NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just crazy. This law means repo men can legally break into your home and just start taking random stuff till they think they have taken enough stuff to equal your bill. I cant even begin to list the things wrong with this. Are the British completly insane? This honestly boggles my mind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece

So if you owe a credit card bill, and a guy breaks into your house while your at the store and steals your couch , how does that work? What if you claim its a $3000 couch and he claims hes going to credit $10 to your account for the furniture?

Any way you shake it, this is crazy.

Its there fault for getting into so much debt in the first place, sheer stupidity to borrow beyond your means.

Its there fault for getting into so much debt in the first place, sheer stupidity to borrow beyond your means.

Being in debt does not mean you lose the right to privacy.

The right to privacy doesnt mean you can just lock your door and not pay your debts

The right to privacy doesnt mean you can just lock your door and not pay your debts

Yes, and let's harvest their organs as well to pay for their debts!
After all, if they don't pay up they've got no more right to them!

Bailiffs have been around since the year dot right?

So this is the sort of behavior your defending and encouraging?

It is claimed these powers are already abused. In one case, an 89-year-old grandmother returned home to find a bailiff sitting in her chair having drawn up a list of her possessions. He was pursuing a parking fine owed by her son, who did not even live at the address.

they can legally enter through open windows and such anyway...

tbqh if I find a thug sitting in my house when I get home stuffs gonna happen

Bailiffs are currently restrained from violence by the law, now they are allowed to use 'reasonable force'. All this means is more physical fights and confrontations, which I am sure some will enjoy.

I don't see why anyone but emergency services should have those sorts of powers, it's open to abuse.

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

.... ok, I'm going to ask. How do you reach that conclusion?

Ministers have now proposed bailiffs be given powers to physically remove debtors who try to defend their property, for example by draping themselves over a car or blocking the door of their home.

I see no problem with that. You've defaulted on payments - it's not yours to defend anymore.

Some restraint should be exercised, according to the “search and entry powers” guidelines. “If a person locks himself in their home, it might be reasonable to break open the door, but probably not to smash a hole in the wall,” it advises.

Details of the new guidelines were obtained under freedom of information laws. They say homes should not be broken into when nobody is in. Reasonable grounds for breaking down the door include the “movement of a curtain”, a radio being heard or a figure being spotted inside which “may be the offender”.
Again, I see no real problem with this.

It is claimed these powers are already abused. In one case, an 89-year-old grandmother returned home to find a bailiff sitting in her chair having drawn up a list of her possessions. He was pursuing a parking fine owed by her son, who did not even live at the address.
Interesting lack of detail on how the bailiff gained access to the abode.

Interesting lack of detail on how the bailiff gained access to the abode.

Interesting that you think it matters at all. The fact that he was there period,thru the door, the chimney or transported there by Mr Scott from the Enterprise is objectionable enough.

Interesting that you think it matters at all.

Well, what if the door was open?

I don't see why anyone but emergency services should have those sorts of powers, it's open to abuse.

*imagine paramedic breaking into my house and stealing my Christmas chocolate* :p

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

fuck having bailiffs with guns! imagining bouncers with them is bad enough

Interesting that you think it matters at all. The fact that he was there period,thru the door, the chimney or transported there by Mr Scott from the Enterprise is objectionable enough.

Erm, it does matter. If there was no illegal/forced entry then the agent is simply (and entitled to do so) retrieving possessions that belong to him. Ownership and all that jazz...

.... ok, I'm going to ask. How do you reach that conclusion?

Because if they tried that in the US you would have alot of dead repo men and you would have plenty of new job openings in the exciting field of repossession that would go unfilled.

from the article quoted in the OP: "Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans. "

That's simply crazy - people who aren't police officers AND without a permit from the judiciary breaking into homes and restraining people who try to resist.

Btw, if a bailiff can break in, why can't I as a private citizen? A bailiff is no officer, nor am I.

That's just madness. There goes the rule of law. At least, in Italy home is protected by the Constitution - this means that only the police may break in for emergencies, and bailiffs have to be accompanied by the police AND with an order from a judge.

Because if they tried that in the US you would have alot of dead repo men and you would have plenty of new job openings in the exciting field of repossession that would go unfilled.

*sigh*

Yes, how could I forget... murder solves everything, of course.

*imagine paramedic breaking into my house and stealing my Christmas chocolate* :p


"Stand aside sir! We need this chocolate to save a patient's life!" :tongue:

I think that would be reasonable :p

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

Utter tripe (:

I personally do see a problem with these kinds of laws, people should not be subjected to violence - why not just follow more peaceful court proceedings... I really can't agree with a random company having the power to "pin you down and restrain you" and it being perfectly fine to do this.

If it's true and not just meh crap from the papers lol I think imma lobby my MP against it.

Erm, it does matter. If there was no illegal/forced entry then the agent is simply (and entitled to do so) retrieving possessions that belong to him. Ownership and all that jazz...

But this isnt an example of someone who has rented a TV and not made payments and you have come to get your TV back. This is a guy who says you owe a credit card bill of $5000 and im going to go on a shopping spree in your house till i find what i think is worth $5000 worth of stuff. Thats just crazy.

Because if they tried that in the US you would have alot of dead repo men and you would have plenty of new job openings in the exciting field of repossession that would go unfilled.
Then you'd have a lot of people in jail for murder.

from the article quoted in the OP: "Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans. "
Keep reading down the article - it clarifies when and how these "break ins" can occur.


Btw, if a bailiff can break in, why can't I as a private citizen? A bailiff is no officer, nor am I.
A bailiff has a legal mandate to repossess 'his' property ('his' as in he is the agent for the 'true owner'. You can get the police around if you want, but that is a waste of police resources to reclaim property. Essentially, that's why bailiffs are used.

That's just madness. There goes the rule of law. At least, in Italy home is protected by the Constitution - this means that only the police may break in for emergencies, and bailiffs have to be accompanied by the police AND with an order from a judge.
We'll see how strict that stays when people in large amounts of debt start defaulting en masse.

*sigh*

Yes, how could I forget... murder solves everything, of course.

Of course it doesnt solve anything. However that doesnt change the reality of what would happen.

But this isnt an example of someone who has rented a TV and not made payments and you have come to get your TV back. This is a guy who says you owe a credit card bill of $5000 and im going to go on a shopping spree in your house till i find what i think is worth $5000 worth of stuff. Thats just crazy.

.... that's debt collection. Is this new to you?

Erm, it does matter. If there was no illegal/forced entry then the agent is simply (and entitled to do so) retrieving possessions that belong to him. Ownership and all that jazz...

running in and taking things is a no-no (you have to tell teacher first)

Then you'd have a lot of people in jail for murder.


You clearly have never been to Texas.

.... that's debt collection. Is this new to you?

No thats not debt collection. At least thats not debt collection in the US.

running in and taking things is a no-no (you have to tell teacher first)
Memories of "NO RUNNING WITH SCISSORS" spring to mind :$

You clearly have never been to Texas.

No, I tend to stick to civilisation on my travels.

No thats not debt collection. At least thats not debt collection in the US.
And this legislation is about the UK.

I think that would be reasonable :p

I was thinking more: "this chocolate is bad for you and so we must confiscate it along with all the medical equipment you seem to have stolen"

they've already gone power mad with the sirens :mad:

A bailiff has a legal mandate to repossess 'his' property ('his' as in he is the agent for the 'true owner'. You can get the police around if you want, but that is a waste of police resources to reclaim property. Essentially, that's why bailiffs are used.

however bailiffs are supposed to just threaten to break your legs if your being difficult they should call the police

Memories of "NO RUNNING WITH SCISSORS" spring to mind :$

its okay though if you hold them by the blades ;)

however bailiffs are supposed to just threaten to break your legs if your being difficult they should call the police

Ahhh. The bailiffs threaten, the loan sharks act :p

I doubt we'll see bailiffs turn up with baseball bats. Having worked in debt collection myself, I know all the stories people come up with why they haven't paid - doesn't make the debt go away. When they have tvs, goods, cash - that's a final and last resort a company/organisation will take to reclaim it's losses. Repossession is at the end of a lonnnnnng process with no return from the client.

They don't like doing it, because it costs money to do so - so often a balance is struck between how much getting collection agents will cost offset against the cost of the debt.

Keep reading down the article - it clarifies when and how these "break ins" can occur.
I did read, and it seems quite unreasonable.


A bailiff has a legal mandate to repossess 'his' property ('his' as in he is the agent for the 'true owner'. You can get the police around if you want, but that is a waste of police resources to reclaim property. Essentially, that's why bailiffs are used.
No, wait. He's got a mandate to repossess property, but not to break in or to use force. Only a police officer can be given such a mandate and use force on people or their home, at least this side of the Channel.

I did read, and it seems quite unreasonable.
Why? How is reasonable that I escape from paying monies I owe?

No, wait. He's got a mandate to repossess property, but not to break in or to use force. Only a police officer can be given such a mandate and use force on people or their home, at least this side of the Channel.
Looks like the mandate has been given by the legislation.

Instead of complaining about having property taken off you - how about you (not you specifically :tongue: ) take some individual responsibility and not get into such levels of debt that require a bailiff turning up at your door, and you fighting him.

Ahhh. The bailiffs threaten, the loan sharks act :p

I was thinking more along the lines of what the police would do to you :p

Having worked in debt collection myself

but your a student?! :eek2:

If there was no illegal/forced entry then the agent is simply (and entitled to do so) retrieving possessions that belong to him. Ownership and all that jazz...
It should be up to the civil court of law to decide the value he is entitled to, take a value assessment, and reach an agreement to what property the debtor has to surrender.

Not to the bailiff on an unilateral basis.


No, I tend to stick to civilisation on my travels.
Texas IS the last outpost of sanity and civilization on this planet.

Instead of complaining about having property taken off you - how about you (not you specifically :tongue: ) take some individual responsibility and not get into such levels of debt that require a bailiff turning up at your door, and you fighting him.

Your obviously very young so i will forgive your insensitivity. People fail to repay debts for reasons other then greed and lack of responsibility. They can get catastrophically sick, or get fired from their jobs or one of a myriad of other reasons. We dont need people breaking into sick elderly peoples homes and rolling them off their beds and carrying it away. I cant believe i should even have to say that.

It should be up to the civil court of law to decide the value he is entitled to, take a value assessment, and reach an agreement to what property the debtor has to surrender.

Not to the bailiff on an unilateral basis.


This.

but your a student?! :eek2:

I went back to college. (I'm only 24 :tongue: ) I was working for a few years in Local Government, in which I headed up a few teams collecting debt owed to us from people not paying their charges. (I'm not talking about 10 pounds of debt, I'm talking about 10,000 pounds of debt!)

I've heard all the sob stories, but in the end - if people think they can get away with it, they'll try their arse off.

It should be up to the civil court of law to decide the value he is entitled to, take a value assessment, and reach an agreement to what property the debtor has to surrender.

Not to the bailiff on an unilateral basis.

Agreement? There is an agreement. You owe X. There is no "I can't afford X, lets cut a deal" in court. The court will say, "You owe X". I've been there, I've seen it. When the legislation is there, the court will have no sympathy on a debtor.


