New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

[bluebottle]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

There is one involving Greater Manchester Accounts & Enforcement Unit who have issued an FSN when the case was withdrawn by CPS and the OP has an email from HMCTS confirming this. Talk about a cock-up. I'll see if I can locate the thread.

[bluebottle]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

Look at the thread "Without Further Notice", Wombats. I thought Capita was bad for mistakes, but it looks as if Greater Manchester Accounts and Enforcement Unit is vying with them for the title of "Cock-Up Kings".

[Johnboy007]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

I am dealing with Newlyn PLC Enforcement on a case that, quite frankly, if it wasn't true, would make a good book.
Newlyn have claimed that my daughter's car was clamped and the clamp was subsequently removed by force.
They said that they were going to issue criminal proceedings against her.
Despite several emails and a registered signed for letter to Newlyn CEO, no evidence what so ever, has been given to her.
A notice of enforcement agent visit to your premises letter, shoved through her letterbox, has the name MR Jay Oharro, and shows the amount of £766.00 claimed.
This is definitely an overcharge, by over £144.00 and I must ask the question........
If my daughter had given him £766.00, what would the bailiff had done with the excess money?
As the car definitely wasn't clamped, no enforcement has been achieved by Newlyn PLC.
So the charges need to be reduced back to the Compliance Stage.
Can we sue for damages over the false allegation, which amounts to a libelous statement.
Maybe someone here can put me on the right path.
Try finding Mr Jay Oharro on the registered Bailiff list... You will not find him.
Jay is not his registered name.
Was his visit lawful? No way...
Johnaw:

[bluebottle]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

I am dealing with Newlyn PLC Enforcement on a case that, quite frankly, if it wasn't true, would make a good book.
Newlyn have claimed that my daughter's car was clamped and the clamp was subsequently removed by force. And what evidence do they have to substantiate this allegation?
They said that they were going to issue criminal proceedings against her. msl:
Despite several emails and a registered signed for letter to Newlyn CEO, no evidence what so ever, has been given to her. If they had any evidence, they would be required to disclose it. If they won't, it would tend to indicate they haven't got any.
A notice of enforcement agent visit to your premises letter, shoved through her letterbox, has the name MR Jay Oharro, and shows the amount of £766.00 claimed.
This is definitely an overcharge, by over £144.00 and I must ask the question........
If my daughter had given him £766.00, what would the bailiff had done with the excess money? Spend it on beer?
As the car definitely wasn't clamped, no enforcement has been achieved by Newlyn PLC.
So the charges need to be reduced back to the Compliance Stage.
Can we sue for damages over the false allegation, which amounts to a libelous statement. Not unless this Mr Jay Oharro or Newlyns are stupid enough to make allegations to the police.
Maybe someone here can put me on the right path.
Try finding Mr Jay Oharro on the registered Bailiff list... You will not find him.
Jay is not his registered name.
Was his visit lawful? No way...
Johnaw:

Making a report of a crime to the police, knowing it is false, is a criminal offence (Wasteful Employment of Police). However, if the police act upon the false report, then this can escalate the matter into the sphere of Indictable Offences, namely, Perverting the Course of Justice. Wasteful Employment of Police is a summary offence.

Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.

[Wombats]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.

......... like DCA's fabricating solictors' firms! Oops.

[bizzybob]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

There are some discussions on use of vulnerability on this thread

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ommenced/page1

which may be better on here

[bluebottle]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

......... like DCA's fabricating solictors' firms! Oops.

I came across a residential lettings agency impersonating a firm of solicitors some years go. They weren't too happy when the local constabulary paid them a visit and started asking them awkward questions about their business activities.

[Johnboy007]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

Making a report of a crime to the police, knowing it is false, is a criminal offence (Wasteful Employment of Police). However, if the police act upon the false report, then this can escalate the matter into the sphere of Indictable Offences, namely, Perverting the Course of Justice. Wasteful Employment of Police is a summary offence.

Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.

Thanks for the reply....
Your comments were really amusing...:bounce:
Newlyn actually put it in writing Quote: It is therefore our intention to file a criminal damage claim against you.
They are a bloody joke........
The amounts claimed vary each time they send a letter.
12/06/2014 it was £512.00
17/06/2014 it was £766.00
01/07/2014 it was £622.00

Just who does their accounts?
Carol Vorderman

[bizzybob]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

Screwlyn are seriously out of control, and in need of a tolchock from plod.

[bluebottle]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

Thanks for the reply....
Your comments were really amusing...:bounce:
Newlyn actually put it in writing Quote: It is therefore our intention to file a criminal damage claim against you.
They are a bloody joke........
The amounts claimed vary each time they send a letter.
12/06/2014 it was £512.00
17/06/2014 it was £766.00
01/07/2014 it was £622.00

Just who does their accounts?
Carol Vorderman

And what evidence do they have of Criminal Damage? What evidence do they have that the person they are alleging committed the said alleged damage (if any) actually committed the alleged damage? By the sound of it, bugger all.

Far from being amusing, what Newlyns are doing is, actually, very serious. It has the potential to backfire on them and the creditor, whoever that may be, in a way they, probably, will not have anticipated or foreseen.

And, no, Carol Vooderman does not do their accounts; rumour has it that it is the ghosts of the Brothers Grimm.

[Amethyst]

Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

... ignore for now just seemed most relevant place for the minute xx

''People in vulnerable situations

4.8 The National Standards for Enforcement Agents gives examples of potentially
vulnerable situations. The reality is that judgements need to be made on a case by
case basis.

4.9 There should be clear, agreed protocols in place between Local Authorities and their
bailiffs governing the approach that should be taken in vulnerable situations and the
kinds of cases which should be raised with, or referred back to, local authorities for
further consideration when encountered.

4.10 This might mean agreed indicators of vulnerable circumstances and ensuring there is
a clear and efficient mechanism to refer cases back to the Local Authority where
bailiff action is not the most appropriate route.''

Taking Control of Goods: National Standards
April 2014

42.
Enforcement agents should be trained to recognise vulnerable debtors, to alert creditors where they have identified such debtors and when to withdraw from such a situation.

Vulnerable situations
70.
Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation. Therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern.
71.
If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.
72.
Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 or is deemed to be vulnerable by the enforcement agent; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.
73.
Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.
74.
A debtor may be considered vulnerable if, for reasons of age, health or disability they are unable to safeguard their personal welfare or the personal welfare of other members of the household.
75.
The enforcement agent must be sure that the debtor or the person to whom they are entering into a controlled goods agreement understands the agreement and the consequences if the agreement is not complied with.
76.
Enforcement agents should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately obvious.
77.
Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case basis.

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.
78.
Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have arrangements in place for rapidly accessing interpretation services (including British Sign Language), when these are needed, and provide on request information in large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight



CWAC -

4.6 The Enforcement Agent must be mindful of vulnerable groups when collecting debt and if in any doubt must seek advice from the Councils supervising officer. The Enforcement Agent will always make a record on the account of the debtor’s (and family) personal circumstances especially where there are apparent disability, mental illness or impairment issues. The following provides an indication of such groups but is not exhaustive. Any advice provided must be noted by the Enforcement Agent.

• any person aged 70 or over and infirm.
• recent family bereavement (case to be reviewed in 2 to 3 months)
• Where a debtor is considered to have a mental disability/a severe state of confusion or sensory disability such as being deaf or blind.
• If debtor or partner in final weeks of pregnancy.
• Communication difficulties, any case where English is not spoken or read and an interpreter would be useful.
• Severe financial difficulties where total household income is equal to or below Income Support/ Jobseeker’s Allowance.
• Any exceptional circumstances which would make recovery action undesirable.