Quatloos!

Yeah, that seems problematic. No one involved in making or enforcing laws should be in a position to benefit from there being more lawbreaking.

grixit wrote:Yeah, that seems problematic.

I wouldn't use the world "problematic"... "Bullshit" perhaps but not "problematic".

Firthy2002 wrote:In a weird way I miss BTBAB. Mostly because of the shenanigans and laughably bad advice.

With Nadine and all the admin team enjoying their fun day out in a wet field yesterday, it was left to others to help a 'vulnerable' debtor deal with an unexpected visit from a bailiff who gained entry into the property (the door had been left open). He was collecting arrears of council tax.

It was bloody hilarious. Not one of them had a clue. In a two hour period, nearly 900 posts. One minute the lady was being told to call the police and report trespass and the next minute, not to call the police as they will take the side of the bailiff.

She mentioned that she has Fibromyalgia....that was it, they were off.......VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLD.

The lot of them were running around like headless chickens. "What medication are your on".... "Show him your repeat prescription". It all went a bit quiet when it was revealed that she takes over the counter pain relief and she is employed.

The common theme was to get her to taunt the bailiff by filming him and to ensure that she didn't pay a penny or sign any documents.

Bungle wrote:

Firthy2002 wrote:In a weird way I miss BTBAB. Mostly because of the shenanigans and laughably bad advice.

With Nadine and all the admin team enjoying their fun day out in a wet field yesterday, it was left to others to help a 'vulnerable' debtor deal with an unexpected visit from a bailiff who gained entry into the property (the door had been left open). He was collecting arrears of council tax.

It was bloody hilarious. Not one of them had a clue. In a two hour period, nearly 900 posts. One minute the lady was being told to call the police and report trespass and the next minute, not to call the police as they will take the side of the bailiff.

She mentioned that she has Fibromyalgia....that was it, they were off.......VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLD.

The lot of them were running around like headless chickens. "What medication are your on".... "Show him your repeat prescription". It all went a bit quiet when it was revealed that she takes over the counter pain relief and she is employed.

The common theme was to get her to taunt the bailiff by filming him and to ensure that she didn't pay a penny or sign any documents.

To be fair some of the advice given on that post was actually quite sensible, IE do not ignore and set up a repayment plan. It was also actually refreshing to see people being allowed to post without the bickering Nadine and Carl cause on every occasion. Once Nadine is back in the saddle some of those posts are going to be removed along with the poor unfortunates that dared to post them. Pay money you owe- how dare you suggest that.

Oh don't say that FFS.

Bungle likes to think that she's the only person on the internet who can give good advice on bailiff issues.

The fact of the matter is that people in debt are being hammered by rogue bailiffs on a daily basis, driven by commission based contracts that sees them in a situation whereby the more the debtor is charged, the more the bailiff earns.

Bungles advice is invariably to tell the debtor to pay, regardless of whether the fees are due or not.

Tuco wrote:Oh don't say that FFS.

Bungle likes to think that she's the only person on the internet who can give good advice on bailiff issues.

The fact of the matter is that people in debt are being hammered by rogue bailiffs on a daily basis, driven by commission based contracts that sees them in a situation whereby the more the debtor is charged, the more the bailiff earns.

Bungles advice is invariably to tell the debtor to pay, regardless of whether the fees are due or not.

As it happens i fully agree, Bailiff fees it is apparent are extortionate. I am in the fortunate position though where i have never had to fend a bailiff off. Repayment plan with the original debtor before it gets to the bailiff stage or once it gets sent back. I certainly would not be advising paying what the bailiff wants but as i said i would never let it get to the bailiff stage.

Your childish spat with Bungle is of no interest to me, but you keep posting remarks like you are and I bet you a fiver you will not be around long enough to post many more replies. Bungle is allowed an opinion or is a different opinion not acceptable on the forums you normally frequent?

You do realise that many bailiff issues arise from CCJ's amounting to many thousands of pounds? It's not all £195 council tax arrears or £202 PCN debts you know?

Whereas you may be fortunate enough to have 5 grand in your back pocket, I can assure you that many others don't. Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed. The situation in these cases is worse now than it has ever been, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

You may well think my spat with Bungle is childish-I can assure you it is not. She is causing severe harm to genuine debtors all in order to fuel her campaign against a business rival. She is equally as dangerous as BTAB in my opinion.

I have not stated that Bungle is not allowed her opinion. I would however ask you to afford me mine.

I think the point here is that it is best to recognize that the debt is actually owed and try to actually work out payment with the before it gets to the Bailiff. If you can't afford your debts, a bankruptcy may be in order if you are unable to restructure out make payment plans with the debtor. However, claiming a debt is invalid, sending the three/five letters, or just plain evasion, is not going to work. If you incurred the debt, best thing to do is pay it.

One other point, paying a debt stops all additional fees and costs. If the debt is actually illegitimate, you can sue for it back, and recover it, plus potentially costs, interest, and depending on egregiousness, punitive damages.

It is always important to recognize debts. We all know that. For one reason or another, life doesn't always work out that perfectly does it?

Whilst it is always an option to sue, it is not always that easy. Hardly any solicitors will touch small claims on DBA's, leaving people who are already in debt faced with the impossible task of finding solicitors fees to pay up front.

Tuco wrote:You do realise that many bailiff issues arise from CCJ's amounting to many thousands of pounds? It's not all £195 council tax arrears or £202 PCN debts you know?

Whereas you may be fortunate enough to have 5 grand in your back pocket, I can assure you that many others don't. Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed. The situation in these cases is worse now than it has ever been, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

You may well think my spat with Bungle is childish-I can assure you it is not. She is causing severe harm to genuine debtors all in order to fuel her campaign against a business rival. She is equally as dangerous as BTAB in my opinion.

I have not stated that Bungle is not allowed her opinion. I would however ask you to afford me mine.

I afford you your opinion of course, I would not be posting on this forum if diverse opinion was not allowed. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot because Bungle aside you make some very good points. Like NYGman says though a lot of the pain could be be avoided if people faced up to reality before it reaches the bailiff stage. Like it or not though Tuco there is a hard core within BTBATB that is quite happy to try and grab what they can for free. Nadines banning of people who disagreed with Benefit Fraud is is just one example. Chrissy Morrisy's screams of vulnerable household for every situation is also not helping anyone, his bullying tactics are not helping the genuine vulnerable cases. Carl Cunningham has to put his bong down just long enough to advise someone to fight the system. BTBATB like CA3 is infested with anti-establishment sov cits who are happy to use others to forward their cause. I like you obviously have, have genuine concerns about how bailiffs are allowed to operate in the UK. Yes it needs sorting but not by the likes of Nadine Potter or Carl Cunningham, they are causing far more harm than good.

It just seems in many of these posts, videos, etc the Bailiffs are only there after all legitimate attempts to collect valid debts have failed. The easiest way to avoid a Bailiffs visit is to net get to that point. That would avoid all the extra fees. Bailiffs don't work for free, and they shouldn't have to.

NYGman wrote:It just seems in many of these posts, videos, etc the Bailiffs are only there after all legitimate attempts to collect valid debts have failed. The easiest way to avoid a Bailiffs visit is to net get to that point. That would avoid all the extra fees. Bailiffs don't work for free, and they shouldn't have to.

I 100% agree. By the same token, bailiffs are generally acting on behalf of the courts or the Government. They above everyone should act inside the law. Sadly they do not.

The videos that you see are the Chrisy Morris/Ceylon/Wesley Ahmed type of situations, where it is more important for the person making the video to promote themselves than it is the debtor to be helped.

The single working mum, living on the breadline doesn't think to start filming, she is too upset at the threat of her goods being removed, likewise the middle aged couple who are told their house will be stripped if £5,000 isn't paid immediately. I've even seen Ceylons slap head mate on a bailiff video, I mean come on, the moron has the brains of a chaffinch, I doubt he knows the name of the Prime minister. Who in the right frame of mind would want that prat advising on your behalf?

We are never going to have a situation when every debtor negotiates an amicable settlement before bailiffs are engaged. Many UK councils use bailiffs when they have other recovery methods at their disposal that ought to be considered first. They fast track to bailiffs in the hope that threats and intimidation will drive the debtor to pay faster.

Tuco wrote: Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed.

That looks outrageous - do you have any evidence?

Pox wrote:

Tuco wrote: Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed.

That looks outrageous - do you have any evidence?

Yes, I do. The bailiffs are clearly working on a commission. Many judgement debts are now being passed up to High Court enforcement by creditors (which is their right). The fee scale is entirely different for this type of enforcement. It is as follows:

Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00 (plus 7'5% of any figure above £1,000)
2nd enforcement fee £495.00
Sale/disposal fee £525.00 (plus 7.5% of any figure above £1,000)

A bailiff who calls for a debt of £5,000 and collects payment should charge:
Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
TOTAL £565.00


They are actually charging:
Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
2nd enforcement fee £495.00
Sale/disposal fee 525.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
TOTAL £1,885.00


On top of these figures, VAT is added. I have however, been looking at a case this weekend where a Judge determined that VAT should not be added to the bill.

Not all companies add all of the fees, as shown above, it is one in particular. However, several add the second enforcement fee as a matter of course, even if the debtor pays.

The figures are exceedingly high and there seems to be no protection for debtors. Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money out of someone elses misfortune.

Skeleton wrote:

Tuco wrote:You do realise that many bailiff issues arise from CCJ's amounting to many thousands of pounds? It's not all £195 council tax arrears or £202 PCN debts you know?

Whereas you may be fortunate enough to have 5 grand in your back pocket, I can assure you that many others don't. Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed. The situation in these cases is worse now than it has ever been, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

You may well think my spat with Bungle is childish-I can assure you it is not. She is causing severe harm to genuine debtors all in order to fuel her campaign against a business rival. She is equally as dangerous as BTAB in my opinion.

I have not stated that Bungle is not allowed her opinion. I would however ask you to afford me mine.

I afford you your opinion of course, I would not be posting on this forum if diverse opinion was not allowed. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot because Bungle aside you make some very good points. Like NYGman says though a lot of the pain could be be avoided if people faced up to reality before it reaches the bailiff stage. Like it or not though Tuco there is a hard core within BTBATB that is quite happy to try and grab what they can for free. Nadines banning of people who disagreed with Benefit Fraud is is just one example. Chrissy Morrisy's screams of vulnerable household for every situation is also not helping anyone, his bullying tactics are not helping the genuine vulnerable cases. Carl Cunningham has to put his bong down just long enough to advise someone to fight the system. BTBATB like CA3 is infested with anti-establishment sov cits who are happy to use others to forward their cause. I like you obviously have, have genuine concerns about how bailiffs are allowed to operate in the UK. Yes it needs sorting but not by the likes of Nadine Potter or Carl Cunningham, they are causing far more harm than good.

Bungle is not averse to grabbing what she can for free either. Unfortunately for her, just as her signature proclaims, she failed as well and ended up with her name in several newspapers. Moral of the story-Bob Dylan was wrong, it doesn't pay to live outside the law.

Morris really is not worth the attention-It's what he craves. I really struggle to even look at his ugly mug, even when he has his hood up.

I have no idea who this Nadine is that everyone mentions but I suspect she's just another idiot who hasn't a clue about what she's talking about. Likewise Cunningham. What people need to remember about these idiots is that they don't crave resolution, they crave confrontation. People who visit these Facebook pages really need their heads looking at.

Tuco wrote:

Pox wrote:

Tuco wrote: Bailiffs are charging debtors over £2,000 for one visit in these cases, on top of what is owed.

That looks outrageous - do you have any evidence?

Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00 (plus 7'5% of any figure above £1,000)
2nd enforcement fee £495.00
Sale/disposal fee £525.00 (plus 7.5% of any figure above £1,000)

A bailiff who calls for a debt of £5,000 and collects payment should charge:
Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
TOTAL £565.00


They are actually charging:
Compliance fee £75.00
1st enforcement fee £190.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
2nd enforcement fee £495.00
Sale/disposal fee 525.00
7.5% of £4,000 £300.00
TOTAL £1,885.00

I am guessing that you are referring to one particular case here?

Why is 7.5% added twice?
And why a 'second enforcement' fee?

As an aside, I don't have a problem with anybody being paid a commission for their work, as long as the rules and the law are abided by but I can imagine that this will not always be the case.

You are guessing wrong.

I am referring to EVERY SINGLE CASE that I see involving one particular High court Enforcement Agency.

Many other agencies charge the second enforcement fee when only the first should have been implemented.

The 7.5% is added twice to reflect the supposed added responsibility that HCEO's hold. Rather ironic given that the HCEO of this particular company resides outside of the UK and is highly likely to be outside of redress, hence taking on no added responsibility whatsoever. The £1,000 sale fee is added simply because of an alleged phone call for a tow truck/removal van to attend (which never does). Money for old rope you might think? In my mind this type of scam is far more worrying than anything the Chrisy Morris's of this world can pull but I somehow suspect that it won't attract interest on here.

Several High Court Enforcement agencies do not operate a commission based package (as is always the case with council tax, PCN's etc). There is enough money within the fee schedule to enable these people to operate lawfully. Peoples cars are also being removed on a regular basis, rather than any time afforded to pay the debt back. Hich court enforcement in the UK is currently out of control IMO.

Tuco wrote:You are guessing wrong.

I am referring to EVERY SINGLE CASE that I see involving one particular High court Enforcement Agency.

Many other agencies charge the second enforcement fee when only the first should have been implemented.

£1,885 plus VAT (20% additional tax) is a scandalous fee for making two collection visits, unless a helicopter is actually necessary. £565 would be the higher end of reasonable, to put it politely.

One theory behind punitive fees is to give people an incentive to not fail at paying their taxes or fees or citations timely.

Hercule Parrot wrote:

Tuco wrote:You are guessing wrong.

I am referring to EVERY SINGLE CASE that I see involving one particular High court Enforcement Agency.

Many other agencies charge the second enforcement fee when only the first should have been implemented.

£1,885 plus VAT (20% additional tax) is a scandalous fee for making two collection visits, unless a helicopter is actually necessary. £565 would be the higher end of reasonable, to put it politely.

They charge it for one visit, not two.