thread that will be closed.

 

Try actually assisting our users that are in need of help rather than babble discussion.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I tend to agree with you UB, though as I remember it, they considered the old fees too low, meaning bailiffs were tempted to add false fees (the infamous Head H among others.

 

The new fee scale was supposed to guarantee a more realistic £75, and then higher fees were for sitting down with the client to spend time looking at income and expenditure to get a realistic payment plan - this has not been borne out in reality.

 

Can I just make a slight correction here CD.

 

In the first instance, neither the enforcement industry, advice sector or Ministry of Justice were responsible for setting the fee scale. Instead, the government used the services of an economist. Those taking part in the Consolation on Bailiff Reform were given the opportunity to debate the economists finding and recommendations.

 

You have said above that the 'higher fee' (which I assume to mean the 'enforcement fee' of £235 is for 'sitting down with the client to spend time looking at income and expenditure to get a realistic payment plan'. This part is not correct:

 

The truth of the matter is that Income and Expenditures and setting up of payment plans are all part of the Compliance stage.

 

If a payment arrangement is not made, then the case moves onto the 'enforcement stage'. The purpose of this visit is actually to 'take control' of the debtors goods. If a vehicle is identified, then the regulations specifically state that the vehicle must be immobilised. At this visit, if household goods have been identified, the enforcement agent can make a Controlled Goods Agreement and if so, he will then agree a payment arrangement.

[Bailiff Advice]

No, in fact your comment displays your ignorance in this respect. Following your argument, without the first hand experience you have no reality, yours or anyone else's, as far as bailiffs go.

 

I understand fairly well how things work as well you know, though I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable around, just more knowledgeable than some.

 

Not having first hand experience of bailiffs does not preclude you from offering help, of course, but it does mean you lack an insight that can only be gained from first hand experience.

 

I have been advising on the subject of bailiff enforcement for many years and like Dodgeball, I also have never had a visit from a bailiff. That does not mean that I lack an insight into the difficulties faced by individuals subject to bailiff enforcement.

 

I have also never received a penalty charge notice but this has not stopped me having extensive experience with Out of Time witness statements and the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

[Peterbard]

Wasting your breath BA, I already pointed this out earlier, I am afraid it does not fir their pre formed opinions.

 

JK did state that the larger fee would enable the EA to spend more time however the reason it was set at this level is as you (and the regs ) say.

 

Leskie I have not seen any queries of yours that I could venture an answer to ?

 

As for sounding like an MP, thanks ?

 

Putting all this to one side. Whatever anyone may think, this is the system we have, wouldn't it be better to find a way to make it work than constantly picking and complaining.

 

Bailiffs have been with us a long time, they are the last resort in our civil enforcement system, the only other option available is for debts to be written off.

As they say it is a dirty job but smeone has to do it.

 

Apart from providing laws which limit bailiff excesses, the aim of legislation is to recover money owed, as unpopular as this my be to thoses who owe it.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Putting all this to one side. Whatever anyone may think, this is the system we have, wouldn't it be better to find a way to make it work than constantly picking and complaining

 

The truth of the matter is that the regulations are working and this is very much evidenced by the significant decline in the number of forum posts on this and all other similar forums.

 

I receive a huge number of enquiries through my website daily but by and large, these are 'enquiries' as opposed to 'complaints'. So far, apart from Part 85 'Interpleader' enquiries (which are very common) I have not come across one case yet where a complaint had been made to the court about the actions of an enforcement agent. I have also never received an enquiry where legal action is required. Most importantly, apart from just two cases, (both parking related) I have yet to receive enquiries from elderly members of the public.

 

The most frequent enquiries relate to TV Licence fines and applications for Out of Time witness statements (in particular in relation to warrants for the Dart Crossing). In relation to enquiries regarding bailiff fees, the most common enquiry concerns the far too frequent charging of the 'sale' stage fee of £110.

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed as I think we have mentioned before. it is evident when looking at the complaints on forums like this.

 

EA's and creditors alike needed time to understand what was required of them under the new rules, now it seems more and more, that enforcment agents, creditors and advice services are singing form the same hymn sheet.

 

Not that there are no cases of abuse, there will always be individual cases which need to be looked at and sanctions imposed.

 

Even the "loophole brigade" seem to be giving up the ghost, as more plain english explanations become available to the GP.

[Coughdrop]

If people bothered to read threads, they'd see I'd stated having first hand experience gives you a different insight. It does. The sole reason neither DB nor BA understand this is because they don't have that experience. I also said that does not preclude those without first hand experience offering help.

 

Forgive my error over the Compliance Stage, a simple oversight, and you are correct. Unfortunately I don't recall reading of a single case where this has happened, so to claim things are working 'as intended' is a fallacy. They may be working, as in there are fewer posts being seen on fora (Does anyone have any definitive figures?), but there are still many cases where full payment only, or an unreasonable payment arrangement is demanded with no consideration of the debtors circumstances whatsoever.

 

You claim you receive a huge number of enquiries via your website, but they are enquiries rather than complaints. Would some of these be the sort of enquiry which enquires how a debtor can get an affordable payment arrangement accepted, or an EA to believe they are vulnerable etc...? The very thing which should be determined at compliance stage - the stage which is 'working' so well, in fact.

 

DB, BA is not wasting her breath at all. She corrected an oversight of mine which was welcomed, and this has furthered the debate on how well the compliance stage is working in reality. I don't have definitive proof, but have asked for some.

 

Speaking for myself, I see one person more than anyone else on this thread with preformed opinions and it is neither myself, nor Leakie. It is hard to talk to a closed mind who reads what they want a post to say rather than what it actually says - this makes for a good argument, but is not really overly productive.

 

It's always worth repeating the single best piece of advice - if you are struggling, engage with the creditor early, it will make your life a lot easier in the long run, however hard it is to do at the time. I know that from first hand experience!

[Schindler]

If people bothered to read threads, they'd see I'd stated having first hand experience gives you a different insight. It does. The sole reason neither DB nor BA understand this is because they don't have that experience. I also said that does not preclude those without first hand experience offering help.

 

Forgive my error over the Compliance Stage, a simple oversight, and you are correct. Unfortunately I don't recall reading of a single case where this has happened, so to claim things are working 'as intended' is a fallacy. They may be working, as in there are fewer posts being seen on fora (Does anyone have any definitive figures?), but there are still many cases where full payment only, or an unreasonable payment arrangement is demanded with no consideration of the debtors circumstances whatsoever.

 

You claim you receive a huge number of enquiries via your website, but they are enquiries rather than complaints. Would some of these be the sort of enquiry which enquires how a debtor can get an affordable payment arrangement accepted, or an EA to believe they are vulnerable etc...? The very thing which should be determined at compliance stage - the stage which is 'working' so well, in fact.

 

DB, BA is not wasting her breath at all. She corrected an oversight of mine which was welcomed, and this has furthered the debate on how well the compliance stage is working in reality. I don't have definitive proof, but have asked for some.

 

Speaking for myself, I see one person more than anyone else on this thread with preformed opinions and it is neither myself, nor Leakie. It is hard to talk to a closed mind who reads what they want a post to say rather than what it actually says - this makes for a good argument, but is not really overly productive.

 

It's always worth repeating the single best piece of advice - if you are struggling, engage with the creditor early, it will make your life a lot easier in the long run, however hard it is to do at the time. I know that from first hand experience!

 

Agreed Coughdrop. Pompous posts by know it alls are pointless. Much better to have real experience to understand these things. Leave Dodgeball to his ramblings and Bailiff Advice to her huge number of enquiries.

[Peterbard]

 

Speaking for myself, [/b][/i]

 

Hmm

 

I corrected your error at posts 6 and 11 CD.

 

I dont think I have a closed mind CD, i am consistent, i suppose, not sure that this is the same thing.

 

However i do like to see all sides of an argument and I appreciate this may be difficult for you.

[Peterbard]

Agreed Coughdrop. Pompous posts by know it alls are pointless. Much better to have real experience to understand these things. Leave Dodgeball to his ramblings and Bailiff Advice to her huge number of enquiries.

 

Is this what you meant CD ?

[Peterbard]

I suppose if anyone thinks that real experience is an advantage then our bailiff friends should be encouraged to give more input, I cannot think of anyone with more "real life" experience.

