Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Wombats]

ST has posted one potentially valid view. The link below gives another equally valid view, and the one to which I concur. In fact, only tonight on another forum, a debtor got their MP involved with this and HMCTS reinforced the view in the link I have posted in their reply to the MP.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ion-under-TCGR

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Okay, done.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I tell you what-You keep telling these debtors to pay the bailiffs at all costs, I'll keep removing their implied right of access, saving debtors not only the added costs of enforcement fees but also the ordeal of a bailiff visit.

All hail the saving grace though-You won't end up looking like a berk will you?

I see,really you have learned nothing. Encouraging people to rely on the notices just results in them having to pay more , as said earlier the bailiffs just ignore them and the delay in engaging with the debt just creates more fees.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You are right I have absolutely no experience of these notices ever working in any way, I fully understand your desire to engage in bailiff bashing , however it has to be done intelligibility and you have to understand the ground rules otherwise you just end up looking like a berk.

I tell you what-You keep telling these debtors to pay the bailiffs at all costs, I'll keep removing their implied right of access, saving debtors not only the added costs of enforcement fees but also the ordeal of a bailiff visit.

All hail the saving grace though-You won't end up looking like a berk will you?

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Well as I have said on numerous occasions, please feel free to point me to any bad advice that I give. When some big, bullying, intimidating, lying thug reduces your 7 month pregnant daughter to tears, you "may" come back to me to tell me about the silly notice. When the council refused to help and the bailiff refused to help, the notice was the only thing left to try.

You may call it "silly" although, I'd wager that you have no first hand experience of it & base your opinion purely on what you've read on the internet. It worked for me-Not once but 3 times out of 3. I've even got a letter from one council somewhere where they confirm they are taking the debt back because the bailiff "cannot gain legal access"

I don't follow any set procedures, be it yours, Milos, FMOTL or Jasons. You keep relying on your "informed sources", i'll keep beating the bailiffs.

You are right I have absolutely no experience of these notices ever working in any way, I fully understand your desire to engage in bailiff bashing , however it has to be done intelligibility and you have to understand the ground rules otherwise you just end up looking like a berk.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Please point me to any name I've called him.

Do you not remember typing this it wasn't that long ago.

"Surely even you aren't stupid enough to try to claim "credit for this? You must know that someone will dig out the original post? You obviously read what was posted on DWB & jumped on the bandwagon, just like you always do


.wombats does not repeat other peoples posts any more that I do, just because the majority of informed members have a similar view just reflects the fact that we all understand the subject to which we are referring, your question should be, why is my view so different, perhaps if you asked yourself that you may learn something.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

There you go again calling people names, it does not encourage constructive debate and in Wombats case risks loosing the contribution of a knowledgeable member.

Please point me to any name I've called him.

Wombat simply repeats what Milo posts. He offers no opinion of his own

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Well there you are. I am glad that you found some of my points amusing, perhaps in view that the points are well taken by informed sources should encourage you to re evaluate the accuracy of some of your core beliefs. similarly i find it interesting that you dismiss me aligning some of your ideas with the FMOTL movement, some are very similar though are they not.

Pleased to see you have changed your mind about the silly notices.
I have said before that I find most of your advice given on here to be sound and based in a good working understanding of the subject, I have to say I find noting in the least funny about your misinterpretation though, in that we differ, I worry that such misunderstanding can result in dangerous advise being given, this i find not in the least amusing.

Well as I have said on numerous occasions, please feel free to point me to any bad advice that I give. When some big, bullying, intimidating, lying thug reduces your 7 month pregnant daughter to tears, you "may" come back to me to tell me about the silly notice. When the council refused to help and the bailiff refused to help, the notice was the only thing left to try.

You may call it "silly" although, I'd wager that you have no first hand experience of it & base your opinion purely on what you've read on the internet. It worked for me-Not once but 3 times out of 3. I've even got a letter from one council somewhere where they confirm they are taking the debt back because the bailiff "cannot gain legal access"

I don't follow any set procedures, be it yours, Milos, FMOTL or Jasons. You keep relying on your "informed sources", i'll keep beating the bailiffs.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

There you go again calling people names, it does not encourage constructive debate and in Wombats case risks loosing the contribution of a knowledgeable member.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

With respect I linked to the Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision Order on April 2nd at 16:35pm on this site.

For the past two weeks, I have refrained from entering LB to do anything other than read this very sad thread as I am utterly fed up of these vicious personal attacks and arguments. I am appalled at the way certain people are personally attacking others and have no intention of posting anything further on this site until certain members learn some manners.

There are plenty of other people out there in need of good, solid 'bailiff' support where one can go without risk of personal abuse, insults, derogatory comments and other equally uncivil behaviour which has no place, in my humble opinion, on a site like this. I'm quite happy staying out of it until something resolves.

With respect, Jason posted before that. Milo delights in referring to it as the "April Fools Day Post" (it was actually posted on 31st March). here is an extract from an email I sent to him at 10.10 am 31st March:

I have just read the new regulations. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 deals specifically with Regulation 45(A) and Schedule 5 removing them from the Council Tax regulations.

I trust this clarifies the matter.

Regards


Surely even you aren't stupid enough to try to claim credit for this? You must know that someone will dig out the original post? You obviously read what was posted on DWB & jumped on the bandwagon, just like you always do.

