A must read

[Peterbard]

Anyway moving on. this is the next paragraph

 

"These enforcement agencies make no distinction between people who can’t pay and those who refuse to pay. There is apparently no need to resolve cases to a recognised legal standard before collection in the cases of disputes."

 

The first part of the paragraph is IMO a fair point and in many cases perhaps true.

Agents I m sure would argue that this is the end of a long enforcement process and any inability to pay should have been sorted out before, also that, if there are no assets the case will go back to the council and no costs are incurred. I do know that some authorities who encounter defaulted payment send requests for I and E statements which would expose the situation, but I do not think this is a requirement in law.

 

However there is value in the argument that this is just not about costs but the emotional and material strain placed unfairly on the debtor when they are not at fault.

 

Perhaps one of our bailiff colleagues would like to comment about any training they may receive to assist them in making an accurate determination in these circumstances.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[tobyjugg2]

The thread refers directly to the document ?

Sorry the rest is confusing to me.

civil bailiff action is not about punishment, nor is it about compensation. All bailiff activity is preceded by a court authority and enacted by a lawful warrant writ or enactment, the sum to be recovered is stated on that document and the fees are per the legislation which sets them.

 

Many threads refer to documents, doesn't mean thats the be all and end all, much as some would like that to be, and I have quoted an appropriate bit from the linked document in support of my post.

 

I was just setting ground rules on whether we could agree to what is decent, and whether under those terms, what 'fees' night be reasonable.

I could 'charge' a million pounds an hour for my services, doesn't mean anyone with the choice would pay that or think that it would be reasonable.

I think that a valid test of reasonableness.

 

 

What is legal is up to a court to decide, and even then, they might not have all the relevant information.

[Peterbard]

Hi the mention of the document is in the title, as said if I have this wrong PT, who is not normally shy about correcting people will tell me I am sure.

 

If we are talking about the charges enforcement agents make for their services(fees). These are encapsulated in regulations made under an act of parliament, so really it doesn't matter what we say about their fairness. They are what they are I am afraid.

[tobyjugg2]

Hi the mention of the document is in the title, as said if I have this wrong PT, who is not normally shy about correcting people will tell me I am sure.

 

If we are talking about the charges enforcement agents make for their services(fees). These are encapsulated in regulations made under an act of parliament, so really it doesn't matter what we say about their fairness. They are what they are I am afraid.

 

Really?

from the OP link, whatever the original 'penalty' cause, the bailifs mentioned seem completely out of control

 

So ignoring that she was doing a good deed as the link says, or whether the original penalty bore any relation to any loss that could reasonably be assumed to have occurred,

 

"Don’t get distracted by the emotive nature of Rachael Carron’s story. Ms. Carron is a nurse. She was 6 minutes late back to her car because she was helping an elderly lady who had fallen over and injured herself in the street. "

 

 

 

"She appealed the parking ticket and heard nothing for over a year and so she assumed the council had dropped the case. Since then she’s been harassed by ‘bailiffs’ who have blocked her driveway, spuriously called the police alleging assault, shouted at her 16 year old daughter through the window whilst mum was out, threatened to break into her home and seize property."

 

The actions described above seem completely unreasonable to me.

How about you?

[Coughdrop]

Anyway moving on. this is the next paragraph

 

"These enforcement agencies make no distinction between people who can’t pay and those who refuse to pay. There is apparently no need to resolve cases to a recognised legal standard before collection in the cases of disputes."

 

The first part of the sentence is IMO a fair point and in many cases perhaps true.

 

Do you mean the first sentence is, in your opinion, a fair point, or possibly the first part of the paragraph? What you have written does not appear to make sense to me.

 

However there is value in the argument that this is just not about costs but the emotional and material strain placed unfairly on the debtor when they are not at fault.

 

A point I touched on some 60 odd posts ago (posts 42, 45 and your post 50). I outlined my experiences and mentioned this issue. I got the reply you were not interested in my problems. Why is there value today when there was not yesterday? I know my experience was under the old regulations, but vulnerability and financial hardship were still issues then, as they are now. The exact issue remains.

 

Perhaps one of our bailiff colleagues would like to comment about any training they may receive to assist them in making an accurate determination in these circumstances.

 

Yes, that would be very interesting. There may be no need to resolve cases to a recognised legal standard, but 'The taking control of goods: national standards' is prefixed by the government with these words, "Minimum standards for bailiffs and enforcement agents involved in taking goods from people who owe others money." Surely that must mean something? ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bailiffs-and-enforcement-agents-national-standards )

[Peterbard]

Really?

from the OP link, whatever the original 'penalty' cause, the bailifs mentioned seem completely out of control

 

So ignoring that she was doing a good deed as the link says, or whether the original penalty bore any relation to any loss that could reasonably be assumed to have occurred,

 

"Don’t get distracted by the emotive nature of Rachael Carron’s story. Ms. Carron is a nurse. She was 6 minutes late back to her car because she was helping an elderly lady who had fallen over and injured herself in the street. "

 

 

 

"She appealed the parking ticket and heard nothing for over a year and so she assumed the council had dropped the case. Since then she’s been harassed by ‘bailiffs’ who have blocked her driveway, spuriously called the police alleging assault, shouted at her 16 year old daughter through the window whilst mum was out, threatened to break into her home and seize property."

 

The actions described above seem completely unreasonable to me.

How about you?

 

I think there is thread on this somewhere. However the document confuses this issue with bailiff enforcement.

The matter of, if it was correct or not to issue the enforcement order to the bailiff has nothing to do with the bailiff, they are employed to enforce the order for the sum on it, not to query its origin.

[Peterbard]

Do you mean the first sentence is, in your opinion, a fair point, or possibly the first part of the paragraph? What you have written does not appear to make sense to me.

 

 

 

A point I touched on some 60 odd posts ago (posts 42, 45 and your post 50). I outlined my experiences and mentioned this issue. I got the reply you were not interested in my problems. Why is there value today when there was not yesterday? I know my experience was under the old regulations, but vulnerability and financial hardship were still issues then, as they are now. The exact issue remains.

 

 

 

Yes, that would be very interesting. There may be no need to resolve cases to a recognised legal standard, but 'The taking control of goods: national standards' is prefixed by the government with these words, "Minimum standards for bailiffs and enforcement agents involved in taking goods from people who owe others money." Surely that must mean something? ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bailiffs-and-enforcement-agents-national-standards )

 

Hi

Yes just trying to go through the document in some kind of logical sequence, I am sure most people understood what i meant, it was the first part of the paragraph of course, good point about the standards .

[tobyjugg2]

I think there is thread on this somewhere. However the document confuses this issue with bailiff enforcement.

The matter of, if it was correct or not to issue the enforcement order to the bailiff has nothing to do with the bailiff, they are employed to enforce the order for the sum on it, not to query its origin.

 

thought we were putting those bits aside.

 

What about the part I asked about? I'll copy it again

 

"She appealed the parking ticket and heard nothing for over a year and so she assumed the council had dropped the case. Since then she’s been harassed by ‘bailiffs’ who have blocked her driveway, spuriously called the police alleging assault, shouted at her 16 year old daughter through the window whilst mum was out, threatened to break into her home and seize property."

 

The actions described above seem completely unreasonable to me.

How about you?

[Peterbard]

I wouldn't want to comment on this individual case without having all the facts, and in the context of this thread it makes no difference in any case.

I am sure that any EA could give stories about debtor offences and misbehaviour, they would be similarly unhelpful.

I do know that it is not unknown for someone to state a case which creates an emotive reaction then try to hang a whole conspiracy theory on it, which is IMO the reason for it being included in the document under discussion.

 

I dont think it means anything in regard to bailiff enforcement in general perhaps at worst an indictment of an individual bailiff.

[Schindler]

thought we were putting those bits aside.

 

What about the part I asked about? I'll copy it again

 

"She appealed the parking ticket and heard nothing for over a year and so she assumed the council had dropped the case. Since then she’s been harassed by ‘bailiffs’ who have blocked her driveway, spuriously called the police alleging assault, shouted at her 16 year old daughter through the window whilst mum was out, threatened to break into her home and seize property."

 

The actions described above seem completely unreasonable to me.

How about you?

 

Completely unreasonable but warrant might still be live. Good point though.

 

Good point by Coughdrop too about vulnerability, financial hardship and the national standards.

[tobyjugg2]

I wouldn't want to comment on this individual case without having all the facts, and in the context of this thread it makes no difference in any case.

I am sure that any EA could give stories about debtor offences and misbehaviour, they would be similarly unhelpful.

 

I dont think it means anything in regard to bailiff enforcement in general perhaps at worst an indictment of an individual bailiff.

 

But I do think that someone APPARENTLY acting on behalf of the industry should very clearly decry any such actions, proof and action aside.

One would also hope that any representative body would actively seek out and address anyone who brought their body into such disrepute, rather than attempt to protect them.

 

I also very firmly believe that anyone very clearly acting on a forum on behalf of a body should be clearly labeled as such, just as our very valuable VF rep is.

Edited May 30, 2016 by tobyjugg2
corrected issue description

[Peterbard]

Sorry bit you are going to have to be clearer, if you want me to respond, I am am unsure what it is you are refering to, my fault I am sure.

[tobyjugg2]

LOL

Seems clear to me already that the various claims hold far more truth than any alternative explanation.

[mikeymack2002]

TJ good point maybe a BU (business user) or ST (sole trader) could be added to their handle. This way it would identify that person with a professional and or has a business interests... or have their handle put up in green or other colour.

 

This would instantly identify them to posters?

[Peterbard]

Moving on

 

"In cases where the debtor can’t pay there’s no legal requirement to offer manageable repayment mechanisms or debt counselling services. People in debt are simply pushed deeper into it by the process of debt recovery. The simple but irrefutable truth when it come to debt is that a debt that can’t be paid won’t be. Which explains why most debt enforcement fails to recover a penny. And where debts are recovered, the debt enforcers recover more money in fees than the creditors are owed. Often, about five times more."

 

Well first sentence, hang on....yes thats right sentence:). "In cases where the debtor can’t pay there’s no legal requirement to offer manageable repayment mechanisms or debt counselling services.

 

This is not quite true, as said before none HCEo fees are structured in a way to encourage the repayment of the debt or the entering into a repayment arrangement at compliance.

 

This was a requirement and recommendation of the consultative body and was adopted in the fees regulations, so there is an implication via parliament that there should be ample opportunity for installment plans to be arranged within the compliance period. Also this is considered as good practice by authorities and I have seen a few EAs advertising themselves as being committed to doing just this, doubtlessly in an attempt to impress a future employer.

Of course it is not entirely within the purview of the EA to offer arrangements and the creditor must be consulted and give permission also.

 

It is certainly true that arrangements to pay at compliance are rapidly becoming the norm in enforcement it it not the case already. I fully agree that there should be more holistic debt counselling available for people in debt, and this is certainly the case in bailiff enforcment IMO.

 

I dont think the rest is worthy fo comment , not to say taht others may dissagree.

[Peterbard]

TJ good point maybe a BU (business user) or ST (sole trader) could be added to their handle. This way it would identify that person with a professional and or has a business interests... or have their handle put up in green or other colour.

 

This would instantly identify them to posters?

 

Forgive me but i have a feeling you are trying to say something here, would you mind being less cryptic, so I can understand what it is,cheers.

[tobyjugg2]

i think people are getting bogged down in detail here.

 

I have come to a few conclusions, hers 2 that I will state

 

1.

That any society which considers overstaying some arbitrary time limit in a supermarket car park by 6 or even 60 minutes warrants any sort of pursuit, let alone the sort described in the link, really needs to look hard at its values - and adjust them.

 

2.

Any representative or champion of a body who fails to immediately and unequivocally condemn actions such as those described in the linked post (even theoretical actions of that sort) says far more about that body than any emotive or angry post ever could.

[Peterbard]

Sometime a little detail is essential.

 

For instance, what case are you referring to, a supermarket car parking infringement would result in a parking charge notice which is not enforceable by the council.

 

What "bodies" are you describing, the authority the council the TEC, the enforcment officer, Miss plumb, Captain Haddock

[tobyjugg2]

i think people are getting bogged down in detail here.

 

I have come to a few conclusions, hers 2 that I will state

 

1.

That any society which considers overstaying some arbitrary time limit in a supermarket car park by 6 or even 60 minutes warrants any sort of pursuit, let alone the sort described in the link, really needs to look hard at its values - and adjust them.

 

2.

Any representative or champion of a body who fails to immediately and unequivocally condemn actions such as those described in the linked post (even theoretical actions of that sort) says far more about that body than any emotive or angry post ever could.

 

 

 

ooops - and one more

 

I really don't believe anyone will get any useful, unbiased advice from Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

 

I really don't believe anyone will get any useful, unbiased advice from Dodgeball

 

Have to dissagree my opinions are always unbiased, that is why you and your ilk do not like them.

 

As for useful. Well that would depend on the situation.

 

One thing for sure they will always be accurate and not the result of some half arsed notion about what things should be like.

[Andyorch]

Time to close this thread...its run its course....and serves no purpose...yet again.

 

Andyorch