 

I would welcome this for one. Make of that whatever you like.

[Coughdrop]

Hmm [,/QUOTE]

 

Yet again I assume you think I'm posting on behalf of another site? I'm not, and actually am beginning to think you cannot see beyond that site, which is a shame.

 

I dont think I have a closed mind CD, i am consistent, i suppose, not sure that this is the same thing.

 

Nope, not at all the same thing, even if your above statement were true.

 

However i do like to see all sides of an argument and I appreciate this may be difficult for you.

 

Do you? Could you elaborate on how you appreciate that please? It isn't at all difficult for me in fact, but as you say, you are consistent - constently wrong in this case!

 

Originally Posted by Schindler

Agreed Coughdrop. Pompous posts by know it alls are pointless. Much better to have real experience to understand these things. Leave Dodgeball to his ramblings and Bailiff Advice to her huge number of enquiries."

 

Dodgeball said:

"Is this what you meant CD ?"

 

Nope, it isn't. I'm unsure why you've started the personal abuse. You used to pride yourself on not resorting to abuse, yet now do so regularly. Another example of you being 'consistent' again?

 

I suppose if anyone thinks that real experience is an advantage then our bailiff friends should be encouraged to give more input, I cannot think of anyone with more "real life" experience.

 

I would welcome this for one. Make of that whatever you like.

 

Yes, it's always good to hear the bailiff's view on things. They have an insight that neither you nor I have. It's first hand, but from a totally different point of view.

 

I know that when I had bailiffs at my door, they were unreasonable, they lied, they cheated and they ended up refunding all monies paid to them with a token amount of compensation to avoid court action, along with the local council. They refused affordable payment arrangements, invented arrangements which had never been agreed, and did all they could to increase their fees and my debt with not one iota of consideration for my circumstances or my wellbeing. As you know, it cost me my house and a lot more.

 

Nobody will persuade me they can understand what that is like unless they've lived through it. That first hand experience gives me an insight - my insight - different to your insight, into bailiffs.

 

I knew there was a debt to pay. I wanted to pay it. Unfortunately I had no money, nor any knowledge of enforcement. There is no way you can know what that is like. No money, bills you want to pay but can't through no fault of your own, a wife and young daughter to support, and bailiffs harassing you beyond belief, demanding money you do not have while raking up their own income.

 

I read a lot of payment arrangements not being accepted. I read a lot of vulnerabilities not being picked up properly. I read a lot of debtors being scared, and burying their heads because of this. Why do I read these things if the system is working so well?

 

Of course I read also of the ones who are trying it on, and I have little sympathy for them. The genuine cases I have a lot of sympathy for though, and I understand how they are feeling better than you. Why? Because I've been there!

[Peterbard]

I am not being personally abusive CD you said that you have an insight because you bad experience(as a debtor), this would seem to say that it is difficult to give a balanced view.

 

I can only talk in generalities CD and would only wish to, I have no real interest in your personal problems TBH.(Sorry about that, I know you like to think everyone is enthralled).

 

I am extremely interested in the overall performance of the legislation in this area, and as said from all reports and what I see this is good news(tentatively).

 

It would be even more likely to succeed in its aims if people would let it, IMO

[unclebulgaria67]

I am not being personally abusive

 

You might wish to check some of your posting history. Perhaps you don't realise what you are typing or it is just your way. Don't go into the diplomatic service !

 

Water off a ducks back to me, but some people are more sensitive.

[Coughdrop]

I am not being personally abusive CD

 

I have no real interest in your personal problems TBH.(Sorry about that, I know you like to think everyone is enthralled).

 

Seems pretty personally abusive to me. It is how you appear to like to post nowadays - totally inconsistent with what you used to claim.

 

you said that you have an insight because you bad experience(as a debtor), this would seem to say that it is difficult to give a balanced view.

 

Why? Is it impossible to hold a balanced, and arguably more insightful view after being in debt? There are many thousands of people who would disagree with you, possibly including some on this very thread who you hold in high esteem.

 

I can only talk in generalities CD and would only wish to, I have no real interest in your personal problems TBH.(Sorry about that, I know you like to think everyone is enthralled).

 

Personal abuse aside, I mentioned the relevant part of my problems - ie - only those which should have affected the enforcement process as they were directly relevant. The process failed. You have clearly failed to grasp that, as you are failing to grasp so much recently.

 

I am extremely interested in the overall performance of the legislation in this area, and as said from all reports and what I see this is good news(tentatively).

 

Yes, I have some interest in the process, nowhere close to that of yours though. I've asked a few times for figures backing up your claims, which I assume were mentioned in the reports you've seen. So far, you have failed comprehensively to furnish me with any, yet you appear to seek credibility.

 

I have no great desire to undermine you DB. I admire you for what you have achieved in the past. I don't admire what I have seen more recently. I know you neither seek, nor crave my admiration, no more than I seek to enthrall you, but your willingness to resort to personal insults, and then be in denial of it, is saddening. You seem to have 'lost the plot' somewhere along the line, and if I can see it, God only knows what others see.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hmm [,/QUOTE]

 

Yet again I assume you think I'm posting on behalf of another site? I'm not, and actually am beginning to think you cannot see beyond that site, which is a shame.

 

The only person that has mentioned this other site is you CD.

 

I find it highly offensive that Schindler (Mark1960) should come over onto this forum to thank you personally for your posts, and then within minutes, writes the most digusting comments about me and Dodgeball on his other site.

 

I do not wish to fall out with anyone, and therefore, I will refrain from making any further comments on this thread.

[Coughdrop]

 

The only person that has mentioned this other site is you CD.

 

I find it highly offensive that Schindler (Mark1960) should come over onto this forum to thank you personally for your posts, and then within minutes, posts the writes the most digusting comments about me and Dodgeball on his other site.

 

I do not wish to fall out with anyone, and therefore, I will refrain from making any further comments on this thread.

 

Yes, probably best I think.

 

I make no apologies for mentioning any other site, it's hardly as though you and DB have not mentioned another site hundreds of times before, usually referring to it social media or FMOTL.

 

I have no knowledge of what any other poster has written elsewhere, obviously I have seen Schindler's comment here. I appreciate the thanks from Schindler, but the comments are entirely my own, nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else, despite what you may believe.

[Peterbard]

You might wish to check some of your posting history. Perhaps you don't realise what you are typing or it is just your way. Don't go into the diplomatic service !

 

Water off a ducks back to me, but some people are more sensitive.

 

No i am fine thanks, i rarely do individual insults, i do however say what i think about the comments some people make.

You do not need to go far to see the difference between my responses and personal insults, should you need to see the difference.

[Peterbard]

 

Yes, probably best I think.

 

I make no apologies for mentioning any other site, it's hardly as though you and DB have not mentioned another site hundreds of times before, usually referring to it social media or FMOTL.

 

I have no knowledge of what any other poster has written elsewhere, obviously I have seen Schindler's comment here. I appreciate the thanks from Schindler, but the comments are entirely my own, nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else, despite what you may believe.

 

I see , so you condemn the insults and personal remarks made elsewhere then, is this so ?

[Peterbard]

Seems pretty personally abusive to me. It is how you appear to like to post nowadays - totally inconsistent with what you used to claim.

 

 

 

Why? Is it impossible to hold a balanced, and arguably more insightful view after being in debt? There are many thousands of people who would disagree with you, possibly including some on this very thread who you hold in high esteem.

 

 

 

Personal abuse aside, I mentioned the relevant part of my problems - ie - only those which should have affected the enforcement process as they were directly relevant. The process failed. You have clearly failed to grasp that, as you are failing to grasp so much recently.

 

 

 

Yes, I have some interest in the process, nowhere close to that of yours though. I've asked a few times for figures backing up your claims, which I assume were mentioned in the reports you've seen. So far, you have failed comprehensively to furnish me with any, yet you appear to seek credibility.

 

I have no great desire to undermine you DB. I admire you for what you have achieved in the past. I don't admire what I have seen more recently. I know you neither seek, nor crave my admiration, no more than I seek to enthrall you, but your willingness to resort to personal insults, and then be in denial of it, is saddening. You seem to have 'lost the plot' somewhere along the line, and if I can see it, God only knows what others see.

 

Aren't we talking about the new regulations here, and weren't you involved in the old ones CD, just an observation, but as said I am interested in the performance of the new regime