Quite An Achievement In 5 Months.....
News1 min ago
Seizing Assets
Just been watching one of those programmes where a couple of scum - sorry, bailiffs/sheriffs - go into businesses and seize assets for unpaid debts. They very often take computers. Apart from the uselessness of this, because secondhand computers don't tend to sell for much money, what is the situation when those computers contain personal/sensitive data? Staff don't seem to be given time to delete or back up data before the computers are taken.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
In all the programmes I've watched they have been given time to back up the computers (and told to do so by the Sheriffs). As VHG says, it's the defaulters who are the scumbags - they find devious means of getting out of paying their debts.
11:57 Tue 21st Jan 2014
>>>>a couple of scum
That's a bit strong.
They are acting legally on behalf of a judge. Why does that make them scum?
Often the people who OWE the money have either avoided paying someone or taken goods or a service without paying for it so why should they get away with it.
I saw one of these programs a few months ago where some guy who ran a security company (supplying bouncers and security staff and so on) had avoided paying some guy £7,000 who had done work for him.
So the sheriffs came to seize goods but he managed to stall them, but when they came back a couple of week later he had changed the name of the company (some minor name change) and had transferred all the goods to this new company so they could not seize the goods as the court order was against the old company.
Now HE was scum (though looking at him he was not the sort of guy that you would say that to his face as he was a guy who did a lot of body building).
That's a bit strong.
They are acting legally on behalf of a judge. Why does that make them scum?
Often the people who OWE the money have either avoided paying someone or taken goods or a service without paying for it so why should they get away with it.
I saw one of these programs a few months ago where some guy who ran a security company (supplying bouncers and security staff and so on) had avoided paying some guy £7,000 who had done work for him.
So the sheriffs came to seize goods but he managed to stall them, but when they came back a couple of week later he had changed the name of the company (some minor name change) and had transferred all the goods to this new company so they could not seize the goods as the court order was against the old company.
Now HE was scum (though looking at him he was not the sort of guy that you would say that to his face as he was a guy who did a lot of body building).
how do some of these bailiffs sleep at night
http://
http://
Thanks. Even if the companies have prior warning, I'm sure some have new data going into the system every day, so I would hope they allow time to back-up and delete stuff before parting with the hardware.
I'm sure some of the defaulters are as much scum and deserve what they get, but I have no time for bailiffs and sherriffs. They come across as ignorant bullies, especially to the poor s*ds who are genuinely innocent employees (like the ones who once raided a hairdressing salon when only the junior stylist was present, began taking stuff and had the poor girl in tears). Moreover they seem very proud of what they do.
I once had a bailiff at my door over a council tax debt. I had my foot in plaster and was on crutches at the time and she was threatening to push past me. She also showed me a walking possession form that my OH had supposedly signed on a previous visit. Except that my OH had been at work on that particular day and his employer had CCTV evidence to back that up - the signature was clearly a forgery. My mum had to pay them, over a loudspeaker phone in the street, for everyone to hear her credit card details. When I complained to the council they dropped the costs and I've noticed they don't use that company anymore.
So yeah, scum, and I won't alter that opinion no matter what anyone says.
I'm sure some of the defaulters are as much scum and deserve what they get, but I have no time for bailiffs and sherriffs. They come across as ignorant bullies, especially to the poor s*ds who are genuinely innocent employees (like the ones who once raided a hairdressing salon when only the junior stylist was present, began taking stuff and had the poor girl in tears). Moreover they seem very proud of what they do.
I once had a bailiff at my door over a council tax debt. I had my foot in plaster and was on crutches at the time and she was threatening to push past me. She also showed me a walking possession form that my OH had supposedly signed on a previous visit. Except that my OH had been at work on that particular day and his employer had CCTV evidence to back that up - the signature was clearly a forgery. My mum had to pay them, over a loudspeaker phone in the street, for everyone to hear her credit card details. When I complained to the council they dropped the costs and I've noticed they don't use that company anymore.
So yeah, scum, and I won't alter that opinion no matter what anyone says.
The reason they sleep at night is quite simple.
Bailiffs and High Court Sheriffs act on instructions from either the County Court or the High Court. When they are given writs to execute they have no discretion and can enter into no debate about the details of the case or its validity. The time and place to do that is in the court that issued the writ. Their job is to secure payment of the debt by either collecting the cash or seizing goods.
Many of the debtors whom they act against know the ropes. They use a number of techniques to avoid their debts: they close or liquidate their companies’ assets; they transfer assets to relatives and then start an almost identical business by buying back the assets; they operate businesses (such as used car lots) where none of the goods they offer for sale belong to them but to an earlier owner. By contrast many of the people owed money are ordinary Joes: people who have been wrongly dismissed and have awards made in their favour by employment tribunals; people who have had dodgy double glazing installed; people who have bought dodgy cars.
Before a writ is issued the case is examined thoroughly by a court and the alleged debtor is given every opportunity to respond and to put their side of the story. Even when awards are made against them they are given the opportunity to come to an agreement where the cash can be paid in instalments. Many of them treat the complainants with contempt, fail to turn up to defend their case (hoping it will simply go away) or make strenuous efforts to hide their assets to avoid payment.
Before the debt collectors are labelled as “scum” all of the above needs to be borne in mind. Exceptional cases such as the one highlighted where bailiffs acting on behalf of the Magistrates’ Court will always occur when no response from people owing money is received. The alternative is to simply ignore all debts. That's fine for those who owe money, but not so clever for those to whom it is owed.
Bailiffs and High Court Sheriffs act on instructions from either the County Court or the High Court. When they are given writs to execute they have no discretion and can enter into no debate about the details of the case or its validity. The time and place to do that is in the court that issued the writ. Their job is to secure payment of the debt by either collecting the cash or seizing goods.
Many of the debtors whom they act against know the ropes. They use a number of techniques to avoid their debts: they close or liquidate their companies’ assets; they transfer assets to relatives and then start an almost identical business by buying back the assets; they operate businesses (such as used car lots) where none of the goods they offer for sale belong to them but to an earlier owner. By contrast many of the people owed money are ordinary Joes: people who have been wrongly dismissed and have awards made in their favour by employment tribunals; people who have had dodgy double glazing installed; people who have bought dodgy cars.
Before a writ is issued the case is examined thoroughly by a court and the alleged debtor is given every opportunity to respond and to put their side of the story. Even when awards are made against them they are given the opportunity to come to an agreement where the cash can be paid in instalments. Many of them treat the complainants with contempt, fail to turn up to defend their case (hoping it will simply go away) or make strenuous efforts to hide their assets to avoid payment.
Before the debt collectors are labelled as “scum” all of the above needs to be borne in mind. Exceptional cases such as the one highlighted where bailiffs acting on behalf of the Magistrates’ Court will always occur when no response from people owing money is received. The alternative is to simply ignore all debts. That's fine for those who owe money, but not so clever for those to whom it is owed.
New Judge
> Before a writ is issued the case is examined thoroughly by a court and the alleged debtor is given every opportunity to respond and to put their side of the story. Even when awards are made against them they are given the opportunity to come to an agreement where the cash can be paid in instalments. Many of them treat the complainants with contempt, fail to turn up to defend their case (hoping it will simply go away) or make strenuous efforts to hide their assets to avoid payment. <
rubbish the lady near me who had no benefits for over 11 1/2 months was fined £425 in court , the solicitor that the cab fixed for her contacted the court while she was in her office court had no record of fine.
a month or two later bailiffs turned up at her house and the fine with his extra payment had shot up to over £700 , he was not leaving without some money or taking goods from property.
only because her daughter had a credit card and let him take a payment of £400 from her card did he then let her make an agreed payment plan.
cab and the ss have had to step in and help her out contacting the court and other people over her debt
perhaps you will post that this is a one off but i think not
> Before a writ is issued the case is examined thoroughly by a court and the alleged debtor is given every opportunity to respond and to put their side of the story. Even when awards are made against them they are given the opportunity to come to an agreement where the cash can be paid in instalments. Many of them treat the complainants with contempt, fail to turn up to defend their case (hoping it will simply go away) or make strenuous efforts to hide their assets to avoid payment. <
rubbish the lady near me who had no benefits for over 11 1/2 months was fined £425 in court , the solicitor that the cab fixed for her contacted the court while she was in her office court had no record of fine.
a month or two later bailiffs turned up at her house and the fine with his extra payment had shot up to over £700 , he was not leaving without some money or taking goods from property.
only because her daughter had a credit card and let him take a payment of £400 from her card did he then let her make an agreed payment plan.
cab and the ss have had to step in and help her out contacting the court and other people over her debt
perhaps you will post that this is a one off but i think not
Yes I would consider it a "one-off" (or perhaps more accurately an untypical exception), Dr F.
The alternative to these so-called "bully-boy" tactics is to simply allow people to knock others for monies owed. In many cases only when the bailiff or sheriff is on their doorstep refusing to leave without goods or payment will they concentrate their minds on settling the debt. Without this sanction many debtors are quite content to see the debt remain unpaid. In fact for a sizeable minority building up debts, knocking one’s creditors, going skint and then opening up the next day with the same business, the same staff using the same equipment in the same premises is a part of their normal business activity.
Where I tend to modify my views is with TV Licensing, which has been mentioned twice in this question. I actually think there is no place for a TV Licence at all in the present day, but that is another argument. However, whilst it exists the BBC (or TV Licence Agency) should not enjoy the privilege of what is essentially a civil debt being enforced with the threat of criminal sanctions. No other debt (with the exception of tax and excise) enjoys such a protection and TVL collection should be enforced via the County Courts. However, the majority of work carried out by bailiffs and sheriffs involves civil debt of the type I described earlier and people who are owed money deserve to have recourse to a robust remedy to have court orders in their favour settled.
The alternative to these so-called "bully-boy" tactics is to simply allow people to knock others for monies owed. In many cases only when the bailiff or sheriff is on their doorstep refusing to leave without goods or payment will they concentrate their minds on settling the debt. Without this sanction many debtors are quite content to see the debt remain unpaid. In fact for a sizeable minority building up debts, knocking one’s creditors, going skint and then opening up the next day with the same business, the same staff using the same equipment in the same premises is a part of their normal business activity.
Where I tend to modify my views is with TV Licensing, which has been mentioned twice in this question. I actually think there is no place for a TV Licence at all in the present day, but that is another argument. However, whilst it exists the BBC (or TV Licence Agency) should not enjoy the privilege of what is essentially a civil debt being enforced with the threat of criminal sanctions. No other debt (with the exception of tax and excise) enjoys such a protection and TVL collection should be enforced via the County Courts. However, the majority of work carried out by bailiffs and sheriffs involves civil debt of the type I described earlier and people who are owed money deserve to have recourse to a robust remedy to have court orders in their favour settled.
I watch these programms and find them very informative.
Would Saxy-jag prefer to get ripped of by someone/a company and not have someone legaly able to get the money back? They don't threaten violence, they don't shout or intimindate. They just stand thier ground and show by simple legal measures they should get paid or take goods to the value. When faced with the option of goods leaving the premisis they often pay because they realise a. the goods are not going to cover the debt and b. the rest will still need to be paid and they will have no way of earning it.
The scum, in my opinion, are the ones who don't pay their dues or rip people off. Or who liquidate to avoide paying.
Of all the programmes I have watched the sheriffes have been polite and patient with the debtor and give fare warning and time. Even in this mornings episode they advised a company to back up their data because the goods were going to be taken.
Would Saxy-jag prefer to get ripped of by someone/a company and not have someone legaly able to get the money back? They don't threaten violence, they don't shout or intimindate. They just stand thier ground and show by simple legal measures they should get paid or take goods to the value. When faced with the option of goods leaving the premisis they often pay because they realise a. the goods are not going to cover the debt and b. the rest will still need to be paid and they will have no way of earning it.
The scum, in my opinion, are the ones who don't pay their dues or rip people off. Or who liquidate to avoide paying.
Of all the programmes I have watched the sheriffes have been polite and patient with the debtor and give fare warning and time. Even in this mornings episode they advised a company to back up their data because the goods were going to be taken.
It is after all a prog SJ - also look at Repo on er pay-tv sky I think
I find it compulsive viewing - purely because the defendants are such shysters.
They ALL say they are not the person in the write
They ALL say it is a different company trading under a like name...
they all have a mither in law who has just died or else they would have.....
I quite like the current version where each side is allowed to put its side.
The lame and limping accounts speak for themselves
I find it compulsive viewing - purely because the defendants are such shysters.
They ALL say they are not the person in the write
They ALL say it is a different company trading under a like name...
they all have a mither in law who has just died or else they would have.....
I quite like the current version where each side is allowed to put its side.
The lame and limping accounts speak for themselves
Like others, I've no time for people who deliberately close down a company & start another in order to avoid paying debts. However, so far as personal debts are concerned there are definitely two categories - the won't pays and the can't pays.
I think most of the comments on here relate to the won't pays. There are a lot of people whose circumstances change & they find themselves unable to pay for quite genuine reasons. Some of these people have health problems (often mental health issues) which cause them to bury their heads in the sand. Such people do not deserve to be treated with the aggressive (sometimes law breaking) approach often used by bailiffs.
Saxy quotes a good example. Not only did they forge a signature but they attempted to force entry by pushing past her at the door. That is illegal. They are not allowed to force entry when dealing with a civil debt unless they have previously been allowed to enter freely.
I think most of the comments on here relate to the won't pays. There are a lot of people whose circumstances change & they find themselves unable to pay for quite genuine reasons. Some of these people have health problems (often mental health issues) which cause them to bury their heads in the sand. Such people do not deserve to be treated with the aggressive (sometimes law breaking) approach often used by bailiffs.
Saxy quotes a good example. Not only did they forge a signature but they attempted to force entry by pushing past her at the door. That is illegal. They are not allowed to force entry when dealing with a civil debt unless they have previously been allowed to enter freely.
//"so why didn't you pay the council tax in the first place then saxy, it was you who subjected your mum to all that not them."//
Because in the previous year (which the claim related to), OH had been unemployed and we couldn't afford to pay it all. The council lost our benefit application and even though we were paying them a reduced amount whilst waiting for it to be sorted out, they still decided to take it to court.
When faced with "pay up or we come in and take your stuff", you tend to look to your family for help. In this case it was my mum, who said she would pay for me just to get them off my back (I was two days out of hospital after surgery). It was they who insisted the call be carried out through their car window with their phone on loudspeaker so that everyone could hear my mum's credit card details being given.
I'm not some dodgy businesswoman who sells shoddy goods to people, and I'm not a freeloader. I'm just a hard up individual doing my best to pay my bills, and I work damned hard to do that. I do not expect to be threatened on my own doorstep by a pair of licensed (and fraudulent) thugs who seem to think they can do so just by dint of the fact that they're acting on a magistrate's order. And until I meet one who can offer the merest hint of civility then I will continue to hold that view. I've seen better manners from a bunch of council-estate teenagers.
Because in the previous year (which the claim related to), OH had been unemployed and we couldn't afford to pay it all. The council lost our benefit application and even though we were paying them a reduced amount whilst waiting for it to be sorted out, they still decided to take it to court.
When faced with "pay up or we come in and take your stuff", you tend to look to your family for help. In this case it was my mum, who said she would pay for me just to get them off my back (I was two days out of hospital after surgery). It was they who insisted the call be carried out through their car window with their phone on loudspeaker so that everyone could hear my mum's credit card details being given.
I'm not some dodgy businesswoman who sells shoddy goods to people, and I'm not a freeloader. I'm just a hard up individual doing my best to pay my bills, and I work damned hard to do that. I do not expect to be threatened on my own doorstep by a pair of licensed (and fraudulent) thugs who seem to think they can do so just by dint of the fact that they're acting on a magistrate's order. And until I meet one who can offer the merest hint of civility then I will continue to hold that view. I've seen better manners from a bunch of council-estate teenagers.
... and re TV licensing, ours lapsed when we moved house last year. The chap who came to the door about it a couple of months later was lovely. We explained what had happened and he was happy to arrange a payment plan there and then. No threats or bully boy tactics. Pleasure to deal with. But then he wasn't scum.
1 to 20 of 20
