Discussion thread no. 78

[Milo]

Indebt:

You really do need to calm down and stop fretting so much about an enforcement fee of £235.

This young lady has unpaid council tax debts of almost £1,800. The council do not seem to believe her explanation that she is not responsible for the larger debt and unless she can provide some evidence, the position will remain unchanged.

There is no possibility of her being able to pay this sum at all (and even less so because she is now pregnant). I have no doubt at all that the account will be returned to the council. The bailiff fees will then be removed.

Even if this accout were to be referred to Rundles' Welfare Dept (which can be arranged in minutes), it is not likely that the account will even remain with them as the debt is too large. There is also the matter of her recent pregnancy.

Best to wait until tomorrow for the CAB to meet with her.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

Okay, that failed. Thread closed.

Do not carry it on on other people's threads. I'll just remove any even slightly personally insulting posts.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

You seem to lie without a thought, first thing which is laughable is you saying you are being truthful, never happen. Second absurd thing is accusing someone else of varying opinions, look at injunctions and how you have changed ever since you started to get paid for pushing them on an unsuspecting public. Then we have all the other about turns , made I am sure with the instructions of your employers.

I have no need to lie Peter. Unlike you, my motivation is to help people, not promote my own ego.

Injunctions are the one thing that a bailiff company fears the most as it produces a quick 2.5 to 3k in costs in a very short turnaround period. This case is a classic example of how an injunction could work. Rundles have not given 7 clear days notice. They have been asked to do so and have refused. I could get an injunction tomorrow. Rundles would then be left with the option of contesting it which would result in further fees or to accept the inevitable and cough up the 3k. That is my buzz now. I still help people online but it is tame compared to what goes on offline. I'm working on an injunction tonight which will go into court tomorrow.

Your lack of understanding of injunctions betrays you. We don't simply ignore cpr 85. We write first, pursuant to cpr 85 then we go to court. We ask for an injunction BUT IN THE ALTERNATIVE ask for a cpr hearing. The only difference is that cpr 85 requires a large downpayment (the one tonight will be £800 if the cpr 85 is insisted on)

I'm afraid that your conduit of information is not feeding you with all relevant facts. I know it makes more exciting reading to claim cpr 85 is being ignored in favour of an injunction, but it isn't. Someone has been telling you porkies Peter.

I don't push anything onto anyone Peter. I am paid to do a job to the best of my ability and that is what I do. I have many satisfied clients thanking me for what I've done for them-it's called job satisfaction.

[Henti]

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.

You seem to lie without a thought, first thing which is laughable is you saying you are being truthful, never happen. Second absurd thing is accusing someone else of varying opinions, look at injunctions and how you have changed ever since you started to get paid for pushing them on an unsuspecting public. Then we have all the other about turns , made I am sure with the instructions of your employers.

[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.

[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

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

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

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.

[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"

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.