Marstons!

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons!

Thanks Cleverclogs now we know why some behave the way they do its obvioys that anyone wants to earn a living if a bailiff fails to collect for hours or days and is so inclined they will act exactly as some have done its the company as much to blame as the bailiff for their actions needs to be stopped

[labman]

Re: Marstons!

Thanks Cleverclogs now we know why some behave the way they do its obvioys that anyone wants to earn a living if a bailiff fails to collect for hours or days and is so inclined they will act exactly as some have done its the company as much to blame as the bailiff for their actions needs to be stopped

In my opinion it's neither the company nor the bailiffs, it's the regulations that continue to make this modus operandi so common. If things were regulated properly much of this would stop. Sadly reviews of the regs never produce what they should. I even question the summary of the new regs as I fail to believe more individuals did not respond than they state. Were these responses looked at?

[Milo]

Re: Marstons!

Question for general info here guys, the fine is from 2006.. is this not SB now anyway?

A good question. Court FINES are not statute barred. Earlier this week I received an enquiry regarding a fine from 1997 and after a great deal of telephone calls the debtor was able to establish that the fine related to an offence 16 years ago for driving a vehicle with a bald tyre.

Further to the query regarding a fine being "statute barred" , I also work one day a week for a debt charity and around 2 years ago I was helping a customer who was going bankrupt and at the court the District Judge explained that court fines are not statute barred and they cannot be included in a bankruptcy and that the reason for this was because a fine was a "punishment for wrongdoing".

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

In my opinion it's neither the company nor the bailiffs, it's the regulations that continue to make this modus operandi so common. If things were regulated properly much of this would stop. Sadly reviews of the regs never produce what they should. I even question the summary of the new regs as I fail to believe more individuals did not respond than they state. Were these responses looked at?

If one had ever seen the declared results of any government "consultation exercise", one might reasonably doubt that all the responses were considered.

The problem does partly lie with the company and, as usual, I can substantiate that assertion. The attached file is a PDF printed from their current recruitment page (link) and it seems that the only vacancies presently available are for "self-employed Enforcement Agents" who, you may recall, are only paid commission:

This is a self-employed position. Earnings are not capped so you have the potential to achieve earnings of £30,000 plus.

I believe that one could reasonably say that the bailiff could thus have an incentive to dissemble.

[Inca]

Re: Marstons!

So basically....a bailiff operates on a no win/no fee basis? No wonder 'rules' aren't strictly adhered to.:noidea:

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

Question for general info here guys, the fine is from 2006.. is this not SB now anyway?

No a criminal fine, and that is what non possession of a TV Licence whilst viewing a programme "as it is being broadcast" via terrestrial, satellite, and now live internet feed to even a smartphoneamounts to stupid I know, and ask many US citizens living here about their experiences, and horror at this archaic "TAX" (Rant Over)

As it is criminal it never expires and SB doesn't apply.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

Just a thought, as the bailiff is a self employed contractor, do they not have to have their own Public liability insurance, or will marstons cover them.

[Eloise01]

Re: Marstons!

Thanks Cleverclogs now we know why some behave the way they do its obvioys that anyone wants to earn a living if a bailiff fails to collect for hours or days and is so inclined they will act exactly as some have done its the company as much to blame as the bailiff for their actions needs to be stopped

An interesting and persuasive point which I have also made elsewhere. I may have a slippery grasp of debt, but I have a really good grasp of employment practices!

In the main, with a few exceptions (and increasingly fewer exceptions as time goes on), bailiffs are employed on a self-employed basis. It is often piece work (paid by results); or paid by the job; or paid by hours on the job (which, in common with other fields of employment, may be a fraction of the time actually spent working). Rates often equate to the national minimum wage or less. It is therefore the collection rate or "commission" that makes the difference between poverty and a living wage. As you observe, this provides the stimulii (or desperation?) to collect by whatever means possible. I do not wish to act as an apologist for abhorrant behaviour or actions in breach of the law on the part of bailiffs, but I would argue that the system of employment makes then what they are. At the end of the day, they are also somebody elses mother, father, sister, brother etc... They are inherently no worse people than anyone else. What makes them driven to collect is the system under which they are paid - just as anyone involved in slaes on commission will be desperate to sell you something, regardless of whether it is what you want or need, baliiffs are under an imperative to collect money.

