Marstons!

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

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.

Yes CC debts need to be paid, but DISTRESS per se is not the way to collect it, it makes an industry from misery, and causes further impoverishment to people who can hardly if at all pay the bills as it is.

There is something wrong in the UK when tax takes 75% of income, and utility bills and council tax are now unaffordable for many on low to middle income.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

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".

Can I hear the tinkling sound of the penny finally dropping? :rofl:

... 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.

Do you really believe that "the Nuremberg defence" (I was only obeying my orders.) is credible? :grin:

Unlike the guards at Sobibur, who really were employed to commit crimes, bailiffs are not supposed to lie, to cheat, to swindle and to abuse the people from whom they are collecting monies or whose possessions they are carting away.

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.

That is what I meant when I have commented on the apparent ethos in most (if not all) bailiff companies.

I am not trying to make people "feel sorry" for bailiffs ... I am simply suggesting that there is a better explanation for their conduct than "bailiffs are bad people".

Indeed.

Some may have started out as "bad people" or, more accurately, people with a tendency to a sociopathic personality disorder, but most probably didn't, any more than most members of the Waffen Schutzstaffel were actually born to be murderers.

[Sapphire]

Re: Marstons!

So am I right here..... as far as we can make out, most bailiffs and debt collectors work on a self employed basis ? If thats the case then I wonder how many of them declare that they are actually earning what they are earning and in fact are paying taxes etc on it, plus what is to stop them 'signing on' and working ?

[Inca]

Re: Marstons!

So am I right here..... as far as we can make out, most bailiffs and debt collectors work on a self employed basis ? If thats the case then I wonder how many of them declare that they are actually earning what they are earning and in fact are paying taxes etc on it, plus what is to stop them 'signing on' and working ?

Only you Sapph,,only you msl:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

what is to stop them 'signing on' and working ?

The threat of the DWP putting in the bailiffs? :rofl:

[Sapphire]

Re: Marstons!

msl: but it was just a thought, and lets face it, stranger things happen.

[Eloise01]

Re: Marstons!

So am I right here..... as far as we can make out, most bailiffs and debt collectors work on a self employed basis ? If thats the case then I wonder how many of them declare that they are actually earning what they are earning and in fact are paying taxes etc on it, plus what is to stop them 'signing on' and working ?

Their employment on this basis is reported to HMRC - as all employers should make such returns to HMRC! So the answer would be - all of them would be declaring it because their company will be providing this information to the Revenues Service directly.

[Eloise01]

Re: Marstons!

Can I hear the tinkling sound of the penny finally dropping? :rofl:
.

No, you most certainly didn't hear any such thing. You appear to consider it clever, or amusing, or both, to continue to make personalised and abusive comments about all bailiffs. I find this quite tragic since you frequently and very ably demonstrate that you are an intelligent and thoughtful person with a tremendous commitment to consumer rights, and an ability to argue cogently and sensibly in defence of those rights. You therefore do yourself and everyone else a disservice by this continued diatribe. It isn't amusing, it isn't clever, and it reduces you to the level of the people that you are criticising.

[labman]

Re: Marstons!

Can't read properly as in phone outside Tesco. However regulation was what I mentioned and Eloise seemed to back up. Of course the job needs doing, but remember a Further Steps Order has many options, most of which are more efficient cost wise and to get the debt paid, eg an AOE. Why choose enforcement over these all the time if it is not to make the consumer suffer unnecessarily? People forget these other options.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

No, you most certainly didn't hear any such thing.

So, despite your recent comments, the penny hasn't actually dropped and you still think it is somehow "wrong" to disparage bailiffs who threaten to arrest debtors or to bring in the assistance of armed police?

And that's because they are only doing the job for which their self-employed services are used?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

Can't read properly as in phone outside Tesco.

I may never forgive you for not shopping at Asda. :grin:

However regulation was what I mentioned and Eloise seemed to back up.

Regulation does not really work; at best, it only works after the harm has been done.

Of course the job needs doing, but remember a Further Steps Order has many options, most of which are more efficient cost wise and to get the debt paid, eg an AOE. Why choose enforcement over these all the time if it is not to make the consumer suffer unnecessarily? People forget these other options.

I do not believe that the other options are necessarily forgotten - it may be possible that, as it is no longer possible to commit a debtor to gaol, some people regard the use of bailiffs as the next best option.

There are times when one feels quite ashamed to be middle class. :grin:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

Their employment on this basis is reported to HMRC - as all employers should make such returns to HMRC! So the answer would be - all of them would be declaring it because their company will be providing this information to the Revenues Service directly.

Of course.

And no bailiff has ever kept two sets of books, inflated his fees, pocketed any money paid by a debtor or been convicted for theft or embezzlement as a result, have they?

[Eloise01]

Re: Marstons!

Cleverclogs, since you insist on misrepresenting anything said which fails to accord with your own very narrow view of the world according to Cc, then I won't continue to provide you with a foil to test out your alleged wit on. It is a shame you cannot use your obvious intellect for a useful purpose...

[Sapphire]

Re: Marstons!

Please everyone can we not argue and get back to the matter in hand.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

Cleverclogs, since you insist on misrepresenting anything said which fails to accord with your own very narrow view of the world according to Cc, then I won't continue to provide you with a foil to test out your alleged wit on. It is a shame you cannot use your obvious intellect for a useful purpose...

You are at it again.

Please stop this now.

For what it may be worth, I actually do have sympathy for any honest bailiff who descends to the dishonest methods used by not a few others and I would openly (and sincerely) express my praise for any bailiff company that had succeeded in bringing about a significant reduction of the abusive practices used by its workers. I do have to add, however, that no such reduction seems evident and, for as long as bailiffs are self employed, I rather doubt if standards will improve.