BAILIFFS ARE HARRESSING ME!

[chas]

They have to be legally authorised to collect the debt on behalf of the creditor.

The creditor applies to the court for a warrant of execution at the county court.

 

Ahh, OK. That makes more sense. Still, whatever is ordered by a judge, who's a sate authoirty, shoulñd be carried out by other authorities, under his supervision, because, as Punky pointed out, its not only important if they are allowed to collect a debt, but how they do it.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Xaccers]

Ahh, OK. That makes more sense. Still, whatever is ordered by a judge, who's a sate authoirty, shoulñd be carried out by other authorities, under his supervision, because, as Punky pointed out, its not only important if they are allowed to collect a debt, but how they do it.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Debt collection is highly regulated, there are specific things they are and are not alowed to do.

If they harass you, they should be reported to the council's trading standards department.

Complaints should be made through the lender's complaints procedure, and if that doesn't resolve the matter to your satisfaction, you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

You can also contact Consumer Direct for free advice.

 

As I said, being in the hands of a private company gives councils more power over how they execute their duties.

[cazboab]

Next thing you know police duties are carried out by private companies.

 

Don't give them any ideas...

[Xaccers]

Don't give them any ideas...

 

Some streets have resorted to just that because the police in their area are so ineffective.

Private security firms patrol the area to ward off criminals.

[Misfit]

Don't give them any ideas...

 

It was proposed years ago for the 2012 Olympic games.

 

Part-private and private policing have already been trialled and used in the USA.

[Elias]

Thanks. Wow, goodbye to the warranties for citizens rights. THAT is why you need a constitution, where private property is considered not only a constitutional right, but a fundamental right and needs either a due process and the final order by a judge or a summary administrative process (ALWAYS carried out in all its steps by public workers) to have anything taken from you.

 

We do have a constitution, it's simply not codified, much like Israel and New-Zealand, shouldn't you know that as a law student? Especially one in a member state. Not to go off on too much of a tangent but codified constitutions like those found in France, Spain, America and so forth are fraught with their own problems.

 

As for bailiffs, in theory they are considered to be servants of the courts and so on as even certified bailiffs have to go through an application process to the court to be a bailiff. Despite the I too am not fond of them, the previous tenant of my student flat left without paying her gas and electric rates and we received letters from a debt collection agency and two bailiffs. I contacted British Gas and was told not to worry but did not bother replying to the bailiffs as I was happy to waste their time hoping they would come round only to find that no one by that name lived here.

 

J

[galactica]

It should be pointed out that the legal process to put a bailiff after a

claimant is not "legally justified" by way of a judge deciding it should go ahead - it is legal because it is ALLOWED that a clerk who earns £12,000 a year is tasked with issuing debt collection notices. It has not been through judicial process, there is an over-reaching rubber stamp on such issues. It's not done on a case by case basis, authority to seize is assumed, not granted.

[Punkypink]

Actually Punky, if you aren't able to understand the OFT's advice in context then you would be better off handing the reigns over to a solicitor to work on your behalf.

 

I really can't see how visiting you after the council offices close on a Friday prevents you contacting the same council on the following Monday.

Then you've missed the point. He wasn't going to come back the following week, or at least he wasn't trying to give that impression. He was telling me directly they would be coming in an hour's time IF I cannot pay him immediately to take my stuff.

 

Assuming he WAS going to come back in an hours time, pray tell what good would contacting the council on monday do when my primary concern is to not let them take my stuff to begin with? I sure as hell don't want the hassle of having to go reclaim my belongings.

 

I've spoken to OFT. They rang me yesterday upon receipt of my complaint and they've confirmed on the phone with me that they consider that to be scam tactics(especially in light of the fact that they didn't actually show up an hour later like they said they would). Hence they HAVE handed the case over to Trading Standards.

 

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the advice in context here.

[Punkypink]

Much as Punky would rather we didn't say it, the fact is that bailiffs don't just show up out of the blue.

You get letters and phone calls telling you they're coming before they arrive.

 

 

It's not a pleasant job but it's a little naive to criticise them for their actions because that IS the sort of stuff that gets their job done.

Yes, they don't show up out of the blue, but given that the council has been given more than sufficient evidence and given that on one hand, they acknowledge the evidence and repeatedly promise to stop the bailiff action, it gets to the point where you get a letter and you wonder if it isn't some administrative mistake. We ring them after a few letters, they say "oh it must be a mistake we'll sort it out" and then it just keeps repeating, tell me who here would, after over 12 months of that, not start to assume that it is an on-going clerical error on the bailiff or council's side that results in letters arriving occasionally?

 

It's not a pleasant job but it's a little naive to criticise them for their actions because that IS the sort of stuff that gets their job done.

That is like condoning someone who sells you goods by lying to you about it. Yea, it gets their job done, but it's not legal and it's not right is it? There is nothing naive in criticising someone for commiting a criminal act.

 

Surely a better analogy to Punky's case would be trying to argue your way out of a speeding ticket you were given when you weren't speeding?

Pretty much this. Some people are just not getting it. Sure, not all bailiffs are bad, but not all bailiffs work in the same way or are good either. Just because someone has had an experience with bailiffs who use honest legal methods doesn't mean that experience is representative, nor does it mean that when other bailiffs actually resort to criminal behaviour to get the job done, it is justified or condonable or even "understandable".

[creepingfear]

I'd say you've got pretty good grounds to sue the council for stress/harrassment ect due to the sheer scale of how their incompetence has impacted on your wellbeing.

[Punkypink]

Probably. Good chance I'd win too. I found out on the CAG forums few days back that it isn't the 1st time Chandlers Limited have been involved in such fradulant behaviour before, which is why I'm amazed that some people here seem to be attempting to defend them and their tactics. I've no issues with bailiffs who do their job honestly and legally, I have no idea why some are so eager to defend ANYONE who do their jobs dishonestly and illegally, regardless of what that job might be.

[Stealthbomber]

That is like condoning someone who sells you goods by lying to you about it. Yea, it gets their job done, but it's not legal and it's not right is it? There is nothing naive in criticising someone for commiting a criminal act.

Not really.

 

to be clear, there's 2 different subjects at hand here.

Firstly, that Punky is getting a raw deal and it sucks big-time. No debate there.

The second issue is regarding how bailiffs operate and that's where the confusion lies.

 

Yes, it IS unforgivable the way the council have acted and, in a fair world, they'd be forced to compensate you for all the hassle you've had.

However, it's a little naive to criticise the bailiffs for the way they're operating.

They're working in a manner designed to get their job done as efficiently as possible.

Trying to debate with a bailiff is a little like trying to argue with a hand-grenade.

In both cases you're wasting your time when you should really be dealing with whoever sent them your way.

 

The way bailiffs operate isn't "pleasant" and the whole situation is usually going to ensure you always end up with a bitter taste in your mouth but that doesn't mean they're acting unacceptably.

 

In the same way that a cop knows he'll nick more people for speeding by standing behind a hedge or at the bottom of a hill, or how a lawyer knows that he's more likely to get somebody to admit to a crime if he can undermine their alibi, it's not pleasant but it IS what gets their job done.

Nobody likes it but, as I said, it's like blaming a hand-grenade for injuring you.

[Xaccers]

Then you've missed the point. He wasn't going to come back the following week, or at least he wasn't trying to give that impression. He was telling me directly they would be coming in an hour's time IF I cannot pay him immediately to take my stuff.

 

Assuming he WAS going to come back in an hours time, pray tell what good would contacting the council on monday do when my primary concern is to not let them take my stuff to begin with? I sure as hell don't want the hassle of having to go reclaim my belongings.

 

 

OK, I'll make it really simple for you.

You don't let them in.

You tell them to leave your premises.

If they don't, then you call the police and tell them you're being harrassed, you've asked them to leave and they're refusing to.

Then, on Monday, you call the council and complain.

Now, that's not difficult to understand is it?

 

 

 

[Elias]

I'm fairly sure that they would be allowed to gain entry to the property by way of a locksmith or other in order to take items.

 

You don't have to let them in the first time when they come to discuss your debt, but afterwards they can gain entry and seize things.

 

That's my understanding.

 

J

[Xaccers]

I'm fairly sure that they would be allowed to gain entry to the property by way of a locksmith or other in order to take items.

 

You don't have to let them in the first time when they come to discuss your debt, but afterwards they can gain entry and seize things.

 

That's my understanding.

 

J

 

From the government itself:

http://direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefit...ars/DG_10034289

 

What bailiffs can and can't do

If the bailiffs come to your home, you don't have to let them in. They can't force their way in, but they can enter through an open window or an unlocked door.

 

Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door to them, or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal.

 

Bailiffs recovering unpaid magistrates' court fines, however, do have the power to force entry, but this is always a last resort.

 

Bailiffs trying to recover money you owe to HMRC are allowed to break into your home, providing they have a magistrates' warrant - but this method is rare and only used as a last resort.

 

 

[spetsnazdave87]

Topically, punky did you watch the latest skins?

[Punkypink]

OK, I'll make it really simple for you.

You don't let them in.

You tell them to leave your premises.

If they don't, then you call the police and tell them you're being harrassed, you've asked them to leave and they're refusing to.

Then, on Monday, you call the council and complain.

Now, that's not difficult to understand is it?

Look, not everyone is as hard-nosed as me alright? There are a lot of people who WOULD be intimidated into paying even if they don't owe. It does not change the facts that they HAD to resort to such tactics because they knew there was a good chance they do not have a strong claim on collecting this debt.

 

IF I was a bailiff and I was doing my job, I would establish that fair enough, the target would not pay today, I will NOT threaten or bluff, but give them an actual chance to contact the council, because in the end, I still get paid, and sticking strictly to procedural and jurdicial methods means no charges of fraud can be levelled against me.

 

I KNOW what to do to handle them, but you're STILL not getting the point that the bailiffs in this case ARE resorting to fraud to do the job. Yes, bailiffs are not pleasant, but surely there is a line drawn as to at what point do they cross the legal line. It seems like you and Stealth are suggesting that they are yahoos who can justifiably break the law to do their job.

 

There is a BIG difference between being unpleasant and being ILLEGAL. Full stop.

 

Topically, punky did you watch the latest skins?

Nope

[Elias]

From the government itself:

http://direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefit...ars/DG_10034289

 

I see, so some do some don't. Seems that in the case of council tax, you need to have a good case for not paying in order to avoid a spell in front of the magistrates and possible prison scentence.

 

J

[Xaccers]

Look, not everyone is as hard-nosed as me alright? There are a lot of people who WOULD be intimidated into paying even if they don't owe. It does not change the facts that they HAD to resort to such tactics because they knew there was a good chance they do not have a strong claim on collecting this debt.

 

IF I was a bailiff and I was doing my job, I would establish that fair enough, the target would not pay today, I will NOT threaten or bluff, but give them an actual chance to contact the council, because in the end, I still get paid, and sticking strictly to procedural and jurdicial methods means no charges of fraud can be levelled against me.

 

I KNOW what to do to handle them, but you're STILL not getting the point that the bailiffs in this case ARE resorting to fraud to do the job. Yes, bailiffs are not pleasant, but surely there is a line drawn as to at what point do they cross the legal line. It seems like you and Stealth are suggesting that they are yahoos who can justifiably break the law to do their job.

 

There is a BIG difference between being unpleasant and being ILLEGAL. Full stop.

 

 

Nope

 

I'm not disputing that they have not followed the regulations in threatening to break in.

I'm disputing that their arriving at the same time the council closes was in anyway to their advantage.

They are allowed to bluff to try and get someone who owes money to pay up. They're not allowed to threaten anything illegal though, or harrass.

Think about it punky, using your logic they would have to gain something from arriving at that time. Now they know they can't force their way in, they know they're not going to come back and force their way in, they know it's a bluff. By saying "if you turn us away we'll come back with more people and gain entry" they're giving you the ability to tell them "fine, do that"

Even if you thought they were telling the truth, you've got nothing to lose turning them away and making them come back with more people.

So what are they gaining? If you don't owe them the money then you're not going to let them in no matter what they say, so it doesn't matter that you can't phone the council there and then.

If you did owe the money then you may give in and pay up, result, you've saved some money, the issue is resolved, they've got paid. If the council were open and you owed the money what are you going to do? Phone the council and be told "you owe us the money" so again it doesn't matter whether the council are open or not.

 

As for you claims the OFT told you they were scammers, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

You're seriously trying to tell us that the OFT would prefer people not to be told that if they don't pay their debts quickly they'll incur further charges, and they consider bailiffs telling people that a scam, despite it being true, that you would indeed incur extra costs the longer you take to agree to pay?

The word "piffle" springs to mind.

 

 

 

I see, so some do some don't. Seems that in the case of council tax, you need to have a good case for not paying in order to avoid a spell in front of the magistrates and possible prison scentence.

 

J

 

If you actually owe the money that is. Magistrates are very reasonable, if you can't pay due to your financial situation, ie you earn more than the level to get benefits but not enough to make ends meet without struggling, they'll be on your side and help come up with a payment plan that you can afford (often whether the council thinks its enough or not )

Prison is for those refusing to pay rather than those unable to pay.

 

[creepingfear]

They are allowed to bluff to try and get someone who owes money to pay up

 

No they're not, they're expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner as they are acting on behalf of the courts, who in turn expect the situation to be conducted in accordance with the Law. To "bluff" someone is to attempt to "con" someone ie to believe a false truth by means of deception. Thats scamming.

 

Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, sleight of hand.

[Xaccers]

No they're not, they're expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner as they are acting on behalf of the courts, who in turn expect the situation to be conducted in accordance with the Law. To "bluff" someone is to attempt to "con" someone ie to believe a false truth by means of deception. Thats scamming.

 

 

They can indeed bluff, such as saying "Can I use your phone to call the office?" or "Lets go in and talk about this" They do not have to say add "however by inviting me in, you will allow me to enter at any point in the future in my duty to recover the debt owed"

[Seraphim989]

Allowed in through an open window or unlocked door? How weird

[chas]

They can indeed bluff, such as saying "Can I use your phone to call the office?" or "Lets go in and talk about this" They do not have to say add "however by inviting me in, you will allow me to enter at any point in the future in my duty to recover the debt owed"

Following that logic, scamming would be legal.

 

[Xaccers]

Following that logic, scamming would be legal.

 

What strange logic your brain produces.

 

If a bailiff enters your house peacefully as they are legally allowed to do, then what is the scam?

Again, if the debt collectors tell you that if you don't pay today then they'll add charges for the time they're spending on the case and it will cost you more, how is that a scam?

Simple, it's not. It's true, they will add extra charges, so if you owe the money it's in your best interest to pay sooner rather than later. This is why you hear about people who've stuck their heads in the sand over a £100 debt and as it's dragged on so long they end up owing ten times that.

 

[chas]

What I meant is that Im pretty sure that bluffing/tricking/lying isnt allowed.