Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

That's your best quote yet-Worth shifting through all your drivel just to read that gem.

"may" recover fees = they haven't a cat in hells chance of collecting them.

As if a bailiff "may" choose not to recover fees when he has the chance of doing so.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, it did make me smile.

I thought Mike Garlands "may inform the TEC" quote was hilarious, but yours is on another level.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, Andy58 is most definitely not a bailiff or in cahoots with a bailiff firm, if that's what you're accusing him of. I'm not sure you are, but if so, hope that clears that up, if not, my apologies.

I'm not sure why the bailiff threads end up this way, maybe because the legislation just isn't as defined as it could be but personally I think a bit of leeway on both sides is needed to manage to deal with all circumstances. I think you are possibly looking for a definitive answer/view that simply doesn't exist.

Hopefully you're getting somewhere / something useful out of the discussion - it may be you have to just agree to disagree on some points, just try not resort to name calling and sniping.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

That's your best quote yet-Worth shifting through all your drivel just to read that gem.

"may" recover fees = they haven't a cat in hells chance of collecting them.

As if a bailiff "may" choose not to recover fees when he has the chance of doing so.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, it did make me smile.

I thought Mike Garlands "may inform the TEC" quote was hilarious, but yours is on another level.

Mystified why it is so hard for you to understand, put it simpler for you. If you come into my shop and by a pound of spuds I may charge , I may not, i have the right to but I also have the right to give them away, Same with the fee. They have the right to charge or they can waive it if they want.
What do you think it means ?

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I know exactly who "Andy" is. (for the avoidance of doubt)

The bailiff threads end up this way because of an argument between Milo & Jason. You know that as well as I do.

I don't take sides in that rubbish & personally think they both need to take a long hard look in the mirror at themselves.

I'm quite happy to give leeway but when some patronising ars###le accuses me of being a FMOTL nutjob or giving debtors bad advice, I tend to take the hump. He has followed me all over the net, I'm not sure what the obsession with me is, in fact I'm quite intrigued-I'm sure that he now realises, I'm not the rollover he thought I was.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

If you don't understand the word, "may" then you don't have a lot of chance understanding the case you quoted, suffice to say it has nothing to do with the issues we are commenting on here.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I know exactly who "Andy" is. (for the avoidance of doubt)

The bailiff threads end up this way because of an argument between Milo & Jason. You know that as well as I do.

I don't take sides in that rubbish & personally think they both need to take a long hard look in the mirror at themselves.

I'm quite happy to give leeway but when some patronising ars###le accuses me of being a FMOTL nutjob or giving debtors bad advice, I tend to take the hump. He has followed me all over the net, I'm not sure what the obsession with me is, in fact I'm quite intrigued-I'm sure that he now realises, I'm not the rollover he thought I was.

Actually i never called you any such thing I said some of the things you say may make you look like one, especially when you desert any reasonable debate and resort to abuse.
No this thread has ended up this way because you are becoming abusive, no other reason.
MIlo hasn't even posted on here so I do not know what you mean there, we hold similar views on the legislation because we are similarly well informed and for no other reason.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Similarly well informed by who? CIVEA?

So this entitles you to patronise everyone who dares hold different opinions? & then accuse people of deserting reasonable debates?

As I see it, you want all & sundry to bow down to the bailiffs & give in without a whimper. I don't want that. If I give bad advice (as you claim) please point me to it. If you think you & Milo are members of some secret society that holds you above everyone else then please tell us so.

I don't accept anything bailiff related without a fight. Likewise, I don't dive in head first & fight a lost cause. You might well like to be "well informed". This means nothing to me as I think the whole system is corrupt.

I've

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Actually I think most of the advise I have seen you give is quite good and accurate(sorry if that appears patronizing), but it does not mean that you have this particular thing right. As for the new regs there is really not that much to interpret they are as they are.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Okay, so all friends.

If it helps, I have no clue who you are ST (other than you're ST on LB and seem to have some love/hate relationship with 'Andy' )

I do try encourage discussion but when peeps just can't be civil (and yes that's aimed at both of you) it does drives me bananas. The priority is helping people who have bailiffs, and helping them in minimising the damage they can cause as best we can, with the legislation we have to work with.

Sadly I think a lot of people go without help and support because they are concerned about posting in what quickly becomes a bit of a bear pit. We have always tried to act moderately and remove risk as far as is possible. Not just with bailiffs, in court claims, family, every area the site covers. This might frustrate people but every case has to be looked at individually and consideration given to the person who is actually going through the issue and their situation.

Hence wanting to keep the in depth bailiff 'law' discussions a little bit out of the way and off of individual threads.

There's cases when fighting your ass off and taking a higher risk is more appropriate and necessary than in other cases where getting an arrangement in place as soon as possible, and communicating with the council, or the creditor, or the bailiff, to get things on a level is more important.

We can't get it right all the time, but we can give it a damn good try.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

hi

I am fascinated to hear about how the procedure is conducted within the authority as I have no knowledge in this area and it is something I have always wondered about

When councils were given more control through the localisum act ( whatever it was called ), a few specific roles had to be created in every council to take responcability for certan aspects,

Monitoring officer ( all legal and adminitrative stuff ),
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/42/section/5
http://localgovglossary.wikispaces.c...on+151+officer
section 151 officer

Each council produces a document of responcability for there officer, and a code of ethics. Outside of the council structures, The monitoring officer is gettable through the SRA, the 151 officer through CIPFA.

I worked for the council for a couple of years as a development worker and got friendly with some of the staff in the urban regeneration and accounts department, the impression I got when trying to understand the system as a whole was that they were all very knowledgeable in there own particular narrow field but were not so in the wider workings of the system (or perhaps they just were not telling me).

Each dept has there own accounting systems, but the 151 officer and monitoring officer are responsible for the financial and legal application of them.

My particular interest related to CT LOs, the illegal implementation of them ( low as a penny ), how they was administered through the reportable accounting systems. Am currently targeting this part of the system through the courts, as a breach of legal process

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Mystified why it is so hard for you to understand, put it simpler for you. If you come into my shop and by a pound of spuds I may charge , I may not, i have the right to but I also have the right to give them away, Same with the fee. They have the right to charge or they can waive it if they want.
What do you think it means ?

Andy, in legislation, the word 'may' does not mean 'disrection'. It means that, in this case, the bailiff is entitled in law to make the charge, that any charge he makes is lawful as prescribed. It does not mean 'may or may not' so your analogy is irrelevant.

The argument is that once he has made these charges, can he lawfully enforce them? Can he physically make you pay them? No, he cannot, he can only take his fees from proceeds. If you pay the creditor direct, then the bailiff has collected no proceeds. Once you have paid the creditor, the creditor will be satisfied and there is no longer any debt owed to them.

There is no legislation that says the debtor must pay the fees, only that the fees can be charged.

Don't try to bring up the 'pro-rata' split argument as that is not happening in reality. There is no way that councils or courts are going to pass on what is now their money to a private bailiff who didn't manage to enforce.

Your analogy only works if you argue that you may charge for your potatos, but you can't force someone to buy them.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

If you look up "proceeds" in the regulations you will see that it is defined in section 50 of the TCE, the definition includes costs, costs are defined in section 62 and the regulations are made under the same section.#The costs "fees are included within the proceeds.( see earlier in this thread)

Unless the proceeds are paid in full the EA is entitled to continue the collection.

However the fees are due to the bailff not the court under the order, they are his fee, whilst he is entitled to charge them he is also entitled to waive them without judicial consent. It is just an ordinary contract, in ordinary contract law the rights under the contract may be waived or transferred but not the duties same here.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Just to clarify further.

As said earlier the fee for the relevant enforcement stage become due upon the exercise of that stage, they then become part of the debt.

The proceeds which must be paid include them, it does not matter who the debt is paid to, the sum paid will be apportioned whether you like to hear it or not.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

What does S 50 of TCE have to do with it?

"50. Judicial appointments: “judicial-appointment eligibility condition”

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Sorry I expected you to know, the regulations are all made under schedule 12 of the act, section 50 of that schedule.