Your obviously very young so i will forgive your insensitivity. People fail to repay debts for reasons other then greed and lack of responsibility. They can get catastrophically sick, or get fired from their jobs or one of a myriad of other reasons. We dont need people breaking into sick elderly peoples homes and rolling them off their beds and carrying it away. I cant believe i should even have to say that.
Sorry. No. You owe money. There are always ways to pay something back, even to make a visible effort at discharging your liabilities. When people turn up at your door, it's because you have failed to even respond to letters, warnings, phone calls and then some. House calls are a sign that you have zero intention of payment.

In my opinion, the law is unreasonable and open to wide abuse and will only lead to more illegality including violence between debtors and bailiffs and debtors going to more effort to hide valuable possessions.

It is my hope that shit like this will lead eventually to the complete destruction of the consumer credit industry, which has proven to be little more than the money version of the crack trade. And now the pushers are using force to make the junkies pay up. Well, fuck them. For all the bankrupts they push around now, let those stores, car dealers, lenders, etc., who extended that credit in the first place spend years in bankruptcy of their own, after all their buyers default and other people stop buying their over-priced products altogether.

All you people who think people deserve to get treated like shit if they can't meet their bills, consider this -- when people really do start living within their means, your entire world -- the whole society of the 21st century -- is going to come crashing to a halt. No more $50K cars, no more $500K houses, no more $3000K televisions, alll those luxuries and toys that people borrow money to get. There cannot be enough people in the world with enough cash to keep those industries going while still living within their means. The world economy is dependent on consumers spending money they don't have, on debts that never, never get paid off. You want that kind of system -- one in which debt management is considered better than not being in debt -- then it's pretty fucking hypocritical of you to criticize defaulters on the grounds that they shouldn't have borrowed.

Well, I say they shouldn't have borrowed, too, but not for that reason. I just want to see this whole drug-pusher culture wiped out. Pay cash and pay as you go, and then if some scumbag beats you up and takes your stuff, the police will have to do something about it. And if that habit leads to the destruction of whole industries, fuck them too. Let them develop a sustainable business model for a change.

Sorry. No. You owe money. There are always ways to pay something back, even to make a visible effort at discharging your liabilities. When people turn up at your door, it's because you have failed to even respond to letters, warnings, phone calls and then some. House calls are a sign that you have zero intention of payment.


If your owed money you go to civilized court and get a civil judgement. You can then put a wage lean on their income and attach the debt to any real estate or other similar real property and prevent its sale. Crazily enough it doesnt involve breaking into anyones house at any point.

That's simply crazy - people who aren't police officers AND without a permit from the judiciary breaking into homes and restraining people who try to resist.

Btw, if a bailiff can break in, why can't I as a private citizen? A bailiff is no officer, nor am I.

That's just madness. There goes the rule of law. At least, in Italy home is protected by the Constitution - this means that only the police may break in for emergencies, and bailiffs have to be accompanied by the police AND with an order from a judge.
I'm pretty sure that under English law (not sure whether it's the case for Scottish law too...) bailiffs can't be sent in just because somebody claims a debt to be owed, that the existence of that debt must have been proven in court... and that, because they're being used to enforce debts that the law agrees exist, they're legally defined as "officers of the court".

Having said which...

Keep reading down the article - it clarifies when and how these "break ins" can occur.
No, it specifies when and how those intrusions "should" occur. If a bailiff is in a hurry, then what's to keep him from claiming that he saw (for example) a moving curtain? After all, such a claim could hardly be disproven...

And, whilst I agree that people should (at least try to) pay their debts, the highly public problems with several official datababses don't fill me with confidence that the bailiffs would always be sent to the correct addresses.

Instead of complaining about having property taken off you - how about you take some individual responsibility and not get into such levels of debt that require a bailiff turning up at your door, and you fighting him.
Running into a debt doesn't automatically make you an outlaw (unlike illegally entering another's house). We've abolished debt prisons in both "civilized" and "uncivilized" nations and states, so we all agree on this.

You are still a citizen who just has obligations he has to fulfill. You are not a property of your creditor. As such, you retain all of your rights, with the exception of the rights to some property that have to be lifted to fulfill the overarching right of your creditor.

The best and proper way to settle this would be with either a voluntary agreement or an agreement through court mediation.
At the very least, it should be up to you to decide what to surrender, as long as the creditor agrees (or an impartial expert decides) that it is of sufficient value to satisfy his rights.
And in no way is the creditor entitled to ignore all of your rights to an extent beyond immediately necessary for satisfying his claim.

If your owed money you go to civilized court and get a civil judgement.
Exactly. You realise this repossession happens when the debtors refuses/ignores the courts judgement, right? Like I said, house calls are the end of a lonnnnnnng road. Possibly 6 months of warnings and legal action.

You can then put a wage lean on their income
1) No you can't.
2) If they are unemployed?

and attach the debt to any real estate or other similar real property and prevent its sale.
Great, so how does that get the company/organisation the liquid capital it needs to operate. "Sorry, all our monies are actually tied up in poor people's houses, no one gets paid this month".

Agreement? There is an agreement. You owe X. There is no "I can't afford X, lets cut a deal" in court. The court will say, "You owe X".
No one is arguing with this.

But what the legislation you defend proposes is giving the creditor the right to arbitrarily say "Actually I've changed my mind, I decide that you owe twice X."
Because the right to take any property in any amount he wishes means exactly that.



You owe money. There are always ways to pay something back,
Yes, and the civil court should (I don't say it does) serve as an arbiter in deciding on the specifics of the payment. Not the creditor at his whim.

No, it specifies when and how those intrusions "should" occur. If a bailiff is in a hurry, then what's to keep him from claiming that he saw (for example) a moving curtain? After all, such a claim could hardly be disproven...
Aye. That is indeed a problem and I imagine that would be a serious issue for reputable companies. I share that concern. It is the principle of this legislation that I have nothing against.

And, whilst I agree that people should (at least try to) pay their debts, the highly public problems with several official datababses don't fill me with confidence that the bailiffs would always be sent to the correct addresses.
Court orders and summons with the name of the debtor clarifies who owes what.


But what the legislation you defend proposes is giving the creditor the right to arbitrarily say "Actually I've changed my mind, I decide that you owe twice X."

Because the right to take any property in any amount he wishes means exactly that.
The "value of" the property seized would be what would be taken if re-sold. Nothing more nothing less. You could have sold it yourself, but decided the dvd player has more value to you than the court order.


Yes, and the civil court should (I don't say it does) serve as an arbiter in deciding on the specifics of the payment. Not the creditor at his whim.
And when the debtor still refuses to hand over any money.... the creditor (and the court) has no sympathy.

No one is arguing with this.

But what the legislation you defend proposes is giving the creditor the right to arbitrarily say "Actually I've changed my mind, I decide that you owe twice X."
Because the right to take any property in any amount he wishes means exactly that.


I'm curious, where did you read that?

I'm curious, where did you read that? TBH, it was taken from the first post. Might not be correct.
This law means repo men can legally break into your home and just start taking random stuff till they think they have taken enough stuff to equal your bill.

The "value of" the property seized would be what would be taken if re-sold.
Which is what should be done, by court decision.


And when the debtor still refuses to hand over any money....
...He should be detained until agreeing to comply with the order.

TBH, it was taken from the first post. Might not be correct.


Try reading the article... nothing there suggests that.

Which is what should be done, by court decision.
The court already made the decision. You owe X. The scope would then passed to the creditor to determine how best to obtain the monies owed. (Edit: Creditors do not like using bailiffs. It is a last resort as it costs money. Companies will try a variety of techniques to avoid using them.) The court does not have the time to decide the resale value of every piece of property for every single case. Unless you want an entire inventory done of the debtors belongings and property? Of course then you would need the ability to access the abode..... which would be the problem in the first place.

...He should be detained until agreeing to comply with the order.

Ah, so you're willing to defend the right to property, but also willing to throw someone in jail for defaulting. Interesting.

The court already made the decision. You owe X. The scope is then passed to the creditor to determine how best to obtain the monies owed.
Which is ridiculous. What if I as a creditor decide to level his house and sell the remains as firewood and scrap metal for my $1000, 'cause I feel particularly vengeful today?

Of course that doesn't mean I'll pass up the opportunity to beat him up as he tries to stop the wreckers.


Unless you want an entire inventory done of the debtors belongings and property?
Of course no. An inventory should only be done of property the debtor agrees to surrender, until the assessed sale value reaches the owed amount.



Ah, so you're willing to defend the right to property, but also willing to throw someone in jail for defaulting. Interesting.
Not for defaulting.
For noncompliance with court decision. Law is law. If the court gives you a valid, direct, explicit order, refusal to comply goes a bit beyond civil matters.

Next - bringing back the debtor's prison

Which is ridiculous. What if I as a creditor decide to level his house and sell the remains as firewood and scrap metal for my $1000, 'cause I feel particularly vengeful today?
Then he'd have a pretty fair case against you for Criminal Damage... and you'd probably be sued by the authorities, for breach of the 'planning' rules, as well.

Of course no. An inventory should only be done of property the debtor agrees to surrender, until the assessed sale value reaches the owed amount.
And if the debtor refuses to agree to surrender any property for this purpose, or simply ignores all official communications on the subject, what then? Those are the circumstances under which bailiffs would legally be useable...

Great, so how does that get the company/organisation the liquid capital it needs to operate. "Sorry, all our monies are actually tied up in poor people's houses, no one gets paid this month".

A certain loan failure rate is the cost of doing business. If that rate is high enough that its negatively impacting your business then more then likely its not the customers problem, its poor checks from your companies loan department that is the problem.

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

Your argument is void because veel is not a vegetable!

Hooray for non causa pro causa!

Try reading the article... nothing there suggests that.

Except this,"It is claimed these powers are already abused. In one case, an 89-year-old grandmother returned home to find a bailiff sitting in her chair having drawn up a list of her possessions. He was pursuing a parking fine owed by her son, who did not even live at the address."

And this of course," They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans."

So again i ask, if i owe $5000 to credit card company and Mr. Visa comes into my house and cleans out my entire house out while im in the hospital, what is the status of the account now? Who decides what that all of my stuff is worth? What prevents him from claiming i still owe him $4900 cause my stuff was only worth $100 to the crackhead he sold it all to?

A certain loan failure rate is the cost of doing business. If that rate is high enough that its negatively impacting your business then more then likely its not the customers problem, its poor checks from your companies loan department that is the problem.

Oh it's indeed the problem of the company, but the customer is still liable. Services rendered, payment demanded. No payment - I'll get it in lieu if needs be.

Then he'd have a pretty fair case against you for Criminal Damage... and you'd probably be sued by the authorities, for breach of the 'planning' rules, as well.
Oh well. I can think up of a way to do something evil without breaking the planning rules. Say, I'll take his most essential, most personal and least sale-valuable items. Leave the plasma TV, but grab his furniture, his computer together with backup discs, his underwear and clothing, and his toothbrush.


And if the debtor refuses to agree to surrender any property for this purpose, or simply ignores all official communications on the subject, what then?
He gets subpoenated to a court.
If he refuses, he gets brought there, by the police, in as civil a manner as possible.
There he gets an order by the court, which he has to comply with.
If he doesn't comply, he might be detained, by the police, for noncompliance with court orders.
He gets released when he agrees to surrender some property.
And only in case of persistent noncompliance he gets a police officer to unlock his door and, subject to all police proceedings, perform a partial confiscation, in the manner and order determined by appropriate regulations, in favor of the creditor.


He DOES NOT get a debt collector break his door, beat him up and grab the stuff, which is for all intents and purposes legalized burglary.

He gets subpoenated to a court.
If he refuses, he gets brought there, by the police, in as civil a manner as possible.
There he gets an order by the court, which he has to comply with.
If he doesn't comply, he might be detained, by the police, for noncompliance with court orders.
He gets released when he agrees to surrender some property.
And only in case of persistent noncompliance he gets a police officer to unlock his door and, subject to all police proceedings, perform a partial confiscation, in the manner and order determined by appropriate regulations, in favor of the creditor.

I love it. As soon as this happens, people will whine "OMG. What a waste of taxpayers money, the police could be catching drug dealers, the courts could be spending time convicting rapists, etc etc etc.


He DOES NOT get a debt collector break his door, beat him up and grab the stuff, which is for all intents and purposes legalized burglary.
Beaten up? WTF? Where in heaven's name, is that mentioned?

I love it. As soon as this happens, people will whine "OMG. What a waste of taxpayers money, the police could be catching drug dealers, the courts could be spending time convicting rapists, etc etc etc.
The police taxes are already higher than a reasonable pizzo. Let them finally do some work for it.

"We can think of other things to do" is not an excuse to deny the right to fair trial, or, in this case, civil case arbitration.

And let me express some doubt about rapists being short of courts to convict them. Unless of course the government's micromanagement of citizens' lives grows to count as rape any act without an express written consent, signed by both parties and a notary.


Beaten up? WTF? Where in heaven's name, is that mentioned? Hello world.
wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders

In regards to the earlier remarks about this not happening in the United States, and those questions as to why, there are several states with 'castle laws', which essentially say that 'A mans home is his castle, and he has the right to defend it.'

Remember the big deal in Texas a while ago, where the guy shot two burglars who were running away from his neighbors house?

An extreme case, but that's not the point. Essentially the two laws would come into conflict.

The repo man breaks in because he 'saw a curtain move', then Joe the Debtor blows his face off with a 12-gauge (which he bought on credit).

Can Joe the Debtor be sent to jail? (Note: 'CAN' not 'SHOULD'. This is a question of law, not morals.)

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.
... aye of course... because then we wouldn't just have our debt collectors packing too...

.... ok, I'm going to ask. How do you reach that conclusion?

because if someone comes in my residence uninvited i can legally shoot them. where as even if breaking and entry was legal for private repo man here they likely wouldnt be allwoed to shoot the home owner.

Yet another law that never would have seen the light of day if British citizens were allowed guns.

Yeah, because Americans never let any draconian laws pass.

*adds to list of reasons to campaign against New Labour*

My, my, we're racking up quite the score here.

*adds to list of reasons to campaign against New Labour*

My, my, we're racking up quite the score here.

It's not enough to be against something bad. We need a desireable alternative.

It's not enough to be against something bad. We need a desireable alternative.

You have several alternatives, there are court ordered wage attachments, and you can place the claim on the persons credit report and you can attach liens on their home and other similar real property. Again note that none of these involve anyone breaking into anyones house at any time for any reason.

You have several alternatives, there are court ordered wage attachments, and you can place the claim on the persons credit report and you can attach liens on their home and other similar real property. Again note that none of these involve anyone breaking into anyones house at any time for any reason.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant people should campaign in favour of one of the alternatives, not just against the current scheme.

*adds to list of reasons to campaign against New Labour*

My, my, we're racking up quite the score here.

Can we have your liver?

What if you claim its a $3000 couch and he claims hes going to credit $10 to your account for the furniture?

Firstly, I would wonder why we discussing $ when we were in Britain...

Secondly, this is precisely why I do not borrow money.

Thirdly, Is the Bailiff good looking, single and gay?

But seriously, if people are avoiding paying their debts then I fully condone this sort of action so long as it is reasonably conducted. By this I mean, the bailiff should be aware of who lives at the address before gaining entry, and should be cautious of causing undue stress to elderly, children, pets and/or other innocent people who live at that address. A simple look at the electoral register should provide this information (except for pets).

Gaining entry to a property when nobody is in is debatable, but I think it should be done with police present to supervise.

Yeah, because Americans never let any draconian laws pass.

Of course not! Never, not in a million years! All of our politicians are perfect angels. Each one of them have our best interests first in their minds.

...

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/good.jpg

You have several alternatives, there are court ordered wage attachments, and you can place the claim on the persons credit report and you can attach liens on their home and other similar real property. Again note that none of these involve anyone breaking into anyones house at any time for any reason.

Again note, if they are unemployed and don't intend selling their home/other property for.... well, ever - the example fails.

But seriously, if people are avoiding paying their debts then I fully condone this sort of action so long as it is reasonably conducted. By this I mean, the bailiff should be aware of who lives at the address before gaining entry, and should be cautious of causing undue stress to elderly, children, pets and/or other innocent people who live at that address. A simple look at the electoral register should provide this information (except for pets).

Gaining entry to a property when nobody is in is debatable, but I think it should be done with police present to supervise.

Exactly.

I almost stopped paying attention to British politics before I saw this. Canadian politics came close to becoming more interesting.

This is just crazy. This law means repo men can legally break into your home and just start taking random stuff till they think they have taken enough stuff to equal your bill. I cant even begin to list the things wrong with this. Are the British completly insane? This honestly boggles my mind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece

So if you owe a credit card bill, and a guy breaks into your house while your at the store and steals your couch , how does that work? What if you claim its a $3000 couch and he claims hes going to credit $10 to your account for the furniture?

Any way you shake it, this is crazy.
This is what happens when you forfeit your right to protect your own property. The government gives it away without any due process. Hopefully, there will be at least one Brit that raises a weapon at the fellow doing the dunning.

The bailiff, as an agent of the Courts, not the Law, has authority the Police, as agents of the Law, do not. The situation is the same in the US, except that bail enforcement agent (legalese for "bounty hunters") apparently aren't put under the same scrutiny. When you're already found guilty, a lot of rights no longer exist.

This is what happens when you forfeit your right to protect your own property. The government gives it away without any due process.
How are bailiff laws and gun ownership laws connected here?

There's nothing preventing a government which supports liberalised gun ownership from legalising bailiffs to use force.

Incidentally, this isn't a "British Insanity", only a Welsh and English one. There's no such thing as a bailiff in Scotland (nor, I believe, in Northern Ireland).

It's not enough to be against something bad. We need a desireable alternative.

I'm NSG's resident Lib Dem :wink:

I'm NSG's resident Lib Dem :wink:
Desireable alternative.

I'm NSG's resident Lib Dem :wink:
Aye - call the UK back when you boys can run a piss-up in a brewery.

Yes, and let's harvest their organs as well to pay for their debts!
After all, if they don't pay up they've got no more right to them!... well that might solve any organ shortage there... :p

Firstly, I would wonder why we discussing $ when we were in Britain... because '$' is the universal symbol of money. :tongue:

Secondly, this is precisely why I do not borrow money. so no credit cards for you then?

Thirdly, Is the Bailiff good looking, single and gay? if you can't afford to pay for your stuff, what makes you think you can afford that?

But seriously, if people are avoiding paying their debts then I fully condone this sort of action so long as it is reasonably conducted. By this I mean, the bailiff should be aware of who lives at the address before gaining entry, and should be cautious of causing undue stress to elderly, children, pets and/or other innocent people who live at that address. A simple look at the electoral register should provide this information (except for pets). and the problem of "reasonable" is that each person has their own definition of it.

Gaining entry to a property when nobody is in is debatable, but I think it should be done with police present to supervise.Agreed. I wonder how this passed without any hew and cry from the British public?

just waiting for when they break down the door and manhandle somebody with Learning Difculties or something similar and they dont know what happens and are getting very aggitated

Its there fault for getting into so much debt in the first place, sheer stupidity to borrow beyond your means.
Two wrongs don't make a right. IF the guy cannot pay his debts then the creditors have every right to take the unfortunate one to court. Certainly breaking down doors and risking bloody confrontations and/or bodily harm is complete stupidity for sure.

My father use to say that the law is an ass and this completely proves his theory!!

This is what happens when you forfeit your right to protect your own property. The government gives it away without any due process. Hopefully, there will be at least one Brit that raises a weapon at the fellow doing the dunning.

Yes. Let' hope' someone get's killed, shall we?

This isn't a gun control issue. If it WERE a gun control issue, the guy knocking on your door would be armed, as well as the person answering it. The salient point is the authorisation to use 'reasonable force' - so the only difference that gunlaw makes is that 'reasonable force' is less likely to be 'lethal force'.

Aye - call the UK back when you boys can run a piss-up in a brewery.

Trust me, if there's one thing we can do it's run a piss up. In a brewery or not. It's why conferences are so much fun.

Trust me, if there's one thing we can do it's run a piss up. In a brewery or not. It's why conferences are so much fun.
Not that good for poor ol' Charlie K...

This is what happens when you forfeit your right to protect your own property. The government gives it away without any due process. Hopefully, there will be at least one Brit that raises a weapon at the fellow doing the dunning.

I'm sure the Brit in question will enjoy his time in jail thoroughly, knowing he did his bit to ensure that bailiffs start investing in self defence training, pepperspray/mace or ASPs, and stab vests.

The bailiff, as an agent of the Courts, not the Law, has authority the Police, as agents of the Law, do not. The situation is the same in the US, except that bail enforcement agent (legalese for "bounty hunters") apparently aren't put under the same scrutiny. When you're already found guilty, a lot of rights no longer exist.

Bounty hunters only deal with people who have failed to show up for trial or hearings and have skipped out and forfeited their holding bond. They capture the escapee and return him to jail so they can get their bond money back. They have nothing to do with repossessing property or any other civil recourse.

In the US, we have repossession men. Their only authority is to regain the exact same property that was given out. So if someone fails to make car payments, they can tow off the car for example. They have no right to enter your home nor do they have any right to any other possession other then the item in question. They are not agents of the Court and they are not involved in any way period of the finding of guilt of the customer.

The bailiff, as an agent of the Courts, not the Law, has authority the Police, as agents of the Law, do not. The situation is the same in the US, except that bail enforcement agent (legalese for "bounty hunters") apparently aren't put under the same scrutiny. When you're already found guilty, a lot of rights no longer exist.

Let not get into US Bounty Hunters, their bad enough with the powers given to them by the fugitive Slave Act which for some reason is still in effect.

In the United States Bailiffs are usually but not always drawn from local sheriff offices who depending on the area of the country and wither its an city, town or an country range from the chief law enforcement agency to mainly serving functions in the courts and guarding the jails. That being said they like the courts are part of the law legal system and must obey the law.

In the United States repossession involves taking back the object that failure of payment was made on. If it is an matter of monetary collection then the company can take it to the courts and have an garnishment on their pay made until they pay the debt off or go bankrupt.

yet another example of the banks, landlords, etc, having too much power

This may have been said previously, but I think it must be mentioned that the bailiffs must have a standing court order with them to be able to enter into anyones home.

Once it's gone that far, you must be expecting it to come. It's either the police that break your skull for resisting on the bailiffs. Either way, your stuff is gone.

yet another example of the banks, landlords, etc, having too much power

I get banks, but landlords?

This may have been said previously, but I think it must be mentioned that the bailiffs must have a standing court order with them to be able to enter into anyones home.

Once it's gone that far, you must be expecting it to come. It's either the police that break your skull for resisting on the bailiffs. Either way, your stuff is gone.

Yea but no one has yet explained once they have your stuff, then what? How do you determine the value of a possession? Should a bailiff get to take a scrap book full of wedding pictures because he could sell it for 50 cents? What about the previously discussed couch? You say its worth $3000 Bailif claims its worth 10 bucks. Now what?

The bailiff, as an agent of the Courts, not the Law, has authority the Police, as agents of the Law, do not. The situation is the same in the US, except that bail enforcement agent (legalese for "bounty hunters") apparently aren't put under the same scrutiny. When you're already found guilty, a lot of rights no longer exist.

Repo men can not enter your property. just watched on the show where a repo guy was arrested for hopping a fence to get the vehicle being reposessed.

Bounty hunters are after people not things a differnt matter.

Yea but no one has yet explained once they have your stuff, then what? How do you determine the value of a possession? Should a bailiff get to take a scrap book full of wedding pictures because he could sell it for 50 cents? What about the previously discussed couch? You say its worth $3000 Bailif claims its worth 10 bucks. Now what?

The items are all sold at an auction, where they try and get the best price.

The items are all sold at an auction, where they try and get the best price.

So the forced sale of a drawer of socks that has a resale value of 3 cents that probably cost you $40 or $50 sound like a reasonable exercise of justice to you?

So the forced sale of a drawer of socks that has a resale value of 3 cents that probably cost you $40 or $50 sound like a reasonable exercise of justice to you?
Don't destroy your own argument with hyperbole.

So the forced sale of a drawer of socks that has a resale value of 3 cents that probably cost you $40 or $50 sound like a reasonable exercise of justice to you?

Maybe it's just me... I'd assume they'd look for something like... tv's, video players, etc... before they'd start picking through your laundry.

Maybe it's just me... I'd assume they'd look for something like... tv's, video players, etc... before they'd start picking through your laundry.

Why not just pull up the moving truck and empty the whole place bare? If there is any left over money after the debt after selling everything for 10 cents on the dollar im sure they will send it on along.


And after millions of peoples stuff goes on forced garage sale youll be lucky to get 3 cents on the dollar for used stuff lol.

Don't destroy your own argument with hyperbole.

I can destroy my argument any way i want :P

Why not just pull up the moving truck and empty the whole place bare? If there is any left over money after the debt after selling everything for 10 cents on the dollar im sure they will send it on along.

And after millions of peoples stuff goes on forced garage sale youll be lucky to get 3 cents on the dollar for used stuff lol.

The reason why they wouldn't just empty the place bare... etc... is because the point isn't to rip out all your shit, it's to recover a debt. As a consequence, paying people to spend an extra 8 hours of labour ripping everything off, would be counterproductive.

The reason why they wouldn't just empty the place bare... etc... is because the point isn't to rip out all your shit, it's to recover a debt. As a consequence, paying people to spend an extra 8 hours of labour ripping everything off, would be counterproductive.
Not necessarily. Don't forget the factor of intimidation and deterrence. If people know their home will be stripped clean of everything down to plumbing, should they fail their debt, they'll be much more likely to pay on time, whatever it takes.



If someone refused to return a large debt personally to me, and took active steps to avoid doing that, I would consider (within legal and moral limits of course) causing him discomfort even if it doesn't directly help me to recover my debt. And I'm a very nice and forgiving guy, at least compared to loan sharks and more instituonalized professional lenders.

This whole bit sounds wrong to me. I know this wouldnt fly in the US. The death rate from Baliffs entering homes would be high.

Out of curiousity does bankruptcy law in the UK protect individuals from having there things taken? If so wouldnt this drive up bankruptcy filings to protect ones goods and to guard from a potential confrontation?

Yea but no one has yet explained once they have your stuff, then what? How do you determine the value of a possession? Should a bailiff get to take a scrap book full of wedding pictures because he could sell it for 50 cents? What about the previously discussed couch? You say its worth $3000 Bailif claims its worth 10 bucks. Now what?

Exactly why this is crazy.

Out of curiousity does bankruptcy law in the UK protect individuals from having there things taken?
Just to reiterate, to yourself and the rest of the thread:

This is not a UK-wide measure. It only affects England and Wales.

Maybe it's just me... I'd assume they'd look for something like... tv's, video players, etc... before they'd start picking through your laundry.
But what about computers? It's quite along these lines.

Now, my computer would only be worth a couple thousand on a regular sale, and probably less than a thousand on such garage sale. Of these the HDDs are maybe $100.

But the content of these drives is worth at least a few grand for me.

And leakage and subsequent abuse of this data can easily cause $10,000 worth of damage to me, $20,000 even. That is, of course, if I don't have any files from work I took home to work on them, because I wouldn't have the time to worry about finances in a federal prison. Though, wait, no, actually I would.


Of course, I would try to emergency erase and destroy the drives, but not if the debt thugs use their "reasonable force" first, by knocking me down and smashing a barrel into my occipital, or pumping my house full of BZ gas. Hey, it's up to them to decide what's reasonable.

Just to reiterate, to yourself and the rest of the thread:

This is not a UK-wide measure. It only affects England and Wales.

I know better than to include Scotland into the UK mix. As for N Ireland I never considered them part of the UK anyway.

But what about computers? It's quite along these lines.

Now, my computer would only be worth a couple thousand on a regular sale, and probably less than a thousand on such garage sale. Of these the HDDs are maybe $100.

But the content of these drives is worth at least a few grand for me.


"It's worth a lot to me" is sentimental hokum, and not likely to be a determining factor in debt collection selections.


And leakage and subsequent abuse of this data can easily cause $10,000 worth of damage to me, $20,000 even.


Unlicensed ripped porn has no intrinsic value.


...by knocking me down and smashing a barrel into my occipital, or pumping my house full of BZ gas. Hey, it's up to them to decide what's reasonable.

Uh oh, Vault slipped iknto his Captain Paranoia tights and knickers, again.

"It's worth a lot to me" is sentimental hokum, and not likely to be a determining factor in debt collection selections.
Of course. They'll take what they want. Or what they feel would cause most harm per dollar if taken (starting from the plumbing), to "teach a lesson" to the debtors.

So the bastards will cause tens of thousands worth of damage to obtain their fucking five hundred buck debt.

It's legalized burglary and violence. Nothing more, nothing less.



Unlicensed ripped porn has no intrinsic value.
I don't have ripped porn on my HDD, but I do have other data.

The information on my credit cards and bank accounts has a value. It can be used to steal a large amount of money from me.

My files from work I occasionally work on at home have some value too. Not right now, but if there was a power intending to have a war with us, they could have value. Not that anyone would bother to make a false debt collection raid for it, but still.

hey quick question are these Certificated bailiffs or civil enforcement officers ???

aka the ones emplyeed by private companies or the ones employeed by the state?

Employed by private companies.


Effectively thugs on a payroll.

In my opinion, the law is unreasonable and open to wide abuse and will only lead to more illegality including violence between debtors and bailiffs and debtors going to more effort to hide valuable possessions.

It is my hope that shit like this will lead eventually to the complete destruction of the consumer credit industry, which has proven to be little more than the money version of the crack trade. And now the pushers are using force to make the junkies pay up. Well, fuck them. For all the bankrupts they push around now, let those stores, car dealers, lenders, etc., who extended that credit in the first place spend years in bankruptcy of their own, after all their buyers default and other people stop buying their over-priced products altogether.

All you people who think people deserve to get treated like shit if they can't meet their bills, consider this -- when people really do start living within their means, your entire world -- the whole society of the 21st century -- is going to come crashing to a halt. No more $50K cars, no more $500K houses, no more $3000K televisions, alll those luxuries and toys that people borrow money to get. There cannot be enough people in the world with enough cash to keep those industries going while still living within their means. The world economy is dependent on consumers spending money they don't have, on debts that never, never get paid off. You want that kind of system -- one in which debt management is considered better than not being in debt -- then it's pretty fucking hypocritical of you to criticize defaulters on the grounds that they shouldn't have borrowed.

Well, I say they shouldn't have borrowed, too, but not for that reason. I just want to see this whole drug-pusher culture wiped out. Pay cash and pay as you go, and then if some scumbag beats you up and takes your stuff, the police will have to do something about it. And if that habit leads to the destruction of whole industries, fuck them too. Let them develop a sustainable business model for a change.

This is an excellent post, and I absolutely agree.

The advent of 'rent to own', 'debt solution' agencies that finesse your credit so you too can leave far beyond your means...THIS is the criminal act, not defaulting on loans you never should have been able to get in the first place.


In regards to the earlier remarks about this not happening in the United States, and those questions as to why, there are several states with 'castle laws', which essentially say that 'A mans home is his castle, and he has the right to defend it.'

There are also Constitutional protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure in both the US and Canada. Just because the state decides to declare a search and seizure 'reasonable', doesn't mean the courts are going to agree...and frankly I can't see this sort of thing being upheld under any Constitutional analysis in either country.

But the Brits are odd...there aren't the same sort of 'rigid' constitutional guarantees. Overall, this seems to absolutely wrong to me on so many levels.

There are also Constitutional protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure in both the US and Canada. Just because the state decides to declare a search and seizure 'reasonable', doesn't mean the courts are going to agree...and frankly I can't see this sort of thing being upheld under any Constitutional analysis in either country.

But the Brits are odd...there aren't the same sort of 'rigid' constitutional guarantees. Overall, this seems to absolutely wrong to me on so many levels.

Exactly. This has nothing to do with gun laws or any of that utter nonsense that some posters are trying to make it about. It has everything to do with the British government being fucked up.

Employed by private companies.


Effectively thugs on a payroll.

okay Jesus H christ thats absurd. thank god we have guns here in the US private thugs cant break down your door here.
only goons from the state can.

In other news the Sheriff of Nottingham is reported to be pleased at the governments new policy.

Exactly. This has nothing to do with gun laws or any of that utter nonsense that some posters are trying to make it about. It has everything to do with the British government being fucked up.
Agreed. These fucking asinine pro-gun arguments always blow my mind. Apparently guns are the solution to teenage abortions, lack of heterosexual fashion sense and anal warts.

It's not to say that England has lagged so tremendously behind the US or Canada in terms of procedural or civil rights... a comparison and contrast of advances and setbacks show flaws in each system. So supremacy of constitution versus supremacy of parliament...neither system is going to ensure you don't have abuse of power. I would hope that the court in my country would never allow this kind of idiocy to stand...but I wouldn't count on it.

To which more morons are going to suggest that gun ownership is the solution to a nuanced, and complex problem.

In other news the Sheriff of Nottingham is reported to be pleased at the governments new policy.

Enjoyable :)

Not surprising from the country who not so long ago locked people up in debtor's prisons to work like slaves.

Not surprising from the country who not so long ago locked people up in debtor's prisons to work like slaves.

Yeah. So much better to come from a country that was built on slavery.

Yeah. So much better to come from a country that was built on slavery.

Fuck up parents breed fucked up kids *nod*

Yeah. So much better to come from a country that was built on slavery.

I'm not too proud of America currently, or its past either.

If I was half the people here on NSG I'd have taken that as a personal attack.

I'm not too proud of America currently, or its past either.

If I was half the people here on NSG I'd have taken that as a personal attack.

Which would be lame.

Fuck up parents breed fucked up kids *nod*Humanity > humanity, or Europe > America?

Yeah. So much better to come from a country that was built on slavery.
The difference is that some countries are sorry for their slave-owning past and try to distance from it, and some... as we see, consider going a bit back.

Also, US wasn't build on slavery. On the contrary, the United States have been built on a rebellion against British rule and slavery it rested upon.

Which would be lame.

Sort of my point, the whole people coming in your house to legally steal things is almost as bad.

Don't destroy your own argument with hyperbole.

Remember, I by no means agree with this system, but I do agree with the principle. Defaulting on debts though more common is, really the breaking of a contract, a deal, where you have agreed to pay a certain ammount of money for goods/services rendered.

This is a very serious matter, and so are the consequences. The result is by no means fair, but it is the easiest and most cost effective way for those who are out of money to claim back whatever they can. It would in the end be too costly to find proper buyers for so many items, considering Bailiffs are removing the property of so many at once.

The other alternative is debtors prison I suppose.

Also, US wasn't build on slavery. On the contrary, the United States have been built on a rebellion against British rule and slavery it rested upon.
So why did the US keep slavery for more than 50 years after we got rid of it back home, then?

and slavery it rested upon.

That's crap. You kept slavery for the next 90 years, we got rid of it in 1808. (I think 1808.)

Remember, I by no means agree with this system, but I do agree with the principle. Defaulting on debts though more common is, really the breaking of a contract, a deal, where you have agreed to pay a certain ammount of money for goods/services rendered.

This is a very serious matter, and so are the consequences. The result is by no means fair, but it is the easiest and most cost effective way for those who are out of money to claim back whatever they can. It would in the end be too costly to find proper buyers for so many items, considering Bailiffs are removing the property of so many at once.

The other alternative is debtors prison I suppose.
I reckon this whole thing is absolutely fine. With credit, living beyond your means has changed in scope. If you cannot live within your means, you sort your life out as much as possible - people are not going to get court orders within a week of defaulting, especially since the price of property has gone down recently, leaving most houses with negative equity.

I reckon this whole thing is absolutely fine. With credit, living beyond your means has changed in scope. If you cannot live within your means, you sort your life out as much as possible - people are not going to get court orders within a week of defaulting, especially since the price of property has gone down recently, leaving most houses with negative equity.


I never understood it. People are aware that the Bailiffs are going to come round, why not just move a lot of your valuales to a friends house for a couple of weeks?

okay Jesus H christ thats absurd. thank god we have guns here in the US private thugs cant break down your door here.
only goons from the state can.

For one, Vault 10 is incorrect --- Bailiffs in the UK are in fact agents of the courts.

Secondly, they are in no way a first solution. As has been explained time and time again in this thread, bailiffs are only used when there is very clear proof that the debtor will not be paying, they have ignored court orders to pay, etc.

Finally, this is a natural consequence of these things called property rights you're so insistent upon. After all, if I am able to simply default on my loans, then I am stealing from my creditors, which is a crime against their property.

That's crap. You kept slavery for the next 90 years, we got rid of it in 1808. (I think 1808.)
After 1772 it was basically outlawed in England, and in 1807 the slave trade outlawed for the whole Empire, outside of East India Company holdings.

thank god we have guns here in the US

We also have guns, just most of us choose not to. Anyway these guys are from the courts, not some private company.

I never understood it. People are aware that the Bailiffs are going to come round, why not just move a lot of your valuales to a friends house for a couple of weeks?
Because then they'll just take everything at your current property, and you'll have really pissed them off, so when they do find your stuff (after charging you for contempt of court) they'll probably take all of that, too, undervaluing it massively because you're a prick.

Because then they'll just take everything at your current property, and you'll have really pissed them off, so when they do find your stuff (after charging you for contempt of court) they'll probably take all of that, too, undervaluing it massively because you're a prick.


Little harsh, but it answers my question.

Little harsh, but it answers my question.
Nothing harsh about it. Bailiffs aren't called in on the drop of a hat, and it's a formal order by the court, as powerful as any other. Ignoring it is like running off instead of going to jail - you will get your arse doubly kicked.

The world needs more liberal bankruptcy laws.

So the bastards will cause tens of thousands worth of damage to obtain their fucking five hundred buck debt.No, because then they'd be liable to prosecution for Criminal Damage. You do have that law on the books, wherever you live, presumably?

And "bucks" is NOT an acceptable synonym for pounds sterling... ;)

The information on my credit cards and bank accounts has a value. It can be used to steal a large amount of money from me.
Oh? So you've got a large amount of money? Then you can afford to pay your debts, can't you, and this law would only apply to you if you were deliberately choosing not to pay despite that fact...


__________________________________________________________

One important detail that I haven't seen mentioned here so far: Does this new law require that any Bailiffs who break into residences leave those premises 'secure' again on their departure, or can they just leave the place wide open so that anybody else could just wander in (if nobody's home) and help themselves to whatever's still left there? If the latter's the case then it shouldn't be... and I could see some bailiffs being tempted to help themselves to a few items, without handing those over to their employers, in the expectation of being able to claim that somebody else must have taken those after they'd gone away...

For one, Vault 10 is incorrect --- Bailiffs in the UK are in fact agents of the courts.
I don't mean to argue, but other sources say otherwise.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff#England_.26_Wales

There are kinds of bailiffs employed by courts, but they only collect court fines.
County Court Bailiffs are employed by Her Majesty's Courts Service and carry out enforcement for County Courts - mainly involving payment of unpaid County Court Judgments.

All other bailiffs are privateers.

Certificated bailiffs are employed by private companies and enforce a variety of debts on behalf of organisations such as local authorities.
Non-certificated bailiffs are employed by private companies and are entitled to recover the money owed for a variety of debts by seizing and selling your goods [...]

Our beast is apparently non-certificated bailiffs. They are employees of private companies, and, presumably, do not need any certification by the court.


As has been explained time and time again in this thread, bailiffs are only used when there is very clear proof that the debtor will not be paying, they have ignored court orders to pay, etc.
Or when there has been a mistake.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece

In one case, an 89-year-old grandmother returned home to find a bailiff sitting in her chair having drawn up a list of her possessions. He was pursuing a parking fine owed by her son, who did not even live at the address.



After all, if I am able to simply default on my loans, then I am stealing from my creditors, which is a crime against their property.
Actually, defaulting is not a crime under the present legal system. In state of insolvency/bankrupcy, the debtor is freed from fulfilling the obligations beyond his reasonable ability to pay. Note that he can't be stripped clean of property.
http://www.bcsalliance.com/bankruptcy_fedexemptions.html
http://www.bcsalliance.com/bankruptcy_stateexemptions.html

Conclusion? There is a balance between creditor rights and "creditor beware" principle. Basically, when the creditor gives a loan, he partially surrenders the rights to that money, and takes the risk that it might not be repaid. Taking a loan and not being able to repay is not a crime, but a financial mistake on the part of both the creditor and the debtor, for which both have their losses.

The private citizen is not made a criminal by being unable to repay, there's a recognized element of a gamble in lending. This might be counter-intuitive, but it's exactly why the companies run credit checks and (yes) have the right not to lend money if they don't feel like it. The ways in which the creditor is permitted to collect are restricted as not to excessively impair the debtor's life.

At least it's that way in US.
That's also why these new British laws with knocking down the door are seen as outrageous by certain people. Because we are used to consider individual's civil rights important. Treating debtors like outlaws steps and craps all over human dignity and the very concept of personal rights.

Treating debtors like outlaws steps and craps all over human dignity and the very concept of personal rights.
They broke a formal contract, and therefore suffer the consequences. Having everyone taking the piss is what would make a mockery of the dignity of those who would essentially be choosing to pay.

They broke a formal contract, and therefore suffer the consequences.
And therefore should suffer the consequences specified for breaking the contract, and limited by the law.
Not "whatever it takes to retrieve the debt". Debtor prisons and labor camps have been abolished for a reason.


Having everyone taking the piss is what would make a mockery of the dignity of those who would essentially be choosing to pay.
You probably presume that people who end up defaulting are those who lived an opulent lifestyle with borrowed money, which was above their means.

It's not so.
The most common reason for defaulting is, in fact, medical debt.
http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

Think of it. Most people defaulting on their debt have never consciously taken these loans.

They were unlucky to have an unexpected accident, were taken into a hospital, and then woke up to a bill that made them wish the ambulance had never arrived. It can happen to pretty much anyone here.

Yes, it can happen if you're in the medical "insurance" scam too.
For the years 2003 and 2004, just over 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies were the result of medical debt by those with health insurance.
A significant percentage of those listing medical debt as the reason for their bankruptcy are 65 and older. Other groups disproportionately bankrupted by medical debt include single women raising children on low wages.
And it's not always for an organ transplantation or something along these lines. The person just wasn't prepared to the sudden expense.
The medical debt causing these bankruptcies isn't overwhelming in many circumstances. Statistics available in 2003 are as follows: about 20% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of less than $1,000; about 40% involve a medical debt of less than $5,000; and 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of over $10,000. One would think these people could make some sort of payment arrangements to pay off the debt rather than file bankruptcy.

Perhaps many file bankruptcy for the simple reason that the medical collection industry is so inflexible and will not work out reasonable payment plans for those who can not pay the debt off quickly. Instead, hospitals, doctors, and medical collection agencies rush to the courthouse to file small claim lawsuits (those less than $5,000). In fact, many small claims courts are clogged with such suits, with medical debt lawsuits making up a large portion of a court's docket. And this trend is only going to increase as many hospitals, doctors and other medical-related businesses turn their delinquent accounts over to collection agencies in 30 or 60 days rather than waiting the traditional 150 days before doing so.

It's not so.
The most common reason for defaulting is, in fact, medical debt.
http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

Think of it. Most people defaulting on their debt have never consciously taken these loans.

They were unlucky to have an unexpected accident, were taken into a hospital, and then woke up to a bill that made them wish the ambulance had never arrived. It can happen to pretty much anyone here.

Yes, it can happen if you're in the medical "insurance" scam too.

And it's not always for an organ transplantation or something along these lines. The person just wasn't prepared to the sudden expense.

Doesn't affect England and Wales try again.

The most common reason for defaulting is, in fact, medical debt.
Hah!

Maybe in backwards states without universal healthcare!

Doesn't affect England and Wales try again.
Oh who cares about England and Wales.

We're discussing why the law is wrong. Why it's intrinsically wrong. It may be a lost cause for the UK already, but now we at least should understand why we can't let this happen in the free world.

The fact that not all defaulting debtors are crooks who brought it on themselves still stands. There is such a thing as unexpected inavoidable expenses. There is such a thing as mistakes.

Oh who cares about England and Wales.

We're discussing why the law is wrong. Why it's intrinsically wrong. It may be a lost cause for the UK already, but now we at least should understand why we can't let this happen in the free world.

The fact that not all defaulting debtors are crooks who brought it on themselves still stands. There is such a thing as unexpected inavoidable expenses. There is such a thing as mistakes.
Medical care is not one of them in the UK. At all.

Here in the US, the number one cause of debt default is divorce, not medical expenses.

Two people marry, both have jobs, and on that income take on debt.

While together, they can handle the debt.

Separate, they cannot - they have two places to live in as opposed to one, for starters.

Even if they enter into a separation agreement to say who is going to pay what bills, it usually never works out, even if they want to keep paying - the money just won't be there.

It's a common cause of mortgage defaults as well, but that's usually spite - it's usually the man (who was forced to move out) financially "burning down the house" so the woman can't live in it.

Oh who cares about England and Wales.

We're discussing why the law is wrong. Why it's intrinsically wrong. It may be a lost cause for the UK already, but now we at least should understand why we can't let this happen in the free world.
The fact that not all defaulting debtors are crooks who brought it on themselves still stands. There is such a thing as unexpected inavoidable expenses. There is such a thing as mistakes.

England and Wales are a big part of this, they're the 2 countries the discussion is about, and both have universal healthcare.

free world.

England and Wales aren't free?

England and Wales aren't free?
Aye we're all communistic and shit.

Aye we're all communistic and shit.

Especially Wales, what with their "free drugs for those who need them" attitude. They could do with some liberating.

Medical care is not one of them in the UK. At all.
There are others.

For instance, an accident causes damage to your home's plumbing systems, with flooding resulting. The plumbing needs urgent repairs, otherwise the house will be uninhabitable. You might also be sued for damages (in a strict liability tort) if it caused harm to someone else, say in a terraced house.
The result? You are overwhelmed with sudden expenses and unable to pay your debts.

Unexpected expenses do happen.

They do happen in UK just as well as elsewhere.

They can happen to you.


---
Hotwife: According to a quick search - http://www.google.com/search?q=leading+causes+of+bankrupcy+in+US - the leading cause seems to be healthcare.

However, I guess divorce is the second most common, at least. And let's not forget that divorce is not always an easy thing to avoid too. Another risk to bring you down.

Nothing harsh about it. Bailiffs aren't called in on the drop of a hat, and it's a formal order by the court, as powerful as any other. Ignoring it is like running off instead of going to jail - you will get your arse doubly kicked.

Oh I just meant the wording of your comment. Apologies for the misconception.

You might also be sued for damages (in a strict liability tort)

In England and Wales, we don't tend to sue people for leaking pipes. But then, we're socialist Muslims, so what do you care?

There are others.

For instance, an accident causes damage to your home's plumbing systems, with flooding resulting. The plumbing needs urgent repairs, otherwise the house will be uninhabitable. You might also be sued for damages (in a strict liability tort) if it caused harm to someone else, say in a terraced house.
The result? You are overwhelmed with sudden expenses and unable to pay your debts.
You're not going to get sued for leaky pipes, you're going to get invited over for a tea by your sympathetic neighbours.
Unexpected expenses do happen.

They do happen in UK just as well as elsewhere.

They can happen to you.
Uhu... which is why we insure things to the hilt in the UK, and try to keep some money about. Do people go bankrupt in the UK? Absolutely, but it's usually due to very much preventable causes.

Oh I just meant the wording of your comment. Apologies for the misconception.
Oh ok, terribly sorry.

You're not going to get sued for leaky pipes, you're going to get invited over for a tea by your sympathetic neighbours.


See last post on page before.

You're not going to get sued for leaky pipes, you're going to get invited over for a tea by your sympathetic neighbours.
I'm not, not only I have enough land around my house that leaks wouldn't harm anyone, but my neighbors are likely help me fix the plumbing. But situations differ. Some people live in terrace homes, some people have bad blood with their neighbors.

Shit happens.

Normal and honest people go bankrupt.

It's not something you can insure yourself against, whether you are a poor janitor or a rich banker.

Insolvency is a misfortune, not a crime.

I'm not, not only I have enough land around my house that leaks wouldn't harm anyone, but my neighbors are likely help me fix the plumbing. But situations differ. Some people live in terrace homes, some people have bad blood with their neighbors.

The sort of people who'd sue you for leaky pipes tend to be nasty chavs, who really can't afford to sue you.

I'm not, not only I have enough land around my house that leaks wouldn't harm anyone, but my neighbors are likely help me fix the plumbing. But situations differ. Some people live in terrace homes, some people have bad blood with their neighbors.
I've lived in terrace houses before, people were always alright :confused:
Shit happens.

Normal and honest people go bankrupt.

It's not something you can insure yourself against, whether you are a poor janitor or a rich banker.
Home insurance, my friend. That insures you against this kind of problem.
Insolvency is a misfortune, not a crime.
Aye which is why you can pay it off and not go to jail or anything like that. The new law just means that people who are deliberately obstructing court orders do not get any protection if they get rowdy with people doing their jobs. This is all.

I've lived in terrace houses before, people were always alright :confused:

This, also our drains exploded once, and there was literally shit in the street. Nobody sued us.

This, also our drains exploded once, and there was literally shit in the street. Nobody sued us.

Somebody probably sued the Council.

/always happens.

Somebody probably sued the Council.

/always happens.

Nope.

Home insurance, my friend. That insures you against this kind of problem.
Home insurance doesn't insure you from divorce. There's a myriad of things that can happen and put you in debt.


The new law just means that people who are deliberately obstructing court orders do not get any protection if they get rowdy with people doing their jobs.
The new law gives debt thugs the right to use violence.
The right to initiate violence.
Not respond to "getting rowdy", but break down the doors, enter, conduct a search and seizure at will.


I used to think that one of the basic principles in what we call a civilized society is not using violence against each other, with the sole exception given to the law enforcement in cases of necessity, but apparently the Brits think otherwise. I also used to think that we still retain the concept of civil rights and the idea of privacy, but apparently the "we" here is much smaller than it seemed to be.

Home insurance doesn't insure you from divorce. There's a myriad of things that can happen and put you in debt.
And? How does that discharge you from your liability?


The new law gives debt thugs a right to use violence.
That's your opinion - one which is not shared by the legislation.

Home insurance doesn't insure you from divorce. There's a myriad of things that can happen and put you in debt.

Leaky plumbing = divorce now?

The new law gives debt thugs a right to use violence.

Reasonable force is what it says. However when people see their 10 year old daughter being pinned to the ground and start laying into the bailiff, I think violence will insue, so you're right.

Home insurance doesn't insure you from divorce.
No, being a decent spouse does, though.
There's a myriad of things that can happen and put you in debt.
Eh well with healthcare being basically free, and not having a population which loves to sue at any excuse, it's not really as bad as all that here.
The new law gives debt thugs a right to use violence.

I used to think one of the basic principles in what we call a civilized society is not using violence against each other, with the sole exception given to the law enforcement, but apparently the Brits think otherwise.
This is about law enforcement -_-

Not respond to "getting rowdy"
Aye, that's what they can respond to any level of violence with - people getting in the way of their work. They can't attack people because they feel like it.
but break down the doors, enter, conduct a search and seizure at will.
If a court order has been violated -_-

And? How does that discharge you from your liability?
It doesn't. Now, how does the liability make you a non-person without civil rights?


That's your opinion - one which is not shared by the legislation.
The whole legislation is about permitting the bailiffs to use force. It's not a matter of opinion.

The whole legislation is about permitting the bailiffs to use force. It's not a matter of opinion.

Reasonable force, it doesn't allow them to run in with knives, stabbing everyone.

Aye, that's what they can respond to any level of violence with - people getting in the way of their work. They can't attack people because they feel like it.
Violence is NOT PERMITTED. It's a principle of our society. If someone gets in the way of my car or my work, I don't get a right to roll over them.


If a court order has been violated -_- ...Then a police officer (not some private employee) should obtain a warrant for the perpetrator's arrest, and compliance should be secured.

It doesn't
Thank you for acknowledging that liability is still the issue, regardless of your circumstances. That is all that matters.

Now, how does the liability make you a non-person without civil rights?
Non-person? Your hyperbole is reaching new bounds.

The whole legislation is about permitting the bailiffs to use force. It's not a matter of opinion.
Your opinion is of "debts thugs" using violence. Vastly different from agents of the court acting on a court order using reasonable force to do their court appointed duty.

Reasonable force, it doesn't allow them to run in with knives, stabbing everyone.
That would be murder or attempted murder, not merely violence.


Reasonable force is what it says. However when people see their 10 year old daughter being pinned to the ground and start laying into the bailiff, I think violence will insue, so you're right.
So you still support a legislation that's going to lead to this?

Violence is NOT PERMITTED. It's a principle of our society. If someone gets in the way of my car or my work, I don't get a right to roll over them.
Ah of course, because acting in self-defence and making sure your court-mandated job is followed through is the same as running people over. Yes.
...Then a police officer (not some private employee) should obtain a warrant for the perpetrator's arrest, and compliance should be secured.
Why waste the time? If anything dodgy goes on, the person who has the court order against them can get free legal advice and help to see if they were wronged enough to have the whole thing slide.

So you still support a legislation that's going to lead to this?

Nope, and I never said I did. I think it's awful.

Violence is NOT PERMITTED.

Says the bloke who advocates the shooting of burglars.

No, being a decent spouse does, though. Not if your other spouse is less than decent.

Your whole argument is the assumption "I'm sure it won't ever happen to me".

It not merely rests on that assumption, all you're trying to prove is that it's not going to happen to you. And so, confident in your safety, you consider it a reason to fuck over the rights of those to whom it does happen.

Not if your other spouse is less than decent.

Your whole argument is the assumption "I'm sure it won't ever happen to me".

It not merely rests on that assumption, all you're trying to prove is that it's not going to happen to you. And so, confident in your safety, you consider it a reason to fuck over the rights of those to whom it does happen.

Since when does divorce always lead to insolvency anyway?

Ah of course, because acting in self-defence and making sure your court-mandated job is followed through is the same as running people over.
Read the damn article, finally.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece

Bailiffs have for hundreds of years been denied powers to break into homes for civil debt or to use force against debtors, except in self-defence.


They already have the right to use force in self-defense.

This legislation is about giving them the right to initiate use of force.


Why waste the time? If anything dodgy goes on, the person who has the court order against them can get free legal advice and help to see if they were wronged enough to have the whole thing slide.
After the damage has been done.

Thank you for acknowledging that liability is still the issue, regardless of your circumstances. That is all that matters.
It never was questioned, in fact. We're discussing how to act on that liability, not whether it exists.



Your opinion is of "debts thugs" using violence. Vastly different from agents of the court acting on a court order using reasonable force to do their court appointed duty.
They are not agents of the court, and they are not acting on a court order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff#England_.26_Wales
In fact, they are specifically not permitted to enforce collection of money under court order.
They only work for their employer.

This legislation is about giving them the right to initiate use of force.

Reasonable force. Again, not breaking in and beating people. Which probably will happen and then they'll get rid of the law.

How are bailiff laws and gun ownership laws connected here?

There's nothing preventing a government which supports liberalised gun ownership from legalising bailiffs to use force.

Incidentally, this isn't a "British Insanity", only a Welsh and English one. There's no such thing as a bailiff in Scotland (nor, I believe, in Northern Ireland).
The connection is only in your mind. The tragedy is that the government is no longer protecting private property, thus it falls to the individual to do so. I would choose to use a firearm for that purpose, others may prefer landmines and flamethrowers.

Still, when a creditor can take property from a person in default on a loan unsecured by collateral, such as a credit card, then the nation is, indeed, in sad shape.

Since when does divorce always lead to insolvency anyway?
Why the "always" bit? It's enough that it can lead to insolvency.



Says the bloke who advocates the shooting of burglars.
Because burglary is a violent crime and a felony. Breaking into someone's house to rob them is not excusable, and so they have the right to defend themselves and their home.


Reasonable force. Again, not breaking in and beating people. Which probably will happen and then they'll get rid of the law.
Well, the breaking in part is made legal by this pretty explicitly.
And the beating is likely to occur.

Yes, I too hope they'll get rid of the law.

Read the damn article, finally.
Uhu... I did, and my interpretation of that is "to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables." means "if people start getting abusive and/or violent, you can pin them". That's basically self-defence and insuring that your orders are carried through. This is not about random thugs coming into your house and beating the crap out of you, this is about ensuring that a court-mandated job is carried out.
After the damage has been done.
Aye, or we could have your 'solution' which would be to pre-emptively detain people and then go over their property.

They are not agents of the court, and they are not acting on a court order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff#England_.26_Wales


Civilian enforcement officers are employed by Her Majesty's Courts Service and carry out enforcement for Magistrates' Courts - this mainly involves collection of unpaid fines given by the court.[1]

County Court Bailiffs are employed by Her Majesty's Courts Service and carry out enforcement for County Courts - mainly involving payment of unpaid County Court Judgments.[1]

Sorry, they're not agents of the court?

They are not agents of the court, and they are not acting on a court order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff#England_.26_Wales
In fact, they are specifically not permitted to enforce collection of money under court order.
They only work for their employer.

They employer gets the ok to act from the legislation.... i.e from the Courts.
It emerged last week that Her Majesty’s Courts Service has already handed out guidance to privately employed bailiffs, pointing out that under legislation passed in 2004 they can already break down doors as a last resort to collect court fines.
The bailiff/debt collectors get their mandate from their company/creditor. The company/creditor gets their right to pursue debts from the legislation passed and enacted - i.e the law.

You have this assumption that debt agents are the first port of call and just turn up unannounced with no prior warning whatsoever to some 'innocent' householder. This shows you don't know how the industry works, nor how debtors act.

Sorry, they're not agents of the court?
Exactly.

Because there are six kinds of bailiffs in UK.

And the bailiffs you've mentioned, as said in your very quoted fragment, do not collect property for private debts. They collect court fines.

The bailiffs seizing property for debt are Uncertificated Bailiffs.

They are not agents of the court, and they are not acting on a court order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff#England_.26_Wales
In fact, they are specifically not permitted to enforce collection of money under court order.
They only work for their employer.
Worth emphasizing. These are private collections agents being authorized to pick a fight over a private debt collection activity.

And seeing as these are private agents, I don't expect to see them working on good standards of evidence, or even necessarily always having the right address. Heck, it's often not justified for duly authorized deputies of the law to initiate violence. You need to keep close scrutiny on this.

So, ya, what I read from this is that if you're in London, Vinnie the loan shark's brother Guido is authorized to come in, bust your kneecaps, and take the piano home with him. Not cool.

Exactly.

Because there are six kinds of bailiffs in UK.

And the bailiffs you've mentioned, as said in your very quoted fragment, do not collect property for private debts. They collect court fines.

The bailiffs seizing property for debt are Uncertificated Bailiffs.

In that case I'm now even more against this.

Uhu... I did, and my interpretation of that is "to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables." means "if people start getting abusive and/or violent, you can pin them". That's basically self-defence and insuring that your orders are carried through.
Well, then your interpretation doesn't agree with that of the British Government.

Because they already have the right to self-defense.

Now this bill aims to give them the right to knock down doors and use force to seize the property.

Because there are six kinds of bailiffs in England and Wales.

Fixed.

No, because then they'd be liable to prosecution for Criminal Damage. You do have that law on the books, wherever you live, presumably?
Not if they're careful and know how to circumvent it to claim they've been merely seizing property according to their powers. Examples are computers (with valuable data) or home plumbing - not worth much when sold, but can cost tremendously to replace. While I doubt the legality of removing equipment installed into the home, computers with private data appear to be fair game.


Oh? So you've got a large amount of money?
Yes. But it's not about me. What difference does it make? Even if someone hasn't got a large amount, it's still his private information. "You only had 5 cents in there" is not a legal defense for stealing a wallet. "Your accounts were empty anyway" is not an excuse to steal them.

I am having a Vision! Law repealed by emergency session as Baliffs try to break down the doors to parliament to repossess the benches due to non-payment of Government Debt.

Exactly.

Because there are six kinds of bailiffs in UK.

And the bailiffs you've mentioned, as said in your very quoted fragment, do not collect property for private debts. They collect court fines.

The bailiffs seizing property for debt are Uncertificated Bailiffs.
Er... hang on a minute here. The Times article says:
They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.
What part of an unpaid credit card bill is a court fine?

Er... hang on a minute here. The Times article says:

What part of an unpaid credit card bill is a court fine?

Maybe we should all stop paying attention to a newspaper article that evidently can't tell the difference between a 'Bailiff' and a 'debt collector'.....

Maybe we should all stop paying attention to a newspaper article that evidently can't tell the difference between a 'Bailiff' and a 'debt collector'.....
The Telegraph article on the topic also talks about private debts:
The Government may increase the powers of debt collectors despite concerns that the industry is poorly controlled.

The new rules, allowable under legislation already passed by Parliament but not yet enacted, would give bailiffs the right to restrain or pin down householders.

Bailiffs are expecting a big increase in business over the next year as tens of thousands of Britons experience financial problems during the forthcoming recession.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has forecast that 75,000 homes will be repossessed next year and hundreds of thousands of people are expected to be pursued for unpaid debts.
Note the description of "the industry" and the referrals to repossessed homes. So yes, we're talking about private-industry repo men. Which, in Britain, are apparently referred to as one of several different kinds of bailiff.

Er... hang on a minute here. The Times article says: [...]
What part of an unpaid credit card bill is a court fine?
That's the point. None, of course.

These are different people also called bailiffs, who don't work for the courts, but rather for private companies to collect on private debts. They have no certification and no mandatory check for criminal background. They have no official regulations police has. They have no internal investigation department police has. They might not even be briefed on what's permitted. They're just hired muscle.

And, from what I understand, they don't need a court order (or even are not permitted to work on court orders), just an word from their employer that there's a debt of X and they should collect it.

The Telegraph article on the topic also talks about private debts:

Note the description of "the industry" and the referrals to repossessed homes. So yes, we're talking about private-industry repo men. Which, in Britain, are apparently referred to as one of several different kinds of bailiff.

Ok, in the States they might be called "repo men". Where I'm from (and potentially in the UK) the companies are called Debt Collection Agencies and the agents are simply "Debt Collectors".

They act on behalf on behalf of a company seeking to recover it's debt from a private person who has persistantly defaulted on repayments or ignored bills. It starts with a letter - followed by a second letter - then a final warning letter, including a threat of legal action and/or futher action. Then a phone call - a second phone call - and a third phone call. If there is still no response whatsoever from the private person, the agents go to the door.

Normally this process takes a few months.

/my experience. No sympathy.

Edit: Not bailiffs which the article nicely seems to have gotten mixed up with alongside "repo men", "private debt collection" and "debtors" in general. Times, my opinion has fallen.

I also see the mention of credit card bills in a related article on Myvesta UK (debt counseling people, apparently).

I'm not seeing anything online where Ministry officials are explaining it's all some misunderstanding, either.

Ok, in the States they might be called "repo men". Where I'm from (and potentially in the UK) they companies are called Debt Collection Agencies and the agents are simply "Debt Collectors".
Right. I'm translating for my American brethren.
They act on behalf on behalf of a company seeking to recover it's debt from a private person who has persistantly defaulted on repayments or ignored bills. It starts with a letter - followed by a second letter - then a final warning letter, including a threat of legal action and/or futher action. Then a phone call - a second phone call - and a third phone call. If there is still no response whatsoever from the private person, the agents go to the door.

Normally this process takes a few months.

/my experience. No sympathy.
In the US, repo men and collections agencies have a history of pushing (and sometimes breaking) the law in pursuit of collecting on debts.

Even police officers - who are in general much better sorts of people - use force inappropriately on more occasions than we like to tolerate. And you're going to authorize repo men to use force to take cars? This is a major step backwards for the UK if it gets finalized. Dickens is probably rolling in his grave.

Edit: Not bailiffs which the article nicely seems to have gotten mixed up with alongside "repo men", "private debt collection" and "debtors" in general. Times, my opinion has fallen.
Then how come, when I look online for news regarding bailiffs, I come up with all sorts of hits relating to private debt collection? Home foreclosures and all that?

It looks to me like Vault 10 was right to point to the Wikipedia article defining a load of different uses for "bailiff" in Britain. Including folks who are agents of private (commercial) interests.

Then how come, when I look online for news regarding bailiffs, I come up with all sorts of hits relating to private debt collection? Home foreclosures and all that?

It looks to me like Vault 10 was right to point to the Wikipedia article defining a load of different uses for "bailiff" in Britain. Including folks who are agents of private (commercial) interests.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10034289

When bailiffs may be used:

Your creditor (the person you owe money to) can make a claim against you in the County Court. A County Court Judgment (CCJ) may be made stating you must repay the debt.

Your creditor can ask the court to issue a 'warrant of execution', which means that bailiffs may be called in to help recover the debt.

If you owe tax to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), or Council Tax to your local authority, they may send bailiffs to recover the debt.

Debt collectors:

Creditors may use a debt collection agency to ask you to pay off the debt.

Debt collectors aren't court officials and don't have the same powers as bailiffs. They can't enter your home or seize your possessions.

Creditors and debt collectors must follow OFT (Office of Fair Trading) debt collection guidance

If a collector harasses you, you should contact your local council's trading standards department. If they threaten you physically, contact the police.

What bailiffs can and can't do:

If County Court bailiffs come to your home, you don't have to let them in.
They can't force their way in on their first visit, but they can enter through an open window, or an unlocked door. Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door to them or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal.
This is the part that seems to have been amended ^
Bailiffs trying to recover money you owe to HMRC are allowed to break into your home, providing they have a magistrates' warrant.
Bailiffs recovering unpaid magistrates' court fines, however, do have the power to force entry.

What can a bailiff take?
Bailiffs can't take essentials such as clothing, bedding, cookers, fridges, most furniture and the 'tools of your trade' (for example, a computer you use for work).
They can take non-essential items such as your television. They can take possessions outside your home (for example, your car or garden equipment), or in unlocked sheds and garages.

And so forth. Hope this clarifies between "debt collector" and "bailiff"... er, I think.

It looks to me like Vault 10 was right to point to the Wikipedia article defining a load of different uses for "bailiff" in Britain. Including folks who are agents of private (commercial) interests.
He was.

Moreover, the term is only valid in England and Wales. Bailiffs don't exist in Scotland (nor, I believe, in Northern Ireland), and as such, this new legislation does not apply up here.

It takes two parties to make a bad debt (absent fraud). In the case of credit card debt, civilized countries let you pay off at a fraction of the total amount if you get into trouble, not let the banks engage in breaking and entering.

Fucking feudalism is what this is.

There's no moral component to this. It's just about business deals gone wrong, and government sanctioned strong armed tactics are a revolting response. Especially in this economic climate.

The bastard banks should try and do work outs. Especially since they just stole a hefty slice from the taxpayer.

Its there fault for getting into so much debt in the first place, sheer stupidity to borrow beyond your means.

Agreed, but the erosion of fundamental and inalienable civil rights under New Labour has been little short of abhorrent.

They broke a formal contract, and therefore suffer the consequences. Having everyone taking the piss is what would make a mockery of the dignity of those who would essentially be choosing to pay.

Ok.

The first problem here is your massive miscomprehension of how the commonlaw system works, most particularly in regards to property rights, and remedies.

There are very, very limited remedies available to property owners in terms of getting something back in specie. As in, you are very limited in your ability to get something specific back that someone else took from you...what more commonly happens is that you are awarded damages depending on the cause of action you bring against the person who has what is yours.

The right of recapture is limited precisely because the commonlaw system frowns upon people taking the law into their own hands. To maintain order, you are instead to bring the matter up before the courts. Recapture is only allowable when it can be done with a minimum amount of force, and will not cause undue social discord.

When you breach a contract, you are guilty for breach of contract. Damages may be awarded against you. That does not, however, mean that suddenly the power of recapture is turned on full throttle and your creditors can now do whatever they wish to get their 'property' back. There are specific avenues available to creditors through various means of judicial enforcement that can include garnishing of wages, seizure of property (by state agents such as sherrifs, within very rigid boundaries). Again, the idea is to avoid social havoc, and to keep things on the up and up. I am uncertain why it is believed that new powers are therefore needed.

One of the facts of credit is that when you are an unsecured creditor, you are basically hooped when it comes time to seizing assets upon insolvency etc. You stand at the back of the line while the secured creditors get in there and scoop out what they can...and even the secured creditors very often are only getting ten cents on the dollar. That is a fact of doing business, that is simply a risk creditors take. There are all sorts of systems in place to change your status from unsecured to secured creditor...personal property security registrations and so forth.

What's happening here is that it is increasingly becoming common for low budget, shady credit operations to gamble on people with bad credit. In return, they are able to charge nearly criminal (or as has recently been found in Canada to actually BE criminal) interest rates. There is no point in these creditors attempting to register their property interests, because it's time consuming, and often the people in question simply don't have anything to register against.

This is a problem with the people giving said credit.

What you are supporting is the state giving sweeping powers to creditors who are engaged in shady or downright illegal practices. What you should be supporting is a crack down on this sort of unnecessary lending...NOT cheering when creditors are given stronger powers than the police to enter a person's home and seize their belongings.


I really hope as I read through this thread that Nadkor has had a chance to respond, as she is a big fan of constitutional law, and should have some excellent insight.

What's happening here is that it is increasingly becoming common for low budget, shady credit operations to gamble on people with bad credit. In return, they are able to charge nearly criminal (or as has recently been found in Canada to actually BE criminal) interest rates. There is no point in these creditors attempting to register their property interests, because it's time consuming, and often the people in question simply don't have anything to register against.

This is a problem with the people giving said credit.

You mean like large international banks?

Of course when they can't pay their debts the taxpayer has to fund their management's bonuses instead of being allowed to break into management's houses and steal their shit.

No double standard there then.

You mean like large international banks?

Of course when they can't pay their debts the taxpayer has to fund their management's bonuses instead of being allowed to break into management's houses and steal their shit.

No double standard there then.

Rofltastic! :D

You mean like large international banks?

Of course when they can't pay their debts the taxpayer has to fund their management's bonuses instead of being allowed to break into management's houses and steal their shit.

No double standard there then.

The whole credit industry is sour, top to bottom. If anything, it's about time gov'ts started curtailing the various practices that have resulted in some of the recent events pulling us all down into the swirling depths of shit.

I think Mur'v said it best, in her roasting of the culture of credit, and the enabling practices of various industries. It's a sickness, and it's the real cause of this problem...we should be dealing with that, rather than further eroding civil liberties and procedural protections.

The whole credit industry is sour, top to bottom. If anything, it's about time gov'ts started curtailing the various practices that have resulted in some of the recent events pulling us all down into the swirling depths of shit.

I think Mur'v said it best, in her roasting of the culture of credit, and the enabling practices of various industries. It's a sickness, and it's the real cause of this problem...we should be dealing with that, rather than further eroding civil liberties and procedural protections.

You'll get no argument from me about that. And a lot of the shady nonsense was enabled by Wall Street I-Banks in their rush to package and sell debt. Fraud is everywhere, and the answer to all the bad debt isn't trying to screw more out of the wage earner.

For my own part, I would like to see comprehensive and liberal bankruptcy reform, making it easy to discharge all debts and get people a fresh start. Sure, it will lead to further epic losses, but the reality is that is going to happen anyway because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason these people have bad debts is because they have no money. So there is no point in hounding people for the rest of their natural lives over it. Especially since that is, frankly, counter productive.

And by cramming those down the system valuable lessons will be learned by the parties who enabled this in the first place.

What confuses me is the attitude of Johnny Middle Class about the whole thing. Their heads are next on the chopping block, so the apparent glee some people treat this sort of thing is a little odd. (Some kind of Stockholm syndrome I presume).

I imagine six to twelve months from now attitudes will change though.

What confuses me is the attitude of Johnny Middle Class about the whole thing. Their heads are next on the chopping block, so the apparent glee some people treat this sort of thing is a little odd. (Some kind of Stockholm syndrome I presume).

I imagine six to twelve months from now attitudes will change though.
This.

I think it plays into the whole smug 'poor people are poor cuz they're dumb/lazy and we aren't poor cuz we're smart and hardworking'.

And yes, I believe that attitude will change as the situation continue to deteriorate.

This.

I think it plays into the whole smug 'poor people are poor cuz they're dumb/lazy and we aren't poor cuz we're smart and hardworking'.

And yes, I believe that attitude will change as the situation continue to deteriorate.

Well, a lot of people are about to find out that being poor is damned hard work. Many jobs are going away for good, and they are not coming back.

Its there fault for getting into so much debt in the first place, sheer stupidity to borrow beyond your means.
Given the kind of tricks I've heard of bank companies playing, you should be careful about being so quick to judge the borrowers, especially if doing so to justify such coercive measures.

How does this kind of stuff even work? They don't even get to decide which property is taken from them? What if certain circumstances the bailiffs might be unaware of make the property more of a necessity than it seems? What if there was someone with type 1 diabetes in Britain who was in debt from having trouble paying for their supplies (not sure how healthcare works there but this is more for the sake of having an example) and had a orange juice containers in the cupboard for treating low blood sugar, and they seized that, and the person's blood sugar went low and they passed out and died?

This.

I think it plays into the whole smug 'poor people are poor cuz they're dumb/lazy and we aren't poor cuz we're smart and hardworking'.

And yes, I believe that attitude will change as the situation continue to deteriorate.
I think it might be refreshing to see more of the people who are judgemental towards welfare recipients ending up unemployed...

How does this kind of stuff even work? They don't even get to decide which property is taken from them? What if certain circumstances the bailiffs might be unaware of make the property more of a necessity than it seems? What if there was someone with type 1 diabetes in Britain who was in debt from having trouble paying for their supplies (not sure how healthcare works there but this is more for the sake of having an example) and had a orange juice containers in the cupboard for treating low blood sugar, and they seized that, and the person's blood sugar went low and they passed out and died?
Perhaps you should try reading the whole thread, rather than just the OP and the latest page, before commenting?
As has already been explained SEVERAL times in this thread, if they want to decide which property is taken from them then they should have taken advantage of the MANY opportunities that they would ALREADY have had to make suitable arrangements: Sending in Bailiffs is the lenders' LAST resort, taken after the borrowers have ignored all requests to sort things out and after all other legal opportunities have been exhausted, NOT their FIRST one.

"No", diabetics in Britain don't have to pay for their own medicines: That's one of the benefits of having a National Health Service (whatever other problems it might have) ... AND as the whole point of sending in the Bailiffs is to seize items that can be sold at auction to recover the money owed, the idea of them bothering to seize containers of orange juice -- whose auction value would obviously be non-existent -- is just ridiculous...

Violence is NOT PERMITTED. It's a principle of our society.

Huh thats news to me? Since when has that happend? Does this mean that all wars now stop, all muggings, all police beatings?

Violence is certianly permited and is a mainstay for humanity, come on now imagine where we would be without violence!:D

Everytime I read the word "bailif" I just can't help thinking about 18th and 19th century England.:tongue:

Everytime I read the word "bailif" I just can't help thinking about 18th and 19th century England.:tongue:

Indeed!

I remember when my mum and dad defaulted on their morgage, us kids where living in the house at that point, whilst they where off getting a messy divorce.

We cleared the house the day before the balifs called round, and when they knocked on the door, I handed them the keys, let them in, and walked out. That was the house I mostly grew up in, and how did it feel?

Well not a lot really, there was nowt for them to take and it's only a house. Besides myself and my then pregnant wife jumped right to the top of the councils houseing list, for being made homeless. Befoe you try this at home kids, we did have to live in a homeless shelter for about a year before we got a place.

Perhaps you should try reading the whole thread, rather than just the OP and the latest page, before commenting?
As has already been explained SEVERAL times in this thread, if they want to decide which property is taken from them then they should have taken advantage of the MANY opportunities that they would ALREADY have had to make suitable arrangements: Sending in Bailiffs is the lenders' LAST resort, taken after the borrowers have ignored all requests to sort things out and after all other legal opportunities have been exhausted, NOT their FIRST one.
As explained in the original article linked, and repeatedly mentioned throughout the whole thread, one of the problems with the "let the bailiffs break into the house" rule is the "wrong house" problem. Or the "right house but sorry, someone else lives here" problem.

Another problem is the ability of housebreakers to pose as bailiffs so the neighbors don't call the cops. Pull up a truck labeled "Bernie's debt collection service," unload everything you can fence from the house, and drive off, the neighbors won't call the cops and it'll take the residents a while to figure out that it wasn't just a mistake - it was a robbery!

A third problem is control. The bailiffs are supposed to be a last resort, but will they always be used as a last resort? Realistically, no.

It is absolutely irresponsible to pass measures allowing anybody to simply break into a house without authorization issued by a court of law, or to allow private agents to initiate the use of force on debtors.