As for all the other drivel-You are as guilty as anyone of personal attacks etc, etc. The whole thing is unsavoury and does not make pleasant reading. It is a form of bullying as I see it because all the sheep single out one or two people to pick on.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

To develop the 14 day letter argument, here are a few examples:

1. If I lived in Brighton and received a court fine, ignored it and then received a letter from bailiffs, £75 would be added to my debt.

2. If I lived in Brighton and incurred a PCN, ignored the NTO & Charge certificate, £75 would be added to my debt.

3. If I lived in Brighton and couldn't afford to pay my CT, ignored the reminder notice, £125 would be added to my debt for a LO and Brighton would be under no legal obligation to contact me. I could then receive a letter from Brightons in house bailiffs and a further £75 could be added, making £200 extra in total.

The point being, for any other debt, the cost of a warrant is minimal (£7.00) For CT, the debtor must pay around £100 for the obtaining of a LO (which costs less than half of that). You would think that after paying that amount, a courtesy letter could be sent by the council, advising that a LO had been obtained?

It appears under the current set up, there is no requirement for a council to communicate with a debtor after the "applying for a summons" stage. This is absolutely farcical.

It should be noted that prior to new regs, half of people who had LO's issued against them, paid or were placed on AOE's. This option has now gone west. In addition, we have companies such as Rossendales, who are making it as hard as possible for debtors to settle. This enables another £235 to be added to the bill.

What is even more disturbing is that Schedule 12 has been in place since 2007. There is a massive, massive gap here that needs filling. Council Tax debtors can consist of the poorest and most vulnerable of our society. It is frightening that decision makers have allowed this situation to exist and of course, the burden it places on the poor.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

This particular revocation is one that barely anyone had noticed (including many local authorities) in the 'run up' to the new regulations. My personal opinion is that revoking regulation 45a is a huge mistake and I am not persuaded either that it is legal and I am in correspondence with various government agencies and supporting evidence has been submitted.

Yes it does seem ill considered in view of the other requirements so of the council tax regulation, and the time frames involved for processes which need to be given consideration before the order is passed for enforcement, be interested to see what you get back form you correspondence.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Well there you are. I am glad that you found some of my points amusing, perhaps in view that the points are well taken by informed sources should encourage you to re evaluate the accuracy of some of your core beliefs. similarly i find it interesting that you dismiss me aligning some of your ideas with the FMOTL movement, some are very similar though are they not.

Pleased to see you have changed your mind about the silly notices.
I have said before that I find most of your advice given on here to be sound and based in a good working understanding of the subject, I have to say I find noting in the least funny about your misinterpretation though, in that we differ, I worry that such misunderstanding can result in dangerous advise being given, this i find not in the least amusing.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

With respect I linked to the Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision Order on April 2nd at 16:35pm on this site.

For the past two weeks, I have refrained from entering LB to do anything other than read this very sad thread as I am utterly fed up of these vicious personal attacks and arguments. I am appalled at the way certain people are personally attacking others and have no intention of posting anything further on this site until certain members learn some manners.

There are plenty of other people out there in need of good, solid 'bailiff' support where one can go without risk of personal abuse, insults, derogatory comments and other equally uncivil behaviour which has no place, in my humble opinion, on a site like this. I'm quite happy staying out of it until something resolves.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I would now like to make a few point, to clarify the points that Milo has clarified:

1. Milo has indeed provided me with several useful documents. I would hope that she hasn't forgotten that I have also sent several useful documents her way as well.

2. The email of 1st July had nothing to do with council tax or the repealing of 45A & 46. It was in connection with Magistrates court fines and the section provided was Part 1 (1)

3. The first time the Consequential & Savings Provisional Order was mentioned on the net was by Jason. This was in direct response to an email that I had sent him regarding whether CT recovery was included under the new regime. Jason was mocked regarding his statements that CT was not included but until this order was made public (a few weeks before) he was actually making a very valid point. CAG & LB were certainly left behind in the announcement of the C&SP Order.

4. If 45A has not been "replaced" by the 7 day NOE then why was it repealed? The NOE gives the debtor 7 clear days to agree to make a payment arrangement. The situation now is that instead of 14 days notice, the debtor is given 7. If that is not replacing 1 time frame with another then what is it?

5. From what I have read on the net and heard in conversations with her, I would say that Milo is being extremely modest in stating that Andy has a better knowledge than her of regulations (past & present). Some of the rubbish Andy has spouted on this thread beggars belief & has actually made me laugh.

6. It is healthy to disagree on the internet-That is the idea of message boards. The truth is none of us really know for sure how certain issues will pan out concerning the Schedule 12 procedure. Andy just seems to have arrogantly attempted to pick a cyber spat with me for no other reason than my previous disagreements with Milo. I actually enjoy being called a FMOTL because I know that is all the other person has left and that I am winning the argument.

7. The notices worked for me on 3 occasions. Once with Equita & twice with B&S. I am not convinced a notice will work post April 6th. Ironically, only last night, I considered using another notice for a debtor who has received compliance & enforcement stages for a PCN. Unfortunately for the EA, the address on the warrant does not match the address he is enforcing at & the debtor has not received a NTO, charge certificate etc. This invalidates the warrant and the bailiff would not be acting in the execution of his duty by returning under that warrant. A notice would be a good shout in this instance & you don't need to be a FMOTL to try everything you can to legally stop goods or vehicles being removed