Closed Discussion

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion

Just for clarity, the Op in the case referred to is running a household and is responsible for raising a child. Vulnerability in terms of being excused the ordeal of enforcement is really exclusive to those very few cases where debtors cannot manage their own financial affairs. The very fact that the debtor in this case has demonstrated the ability to run a household and raise a child, suggests that it is unlikely that a debt will be recalled from bailiffs. That is the purpose of the LGO cases, that was the reason for those particular complaints and that is why they are completely and utterly irrelevant in this case.

The OP has managed to communicate with the bailiff today and has notified him that a complaint is in place and that permission to enter the property will be refused. Furthermore, the bailiff was asked to explain why he stated that the OP had to pay the total amount in full otherwise his goods would be removed. The bailiff has (unsurprisingly) failed to respond. Dukes have acknowledged receipt of a copy of the complaint. The authority have been in contact and confirmed that the complaint has been passed on to the correct department. The OP has also asked for an explanation as to why an AOB was not considered in this particular case, given that the council had all relevant details. The OP simply asks to be able to pay this debt off at an affordable rate, without the constant threat and worry of his goods being taken. If the council would consider returning the debt and setting up an attachment, then that would be a massive bonus.

I might add that it is not for Dukes to determine what is an acceptable repayment term. This is set by the council and will be drawn up in the contract between the two. It is normally set at a maximum of 6 months. However, for debtors reliant solely on benefits, this period is extended accordingly.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion

I think if you are considering making a career out of advocacy you should try and see issues from all sides. I realise of course this is difficult when you have had negative experiences yourself, but in the end a court will not share your bias.

The bailiff cannot just believe every claim of poverty or vulnerability without proof, if they did they would never recover anything. Also their attitude has to be abrupt and even rude for the same reason to a degree.
This is the very last stage of the enforcement process and they will consider that other softer options have been tried and failed.
The authority are under no legal compulsion to try enforcement power in any particular order, there may be suggestions in the guidelines,, but unfortunately despite your apparent dependence on them, they are just that, guidelines.

As I said in post11 the repayment acceptance criteria are set in a contract between the creditor and the debtor, but even given that the bailiff has a duty to verify the debtors claims if possible. In a case like this, it is in everyone's Interst that he does so.

For me as a debt advisor, a question which should be asked, is how did the debt arose and are the current and ongoing obligations being met. In an ideal world the question would have been asked, and measures taken to remedy before any of this happened.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion

There is no claim of poverty or vulnerability. If you haven't worked that out yet then there really is no hope for you.

I have had no "negative experiences" with bailiffs. I would strongly urge you to retract that uncorroborated, dishonest and defamatory statement.

As usual, you have contributed nothing in the form of help to the debtor, instead, concentrating on taking cheap shots at me and everything that I have posted.

You ought to take a long hard look at yourself pal.

[Big Al]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

With regards your continued grassing me up to admin, it is noteworthy that you omit to mention that your lackey AKA Peterbard AKA Gravytrain AKA Henti AKA Andy58 has also been banned on several occasions.

Also been banned from CAG for aggressive posts several times. Such an angry old fella.

[Indebt]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

Also been banned from CAG for aggressive posts several times. Such an angry old fella.

He brings absolutely zilch to the table in terms of helping these people who come to the forums for help, preferring instead to take sly digs at those who do devote their time to helping. It is noteworthy that he hasn't a clue what is going on in this current case or what the grounds of complaint are. It doesn't stop him mouthing off though. It is also noteworthy that his mistress is not so mouthy, as she knows full well what is going to happen here.

I saw him on one thread actually gloating to a debtor, rubbing his nose in it, telling him that he had to pay the bailiff fees because he was 2 days late making payment. Needless to say, he was wrong about that as well.

[Big Al]

Re: Discussion

The authority are under no legal compulsion to try enforcement power in any particular order, there may be suggestions in the guidelines,, but unfortunately despite your apparent dependence on them, they are just that, guidelines.
.

Petey, you can never seem to decide whether guidelines matter or not - you keep changing your stance to suit the flavour of the argument. This is one of the (many) reasons no-one takes you seriously.

[Big Al]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

I saw him on one thread actually gloating to a debtor, rubbing his nose in it, telling him that he had to pay the bailiff fees because he was 2 days late making payment. Needless to say, he was wrong about that as well.

I remember - his stance for that argument was that a verbal payment arrangement was binding and the EA was allowed to add further fees. A couple of months later on a different thread, his stance of the day was that a verbal arrangement wasn't binding. As I said, it's argument for argument's sake.

[Henti]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

I remember - his stance for that argument was that a verbal payment arrangement was binding and the EA was allowed to add further fees. A couple of months later on a different thread, his stance of the day was that a verbal arrangement wasn't binding. As I said, it's argument for argument's sake.

Never happened, I remember one of your cronies saying a verbal agreement is not enforceable and me correcting her.

Would you like me to start trotting out the daily clangers you drop?

The ability to start a payment arrangement is not an agreement.

[Henti]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

I suppose you will accuse me of getting this thread closed, pathetic.

Mark you see why any career amongst thinking professional people will always be closed too you.

[Indebt]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

I suppose you will accuse me of getting this thread closed, pathetic.

Mark you see why any career amongst thinking professional people will always be closed too you.

It's "to you", not "too you" and as I keep telling you, after asking a question, you need to finish the sentence with a question mark. Sadly, you wouldn't know a professional person if one hit you in the face would you? You seem rather obsessed with what I do for a living. Do you really, in your wildest of dreams think that I am concerned about the comments of a semi-literate man who can barely read?

[Amethyst]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

Goodbye.