Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

[wales01man]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

If Milo is in the Bailiff industry are they going to actively campaign for the removal of these rogue Bailiffs it bring the industry into disrepute bailiffs are supposed to know and abide by the rules the Daisychains of the world know little about these rules that's why they come online with their phones posting one line questions.

Is Milo going to produce a set of information leaflets for the Bailiffs to hand out at the first meeting or with the first letter sent to the debtors telling them of their rights and the Laws/rules the Bailiffs are governed by .

[daisychain]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I have just read this whole thread and I would like to comment. Firstly, this is NOT intended for Daisy but for ALL posters.

I have been answering questions on a couple of forums for at least 8 years and I really do not like the way in which 'mobile devices' have changed forums. For example, when I first started responding to queries regarding bailiffs debtors would normally be on a main computer and the responses would also come from helpers using their computer. In the past few years so many people no longer have a 'traditional' computer and instead, use their mobile phones and notebooks to post queries. But what is quickly happening is that debtors AND those giving advice merely post one line questions and these are followed by one line answers. The result being that a thread runs to endless pages.

Having now read this thread through again it demonstrates to me the importance of corresponding with the enforcement company. This is something that so few people do. For example, in this case 'Daisy' almost certainly appears to be 'vulnerable'. However, unless EVIDENCE is provided to the enforcement company they will be non the wiser.

What needs to be remembered here is that whether we like it or not bailiffs have a job to do and have a DUTY to the local authority or creditor to enforce the warrant and recover their money.

In this case, the bailiff (in my opinion) has been very sloppy with this levy and should know that you CANNOT levy upon "all items". This is indeed referred to as a 'global levy' and this phrase came from the legal case involved (which escapes me for a moment). The reason why a bailiff cannot state "all items' is because unless she has actually seen the items she will not know which are exempt in law. Thankfully, this type of sloppy levying will stop on 6th April and the new forms (which I have seen) are an improvement and the bailiff will be required to provide a great deal of detail about the items seized (serial numbers, make, model etc).

I would like to point out again that all bailiff companies have a Welfare Dept and if Daisy had of provided EVIDENCE of 'vulnerability' I am sure that this account would have been quickly dealt with. From 6th April (when the new regulations are imposed) the importance of writing to bailiff companies with evidence will be of vital importance.

i think my problem was dealt with very quick in total 3 days- from sending my email to marstonsfor it to be suspended and passed back to aw. im very impressed! lol. the 10 days from the levying to writing my email i was gaining as much legal info as i could. all in all a very quick response

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

A side issue in all this is will the bailiffs and HCEO Laffin who did the levy, and this was a HCEO calling toe the new line as in shape up or ship out and leave the profession in droves when they find compliance with the new regime restrictive compared to what they may call "The Good Old days"

[Milo]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

PS: I should have mentioned well done to John Kruse. You were very fortunate in having his assistance. Well done.

[Milo]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I have just read this whole thread and I would like to comment. Firstly, this is NOT intended for Daisy but for ALL posters.

I have been answering questions on a couple of forums for at least 8 years and I really do not like the way in which 'mobile devices' have changed forums. For example, when I first started responding to queries regarding bailiffs debtors would normally be on a main computer and the responses would also come from helpers using their computer. In the past few years so many people no longer have a 'traditional' computer and instead, use their mobile phones and notebooks to post queries. But what is quickly happening is that debtors AND those giving advice merely post one line questions and these are followed by one line answers. The result being that a thread runs to endless pages.

Having now read this thread through again it demonstrates to me the importance of corresponding with the enforcement company. This is something that so few people do. For example, in this case 'Daisy' almost certainly appears to be 'vulnerable'. However, unless EVIDENCE is provided to the enforcement company they will be non the wiser.

What needs to be remembered here is that whether we like it or not bailiffs have a job to do and have a DUTY to the local authority or creditor to enforce the warrant and recover their money.

In this case, the bailiff (in my opinion) has been very sloppy with this levy and should know that you CANNOT levy upon "all items". This is indeed referred to as a 'global levy' and this phrase came from the legal case involved (which escapes me for a moment). The reason why a bailiff cannot state "all items' is because unless she has actually seen the items she will not know which are exempt in law. Thankfully, this type of sloppy levying will stop on 6th April and the new forms (which I have seen) are an improvement and the bailiff will be required to provide a great deal of detail about the items seized (serial numbers, make, model etc).

I would like to point out again that all bailiff companies have a Welfare Dept and if Daisy had of provided EVIDENCE of 'vulnerability' I am sure that this account would have been quickly dealt with. From 6th April (when the new regulations are imposed) the importance of writing to bailiff companies with evidence will be of vital importance.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

hceo wasnt mcgovern. it was a lady officer k laflin

Was she ''avin a Laff or was she Laffin when she saw she had upset the children. Might be worth indicating the obvious psychological hard to your 5 year old who is now frightened to leave the house in case she comes back and takes all their toys, a 5 year old probably wo'nt understand that the Laffin not so jolly bailiff cannot take their toys(although quite a few would threaten it to put more pressure on a debtor, Assault in my book, shame it isn't in plods.

[daisychain]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The HCEO wasn't called McGovern was he? If he was it would not go well for Marstons.

hceo wasnt mcgovern. it was a lady officer k laflin

[daisychain]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Would you like the email address for Marston Group's CEO?

Oh look, it's suddenly appeared. I wonder how that happened?

gareth.hughes@marstongroup.co.uk

ha ha thanks but ive already sent the email out to him

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

something needs to be done! if it wasnt for johns advice and this forum i wouldve been paying all that money down the plughole! the one thing that does make me angry bout the whole thing is my children witnessed marstons bullying tactics. they were in the house when the levy took place and my 5 year old was too scared to go to school incase our things would taken and he came home to an empty house. grrrr. but all over now thank god!

Would you like the email address for Marston Group's CEO?

Oh look, it's suddenly appeared. I wonder how that happened?

gareth.hughes@marstongroup.co.uk

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

The HCEO wasn't called McGovern was he? If he was it would not go well for Marstons.

McGovern is certified as a bailiff at Exeter Combined Court Centre. I am not aware of him being appointed an HCEO.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

I think it's going to be a case of maintaining the pressure on AW and ramping it up as and when necessary. No way must they be allowed to walk away from this and do it again further down the line. Now that Marstons have been given a scare, they need to be given more - a lot more.

The HCEO wasn't called McGovern was he? If he was it would not go well for Marstons.

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

Southern water were caught out doing that the other year, I think that one was on CAG.

Main thing is AW and the duplicitous nasty excuse for a company Marstons have had a tolchock to the yarbles from none other than John Kruse

I think it's going to be a case of maintaining the pressure on AW and ramping it up as and when necessary. No way must they be allowed to walk away from this and do it again further down the line. Now that Marstons have been given a scare, they need to be given more - a lot more.

[bizzybob]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

You've hit the nail right on the head there, BB. That's exactly what they do. I've seen evidence of it myself. Not only is it misleading the court, which if committed by a legal professional is serious professional conduct, it may well be grounds for revoking a CCJ and Writ of Fi Fa due to them being obtained by deception. Given the two cases that came onto the LB forums and LB member who rang me directly, it does beg the question as to how many other people are the victim of an industry that resorts to enriching itself in this manner. There needs to be a major investigation into the practices of the water industry - regardless of any bleating and howling from the City of London and Westminster.

Southern water were caught out doing that the other year, I think that one was on CAG.

Main thing is AW and the duplicitous nasty excuse for a company Marstons have had a tolchock to the yarbles from none other than John Kruse

[daisychain]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

You've hit the nail right on the head there, BB. That's exactly what they do. I've seen evidence of it myself. Not only is it misleading the court, which if committed by a legal professional is serious professional conduct, it may well be grounds for revoking a CCJ and Writ of Fi Fa due to them being obtained by deception. Given the two cases that came onto the LB forums and LB member who rang me directly, it does beg the question as to how many other people are the victim of an industry that resorts to enriching itself in this manner. There needs to be a major investigation into the practices of the water industry - regardless of any bleating and howling from the City of London and Westminster.

something needs to be done! if it wasnt for johns advice and this forum i wouldve been paying all that money down the plughole! the one thing that does make me angry bout the whole thing is my children witnessed marstons bullying tactics. they were in the house when the levy took place and my 5 year old was too scared to go to school incase our things would taken and he came home to an empty house. grrrr. but all over now thank god!

[bluebottle]

Re: Vulnerable household yet still have a walking posession agreement

They probably inflated the original arrears with fees to get it above the £600 to get the writ of fi-fa a naughty trick used by Water Companies in particular Aw and SW. Time their CEO and Board who have individual liability get done for fraud, or whatever offences can be laid on them, along with Marstons..

You've hit the nail right on the head there, BB. That's exactly what they do. I've seen evidence of it myself. Not only is it misleading the court, which if committed by a legal professional is serious professional conduct, it may well be grounds for revoking a CCJ and Writ of Fi Fa due to them being obtained by deception. Given the two cases that came onto the LB forums and LB member who rang me directly, it does beg the question as to how many other people are the victim of an industry that resorts to enriching itself in this manner. There needs to be a major investigation into the practices of the water industry - regardless of any bleating and howling from the City of London and Westminster.