Discussion thread no. 78

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

You appear to be making up your own rules regarding bailiff enforcement but once again, you are misleading readers. Please read the following Local Government Ombudsman for clarification:

No-Actually, I am basing my comments upon discussions I had with John Kruse, the country's leading expert on bailiff matters.

John is of the opinion that if there are insufficient goods to levy then the bailiff should return the debt to the creditor.

LGO decisions on points of law are completely and utterly worthless and would be (and have been) laughed out of court.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

No-You were incorrect. You stated "warrant" but no warrant is issued for council tax. You are not very clear in your terminology. You remind me of someone else who used to post on here-he can never express himself properly either.

You still don't seem able to understand that in the case in question, the OP never received a demand as she had moved address. You might also wish to consider that those who decide to sit it out are usually rewarded with an attachment eventually as well-This is despite them not providing info at the LO stage.

No not really i often use the word warrant because generally people understand that it is an instrument which confers the power to enforce.

You seen anxious to jump on minor errors of others is this the result of some psychological complex perhaps ?

In that vein, you should not use the term, "ring fenced" in the way you do, it means putting aside a sum which is intended to pay a certain debt. Not someone being immune from payment.

In my experience those who seek not to pay fees by ignoring a bailiff, generally get saddled with another bailiff company.

Usually the AOE option has been considered and discarded at the beginning of the enforcment process.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

Correctamundo

When fees were being considered, allowances were made for those occasions when a bailiff was unable to enforce/collect his fees.

The purpose of the Schedule 12 procedure is to take control of goods to sell in order to recover an amount outstanding-It is not to be used as a debt collecting facility because it is easier for councils.

If a bailiff established there were no funds or goods available, the correct course of action would be to return the debt to the creditor. Of course, in reality, they rarely do so because they lose out financially by doing so.

If an AOE/AOB had not been attempted then it must be before committal is considered, likewise bankruptcy and a charging order.

I find the logic in these statements almost unfathomable.

Firstly you say something about the fees regulations being drafted in order to make an allowance for poor success rates. This is irrelevant (the fees are what they are), secondly the success of a bailiff firm must in some way be a consequence of the business acumen of the firm itself , I would have thought.

Then you say that the enforcment procedure has nothing to do with collecting debt for the creditor, i find it hard to comment on such a statement.

You finish with stating that a bailiff "must" do something, this is a huge burden if true, fortunately it is not, I believe they may, in certain circumstances ask the authority to try an AOE.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I use the term "ring fenced" because it amuses me when you correct me for using it.

What exactly is "your experience"????? It appears that it is all based on reading posts on the internet. You have no practical experience. I have read of one case where a second EA has been engaged after the first has failed. The only person suggesting that bailiff fees should not be paid is MIlo. How ironic that she is doing so when she is the person who started these rumours of debtors being saddled with a second company-It makes her bad advice seem even worse than it did originally doesn't it?

In the case of not having sufficient goods to levy, I think you will find that it is the law that states that a bailiff cannot re-enter the debtors premises. (check out Reg 24 of the TCGR 2013) Now if there are no goods to sell, why in God's name would a council seek to send a second enforcement company in? You really do need to understand the process and then think about what you are saying.

You have no idea about when AOE's are considered, save for what you have read on the net. People who receive bailiff visits do so because there has usually been no response to previous attempts by the council to engage. In this particular case, the OP has not been afforded the opportunity to engage as she wasn't aware of the situation. There is every chance that she can get enforcement taken back, given her circumstances. You also need to understand that whilst an AOE has been discarded pre-bailiff, it needs to be attempted more thoroughly once a debt is returned. In my (vast) experience, AOE's are implemented in 99.99% of cases where debts are returned. The only instance I have known when this hasn't happened is when the debtor was self-employed and in that case, a simple repayment plan was set up by the authority.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

LGO decisions on points of law are completely and utterly worthless and would be (and have been) laughed out of court.

When , link please.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I have much experience in bailiff and debt, that is advising on, not, unlike you being in, so to speak.

I think what you have said on this thread alone gives us an insight into where you gained yours.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I find the logic in these statements almost unfathomable.

Firstly you say something about the fees regulations being drafted in order to make an allowance for poor success rates. This is irrelevant (the fees are what they are), secondly the success of a bailiff firm must in some way be a consequence of the business acumen of the firm itself , I would have thought.

Then you say that the enforcment procedure has nothing to do with collecting debt for the creditor, i find it hard to comment on such a statement.

You finish with stating that a bailiff "must" do something, this is a huge burden if true, fortunately it is not, I believe they may, in certain circumstances ask the authority to try an AOE.

They really are quite simple.

If a bailiff established that there were no goods (not funds) then an AOE would have to be considered. Everyone has an income of some description. The fee would not be claimed by the bailiff for establishing this. However consideration was given when determining the level of fees, to allow for failure to collect fees.

