One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

They can't all be bad ... It's just a pity that we only ever seem to hear the horror stories

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

They can't all be bad ... It's just a pity that we only ever seem to hear the horror stories

That's an important thing to remember on sites like this - people only tend to come here when something has gone wrong. For every wrong one there are statistically many 'smooth' cases (read people who were lucky enough to have someone to bail them out when they got a knock on the door).

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

@ Bluebottle

I'm sorry BB but the level of cases going before the court doesn't necessarily reflect the level of offences - it could reflect the level of freedom to be litigious and incentives to act thus.

I mean no disrespect at all, btw, just that there is a bit of a flaw in logic (an ungrounded assumption) in your above statement

Statistically, the UK has more cases before ECHR in a year than any of the other signatories to the Convention. Of those cases that get as far as ECHR, all of them will have been through County, High, Appeal and Supreme Courts in the UK before going to Strasbourg. Quite often, cases relate to issues where the UK government is digging its heels in and refusing to concede and the courts feel the issues are of sufficient importance to allow them to go to Strasbourg for examination and judgement. Some politicians and senior civil servants can be unbelievably prejudiced and obstructive.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

You wrote that in post 41! :beagle:

I think politicians and senior civil servants get where they do because they have strong opinions and views. There is a very thin line between a strongly held conviction and prejudice.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

That's an important thing to remember on sites like this - people only tend to come here when something has gone wrong. For every wrong one there are statistically many 'smooth' cases (read people who were lucky enough to have someone to bail them out when they got a knock on the door).

True ... I suppose it's the same whatever you do, and part of being human. It's a great feeling when you DO get to read of a case going well, and it's sites like this that are making sure it happens!

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I think this country still has a very long way to go in terms of educating its citizens about their consumer rights.

In other areas people are often very aware of their rights (and often very unaware of their responsibilities which come with those rights).

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

You wrote that in post 41! :beagle:

I think politicians and senior civil servants get where they do because they have strong opinions and views. There is a very thin line between a strongly held conviction and prejudice.

What I wrote in Post 48 clarifies what is in Post 41.

As for civil servants getting to where they do, try funny handshakes. You would be surprised how rife it is within the Civil Service.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

What I wrote in Post 48 clarifies what is in Post 41.

As for civil servants getting to where they do, try funny handshakes. You would be surprised how rife it is within the Civil Service.

Actually, it isn't so much funny handshakes as building efficient networks within the relevant department to make moving role easy. Many of the most senior civil servants got there by proving basic competence in junior roles, then progressing rapidly through the ranks, staying in posts for a matter of just months in some cases.

Of those I know and have met personally, I have to say their level of intelligence is truly awesome though.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Actually, it isn't so much funny handshakes as building efficient networks within the relevant department to make moving role easy. Many of the most senior civil servants got there by proving basic competence in junior roles, then progressing rapidly through the ranks, staying in posts for a matter of just months in some cases.

Of those I know and have met personally, I have to say their level of intelligence is truly awesome though.

What I am talking about, Wombats, are senior civil servants who seriously cock up, cost the taxpayer millions and instead of being sacked are either promoted or moved where there is less likelihood of them causing any further problems.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

They don't need to be senior civil servants to cost the taxpayer millions. The system is designed for any civil servant to be able to do that.

I take the new point raised of those in a senior position who mess up and are moved out of harms way to another job at the same level. Again I know people personally where this has happened.

Playing devil's advocate (pinch of salt, but also true) - a person's inability to do one job at a given senior level does not mean they are unsuited to that level, it means they were not suited to that role. Moving them to another role may not only be convenient, but may actually enable utilise the skillset of the person far better in a different role, thus retaining the investment in training etc... over the 20-30 years it takes to get to that level.

Arguably in these cases, the appointing panel should be equally culpable for placing the person in the role. It does appear they are often foregone conclusions.

[bizzybob]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

They don't need to be senior civil servants to cost the taxpayer millions. The system is designed for any civil servant to be able to do that.

I take the new point raised of those in a senior position who mess up and are moved out of harms way to another job at the same level. Again I know people personally where this has happened.

Playing devil's advocate (pinch of salt, but also true) - a person's inability to do one job at a given senior level does not mean they are unsuited to that level, it means they were not suited to that role. Moving them to another role may not only be convenient, but may actually enable utilise the skillset of the person far better in a different role, thus retaining the investment in training etc... over the 20-30 years it takes to get to that level.

Arguably in these cases, the appointing panel should be equally culpable for placing the person in the role. It does appear they are often foregone conclusions.

Good example of someone promoted beyond competence, say hello to Lin Homer, who cocked up Borders Agency and now is trying to push Gideon's pet take money ad hoc from bank accounts for HMRC.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Good example of someone promoted beyond competence, say hello to Lin Homer, who cocked up Borders Agency and now is trying to push Gideon's pet take money ad hoc from bank accounts for HMRC.

Me thinks that could backfire on Gideon if someone challenges it in the courts.

[seduraed]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

and the tories want us to leave the echr as apparently it interferes worsens the human rights situation . Mostly due to the Abu Hanza case I think

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Can I pick up on one point made earlier, possibly by ST, I'm not sure, but it's the point that is important.

It was stated about people hiding behind vulnerability and surely it is in their interests to arrange a repayment or to get the debt paid. Hiding behind vulnerability was as bad as, or worse than, plain debt evasion.

I both agree and disagree with this. If someone is using vulnerability as a way to avoid the bailiff action then I agree, it is wrong. However, if they are genuinely vulnerable and returning the debt to the council with an agreed repayment plan, thus bypassing the stress of bailiff enforcement which might, for example, tip them over the edge and result in their suicide, then I disagree - they should be able to claim vulnerability.

I return to the point I made earlier which nobody really picked up where I stated that the most vulnerable in terms of mental impairment can claim a reduction in their council tax because of the impairment, but it HAS to be signed by a consultant. This kind of hints the impairment needs to be pretty severe.

Others who are vulnerable should have no difficulty proving it, and I am 100% for people having to prove their vulnerability so they can't use it as a debt avoidance strategy.

Often reading the forums you see potential vulnerability, but it should be able to be proven.

Debt avoiders - arrange a repayment plan or suffer the consequences; seek help if the EA won't agree something sensible. Genuinely vulnerable people - if you don't already get a reduction, provide proof of your vulnerability along with something which states why returning the debt to the council is a better option than continuing enforcement via EA's. The more debtors who can stay within the 'normal' enforcement system, the better for all.

I would like to see the discount for genuinely vulnerable people promoted so people are aware of it. It is actually an area where I favour quite a tough line.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

If someone is using vulnerability as a way to avoid the bailiff action then I agree, it is wrong. However, if they are genuinely vulnerable and returning the debt to the council with an agreed repayment plan, thus bypassing the stress of bailiff enforcement which might, for example, tip them over the edge and result in their suicide, then I disagree - they should be able to claim vulnerability.

The whole reason I started this thread was to show where councils stand on EA action (in regards to recalling the debt if needed) and what they could view as vulnerability. Debt-avoidance is not something I agree with either!! If you have a genuine debt, you need to arrange repayment, and sometimes EA action is the kick-start someone needs.

I return to the point I made earlier which nobody really picked up where I stated that the most vulnerable in terms of mental impairment can claim a reduction in their council tax because of the impairment, but it HAS to be signed by a consultant. This kind of hints the impairment needs to be pretty severe ...... I would like to see the discount for genuinely vulnerable people promoted so people are aware of it. It is actually an area where I favour quite a tough line.

THIS is a good point though ... CT discounts after proof of a mental impairment is shown is something I would have never known about if you hadn't mentioned it. Thanks for the info [MENTION=48400]Wombats[/MENTION] :tinysmile_grin_t: