When a new EA takes over.

[Bailiff Advice]

Approx 60,000 debts are enforced by a High Court Enforcement Officer and relate to a county court judgment.

 

A further five million debts that are enforced by bailiffs each year, are on behalf of government agencies. These would be council tax debts, non domestic rates, penalty charge notices and criminal court fines. Using the word 'government' debt is a fact and not intended to scare debtors.

 

Just spend a few moments on any one of the 'Beat the Bailiffs F/B pages and the debt avoidance advice given is to ignore the bailiff....don't respond to correspondence....don't speak to the bailiff company....don't enter into a payment arrangement....and instead...'sit it out'. If there is any advice that is aimed at encouraging agressive behaviour it is this.

 

If a person is looking to avoid a personal visit from a bailiff and the debt increasing by £235, then they need to be engaging with the creditor (local authority, Magistrate Court) before a warrant is issued. If they have put their 'head in the sand' and receive a Notice of Enforcement, then they should be encouaged to enter into a sensible payment arrangement during the Compliance period. Bailiff fees will then be capped at £75.

[Bailiff Advice]

As they should when faced with a bailiff refuse them entry, but try to come to an arrangement.

 

In some cases, entry into the property may be useful. This is usually in the case of criminal court fines and can avoid the distressing use of 'forced entry'. After all, it must be remebered that household items are very rarely if ever removed. That is not to say that an enforcement agent will not 'threaten' to remove goods.

 

As I have said above, it is far better to enter into a payment arrangement at the Compliance stage. This avoids a visit being made and the serious risk of a vehicle (or other goods) being taken. It also avoids an 'enforcement fee' of £235 being applied.

 

Debt evasion (because that is what is being suggested by some on here) should be avoided.

[Coughdrop]

I was suggesting the use of the word government was placed for effect in your post, that's all. I think that still, I may be wrong.

 

Citing figures is really pretty pointless, as it does not move the discussion forwards.

 

I dislike most of the Social Media Forums, as you know. How often did you and I talk about these when you used to phone me? Many of the ones I see do preach debt avoidance, and I dislike that - again you know this from many, many conversations with me over the years. There is a debt to pay, that is simple.

 

Likening CAG to these pages is just wrong though. CAG is nothing like the pages on Facebook, as you and I both know. I appreciate you disagree with some of what I am saying, but debtors have a right to know their options, they should not be forced down one particular route.

 

Returning to the pages on Social Media, and possibly the root cause of your disagreement with some of what I post, you find people from these pages who you can help - that's great. I've found people on them who you've been able to help - that's great.

 

As long as we are helping debtors, that is good. Every debt repaid is less stress for them, often in difficult times. The debtor is the important one though, not you, not me nor anyone else - the debtor. If we can show them some options, that must be good and helpful. Sometimes they benefit from services you can provide - great! Other times, they can save £310 - that is great! There's little need for disagreement or argument as long as the debtor is helped to address things. Sometimes there is more than one way to do that, and it is entirely appropriate to let the debtor know that. They are at liberty to make an informed choice then. No debt avoidance, just minimising a debt, possibly just to paying the £75 Enforcement Stage fee, possibly to saving the whole potential £310 of fees, sometimes being able to intervene before enforcement begins and help that way. All the aforementioned scenarios have the debtor at their heart - that is entirely right and proper.

[Coughdrop]

In some cases, entry into the property may be useful. This is usually in the case of criminal court fines and can avoid the distressing use of 'forced entry'.

 

Also if the debtor has nothing of value to take under control - let them in, let them see that and the warrant will usually be returned, and the fees will die.

 

Debt evasion (because that is what is being suggested by some on here) (or saving a debtor £310) should be avoided.

 

I know you like to use the words debt evasion or debt avoidance, that's fine, save for the fact it isn't debt evasion. This is why I've added the phrase to the quotation above.

 

As asked before, what is wrong with saving a debtor £310? If you were in debt to the tune of £800, would you rather repay £800 or £1110 if it was not going to inconvenience you seriously?

 

Alternative you could repay £875 - would you rather repay £800 or £875 if it was not going to inconvenience you seriously?

 

Which would you rather do?

 

It's all depending on circumstances, and what is right for the person in question. They deserve to have the options explained to them.

[Peterbard]

You are mistaken about CAG.

 

What you propose is avoiding paying judgment debts and statutory charges, the only way to challenge these is through the courts. You are right in saying that CAG has challenged these things on occasion but in the right way, we would never(normally) advise people to avoid a legal charges or fees. By just saying dont pay it and hide behind the sofa if anyone calls.

 

Re bank charges, if you knew anything about the subject you would know that we thought at the time that these changes were not lawful, (at that time there was nothing ot say they were), in that they were not proportional and therefore a penalty thus the title.

 

We were not advising people just not to pay them, although we did have great success initially in getting the refunding.

When the supreme courts ruled against us, the campaign almost ended , at least on those arguments. We did not say oh well just avoid paying them.

 

Same with parking we challenged there legality on issues of contract formation and right to prosecute , we did not encourage anyone to avoid them.

Again what you promote is debt avoidance nothing to do with what the CAG I know is interested in. This advice is more suitable for the forums you mention.

 

It is the same also with consumer credit, what we do is ensure the consumer has all the protections that he is entitled to under the law.

 

In short you are trying to bolster the credibility of your advice by comparing it to the methodology here, you cannot, chalk and cheese.

[Peterbard]

Also if the debtor has nothing of value to take under control - let them in, let them see that and the warrant will usually be returned, and the fees will die.

 

 

 

I know you like to use the words debt evasion or debt avoidance, that's fine, save for the fact it isn't debt evasion. This is why I've added the phrase to the quotation above.

 

As asked before, what is wrong with saving a debtor £310? If you were in debt to the tune of £800, would you rather repay £800 or £1110 if it was not going to inconvenience you seriously?

 

Alternative you could repay £875 - would you rather repay £800 or £875 if it was not going to inconvenience you seriously?

.

 

What you are saying here is what is wrong with avoiding paying a legal debt, so if you buy something from a shop what is wrong with not paying, the logic is the same.

[Coughdrop]

Good post DB - totally wrong, but interesting, and entirely coherent reading.

 

Are you stating that what I am suggesting is illegal? As far as I'm aware it is entirely lawful, legal, whichever you want to use, I'll settle for legal.

 

If I advised someone to avoid paying council tax, or a magistrates' court fine, then yes, I'd be wrong. I'm not suggesting that for one moment.

 

Bailiffs can be bypassed though - you used to recommend it yourself in the old days perhaps? Debtors do not have to engage with them. I'm not trying to bolster credibility by comparing it to CAG, I'm saying CAG has long campaigned to minimise and challenge debts, fees, charges, monies owed etc.... You have been involved in debt avoidance for years, though I don't call it debt avoidance, I call it helping debtors. I could relate a few tales of you being involved, but I don't want to move further away from the issue. This is about EA's and their fees, it's just that the theory fits so many other areas of CAG's work.

[daverules]

What you are saying here is what is wrong with avoiding paying a legal debt, so if you buy something from a shop what is wrong with not paying, the logic is the same.

 

Buying from a shop is a matter of choice, you do not have the money so you do not buy.

 

CT you have no choice.

[Coughdrop]

What you are saying here is what is wrong with avoiding paying a legal debt, so if you buy something from a shop what is wrong with not paying, the logic is the same.

 

Nope - totally different. Debtors understand it when it is explained to them, that is the main thing.

[Coughdrop]

Buying from a shop is a matter of choice, you do not have the money so you do not buy.

 

CT you have no choice.

 

Correct. Further, CT you have no choice. Dealing with the EA's is again a matter of choice, it is not a legal requirement.

[Bailiff Advice]

There is also the serious problem about debt evasion when the debt being enforced is an unpaid Magistrate Court fine.

 

The irresponsible advice to 'sit it out' will very likely result in a debtor receiving a visit from the enforcement agent and a locksmith. Such a visit will add a lockmsith's fee to the visit of approx £150. An enforcement fee of £235 will also be added.

 

The responsible alternative, would be to enter into a payment arrangement at the Compliance stage. Fees will then be capped at £75.

[Peterbard]

Buying from a shop is a matter of choice, you do not have the money so you do not buy.

 

CT you have no choice.

 

It is what you have to pay if you want to live in a house, it is what we all have to pay, why should certain people think they are exempt.

 

 

 

I have never taken part in debt avoidance. But this is not about me is it ?

[Coughdrop]

There is also the serious problem about debt evasion when the debt being enforced is an unpaid Magistrate Court fine.

 

The irresponsible advice to 'sit it out' will very likely result in a debtor receiving a visit from the enforcement agent and a locksmith. Such a visit will add a lockmsith's fee to the visit of approx £150. An enforcement fee os £235 will also be added.

 

The alternative, would be to enter into a payment arrangement at the Compliance stage. Fees will then be capped at £75.

 

If this refers to me, I'd ask you to find a thread where I have suggested sitting out a Magistrates' Court fine. If it is about someone else, I don't recall reading that advice on CAG, though I admit to a poor memory.

[Peterbard]

Nope - totally different. Debtors understand it when it is explained to them, that is the main thing.

 

Debtors usually acccept what ever they are told, that is the problem.

[Coughdrop]

It is what you have to pay if you want to live in a house, it is what we all have to pay, why should certain people think they are exempt.

 

I have never taken part in debt avoidance. But this is not about me is it ?

 

People should most definitely not think they are exempt, and I would never dream of suggesting that.

 

It is not about you, or me, or anyone other than the debtor. The debtor is the only important person here.

[Peterbard]

If this refers to me, I'd ask you to find a thread where I have suggested sitting out a Magistrates' Court fine. If it is about someone else, I don't recall reading that advice on CAG, though I admit to a poor memory.

 

Who siad anything about mag fine it could be a second visit to recover controlled goods.

[Coughdrop]

Debtors usually acccept what ever they are told, that is the problem.

 

It is, I agree. So tell them to pay fees blindly, they may well do it.

 

Give them a range of options, and they have the ability to make an informed choice. Many in debt are intelligent people, it's right for all debtors to know their options.

[Peterbard]

People should most definitely not think they are exempt, and I would never dream of suggesting that.

 

It is not about you, or me, or anyone other than the debtor. The debtor is the only important person here.

 

Then advise how to pay the debt and not avoid it, your advice just puts off the inevitable and encourages people to think they can avoid their liabilities.

[Peterbard]

"Pay fees blindly" where has that come from ?

 

You are not paying blindly if it is a legitimate debt.

[Coughdrop]

Then advise how to pay the debt and not avoid it, your advice just puts off the inevitable and encourages people to think they can avoid their liabilities.

 

Nope - again you misunderstand.

 

I do not think you will find a single thread on here where I have suggested not paying Council Tax. I've suggested ways of not dealing with the bailiffs, and having extra fees added.

 

"The inevitable" is, I assume, paying the CT. Yes, potentially my suggestion delays full payment, so in that sense it delays the inevitable. What is wrong with that? Is it compulsory to deal with bailiffs?

 

I keep asking questions. I keep getting no answers.

[daverules]

It is what you have to pay if you want to live in a house, it is what we all have to pay, why should certain people think they are exempt.

 

 

 

I have never taken part in debt avoidance. But this is not about me is it ?

 

It's not about thinking your exempt it's about affordability, how on earth do you think that if someone can not

pay their £ 100 a month CT how are they going to be able to pay fee's?

 

It really comes down to an individual household, income is fixed based on earnings so priorities such as heating, food and

travel to and from work.

 

If a person sits it out and it gets returned to the council and an agreement is made to pay at a certain rate that is affordable

then that is not debt avoidance but a good conclusion on how a debt can be resolved. The council should do more talking to

the person/people as to why they are behind in their CT.

[Coughdrop]

"Pay fees blindly" where has that come from ?

 

You are not paying blindly if it is a legitimate debt.

 

It came from you stating debtors usually do as they're told. You and Bailiff Advice usually advise people to pay with the fees. In that sense, debtors are paying 'blindly' as they have not been told they do not have to have anything to do with the EA's, so they are, metaphorically speaking, blind.

[Bailiff Advice]

It's not about thinking your exempt it's about affordability, how on earth do you think that if someone can not

pay their £ 100 a month CT how are they going to be able to pay fee's?

 

It really comes down to an individual household, income is fixed based on earnings so priorities such as heating, food and

travel to and from work.

 

If a person sits it out and it gets returned to the council and an agreement is made to pay at a certain rate that is affordable then that is not debt avoidance but a good conclusion on how a debt can be resolved.

 

The council should do more talking to the person/people as to why they are behind in their CT.

 

Council Tax is a tax that every household has to pay. Many people will be able to obtain council tax support. Almost certainly, the debtor should be speaking with the council at a very early stage. They should not wait until a summons is issued and the account passed to bailiffs.

[Peterbard]

It is, I agree. So tell them to pay fees blindly, they may well do it.

Give them a range of options, and they have the ability to make an informed choice. Many in debt are intelligent people, it's right for ]debtors to know their options.

 

You mean options like , you are from a vulnerable family even if your not, saying that an item is not yours when it is, attempt to sell items when they are bound,

Cut off clamps, pay the council direct, register your cat in Scotland, i could go on and on. These are options too according to you

 

They may well be intelligent people , but you have taken on the role of adviser, you must give advice which is in there best interstst. Not everyone, intelligent or not is knowledgeable on bailiff law.

Edited July 6, 2016 by honeybee13
Editing the sideswipe

[Bailiff Advice]

CD. I am sorry but you not being truthful.

 

By telling debtors to 'sit it out' you are advising them to withhold payment of a debt that includes either council tax or a criminal court fine. Whichever way you want to dress it up, you are encouraging 'debt evasion'.

 

Whilst the account is with an enforcement company the amount owed includes bailfif fees.