If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
New Labour Civil Rights Abomination Number
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jun/02/bailiffs-karen-buck
Since 2007, court appointed baliffs have been legally empowered to enter debtor properties by force and to use increased measures of restraint against them. This follows a 2004 entry allowing them to break into properties to collect debt for minor offences such as unpaid TV License.
Now if you've ever been in the position (as I and many others have) that the council or a utility company have sent you a big bold letter in angry red pen demanding money with implied menaces, you might begin to worry about this.
And this lot aren't exactly trustworthy either.
Since 2007, court appointed baliffs have been legally empowered to enter debtor properties by force and to use increased measures of restraint against them. This follows a 2004 entry allowing them to break into properties to collect debt for minor offences such as unpaid TV License.
Now if you've ever been in the position (as I and many others have) that the council or a utility company have sent you a big bold letter in angry red pen demanding money with implied menaces, you might begin to worry about this.
"We regularly see cases of bailiffs misrepresenting their powers, acting in an abusive or aggressive manner, and pressurising people into paying lump sums they cannot afford," says Catherine Torazzo of the Citizens Advice Bureau.
And this lot aren't exactly trustworthy either.
0
Comments
Bailiffs are only entitled to seize goods, peaceably or otherwise, once a court order is in place. If you get a CCJ against you and don't make arrangements to pay (this can be as low as £1 per month for the poorest people) then bailiffs will be involved. If you get a council tax liability order and don't pay up then bailiffs will be involved. If you're convicted of a criminal offence and don't pay the fine then bailiffs will be involved.
Bailiffs working for the Magistrates Court are entitled to force entry to enforce unpaid criminal fines. They are only entitled to use force when they have been unable to use peaceable entry. Given that court fines can be paid back at the rate of £5 per week, and the other sanction for non-payment is imprisonment, I don't think bailiff action here is unreasonable. If you're convicted of a criminal offence you shouldn't be able to avoid the punishment on a technicality. And, like it or not, non-payment of the TV Tax is a criminal offence.
Other than Mags' Court bailiffs, only HMRC officers can force entry into property, and this is for non-payment of tax. This is very rare.
Civil bailiffs cannot force entry, they can only gain access through 'peaceable entry'. This means that a) you let them in or b) they get in through an unlocked door or open window. The Government are trying to change the law but it hasn't changed yet.
Bailiffs are scum and need more regulation, especially Mags' Court bailiffs, but at the same time the rights of debtors need to be respected too. Lets not forget, with all the hyperbole, that bailiffs only become involved when a debtor has repeatedly failed to make any effort to pay. Those that can't pay can make arrangements with the court to pay, and they're usually accepted. Those that don't pay or won't pay are the only ones who ever see bailiffs.
People do bury their heads in the sand about debt, which causes it to escalate to bailiff level, and I have huge sympathy with them. But I also have sympathy with the debtors; why should they lose out because a clued up person just hides from them?
At the same time, they only turn up if you've failed to pay something you owe and after you've been given ample chance to pay it.
Ok thanks for the correction - forgive I'm not a legal scholar I was taking this from the article - could you tell me which particular part is 'bollocks'; my understanding of the article is that vulnerable people are going to be made even worse off by this. Also that from my understanding there are many baliffs who are manipulative, deceitful and in some cases threatening.
Its well documented that vulnerable people, those with learning difficulties and so forth, are at particular risk from these errors, so isn't it possible that if someone doesn't respond to these messages then a judgment could be made against them without them having been to court? Is this possible?
(Aside: do you really have to respond like that to people you don't agree with, even when they might well be willing to be corrected?)
I thought you were deliberately misrepresenting for an agenda, my apologies.
Mostly my ire was with that appalling Grauniad article.