marston bailiff

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

If they collect consumer credit debt in addition to the normal types of debts bailiffs collect, they have to have a CCA Debt Collection Licence. Some bailiff companies have debt collection departments/divisions that deal with consumer credit debt collection, e.g. Equita, Marstons. I'm currently researching which bailiff companies hold CCA Licences and which ones do not.

I see, so does that mean that the only breaches a debtor cold complain to the OFT about would be those associated with pre judgment, consumer credit debts, and reporting anything that was post judgment and enforced on a warrant, fine or liability order would not be appropriate.

D

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

I'm currently researching which bailiff companies hold CCA Licences and which ones do not.

Thats going to take you a while.

Here is the list of corporate bailiff companies in England & Wales, http://www.civea.co.uk/member-list.htm

and here is the CC register: http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

If you need the company registration number, then you can get it here: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/80...essCompanyInfo

Have fun....

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

I see do does that mean that the only breaches a debtor cold complain to the OFT about would be those associated with pre judgment, consumer credit debts, and that anything post judgment and enforced on a warrant, fine or liability order would not be appropriate.

D

Obviously, I can only go by what the OFT has told me. If a bailiff company holds a CCA Licence and one of their bailiffs behaves like a complete and total muppet, that can be reported to the OFT and TS as the OFT's Credit Fitness Team need to determine whether it brings into question the bailiff company's fitness to hold a CCA Licence. There appears to be no hard and fast rule as to what debt a bailiff is enforcing when their conduct falls below acceptable standards. Each incident is judged on its individual circumstances.

Those bailiff companies that do not hold CCA Licences cannot be reported to the OFT and any complaints about their misconduct is reported to the MoJ's Bailiff Department.

Obviously, if information to the contrary comes into my possession, I'll post it up.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

Those bailiff companies that do not hold CCA Licences cannot be reported to the OFT.

You can report them to the police instead.

The law says business trading in a licensed activity while unlicensed commits an offence, Section 39a(1) of the Consumer Crfedit Act 1974.

A licensed activity includes business who collect debts.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/39

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

I suppose they can still enfoce warrants etc. without a license so it would not be a problem for that part of their business anyway.
D

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

I dont quite know the OFT requirement on individual bailiffs needing a CCL.

Hazzard a guess, if the bailiff is self-employed then, yes, he needs to be CC licensed, but he would also be required to be registered under the Data Protection Act because he is processing personal data, as it is defined under the Act.

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

I dont quite know the OFT requirement on individual bailiffs needing a CCL.

Hazzard a guess, if the bailiff is self-employed then, yes, he needs to be CC licensed, but he would also be required to be registered under the Data Protection Act because he is processing personal data, as it is defined under the Act.

If they're enforcing consumer credit debts in addition to other types of debts, that's where the requirement for a CCA Licence comes in. Most of the bailiff companies I have checked on so far hold a CCA Licence.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

I would think they all do, its very cheap to get one once you have passed all the checks.

[bluebottle]

Re: marston bailiff

I suppose they can still enfoce warrants etc. without a license so it would not be a problem for that part of their business anyway.
D

It would appear that if they are not enforcing consumer credit debts as part of their business portfolio, that is, they do not touch consumer credit debt at all, they do not require a CCA Licence. Mind-boggling, I know. If anyone knows otherwise, answers on a postcard, please...

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiff

Cartegory F license is for debt collection. There are no exemptions for the type of debt being collected, beit, a consumer debt. See OFT147.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ces/oft147.pdf

[labman]

Re: marston bailiff

Category F
Debt Collecting

If you collect debts due to others, arising from credit or hire agreements (whether regulated or exempt), you are likely to need to apply for Category F.

This does place a limitiation on this category.

BB By far the quickest way to get the information you are compiling, as I think I mentioned before, is to write to the OFT and ask them for it. It will save you hours of pain staking work.

I suppose one could argue that if bailiffs hold a CCL and act in a way which is not in line with the guidelines, then whether or not the complaint about fitness to hold a licence relates to a debt covered by the CCL, they could still be considered unfit to hold the licence and thus lose it. This would then restrict the range of debts they could enforce.

[CleverClogs]

Re: marston bailiff

plod came round last night to take a statement off my daughter, i had rung them and told them that the bailiff had pushed my daughter out the way to gain entry.
anyway, he took the statement and advised amy that chances are nothing would happen, because the bailiff would claim reasonable force. daughter said ok but she still wanted it to be reported, plod left again then returned and asked to see the bailiff card, showed him, he asked if he could take it, i said no he could have a copy. so did him a copy and off he went again. came back again and said the card is a warrant and so there was no point in amy continuing with her complaint and would she sign his notebook.

As is usual, PC Plonker almost certainly got it wrong or was wrongly advised by a putatively 'superior' officer. If the card really had been (or had represented) an entry warrant, the bailiff would have been accompanied by at least one uniformed constable.

i said to amy its up to her what she does, amy said again to the plod, what happens if i sign your book, plod said it just means we wont persue it but the report would be kept for any future reference. amy signed.

Amy now needs to complain to the Chief Constable.

oh one other thing, plod said it was amys word against the bailiffs, and that any of our witness testimony was not worth it because we would be seen as biased as we are all related.

Perhaps but, if it is simply one person's word against another, one should then ask which side has the greater motive to be rather disingenuous.

This is not difficult. One does not need to channel the ghost of Marcus Tullius Cicero to ask the age-old question "Qui bono? - "Who benefits?"

Amy would hardly benefit, as she would have the inconvenience of having to give evidence in court, faced by a barrister who might try to claim that Amy had invited that dreck yenta in for a cup of tea.

The bailiff, however, would certainly benefit from being less than honest about her conduct; for one thing, she'd keep her certificate.

[CleverClogs]

Re: marston bailiff

The jury retired once again, and continued to deliberate while we went back for more caffeine in advocate's room. The jury eventually returned and the jury foreman handed the judge a note, a piece of paper handwritten with the words - when does a push, or a shove become an assault.

This is a case where the complainant debtor had lots of medical evidence, broken bone, x-rays, ambulance crew statements and doctors reports. It was the police who were, initially, institutionally adverse to the idea a bailiff could do wrong. Both officers were reported to the IPCC for failure to identify a medical emergency. The ambulance was actually called by a neighbour who had intervened!

The recorder judge very carefully and clearly addressed the jury with this recommendation: - If you think this is a push or a shove, then this is not what the prosecution is alleging, so you must acquit the defendant. The judge continued - If you think the defendant pushed the complainant, and then you must find the defendant, not guilty.

The jury retired and later found the defendant not guilty on a majority of 10 to 2.

Good God!

That alleged recorder wasn't even fit to judge a Knobbly Knees contest!

Who was he?

Common assault does not need to involve any contact at all - it has been taken in the past to involve conduct as "violent" as raising one's voice and shaking a fist at someone. Mind you, that hapless defendant was not a bailiff but a trade unionist on a picket line.

[CleverClogs]

Re: marston bailiff

my main concern as always is for others. my daughter is ok, she was very shaken and scared but otherwise ok, i am furious with the way these bailiffs can act. my concern is that with these increased powers it will only be a matter of time before we the citizens no longer have rights or safety in our own homes. i dread to think of what it must be like to have these bailiffs visiting for the old or the infirm and single mothers and other such defenseless citizens. and the worst thing is they are getting away with it everyday.

What "increased powers"?

Yes, Gordon "the moron" Brown's kakistocracy forced through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act which would give 'district judges' the ability to make 'control orders' against a debtor's goods and thus give bailiffs the right to act like a third-rate version of the Stasi to enforce such orders, but even Brown and his cronies realised - a bit too late - that it would be political suicide to pass the Commencement Order that would bring such draconian measures into force.

Doolally Dave should have repealed that appalling law, but he hasn't done.

He's just promised not to bring those measures into force.

[CleverClogs]

Re: marston bailiff

Those you refer to, namely, the elderly, infirm, single parents, etc., are classed as vulnerable and bailiffs are supposed to refer the matter back to the original creditor for direction and not continue with enforcement. The reality is that certificated bailiffs tend to ignore this and blunder on regardless. And as HMCTS and the local authorities who hire these Rent-A-Thug outfits find, it is they, not the bailiffs and bailiff companies, who are liable for any civil damages at God knows what cost to the taxpayer.

Might that be part of the reason why (some) local authorities expect to receive commission payments from bailiff companies?

See attached file...