The success of a bailiff firm confirms this-The fact that they are making profit, despite not always collecting their fees shows that the calculations initially were about right.

I did not say that the enforcement procedure has nothing to do with collecting debt for the creditor. This silly comment is something that I would expect from an 8 year old.

The bailiff must do something and it is a huge burden. If you read the relevant regulation, it states that an attempt must be made to take control of goods. You never seem to learn do you? I do not just post something off the top of my head. There is case law to support my claims. Simply visiting a property is not an attempt to levy distress. Furthermore, a failed CGA will not be sufficient for an attempt to take control of goods. I would hope that you at least understand that the burden of proof in these instances is beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities. You really do need to educate yourself on the enforcement of council tax before attempting to question those who know what they are talking about. It becomes extremely tiresome having to continually correct you and point you in the right direction.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

When , link please.

If you need confirmation of this, you really ought to give up right now. A simple understanding of the LGO's role and what she may and may not investigate should tell you there is no basis for her to investigate legal issues or indeed comment on them.

If you had any experience in dealing with bailiff matters, you would know that they quote this stuff in template responses, every time the LGO is mentioned in proceedings.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I have much experience in bailiff and debt, that is advising on, not, unlike you being in, so to speak.

I think what you have said on this thread alone gives us an insight into where you gained yours.

I am not in debt though-It is just a user name.

You clearly have no experience in bailiff matters as evidenced by your posts on this thread. I on the other hand work full time almost exclusively dealing with bailiff matters/CRAR.

[Milo]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

You suggested that she should sit it out for 3 to 6 months. That, quite frankly is appalling advice and also contradicts what you have previously stated. This young woman should not be exposed to 3 to 6 months of threats and intimidation.

More than everything else, I absolutely detest liars. I did not suggest that the poster (Worried Parent) should 'sit it out' for 3 to 6 months !! What I actually stated was this:

"I appreciate that you may be worried at the thought of bailiffs but the good news in your case (which unfortunately is not the same in most cases), is that you do not have a car outside (in fact you do not own a car) and unless you allow the bailiff entry into your property (which you must not do) then the bailiff has extreme difficulty in getting this debt collected and in time, he will very likely return the case back to the cuncil. When will this happen?.......is anyone's guess. Some bailiffs return accounts back after 3 months, others can be 6 months"

"Tomorrow you are seeing the CAB and please do post back after that meeting. They can also assist with a letter to Rundles as well as compiling an Income & Expenditure"

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

If you need confirmation of this, you really ought to give up right now. A simple understanding of the LGO's role and what she may and may not investigate should tell you there is no basis for her to investigate legal issues or indeed comment on them.

If you had any experience in dealing with bailiff matters, you would know that they quote this stuff in template responses, every time the LGO is mentioned in proceedings.

This is why you got thrown off Quatloose, unsubstantiated statements are not worth the paper etc. as you have been told.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I also detest liars Milo. Unfortunately, I have to deal with them on a daily basis. I've even had people changing their advice on the validity of the National Standards in order to try to score petty points.

I have to be truthful here-Your advice has appeared vague and inconsistent all the way through. In your quoted post, you appear to be telling the OP not to worry and to not let the bailiff in and that in 3 to 6 months, he will give in. You have failed to advise that a 2nd bailiff may then be engaged, which you have been very big on recently. You also expressed interest in whether a car was outside, which suggests you were checking it was ok to go with sitting it out.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I am not in debt though-It is just a user name.

You clearly have no experience in bailiff matters as evidenced by your posts on this thread. I on the other hand work full time almost exclusively dealing with bailiff matters/CRAR.

You apparently have worked about 3 months after a long period on the dole with someone who calls himself the Guru and runs a FMOTL website..

You posted on GODF for years as "Butterfingers", advising on the three letter system and believe you are a sovereign citizen.

i would try harder to build up your rep, cos it aint working.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not in debt though-It is just a user name.

You clearly have no experience in bailiff matters as evidenced by your posts on this thread. I on the other hand work full time almost exclusively dealing with bailiff matters/CRAR.

Yes you are Mark lots of it.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

This is why you got thrown off Quatloose, unsubstantiated statements are not worth the paper etc. as you have been told.

So you're not the innocent "NEWBIE" after all?

You are just another stalker.

Give it up Peter-you're small time-Accept it.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

The bailiff must do something and it is a huge burden. If you read the relevant regulation, it states that an attempt must be made to take control of goods. You never seem to learn do you? I do not just post something off the top of my head. There is case law to sup.

You said the bailiff must do this, now with all your legal expertise you understand that the word must is only used in legislation when only one action is permissible, the act says no such thing in this regard.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're not the innocent "NEWBIE" after all?

You are just another stalker.

Give it up Peter-you're small time-Accept it.

Yes you accused me of that before also, no idea what you are on about , sorry.