BAILIFFS

Page 1 | 2 | 3
 

Bailiffs are to get powers to break into homes and seize goods if people fall behind on credit card payments. The move would leave tens of thousands at risk of finding their doors kicked down and TVs and computers seized. The Government proposals have been condemned by Citizens Advice, which warned of an epidemic of intimidation and damage. The charity is concerned that bailiffs are already largely a law unto themselves, using threats and menacing tactics to ensure debtors pay up. Many levy huge and questionable collection charges which force people deeper into debt.

But under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, they will be given the power to break in to domestic premises and enforce consumer credit debts, including credit card bills, which are the subject of a County Court Judgment. It is not clear whether the householder will need to be in at the time. At present, only certain enforcement officers, notably those pursuing magistrates court fines, have powers to break in. Bailiffs enforcing County Court Judgments can enter a property only if the householder lets them or they find an open window or unlocked door.

Citizens Advice chief executive David Harker said, "Bailiffs have an appalling track record of abusing their existing powers against vulnerable people. They are often abusive and aggressive and use threats of violence and prison to pressurise people into paying lump sums they cannot afford. Bailiff law is complex, confusing and long overdue for reform. This Bill was a perfect opportunity to modernise the law and end abuse once and for all. Instead it gives bailiffs greater powers without proper regulation, a recipe for abuse on an unprecedented scale." (Source: Mail on Sunday, Mar/07)

My daughter Lyndsay was due to have her baby any day, when the bailiff thugs used by Nottingham City Council called. We had just returned from fetching a pushchair ready for when baby Alfie arrived. There was a white van outside Lyndsay's house. I was waiting in my van for Lyndsay as we were going back out. The animal in the van was the bailiff for Nottingham City Council. She returned to me very distressed and said the thug was going to take her possessions. He wanted the money owed.

She tried to reason with him, telling him she had made offers, but due to mistakes made by his company, they hadn't sent her the method of payment out. She told him she had postal orders in the house to prove she had made the effort, but was waiting for them. He said he wasn't interested, he wanted the money or he was going in to take her stuff. She told him she wouldn't let him in. He said he would get a locksmith and go in anyway. When I found out it was the bailiff and that he had distressed her, intimidated her and been very unreasonable, I went to talk to him.

He was very arrogant towards me, with his stupid smirk on his face. I pointed out the fact that my daughter was nine months pregnant, and that she should not be distressed like this. His reply was that it was not his problem, he wanted his money or he was going in. I told him if anything happened to the baby I would sue his company. He said it was not his problem and he wanted the money. I became very angry with him by this time. I told him they were lowlife and a few other choice words.

He agreed with the comments, said yes that's right with a big smirk on his face. I told him to clear off. He then said he would be back in two days. But he still sat there, I said well clear off then, he said he would sit there as long as he liked and would go in his own time. Lyndsay rang his firm to try and sort things out without any success, she rang the council with no success. So she went to see a solicitor. A few days later she told her midwife she hadn't felt the baby moving as he was normally quite active, the midwife examined her and said she couldn't detect his heartbeat.

She was sent to the hospital where it was confirmed she had lost the baby. The next morning I went back to the hospital at 8.00am as they were going to start her labour, she had to have a normal birth. I was with her throughout the birth, it was very distresing, eventually Alfie was born just before 3.00pm. We were devastated. I held my dead grandson, I hugged and kissed him. He was beautiful. Instead of celebrating the life of a new family member, we now had a funeral to arrange.

Whilst we were at the hospital, the lowlife thug returned to her house, leaving a message through the door that he would be back the next day. The funeral was held on Monday 16th of May. Our family are all devastated. Lyndsay is now on anti-depressants. It has affected all our lives very badly, but Lyndsay is obviously totally devastated. Now the battle has started with Nottingham City Council, and the bailiff thugs they employ.

After complaining to the council, Jon Collins, Leader of Nottingham City Council, wrote:

".... I was very sorry to hear about your daughter’s loss. The Council has a duty to ensure it does all it can to collect money owed in council tax. However, we always try to do this in a fair and sensitive way, particularly where vulnerable people are concerned, and we instruct those working on our behalf to do the same. We have spoken to the bailiff company involved in your daughter’s case and from the information provided, we are satisfied that it behaved in an appropriate way ...."

The company actually said that there was no reply when a bailiff visited your daughter’s house on the occasion you refer to, so he returned to his vehicle. The bailiff then reports being approached while in his vehicle by a man who, he says, behaved in an abusive way towards him so he drove off without taking any further action.

Extracts from a letter Rossendales Bailiffs sent to my daughter's solicitor:

".... However, we accept that in accordance with our own procedures and those of our clients the bailiff should have taken instruction before proceeding any further. Therefore, the bailiff has been reprimanded and a period of retraining on potentially vulnerable situations has been given ...."

Why would the bailiff in question be REPRIMANDED and sent for RETRAINING ON POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE situations, if he did no wrong?

".... We acknowledge that you did write to us on 28th April 2005, advising of Ms White's circumstances. We did correctly update Ms White's case file, unfortunately the member of staff responsible for this, failed to also inform the bailiff that we were considering your offer and that he should susspend action. As a result of this error, the bailiff re-attended at Ms White's property on the 5th May although he did not meet with anybody he simply left a further notice. The member of staff responsible for this error is now subject to disciplinary procedures ...."

Yes, returned on the day my daughter was giving birth to my dead grandson. It is a good job he never returned after she came home from hospital !!! Another member of staff being disciplined, yet they did no wrong?

Rossendales Bailiffs have now decided they do not want to deal with Lyndsay's Council Tax arrears!! They returned the cheque for £60 that Lyndsay sent them, back to Nottingham City Council!! I don't know why they would send the cheque back to Nottingham City Council, it was made payable to Rossendales from Lyndsay.

No use to Nottingham City Council. Who know's who's hands this cheque could get into, with all Lyndsay's bank details on. Why didn't Rossendales pass this debt back to Nottingham City Council as soon as they knew she was PREGNANT as they should have done? Why did they persue with their course of action?

Now Nottingham City Council have accepted to take the arrears out of Lyndsay's benefit. Which they can only take at the rate of £2.85 per week!!! Trevor White