Add to this the fact that there is no holiday pay, no sick pay, no employment rights.... Yes, without a doubt, this line of work may actually appeal to certain types with certain characteristics, but in the main most of them are ordinary people "employed" in what I would consider to be unacceptable conditions and practices.

And we also need to remember that whilst we may challenge the methods, and be on the consumers side, that does not mean that this is not a job that needs doing. Nor that it is a job that we don't want doing! I have personally used bailiffs - to assist recalcitrant employers who do not wish to part with the money employment tribunals have awarded to wronged employees to "amend their decisions". Should I have let employers get away with not paying up?

In no fashion would I suggest that individual bailiffs should not be held accountable for wrong actions. But it is the system that is broken, not the people. I do not believe for one minute that the practices of bailiffs are unknown to their employers, and I do not believe that the companies do not collude - by ommission or commission - in such practices. It is an easy answer for them to cut loose one or two embarassments, because there are plenty of desperate people who want and need employment to replace them. It seems to me that the real answer isn't "having a go at bailiffs" - it lies in competant regulation of the companies that use them; strict and enforceable codes of practice; and, in my opinion, a requirement to employ balliffs directly, as employees, and without any "incentive schemes" based on collection rates. The "interest" should be the upholding of the law - whether that be in collecting fines that are legitimately owed, or debts that are legitimately enforceable, or other actions legitimately enfoced by court order. That is the rule of law - not the rule of thuggery. And that is what it should be. A system in which everyone can have confidence, which is as it should be.

[Inca]

Re: Marstons!

^^^^^ yeah,,,what Eloise said ^^^
A well structured,efficient,,closely monitored system should be in place to ensure the job is done properly by people who don't think threats are a civilised way to get debts paid.
The buck stops with the big bosses,,and if they don't adhere to the letter of the law by ensuring their staff don't indulge in the abject thuggery we hear about so much then THEY should lose their licence as well as BillyBailiff. Maybe the threat of closing the whole company down might make them sit up and take notice.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

^^^^^ yeah,,,what Eloise said ^^^
A well structured,efficient,,closely monitored system should be in place to ensure the job is done properly by people who don't think threats are a civilised way to get debts paid.
The buck stops with the big bosses,,and if they don't adhere to the letter of the law by ensuring their staff don't indulge in the abject thuggery we hear about so much then THEY should lose their licence as well as BillyBailiff. Maybe the threat of closing the whole company down might make them sit up and take notice.

Agree ABSOLUTELY iNCA Which is why I keep mentioning that Marstons should be wound up. Eloise has clearly outlined the main drivers for bailiff misbehaviour, and it is precisely the reason private contractors should never be involved in enforcement, they should be court officials paid a salary.

[pepsie]

Re: Marstons!

In no fashion would I suggest that individual bailiffs should not be held accountable for wrong actions. But it is the system that is broken, not the people. I do not believe for one minute that the practices of bailiffs are unknown to their employers, and I do not believe that the companies do not collude - by ommission or commission - in such practices. It is an easy answer for them to cut loose one or two embarassments, because there are plenty of desperate people who want and need employment to replace them. It seems to me that the real answer isn't "having a go at bailiffs" - it lies in competant regulation of the companies that use them; strict and enforceable codes of practice; and, in my opinion, a requirement to employ balliffs directly, as employees, and without any "incentive schemes" based on collection rates.

I had read an article by Claire Sandbrook of Sherforce fame (I think it was in a CAB publication) in which she was condemning the bad practice of not following the rules etc etc... I was at the time involved with helping a debtor encountering problems with a utility bill, he forwarded all the paperwork relating to his dispute and the actions of the HCEO, so imagine my horror to seeing the Notice of Seizure (denoting service of the Writ) came complete with its envelope and First Class Stamp. Enclosed with the form 55 was a Notice of Warning outlining the HCEO had called that day and seized the debtor goods etc etc....

The dispute progressed and a breakdown of fees was requested ....akin to the national debt..... this included a 1st visit to have incurred a fee of £300 which was a 1st Class stamp.... My 'client' responded to the notices and rang the number on the letter .....he was charged a further£175 for that conversation which was listed to be a 2nd visit.

Of course this Field Officer is self employed and according to the HCEO contract (applicable at that time)...he would be paid approx £45 for attending Mon -Fri and had he 'collected' a bonus of 2% was payable.....

This went to court as a detailed assessment hearing.....my client left the Court with fees originally in excess of £1500 being reduced to £400

Oh and the HCEO.....Claire Sandbrook of Sherforce fame.

Pepsie

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons!

Eloise i agree there is a need for bailiffs to collect debts my argument is the way some do the job,if i was to threaten you with armed police locksmiths which i like a bailiff is not legally allowed to do without a valid signed court order you might get a little upset,as i and others on LB have written they need to be policed better and bailiffs and the bosses should be held accountable even i would suggest like the police everthing is recorded and an independed regulator should have the power to intervene we should NEVER have to read of how these thugs cos thats what they are do to the sick weak elderley and the most vulnerable.I very much doubt that many people want to get so deep into debt that they are faced with extreme action

[Eloise01]

Re: Marstons!

Eloise i agree there is a need for bailiffs to collect debts my argument is the way some do the job,if i was to threaten you with armed police locksmiths which i like a bailiff is not legally allowed to do without a valid signed court order you might get a little upset,as i and others on LB have written they need to be policed better and bailiffs and the bosses should be held accountable even i would suggest like the police everthing is recorded and an independed regulator should have the power to intervene we should NEVER have to read of how these thugs cos thats what they are do to the sick weak elderley and the most vulnerable.I very much doubt that many people want to get so deep into debt that they are faced with extreme action

I agree entirely - as I said I am not trying to justify actions outside the law. I am trying to explain that the predominant issue is "company culture". As bizzybob has suggested, if bailiffs, as they once were, were officers of the court and employed by and accountable to the court, there would be a different culture. That doesn't mean that some individuals won't exceed their powers, any more than having a police force means all police officers act to the standards required of them. But it means that there is regulation, and that regulation is backed by the law and not profit. Without appropriate checks and balances in the system, the system breaks down. That is true of any system. I do not want to read about the sorts of things that I have read about on these threads either. And these are things that I was oblvious to until joining LB. Like anyone, I might have questioned some of the things I heard, but I genuinely did not have a clue that some bailiffs acted in these ways, and I am quite certain none of the ones I used ever did - because I would have got my clients money a lot faster if they had. Which I am not at all suggesting that they should have done - had such practices been brought to my attention, even though acting for my clients, I would have been the first one to complain!

But just as many people on this site have a primary concern and motivation for the consumer, I have never made any pretence about the fact that mine is the workers. That doesn't make all workers perfect or laudable, but I do get concerned when I see things like comments, even in jest, suggesting violence against people who are doing the job they are employed to do. And it hardly shows us in a better light than those we accuse when we do just that. If bailiffs are inadequately trained, operate outside the law, or threaten and abuse people, then I can see no other explanation other than the fact that their employer tolerates or encourages such behaviour. That is true of all bullying, whether inside or outside the workplace - because an employer who does not tolerate it makes that fact abundantly clear.

I am not trying to make people "feel sorry" for bailiffs any more than they should "feel sorry" for care workers - many of whom are employed on very similar terms! I am simply suggesting that there is a better explanation for their conduct than "bailiffs are bad people".

[PlanB]

Re: Marstons!

I am simply suggesting that there is a better explanation for their conduct than "bailiffs are bad people".

Do individual bailiffs get paid commission on the money they collect or a bonus based on results? If so then that could explain the aggressive approach of some.

Edit: just read back through the thread and it seems they do

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

Eloise i agree there is a need for bailiffs to collect debts

Apart from the warm and safe feeling you might get from agreeing with Eloise, why do you believe there is any need to levy distress on anyone's goods and to occasion distress to the debtor in the process? There might have been a compelling case for that process in the 12th century but now, in the 21st century, there isn't one.

Little by little, we are becoming a cashless society. Most people now have a bank account of some description, so it should not be impossible to recover debts or fines by a third party debt order. If one does not know the bank account details of a company, the proprietor or director(s) should be ordered by the court to provide those data; alternatively, the TPDO could be served on one of that company's customers.

I will not pretend that this method is perfect and there would doubtless be problems, but I am sure that it would be much better than the use of bailiffs which is effectively unregulated and impossible to monitor or control.