CT bailiff fees

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Were the EA responses to the consultations not published?

Do you have linked to where the responses are?

I believe they were published - a link would be great. (Sorry - misread, I read were the responses not the EA responses)

Doubleslap, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying rogue EA's aren't around still, they are, simple fact. What I was saying is on here there seem to be fewer of the really nasty, horrendously serious cases than before. Even the 'not quite so serious' threat of locksmiths and prison are far fewer under the new regs.

Of course LA's are due to issue a load of LO's in the next few weeks and we may see this pattern change. I will lay my cards straight on the table and state I am very anti-bailiff and very much in favour of making them work within the law given they exist. I'm also a realist who has suffered - and I mean REALLY suffered, at the hands of bailiffs first hand. This gives me possibly a slightly different view to some other anti-bailiff people who have not had that sort of first hand experience - I'm not saying it is a better view, I'm saying different and there is no one size fits all with EA's.

I agree with Amethyst that you may need to do some of the FOI's and legwork yourself to get the answers you seek. I've read probably the same respnses you have and they're not overly encouraging. The new regs are yet very young though.

[Guest]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I think probably the boring answer is to engage with the debt before it reaches the bailiff i the first place, or if it does then engage with them before they knock on your door.

Very satisfying to come on forums and engage in bailiff bashing, and makes the poster quite popular, but it is seldom helpful and hardly ever helps the debtor, there are cases where EA overstep the mark and exceed their powers, this is not a failing soley reserved for the bailiff industry, when it doe it needs to be addressed using the powers which are available under the regulations.
Forums which prescribe "magic remedies" which pretend to enable people to avoid their commitments are IMO preying on peoples poor understanding of the mechanisms involved and in one or two cases are guilty of cynically manipulating them for their own monitory gain IMO.

[wales01man]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Im getting slapped down now?
When I say a way to avoid fees its easy pay what is owed if YOU owe it Talk to the Council if its a CT debt or wait for the Letter and visit whatever way we argue about the level of fees there is not a lot we can do about it or am I wrong again

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

No Wales not at all.

Doubleslap2 is clearly not what they appear. They asked this question on CAG, then on another bailiff forum and then on here. They have now drawn it all together to nicely try to stitch up certain people and certain forums which is really rather sad.

Tomtubby is the highly respected Milo on here and the rest is obvious:

http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/vi...tart=35#p23026

It would appear Doubleslap2 has other motives - something long put to rest here and best ignored.

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Excuse me? I was quite clear that I had posted on other forums, I assume no-one here has any problems with that? I was fascinated by the tomtubby/jasondwb spat and wanted to try to draw my own conclusions - google is a powerful tool. At present, it seems that the poster who goes by the name tomtubby has an instance of dishonesty.

I was also warned that you go by various names, but I have no evidence of that and I hope it's not true. However, what I have seen is that you do tend to sway towards defending the bailiffs. Whether that is intentional or not, I don't know.

Again, this is taking the thread off topic, a thread I feel s quite important.

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

This is an inappropriate place to discuss the issue. I have gone under other names, I don't intend lying, but if I showed you the language used in emails back to me you would know why I defended myself, not least the publishing of my home address and real name (or a link to it) on there. Others there including one of the admin goes under multiple names. Beyond that I am not dragging other posts onto here. They have also made totally unsubstantiated allegations against this forum. It is ALL in the past and should stay there.

I have been warned about you as well, but have given you the benefit of the doubt. Comments on there are to say the least cutting towards a highly respected member, Milo, on here.

Back to topic I've made my position clear on bailiffs - I have suffered hugely at their hands and hate them. To say I tend towards defending them fills me with horror, nothing is further from the truth as my LA and a local bailiff company discovered. It is my opinion the discussion should remain solely on the topic in question from here on before things get silly.

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Just to say, I have no idea who 'Milo' is!

Agreed, keep it on topic.....

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Good idea - chat all you like in pm, but lets actually try and get something constructive done with this thread. So, Wombats and DooubleSlap, am I removing the previous few posts so we can carry on, or we keeping them and descending into chaos? Greater good and all that pls xx

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I'd say leave them there, but yes, carry on discussing professionally. I only say leave them so people can make informed judgements about posters and issues. The issue is the important thing, but proceed with a degree of caution.

[wales01man]

Re: CT bailiff fees

The thread was started with the question(Where is the outrage about the 1200% rise in bailiff fees?
Then decends into attacks on some members accusing some of supporting Bailiffs?
Bailiffs are there to do a job as long as they act within the rules and in a decent honest way maybe they can be supported after all in many cases the debt is CT which is what pays for Council servucesthat we all have to pay towards.

When a Bailiff steps out of line the question of fees has no relevance we all want them brought to book whatever the scale of fees there is no excuse for a bad Bailiff as I said before the fees are legally set by Law so until there is enough public opposition to them they will not go away /

I have no doubt there is plenty of outrage about the fee rise but as we have seen in Parliament today until sufficient numbers become outraged this government and others before or after will do nothing to change things

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...turereview.pdf PDF download of Enforcement fee structure review

Page 7 and 135 is MOJ's proposed fee structure of £75 admin, £230 enforcement and £105 sale, and 7.5% enforcement and sale over £1500.

Page 128 - what involved at each stage


Existing Fee structures are at p173 (ie old levels)



Dated Nov 2009 - seems as good a place to start as any, and is a very good document.

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Nicely put Wales!

The other thing is the intent was to get uniform fees. Council tax enforcement fees were too low, Magistrates' Court enforcement fees have scarcely changed (I know there is a minimal change). These are what 90% plus of bailiff issues are about on here (guesstimate, not exact calculation of %age).

To get unification the CTax fees had to be increased; the court fees could have been reduced, but that was never going to happen. They have to a large extent been successful, and complaints across all the major advice agencies are significantly reduced now.

As to the fairness of them, it is a theoretical debate really. Why discuss the justification when it has happened? What are people expecting to do with any information? What information do we expect to get?

Some bailiffs are tossers who overcharge and bend the rules. This has always been and always will be the case. As Andy58 pointed out, all posts of employment have workers who are good, bad and in between the two, EA's are no different.

I'd rather look at having a fixed salary with no bonus incentive payment which encourages them to bend or break the rules. That is an area which is campaign-able (albeit a very uphill struggle). The fees may be tweaked anyway, time will tell. Certain things must be changed, as, for example, the situation where a clamped vehicle on the public highway can effectively be held for up to one year without being towed away. This is pretty much extortion.

Those areas concern me more as they are areas which are actionable. While the fee structure is interesting to analyse, I'm not sure how realistic it is to get anything done about it, certainly this early on. Representations could be made (and are being) on many other fronts. I don't know if this forum has made any representations about the reforms yet or not?

EDIT:
Crossed post with Amethyst. However, the link reinforces what I have said above - that was produced nearly 5 years ago. The fees are in place. Are we not better placed to discuss and action things we can do something about?

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I'd rather look at having a fixed salary with no bonus incentive payment which encourages them to bend or break the rules. That is an area which is campaign-able (albeit a very uphill struggle).

Weirdly this has been on my mind, today and I don't know the answer... if its just because its so deeply entrenched in the industry, as in many, I don't know, but take away incentives based on obtaining payment from debtors (and that is their job), it has to be replaced with a new structure - I would like salaries only from the debtors viewpoint but you have to look from the 'creditor' view as well. Flat rate bonus structure.... not sure that would work as too many variables, it isn't just collect or not, these partial collection, instalment plan and so on.

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Is it not best to get the anomalies (loopholes) ironed out first so there is less room for stretching boundaries first? Once that is achieved, then tackle salaries.

Much will be determined by variables which are out of our control - for example - Councils have collection rate targets dictated to them by Central Government. This is bound to be reflected to an extent in the SLA's negotiated with Enforcement Companies. It would be good to send some FOI's to see these contracts and see just what they contain. Lurking somewhere within those may lie the way forward.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Ok, what are the anomolies that need ironing out?