Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34,Anonymous, for Donating to support the site

Visit from Baliffs

Help and discussions for strategies to get out of debt
Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#55823

Postby Lootman » May 24th, 2017, 7:44 pm

XFool wrote:But surely the point being made is that the bailiffs are executing an order based on the court ruling! If you (illegally) send "4 big men around" to anybody's house you can expect a visit from the police.

Yes, I understood that. I was criticising more the expressed idea that the use of force or intimidation has any role in the satisfaction of a civil claim. And if that really wasn't a factor, then why aren't bailiffs petite older women rather than large, unpleasant men?

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.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2599 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#55826

Postby XFool » May 24th, 2017, 7:54 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:But surely the point being made is that the bailiffs are executing an order based on the court ruling! If you (illegally) send "4 big men around" to anybody's house you can expect a visit from the police.

Yes, I understood that. I was criticising more the expressed idea that the use of force or intimidation has any role in the satisfaction of a civil claim. And if that really wasn't a factor, then why aren't bailiffs petite older women rather than large, unpleasant men?

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.

Surely it's more psychology than anything else? Bailiffs, like anyone else, are not allowed to use physical violence. Obviously they would, like anyone else, be allowed to defend themselves. But if it looked as if things were kicking off they would call the police.

I once had bailiffs call. I was woken up one Sunday morning with much banging on the front door and windows. A crowd of people were telling the neighbours: "He hasn't been paying his bills."

One was on a mobile when I opened the front door. As soon as I opened the door I got a: "Sorry mate!" and they melted away. I guess they had come to the wrong address.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#55830

Postby Lootman » May 24th, 2017, 8:12 pm

XFool wrote:Surely it's more psychology than anything else? Bailiffs, like anyone else, are not allowed to use physical violence. Obviously they would, like anyone else, be allowed to defend themselves. But if it looked as if things were kicking off they would call the police.

Agreed, but the reason that psychology works is because it is a form of intimidation and suggests physicality and aggression.

The law has removed many of the worst practices that creditors used to engage in to recover debts, but the ability to send round bailiffs strikes me as a throwback to the bad old days of those techniques. And there really is no reason for it, given that liens and attachments can be effective. But, as in your example, they are also trying to shame and humiliate the alleged debtor.

It should be entirely possible to resolve, negotiate, settle or collect debts without sending hefty goons round to your house. It's really asking for trouble and escalation, and I fail to see how that fits with common notions of a civil society.

Corvid
Posts: 33
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:46 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56493

Postby Corvid » May 28th, 2017, 8:25 pm

Lootman:

It should be entirely possible to resolve, negotiate, settle or collect debts


Really? Have you seen some of the liars on this TV programme? Only way is to threaten to remove their goods. Any violence always comes from the debtors side never the enforcement. You're really not living in the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... QY6whfy1Sc

Corvid.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56599

Postby Lootman » May 29th, 2017, 5:04 pm

Corvid wrote:Lootman: It should be entirely possible to resolve, negotiate, settle or collect debts

Really? Have you seen some of the liars on this TV programme? Only way is to threaten to remove their goods. Any violence always comes from the debtors side never the enforcement. You're really not living in the real world.

I haven't seen that TV show and so cannot comment on whether it is "the real world" or a carefully cherry-picked set of incidents for the purpose of maximum entertainment.

But my point was more that the battle between creditors and debtors should be seen essentially as a battle of wits, and not a physical bout. Whoever is the smarter, or more devious or determined, wins the day. The creditor has certain advantages - more resources, more experience of collection and the ability to use the legal system to his benefit. But the debtor has advantages too, perhaps being more determined, and having the ability to delay, obfuscate, move, hide and generally frustrate his adversary.

Also, a creditor is likely to have many debtors. If he can collect 80% of the debts he is owed, he may be very happy, especially if it is a debt collection business that perhaps paid 50% of face value for that debt. Whereas the debtor may only have one debt, believes in his cause, and will fight to be part of that 20% that is "forgiven".

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. To my mind the battle should be one of wits not brawn, which is why most "physical" methods of debt collection have been outlawed. I believe that this should be outlawed as well, even if it means a few creditors are less happy as a result.

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7943
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 3625 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56606

Postby swill453 » May 29th, 2017, 5:27 pm

Lootman wrote:But my point was more that the battle between creditors and debtors should be seen essentially as a battle of wits, and not a physical bout.

If you've got a reluctant debtor, with court-proven debts, whose only assets are physical, and who hunkers down and just says "No" (or goes underground), what else can the creditor do but get "physical"* themself?

* - of course I mean seize assets, not break legs.

Scott.

Corvid
Posts: 33
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:46 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56639

Postby Corvid » May 29th, 2017, 10:17 pm

I haven't seen that TV show ... In that context, the idea that one side can send some intimidating goons round to your house,

Lootman

Maybe if you watch it you'll have a better understanding. A woman with cancer rents out her house so she can get away from the city to relax and recuperate. Tenant doesn't pay the rent. Her only source of income. And he trashes the place.

One of the "goons" is called Paul Bowhill and he is over 70. Very effective at recovering debts but is very empathetic and will help and advise the debtors.

These court officials do not go to collect the debt until a court has found that the debtor is liable and they have refused to pay.

swill453 has it spot on.

Corvid.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56641

Postby Lootman » May 29th, 2017, 10:44 pm

swill453 wrote:
Lootman wrote:But my point was more that the battle between creditors and debtors should be seen essentially as a battle of wits, and not a physical bout.

If you've got a reluctant debtor, with court-proven debts, whose only assets are physical, and who hunkers down and just says "No" (or goes underground), what else can the creditor do but get "physical"* themself?

* - of course I mean seize assets, not break legs.

All I can do is repeat my earlier statement that other countries seem to manage to collect debts without physical intervention.

And of course, as we saw in the OP's case, often these "court proven debts" were cases that were won by default, where the defendant did not or could not give his side of the story, or wasn't even aware that the case was happening. In the OP's case, it wasn't even his debt!

There are other cases where the debt is really a refusal to pay part or all of a debt because the product or service was faulty. 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.

ten0rman
Lemon Slice
Posts: 525
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56804

Postby ten0rman » May 30th, 2017, 9:28 pm

I do watch some of the programmes mentioned, and whilst I have absolutely no sympathy for the crooks amongst them, I do find that there is one aspect of what appears to happen which I find rather worrying. In a recent case, the bailiffs were looking for the son of the house, they got into the house, and when the son said that he had no money and couldn't pay, the bailiffs started listing the parents goods and saying that unless the parents can prove ownership, they would take the goods. I have seen this in, I think, a couple of other episodes as well.

Now, I don't know about other people, but I would be hard pressed to, for example prove that the computer I'm using right now, was bought by me, and certainly my "backup" computer, being s/h, I cannot prove is mine. Which means that if my youngest son, aged 28, and currently living with us short term, was in this sort of trouble, then I could see my goods disappearing into the back of the bailiffs van, and it then being up to me, having nothing to do with the debt other than being the parent, having to spend time and money going to court to reclaim my goods. And that is rather worrying. Does it mean then that we should all keep receipts for all our purchases until said item is finally disposed of? I am aware that people can and will lie, but at the same time, it can easily be proven that, eg in my case, I own this property, have lived here for a long number of years, and I am the parent of the 28 year old, and hence there is a strong likelihood that the vast majority of the items in this house are owned by me. And therefore why should I be made responsible for a 28 year olds debts? Because that is what is being implied in these programmes.

Before people say I'm being silly, or whatever, and it's only a tv show showing the interesting bits, it does seem to me that this sort of action must be legal as otherwise I don't think it could be shown. Which thus turns the idea of being innocent until proven guilty on its head.

Regards,

ten0rman

StepOne
Lemon Slice
Posts: 663
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:17 am
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56870

Postby StepOne » May 31st, 2017, 12:23 pm

I keep all my receipts for anything like white goods/tv/laptop/furniture etc. I just check them in a hanging file marked 'receipts'. Occasionally I go through it and chuck out any which I no longer have.

StepOne

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3225 times
Been thanked: 1012 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56885

Postby didds » May 31st, 2017, 1:09 pm

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

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56896

Postby melonfool » May 31st, 2017, 1:38 pm

ten0rman wrote:I do watch some of the programmes mentioned, and whilst I have absolutely no sympathy for the crooks amongst them, I do find that there is one aspect of what appears to happen which I find rather worrying. In a recent case, the bailiffs were looking for the son of the house, they got into the house, and when the son said that he had no money and couldn't pay, the bailiffs started listing the parents goods and saying that unless the parents can prove ownership, they would take the goods. I have seen this in, I think, a couple of other episodes as well.

Now, I don't know about other people, but I would be hard pressed to, for example prove that the computer I'm using right now, was bought by me, and certainly my "backup" computer, being s/h, I cannot prove is mine. Which means that if my youngest son, aged 28, and currently living with us short term, was in this sort of trouble, then I could see my goods disappearing into the back of the bailiffs van, and it then being up to me, having nothing to do with the debt other than being the parent, having to spend time and money going to court to reclaim my goods. And that is rather worrying. Does it mean then that we should all keep receipts for all our purchases until said item is finally disposed of? I am aware that people can and will lie, but at the same time, it can easily be proven that, eg in my case, I own this property, have lived here for a long number of years, and I am the parent of the 28 year old, and hence there is a strong likelihood that the vast majority of the items in this house are owned by me. And therefore why should I be made responsible for a 28 year olds debts? Because that is what is being implied in these programmes.

Before people say I'm being silly, or whatever, and it's only a tv show showing the interesting bits, it does seem to me that this sort of action must be legal as otherwise I don't think it could be shown. Which thus turns the idea of being innocent until proven guilty on its head.

Regards,

ten0rman


I have seen similar shows - and no, that doesn't happen. They have to prove they belong to the person they are after, or at least have reasonable belief. I saw one with a car and the guy kept saying it wasn't his, it was his wife's but they rang DVLA and got the info and it was his so they impounded it.

I've seen others where they have said no, it's not his and they've left it alone.

Second hand household goods are really worth very little, I honestly cannot imagine a bailiff going off with a truck for of old dining chairs and stereos. And there is loads they cannot take, such as fridges.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt- ... -can-take/

But it has nothing to do with 'innocent until proved guilty' - the person who owes the money has been shown to be guilty if these are court bailiffs. The taking of other people's goods if it happens can only be in error.

The TV shows sensationalise it.

Mel

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7943
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 3625 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56898

Postby swill453 » May 31st, 2017, 1:45 pm

melonfool wrote:I saw one with a car and the guy kept saying it wasn't his, it was his wife's but they rang DVLA and got the info and it was his so they impounded it.

But that's wrong, the DVLA only knows the registered keeper, which isn't necessarily the owner. For the owner you'd need to see sales receipts and money transfers etc., much more difficult.

Scott.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#56908

Postby melonfool » May 31st, 2017, 2:26 pm

swill453 wrote:
melonfool wrote:I saw one with a car and the guy kept saying it wasn't his, it was his wife's but they rang DVLA and got the info and it was his so they impounded it.

But that's wrong, the DVLA only knows the registered keeper, which isn't necessarily the owner. For the owner you'd need to see sales receipts and money transfers etc., much more difficult.

Scott.


Ah, your'e right, it wasn't DVLA, though they did ring them first, I think they found out it was on hire purchase and that was in his name. Though they can't take things on hire purchase.... Well, in the one I saw they def called someone and got confirmation of who the car belonged to before they took it away.

Mel

paulnumbers
Lemon Slice
Posts: 441
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:15 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57008

Postby paulnumbers » May 31st, 2017, 11:19 pm

Lootman wrote:
Maroochydore wrote:
Lootman wrote:

I would disagree. Having taken you to court and gained judgment, you decide to ignore the court and not pay me what the Court says I am due. What do I, a little 80 year old lady, then do?

I apply to the High Court for a warrant of execution and hopefully two burly 'enforcement agents' or bailiffs as they are known, come and ask you for my money. if you don't give it to them they can seize goods to settle the debt. Unfortunately they can't break both your legs but can do a lot. See Gov UK site: your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits (sorry I'm not allowed to post links for some reason).

You probably want to see a return of debtors' prisons as well? Or maybe chopping off the hands of anyone with the temerity to stiff you?

I do not like to see violence, threats and intimidation used in any stage of a purely civil matter. 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.

But if you send two big men around to my house, I might just send 4 big men around to yours, and things could quickly become very nasty. Once you cross that line, you lose control and perhaps more.


Even if you put a charge on the house or car, what do you do when they refuse to give it to you?

Ultimately some people only respond to big burly men at the door. There's a channel 5 TV show following around high court bailiffs called "can't pay we'll take it away". It's quite illuminating, especially this episode trying to recover a debt from a car dealer. High Court writs mean nothing to these people, force does. There is a segment of society that will only give in to force.

https://www.my5.tv/cant-pay-well-take-i ... episode-9a

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57020

Postby Lootman » June 1st, 2017, 5:33 am

paulnumbers wrote:Even if you put a charge on the house or car, what do you do when they refuse to give it to you?

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.

And eventually the property will be sold, remortgaged or transferred upon death or divorce, and then you get paid out, with interest,

Antother option is to sell the debt judgement to a collections agency.

paulnumbers wrote:Ultimately some people only respond to big burly men at the door.

Maybe so but then there are probably some people who only respond to having their legs broken, but we don''t allow that. There are probably some people who only respond when you kidnap their children and threaten to feed them to pigs, but we don't do that either.

Over the years the powers and practices of debt collectors have been diluted because of widespread abuse, threats, humiliation and intimidation. And as a society we have taken the view that it is better if a few more debts go unpaid than to allow such physical interventions. To my mind, bailiffs represent an anomalous throwback to a set of more barbaric practices that have no place in what should be a civil battle of wits.

Regarding that TV programme, I am not sure how representative it is. I would assume that the footage shown is carefully selected for its entertainment value, therefore cherry-picking the more outrageous or extreme cases.

chas49
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1904
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:25 am
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57055

Postby chas49 » June 1st, 2017, 10:53 am

Lootman wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:Even if you put a charge on the house or car, what do you do when they refuse to give it to you?

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.


Are you sure that this is true in England & Wales? I can't find any definitive source that suggests this applies in E&W.

paulnumbers
Lemon Slice
Posts: 441
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:15 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57081

Postby paulnumbers » June 1st, 2017, 11:48 am

Lootman wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:Even if you put a charge on the house or car, what do you do when they refuse to give it to you?

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.

And eventually the property will be sold, remortgaged or transferred upon death or divorce, and then you get paid out, with interest,

Antother option is to sell the debt judgement to a collections agency.

paulnumbers wrote:Ultimately some people only respond to big burly men at the door.

Maybe so but then there are probably some people who only respond to having their legs broken, but we don''t allow that. There are probably some people who only respond when you kidnap their children and threaten to feed them to pigs, but we don't do that either.

Over the years the powers and practices of debt collectors have been diluted because of widespread abuse, threats, humiliation and intimidation. And as a society we have taken the view that it is better if a few more debts go unpaid than to allow such physical interventions. To my mind, bailiffs represent an anomalous throwback to a set of more barbaric practices that have no place in what should be a civil battle of wits.

Regarding that TV programme, I am not sure how representative it is. I would assume that the footage shown is carefully selected for its entertainment value, therefore cherry-picking the more outrageous or extreme cases.


How would you deal with someone who is driving around a depreciating car?

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

I'm sure you're right, that they do pick the entertaining cases. My only thought is to suggest you watch a few of them, and decide if it changes your mind at all.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57090

Postby Lootman » June 1st, 2017, 12:14 pm

paulnumbers wrote:How would you deal with someone who is driving around a depreciating car?

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

I'm sure you're right, that they do pick the entertaining cases. My only thought is to suggest you watch a few of them, and decide if it changes your mind at all.

Regarding a vehicle, yes, a charge against that won't help. In the US, although they don't have bailiffs, they do have "repo men" who will find your vehicle and take it. You may recall a movie of that name.

But a house? The average ownership period of a home is 7 years. And with the trend towards short-term mortgages, they are remortaged frequently as well. You could of course be unlucky and have to wait 70 years. But with compound interest, your grandchildren may fondly remember you :)

But I will give that show a chance if I find it.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3225 times
Been thanked: 1012 times

Re: Visit from Baliffs

#57093

Postby didds » June 1st, 2017, 12:22 pm

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?

didds


Return to “Dealing with Debt”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests