Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Anonymous,CryptoPlankton,GrahamPlatt,Walkeia,genou, for Donating to support the site

Visit from Baliffs

Help and discussions for strategies to get out of debt
Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57096

Postby Lootman » June 1st, 2017, 12:28 pm

didds wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:Regarding the house, what happens if they don't sell it for 70 years? You're just supposed to wait until they die?

just for my own education - what if they do die but don't sell it and leave it to a 20 year old wifelet? Or favourite 20 year old grandchild?

Does the estate pay at that juncture?

My understanding is that the title cannot be transferred without satisfaction of any charges against that property. The title is not "clean" until such liabilities are discharged, and therefore the Land Registry will not transfer title.

It's the same with a mortgage, which is also a charge against the property. You cannot just "gift" a mortgaged property to somebody else without the consent of the lender.

DrBunsenHoneydew
Lemon Slice
Posts: 471
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 10:04 am
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57256

Postby DrBunsenHoneydew » June 2nd, 2017, 8:12 am

Lootman wrote:
didds wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:Regarding the house, what happens if they don't sell it for 70 years? You're just supposed to wait until they die?

just for my own education - what if they do die but don't sell it and leave it to a 20 year old wifelet? Or favourite 20 year old grandchild?

Does the estate pay at that juncture?

My understanding is that the title cannot be transferred without satisfaction of any charges against that property. The title is not "clean" until such liabilities are discharged, and therefore the Land Registry will not transfer title.

It's the same with a mortgage, which is also a charge against the property. You cannot just "gift" a mortgaged property to somebody else without the consent of the lender.

But if the 20 year old wifelet was a joint tenant owner the property ownership would pass entirely to her immediately on death with the lien, which might then still not be satisfied for decades potentially.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2844
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1168 times
Been thanked: 637 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57284

Postby melonfool » June 2nd, 2017, 11:08 am

DrBunsenHoneydew wrote:
Lootman wrote:
didds wrote:just for my own education - what if they do die but don't sell it and leave it to a 20 year old wifelet? Or favourite 20 year old grandchild?

Does the estate pay at that juncture?

My understanding is that the title cannot be transferred without satisfaction of any charges against that property. The title is not "clean" until such liabilities are discharged, and therefore the Land Registry will not transfer title.

It's the same with a mortgage, which is also a charge against the property. You cannot just "gift" a mortgaged property to somebody else without the consent of the lender.

But if the 20 year old wifelet was a joint tenant owner the property ownership would pass entirely to her immediately on death with the lien, which might then still not be satisfied for decades potentially.


I think a court can order a sale in those circumstances.

Mel

paulnumbers
Lemon Slice
Posts: 338
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:15 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57340

Postby paulnumbers » June 2nd, 2017, 2:12 pm

melonfool wrote:
DrBunsenHoneydew wrote:
Lootman wrote:My understanding is that the title cannot be transferred without satisfaction of any charges against that property. The title is not "clean" until such liabilities are discharged, and therefore the Land Registry will not transfer title.

It's the same with a mortgage, which is also a charge against the property. You cannot just "gift" a mortgaged property to somebody else without the consent of the lender.

But if the 20 year old wifelet was a joint tenant owner the property ownership would pass entirely to her immediately on death with the lien, which might then still not be satisfied for decades potentially.


I think a court can order a sale in those circumstances.

Mel


Even if they do, what if the wifelet refuses to move? Eventually you need might need force to remove them.

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1704
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 649 times
Been thanked: 1542 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57397

Postby Clitheroekid » June 2nd, 2017, 8:58 pm

Lootman wrote:The other weird thing about English law in regard of debts is the fact that bailiffs exist at all. There is no such entity in the US and, if there was, they would routinely be shot by armed homeowners.

If the US can manage without bailiffs (where they would routinely be shot) then why can't the UK?

That's not the case. Although the law varies from state to state most states do have the equivalent of bailiffs, who are authorised by the court to seize debtor's goods.

As a random example here's some information on the law in Michigan, which appears to be very similar to the law here - http://michiganlegalhelp.org/self-help- ... y-pay-debt

I'm not aware of a high number of Michigan bailiffs having been shot.

Anyway, bailiffs are a barbaric relic and should be outlawed. If you think I owe you, take me to court and make your case, having first made 100% sure I know about it and can defend myself.

You seem to be under a misapprehension. With the small exception of rent due for commercial premises bailiffs cannot be used to seize goods until a court judgment has been obtained. So the debtor has had every chance to defend himself.

With a court judgement you can place a charge or lien on my house or other asset, you can attach or garnish my sources of income, and you can apply to the court for other powers of collection, including interrogation of my assets and income under oath.

The reason bailiffs are employed is often because the debtor has no (or no identifiable) source of income and owns no property that could be charged. And the `interrogation of assets under oath' (which I assume to be a US term - the UK version is an `order that the debtor attend court for questioning') is a joke. Firstly, most debtors don't bother to turn up, and even if they do they `forget' to bring any evidence to support the tissue of lies they generally come out with.

You seem to be under the impression that debtors are poor, naive, downtrodden victims of merciless creditors. In 30 years of experience many debtors are professional debtors, who spend their lives incurring debts they have not the slightest intention of paying. They know more about debt collection law than most lawyers and also know which tactics to avoid payment work and which don't. They meticulously arrange their affairs with the prime intention of defeating creditors.

These people are scum, and I see it as excellent sport hunting them down and hacking through their various defences to get paid. Bailiffs can be very useful in these situations, as many such debtors make a point of dealing in cash, so as to avoid seizure of bank accounts. But a good bailiff can work out when the cash is likely to be handed over and pounce.

If I had wind of bailiffs coming to my house, and they have to give notice, then they would not find much of value - it would all be in a storage unit or with a friend.

This is why they don't have to give notice. They can just turn up unannounced, and the element of surprise is often the key to success.

In any event, the use of bailiffs is not common, considering how much debt there is out there. That tells me that it is not an efficient or cost-effective means of collection.

On the contrary, I seem to recall from a recent webinar I watched that the success rate is in excess of 70%. It's also a very cost-effective means of recovery as only a nominal fee is payable if the bailiffs aren't successful.

You should never discover a bailiff in your house. If you left a door or window open they can gain entry (as can a burglar)

They are no longer allowed to gain access through a window.

To me, the battle between creditors and debtors should be a battle of wits and guile, and not any form of physical altercation or action.

It should be entirely possible to resolve, negotiate, settle or collect debts without sending hefty goons round to your house.

In that context, the idea that one side can send some intimidating goons round to your house, and may even enter that house in some circumstances, strikes me as an unfair advantage to one side.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the real world. You appear to see a moral equivalence between creditors and debtors, but it's the debtor who is in the wrong, so the law should give the creditor an advantage.

I had a big fight with a builder years ago where I made only a part payment because the work was shoddy. He took me to court for the balance and won by default (I was out of the country and knew nothing about it). You can bet I did everything to avoid paying that "court proven debt". And I succeeded, albeit due to some luck - I moved house about the same time and the builder never found me.

You clearly didn't do everything to avoid paying the debt. What you should have done is apply to set the judgment aside, an application that would almost certainly have been granted. You could then have properly defended the claim.

As it is, the debt is still enforceable, and if it’s ever sold to a debt collection agency they will be easily able to find you. And the chances of getting the original judgment set aside when you've been aware of it now for years are minimal.

The one time I looked into doing this, I learned that the lien is valid for 10 years, and can be renewed at that point. Moreover 10% interest a year accrues the whole time - a rather better rate of return than you would get on most assets.

Once again I suspect you're quoting the law of some US state. For a start, there is no such thing as a `lien' on property in England - it's known as a charging order. And it's valid indefinitely, not for 10 years.

My understanding is that the title cannot be transferred without satisfaction of any charges against that property. The title is not "clean" until such liabilities are discharged, and therefore the Land Registry will not transfer title.

If a charging order is obtained over a property the creditor can then apply to the court for an order that the house be sold.

If the order is granted the creditor is in the same position as a mortgagee that has obtained a possession order - he has to pay mortgagees whose mortgages have priority to his, but can then keep what's left to satisfy his debt.

UncleEbenezer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3832
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 430 times
Been thanked: 638 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57433

Postby UncleEbenezer » June 3rd, 2017, 8:20 am

Clitheroekid wrote:If a charging order is obtained over a property the creditor can then apply to the court for an order that the house be sold.

If the order is granted the creditor is in the same position as a mortgagee that has obtained a possession order - he has to pay mortgagees whose mortgages have priority to his, but can then keep what's left to satisfy his debt.

For what it's worth ...

There's a somewhat-inspiring story at the housepricecrash website, that spun out over about a year in the telling (which is a lot quicker than I'd intuitively have expected from our courts). A poster called kaladorm was in dispute with his ex-landlord, and obtained a court order for payment. Landlord ignored the order, kaladorm didn't give up, and the whole thing escalated over several iterations at court (with the amount of the debt accruing court fees and interest all the time) until eventually kaladorm obtained a charge over the house he had rented, and finally an order to sell (repossess) it to satisfy the debt.

Just dug up the URL: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ ... rotection/

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57440

Postby Lootman » June 3rd, 2017, 9:14 am

Clitheroekid wrote:
In that context, the idea that one side can send some intimidating goons round to your house, and may even enter that house in some circumstances, strikes me as an unfair advantage to one side.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the real world. You appear to see a moral equivalence between creditors and debtors, but it's the debtor who is in the wrong, so the law should give the creditor an advantage.

I have to say that i am shocked that a licensed legal professional and officer of the court would have such a jaundiced and prejudicial view of the two sides of a legal dispute. Surely those scales atop Old Bailey (yes, I know it's a criminal court but bear with me) signify that the legal system should be balanced between both sides, and fair and equitable to both.

And yet you appear to be starting out with the view that debtors are "in the wrong" and "scum", whilst creditors are holy and beyond reproach. And therefore that the system should be rigged and skewed to one side over the other, and moreover to the side that has more money, power and ruthlessness.

Moreover, as a legal professional, I might hire you to defend me and my debts against a creditor. Since I feel sure you are a consummate professional, you would aggressively and passionately defend me against my creditor, seeking to parlay every possible argument, tactic and technicality in my favour, right?

Would you? Or would you regard me as "scum" and either refuse to represent me or do so in a half-hearted manner?

As for that "court proven debt" that I still owe to my builder, it was about 30 years ago now and I'm fairly sure he is no longer alive or in business. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I think I got away with it.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2844
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1168 times
Been thanked: 637 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57513

Postby melonfool » June 3rd, 2017, 2:14 pm

Clitheroekid said "many" debtors, not all.

Your horror is unjustified.

Mel

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57555

Postby Lootman » June 3rd, 2017, 4:44 pm

melonfool wrote:Clitheroekid said "many" debtors, not all.

Your horror is unjustified.

And many creditors are predatory, lending to people whom they know, or should know, will struggle to repay those debts.

So what we know is that many debtors may be "scum" and that many creditors may also be "scum". Which is why each case should be assessed on its own merits, rather than assume a default whereby the creditor is the good guy and the debtor is the bad guy.

My horror was at the idea that the legal profession might have biases and prejudices that cause the judicial system to be skewed towards creditors. Which makes it all the more important that laws are passed that further protect debtors from unfair and aggressive collection methods. Much progress has been made in that regard, and it was interesting to hear from CK that bailiffs can no longer enter through windows, for instance.

But more could and should be done.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2844
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1168 times
Been thanked: 637 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57681

Postby melonfool » June 4th, 2017, 10:48 am

Lootman wrote: it was interesting to hear from CK that bailiffs can no longer enter through windows, for instance.



Many of us already knew this and don't go around scare mongering by posting stuff when we don't know what we';re talking about. Or we do some research.

It's a lot less emotionally trying to only rail against things that are actually true.

Mel

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57702

Postby Lootman » June 4th, 2017, 12:34 pm

melonfool wrote:
Lootman wrote: it was interesting to hear from CK that bailiffs can no longer enter through windows, for instance.

Many of us already knew this and don't go around scare mongering by posting stuff when we don't know what we';re talking about. Or we do some research.

It's a lot less emotionally trying to only rail against things that are actually true.

The window-entering thing was tangential since that didn't happen with the OP. My comments on the problems of bailiffs stand regardless of which mode of access they may or may not use.

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1701
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 390 times
Been thanked: 401 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57713

Postby GoSeigen » June 4th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Lootman wrote:
Clitheroekid wrote:
In that context, the idea that one side can send some intimidating goons round to your house, and may even enter that house in some circumstances, strikes me as an unfair advantage to one side.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the real world. You appear to see a moral equivalence between creditors and debtors, but it's the debtor who is in the wrong, so the law should give the creditor an advantage.

I have to say that i am shocked that a licensed legal professional and officer of the court would have such a jaundiced and prejudicial view of the two sides of a legal dispute. Surely those scales atop Old Bailey (yes, I know it's a criminal court but bear with me) signify that the legal system should be balanced between both sides, and fair and equitable to both.

And yet you appear to be starting out with the view that debtors are "in the wrong" and "scum", whilst creditors are holy and beyond reproach. And therefore that the system should be rigged and skewed to one side over the other, and moreover to the side that has more money, power and ruthlessness.


I hope I'm not the only reader who can see the misunderstanding of what CK had said.

CK certainly didn't start out with the view that debtors are in the wrong. CK was speaking in the context of a bailiff entering that debtor's property which, he had clearly explained, could only happen as a consequence of the court having already judged the debtor to be in the wrong. That is, he considers the debtor in the wrong post judice, not pre judice. And I find no assertion by CK that "creditors are holy and beyond reproach". Straw man.

Furthermore:
So what we know is that many debtors may be "scum" and that many creditors may also be "scum". Which is why each case should be assessed on its own merits, rather than assume a default whereby the creditor is the good guy and the debtor is the bad guy.

CK never claimed that "many debtors are scum" as a generality, but was referring to that specific class of debtors he described as deliberately and repeatedly gaming the system to avoid paying their debts.

I guess it's just easier to attack a distortion of the argument advanced by one's adversary...

GS

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57730

Postby Lootman » June 4th, 2017, 2:18 pm

GoSeigen wrote:CK certainly didn't start out with the view that debtors are in the wrong. CK was speaking in the context of a bailiff entering that debtor's property which, he had clearly explained, could only happen as a consequence of the court having already judged the debtor to be in the wrong. That is, he considers the debtor in the wrong post judice, not pre judice.

But the OP's story shows exactly the flaw in that reasoning. A court judgement can be obtained without the debtor necessarily knowing anything about it. The courts routinely declare judgements by default when the debtor/defendant doesn't show up. And much of the reason the defendant doesn't show up is that they didn't know anything about it. That happened with the OP, it happened with me, and it happens with others. That's the problem when claimants can sidestep the need for personal service of summons.

Now, CK is correct that you can later go to the court and get the judgement set aside. But that doesn't help you when two hefty goons show up at the front door and start intimidating you. So the problem exists and is real.

And having re-read CK's comments, I still come away with the view that he sees creditors as somehow intrinsically more honest and honourable than debtors, and that is not my experience. In fact, when in the past i have elected to stiff a creditor, it was precisely because they behaved like entitled jerks.

I would prefer a system where physicality plays no part. And the fact that debt collectors have had many of their former aggressive practices outlawed shows clearly that the trend is to further restrict such unsavoury and manipulative practices.

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1704
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 649 times
Been thanked: 1542 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57991

Postby Clitheroekid » June 5th, 2017, 9:24 pm

Lootman wrote:
Clitheroekid wrote:
In that context, the idea that one side can send some intimidating goons round to your house, and may even enter that house in some circumstances, strikes me as an unfair advantage to one side.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the real world. You appear to see a moral equivalence between creditors and debtors, but it's the debtor who is in the wrong, so the law should give the creditor an advantage.

I have to say that i am shocked that a licensed legal professional and officer of the court would have such a jaundiced and prejudicial view of the two sides of a legal dispute. Surely those scales atop Old Bailey (yes, I know it's a criminal court but bear with me) signify that the legal system should be balanced between both sides, and fair and equitable to both.

And yet you appear to be starting out with the view that debtors are "in the wrong" and "scum", whilst creditors are holy and beyond reproach. And therefore that the system should be rigged and skewed to one side over the other, and moreover to the side that has more money, power and ruthlessness.

Whilst I apologise for not having recognised your low shock threshold you appear not to have read the whole of my post. When I said
These people are scum
it should have been quite obvious that I was specifically referring to those described in the previous paragraph -
professional debtors, who spend their lives incurring debts they have not the slightest intention of paying.

You also appear to have entirely overlooked the fact that the debtors being pursued by bailiffs are those that have had a court judgment registered against them, and that it's therefore quite fair to say that they are "in the wrong". It's therefore absurd to extend my criticism of professional debtors that have had a court judgment against them to include ordinary debtors who haven't.

You say:
The courts routinely declare judgements by default when the debtor/defendant doesn't show up. And much of the reason the defendant doesn't show up is that they didn't know anything about it.

Yes, there are some default judgments against people who knew nothing about it. But there are a damn sight more against people who know perfectly well that they owe the money but never had any intention of paying it and frankly don't give two hoots about the judgment, as they know from long experience that it'll probably not be pursued with any vigour and will eventually get written off.

And as I said, there is a quite straightforward procedure to get a default judgment set aside if the debtor knew nothing about the claim. In fact some professional debtors will deliberately allow a default judgment to be registered and the creditor to incur further enforcement costs in the hope that they won't be found. If they are found then they just put in an application to set aside, sometimes accompanied by an offer of maybe 10% or 20% of the debt, knowing that the cost of dealing with the application will often be as much as the debt itself.

Moreover, as a legal professional, I might hire you to defend me and my debts against a creditor. Since I feel sure you are a consummate professional, you would aggressively and passionately defend me against my creditor, seeking to parlay every possible argument, tactic and technicality in my favour, right?

Would you? Or would you regard me as "scum" and either refuse to represent me or do so in a half-hearted manner?

It would entirely depend on the circumstances. If you were a professional debtor who was trying to screw over an honest and reasonable creditor I probably would label you as scum, and refuse to act for you. It's one of the many privileges of being an independent lawyer - I don't have to act for scumbags just because I need their fees to keep my bosses / partners in new BMW's.

You seem to be under the impression that a lawyer has a positive obligation to
parlay every possible argument, tactic and technicality
. This is not the case. In purely abstract terms the lawyer's job is to try to obtain justice for his client. Of course this view is often severely at odds with that of the client, who simply wants the best result for himself even if this results in his opponent suffering a serious injustice.

Each case is different and it can sometimes be a difficult decision whether to take on a client or not. However, I'm quite happy to admit that I do make moral judgments when making such a decision. Sometimes I will take on a morally dubious client if I think his opponent is even worse and sometimes I will refuse to assist a client who may have the law on his side but wants to use it to oppress someone.

You may well consider this approach to fall short of the principle that a lawyer will fight his hardest for every client, irrespective of his own views. But that's pure theory, as any practising lawyer will admit. If you don't believe in your client's case you can't advocate it with the vigour it needs. There are plenty of lawyers who will quite happily accept such cases simply because they are happy to relieve the client of his cash and really don't give a damn about the outcome. But maybe that's why I don't practise in criminal law! ;)

I would prefer a system where physicality plays no part.

And I would prefer a system where judgment debtors behaved like decent chaps and paid up because they felt it was the right thing to do. But sadly many judgment debtors are far from decent chaps, and a good kicking (metaphorically speaking of course!) from a determined bailiff is by far the best way of dealing with them.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 6043
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 933 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#58047

Postby Lootman » June 6th, 2017, 10:02 am

Clitheroekid wrote:I was specifically referring to those described in the previous paragraph -
professional debtors, who spend their lives incurring debts they have not the slightest intention of paying.

I realised that but when you said "many" I took that as expressing the view that the percentage of all debtors who set out with the intention of not repaying a debt was high. I would have thought it was actually fairly low, if only because that would actually be a crime - fraud. Such a case should surely be reported to the police or the DPP, and I imagine that's a low figure relative to all debts.

Surely the vast majority of debtors are not committing crimes? I would imagine such debts arise either because of a personal misfortune like losing a job, or because of predatory lending practices, or because the creditor acts badly and the debtor regards repayment as inappropriate (as in my case with the builder).

Clitheroekid wrote:You seem to be under the impression that a lawyer has a positive obligation to
parlay every possible argument, tactic and technicality
.
This is not the case. In purely abstract terms the lawyer's job is to try to obtain justice for his client. Of course this view is often severely at odds with that of the client, who simply wants the best result for himself even if this results in his opponent suffering a serious injustice.

Each case is different and it can sometimes be a difficult decision whether to take on a client or not. However, I'm quite happy to admit that I do make moral judgments when making such a decision. Sometimes I will take on a morally dubious client if I think his opponent is even worse and sometimes I will refuse to assist a client who may have the law on his side but wants to use it to oppress someone.

You may well consider this approach to fall short of the principle that a lawyer will fight his hardest for every client, irrespective of his own views. But that's pure theory, as any practising lawyer will admit. If you don't believe in your client's case you can't advocate it with the vigour it needs. There are plenty of lawyers who will quite happily accept such cases simply because they are happy to relieve the client of his cash and really don't give a damn about the outcome. But maybe that's why I don't practise in criminal law! ;)

I think this raises a host of philosophical questions about what the role of a lawyer is or should be, and the topic may be worthy of its own thread. I certainly think you are entitled to only take on cases and clients whom you feel comfortable with. I would do the same. But then everyone is entitled to a defence, even "scum".

"Obtaining justice for your client" is an interesting phrase because it presupposes what that justice is. It is common for an aggrieved party to say "I want justice", meaning that they want a fat payout to compensate them for their perceived loss. But having consulted a dozen or more lawyers in my life, I can honestly say I have never walked into their office and said "I'd like some justice please", as if I was buying some eggs. I go in and say "I want to win".

So yes, I do expect my lawyer to do "whatever (legal) it takes". If there is a technicality that enables me to walk free then, damn straight, you'd better find it and use it. Now I understand why you personally might not be willing to do that, if you have unusually high standards of impeccability. And that is why you don't take on criminal cases. I imagine a lot of your work is more routine and non-confrontational, like conveyancing, drawing up wills, leases and contracts, family and trust law, and so on.

But when mafia boss John "The Teflon Don" Gotti walked into the offices of Alex Cutler, the renowned New York defence lawyer, I'm pretty sure he didn't say "Please get me justice". He said "Please get me off". And he did, multiple times (*). Most people don't give a rat's a**e about "justice"; they just want to win. Which is why debtors move house a lot and why creditors use bailiffs. You may see the practice of law as a moral crusade, but I suspect most people see it more as a winner-takes-all sport.

(*) There were allegations of juror tampering, to be fair.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2844
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1168 times
Been thanked: 637 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#58054

Postby melonfool » June 6th, 2017, 10:16 am

Technically a lawyer's duty is to the court.

Debt isn't a (usually) crime, it's a civil tort.

(that rhymes!)

Mel

daveh
Lemon Slice
Posts: 609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#245066

Postby daveh » August 17th, 2019, 5:16 pm

didds wrote:When i was in my early 20s I shared a flat in Brixton with a couple of chums who were themselves only a couple of years older.

My recollections are somewhat faded now after 30-ish years, but fundamentally we came home one evening to find a letter from lambeth Council addressed to the landlady of the flat - the letter had URGENT and OPEN NOW and red piping around the outside. So we opened it (yes I know...).

It was a final final final demand for unpaid rates for some considerable time and threatening her with all sorts of action icluding bailiffs to remove property etc.

Everything we three owned was "unprovable" as being ours. we were very young men and werent; in any habit of keeping wads of receipts for boomboxes we'd owned for a decade already and the like. So we just moved out asap and took our belongings with us.



didds

I had a similar experience as a student in a shared house, the bailifs turned up with a court order for non payment of rates. They were very civil, there was no threats to take our stuff, they just informed us that we had to pay our next x months rent to them to pay off the landlord's rates bill and not to the landlord.

UncleEbenezer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3832
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 430 times
Been thanked: 638 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#245170

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 18th, 2019, 9:12 am

daveh wrote:I had a similar experience as a student in a shared house, the bailifs turned up with a court order for non payment of rates. They were very civil, there was no threats to take our stuff, they just informed us that we had to pay our next x months rent to them to pay off the landlord's rates bill and not to the landlord.

Isn't that a bit of a dilemma for you?

How does a bunch of students (or other innocent folks) verify that bailiffs and their court order are real, as opposed to a pure fraud that'll leave you in rent arrears to a landlord who has every right to your rent? I once had a slightly-similar dilemma when my landlords got divorced: she wrote to me instructing me to change the account I paid rent into; I declined to change anything until both of them had verified it; she was unhappy.

And of course, once you've verified it's real, and even in these days of deposit protection, you're going to end up in a difficult position with someone who holds power over your lives and a key to your home, and who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law!

daveh
Lemon Slice
Posts: 609
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#245360

Postby daveh » August 19th, 2019, 8:36 am

UncleEbenezer wrote:
daveh wrote:I had a similar experience as a student in a shared house, the bailifs turned up with a court order for non payment of rates. They were very civil, there was no threats to take our stuff, they just informed us that we had to pay our next x months rent to them to pay off the landlord's rates bill and not to the landlord.

Isn't that a bit of a dilemma for you?

How does a bunch of students (or other innocent folks) verify that bailiffs and their court order are real, as opposed to a pure fraud that'll leave you in rent arrears to a landlord who has every right to your rent? I once had a slightly-similar dilemma when my landlords got divorced: she wrote to me instructing me to change the account I paid rent into; I declined to change anything until both of them had verified it; she was unhappy.

And of course, once you've verified it's real, and even in these days of deposit protection, you're going to end up in a difficult position with someone who holds power over your lives and a key to your home, and who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law!



A long time ago so my recollection is somewhat blurred by time, but I don't think we were that worried. I recall we checked with the council that it was real and just did what was required. Being students we all moved out at the end of the year anyway, so we didn't have that long to cope with the landlord.

Not sure how I'd cope these days beeing older, wiser and more prone to stress, but with the resilience/ignorance of youth it didn't seem such a problem.


Return to “Dealing with Debt”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests