Uk Bailiffs Get Power To Use Force On Debtors

[Amadeus]

Bailiffs get power to use force on debtors

 

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.

 

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.

 

The government, which wants to crack down on people who evade debts, says the new powers would be overseen by a robust industry watchdog. However, the laws are being criticised as the latest erosion of the rights of the householder in his own home.

 

“These laws strip away tried and tested protections that make a person’s home his castle, and which have stood for centuries,” said Paul Nicolson, chairman of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, a London-based welfare charity. “They could clearly lead to violent confrontations and undermine fundamental liberties.”

 

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. In a famous declaration, William Pitt the Elder, the 18th-century prime minister, said: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.”

 

Don't get me wrong - anyone who owes something should be made to pay up, but this would be one giant step too far - that's not even police state anymore (I think they've passed that stage by now..) - that's allowing employees of private companies to use force against you, restrain you, and break into your house. Debt or no debt, that's just one giant WTF

[John]

I agree, way off the scale of Police Powers, A "robust" watchdog...ermm whatever

[%age]

On the Isle of Man there is none of this bother.

 

If it is deemed that you owe money then your house gets arrested without any question of whether or not a person is able to pay the alleged debt. No need to piss about with giving an opportunity to come to an arrangement either. The sum of money might be less than a tenth of the worth of the property.

 

On the Isle of Man, regardless of the circumstances, arrest of property can be just about a first resort not a last one.

 

Grab their house and fuck 'em.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can completely understand why this law exists but I find the fact that it exists absolutely shocking. It is yet another blatant expression of the fact that the state is not there to serve the people, it is there to serve business. You don't pay these capitalists and they will come crashing into YOUR own home. Absolutely shocking.

It is a time when people are losing their jobs because of the mistakes of those who take risks to make more profit and people are more in debt now because of the availability of lots of credit. Now the government wants to protect these businesses by allowing them to BREAK DOWN YOUR DOOR. These debt companies rake in millions yet it is still right for them to enter someone's home and take possessions such as a TV or furniture.

[gazza]

its wrong but its right,

 

its wrong that thay can do it but its right thay can,

yep im undercided, because i been in a postion where i been owned cash for work done, and would love to be able to get it back one way or another,

 

i think there has to be a happy middle, most ppl will pay in the end just need to use time and commen sense, and maybe save this as a vary last resort,

 

La_Dolce_Vita ppl are in debt because thay took the loans, thay diden have to take the loan in the first place,

it dont matter which way u wrap it up its the fault of the person who took the loan not the ppl that offerd it,

 

its like a murder saying, its not my falt i killed ppl, there ppl were just there, blame them

[La_Dolce_Vita]

its wrong but its right,

its wrong that thay can do it but its right thay can,

yep im undercided, because i been in a postion where i been owned cash for work done, and would love to be able to get it back one way or another,

i think there has to be a happy middle, most ppl will pay in the end just need to use time and commen sense, and maybe save this as a vary last resort,

La_Dolce_Vita ppl are in debt because thay took the loans, thay diden have to take the loan in the first place,

 

I accept that the borrower took on that loan consciously. The person made a decision and had access to all the information (including risks) involved in taking the loan.

But I also have to recognise that the whole process of lending is exploitative. It is largely about lending money to those who will have most diffculty making regular payments or only those only able to make minimum payments. It is these companies that come to the public and use their highly developed advertising to give the impression that a loan is a wise, simply, and affordable option.

 

However, when they cannot pay this money back somehow it is okay for the jobsworths of some awful debt company to come to someone's door and if they suspect someone is

home they FORCE entry and use FORCE to take possessions that they want. That is a total violation of one's privacy. This isn't the same as maybe a mate or family member of yours who you have lent money to and want it back.

Again, the type of people we are talking about are largely going to be the poorer sections, especially as the poorer section of society is less responsive to pressure to pay back the money, maybe out of inability to do so. What I can be certain about is that the company, shareholders and staff at the debt company will suffer far less than the person who has had their privacy removed and possessions (likely of sentimental or have a regular useful purpose) removed.

 

We live in a country where people feed off credit. Often they need it to get by. But because of the insecurities of employment and other factors that may lead to someone having difficulties somehow it is okay for others to use force against you to take your possessions? It is just not right.

 

it dont matter which way u wrap it up its the fault of the person who took the loan not the ppl that offerd it,

its like a murder saying, its not my falt i killed ppl, there ppl were just there, blame them

 

It is different than that. It is about the use of force, not the taking of the debt. The borrower is required to pay the money back, they are aware of that. But the consequences of not doing so now involves the use of force by a business, where it was formerely only the police that have the legal monopoloy on violence (and even that I am critical of).

[WTF]

although it is simple to say if you owe something and you don't repay your house goes, it may be a non home owner to start with. nobody is forcing people to take credit for what are basically luxery items, not gold and silver type luxery, but a new car instead of the 4 year old one there is nothing wrong with, or a 50 inch flat screen HD TV when the old 26 inch colour CRT is still working fine. i would guess the new laws are designed to get back property along the lines of expensive electrical goods or furniture etc where the buyer had little intention to keep up payments and maybe even lied to get the credit and doesn't actually have any real assets to seize bar the property they aren't paying for. it is easy to say ( if you can afford things ) that if you can't afford it you shouldn't have it, ( kids included ) but society seems to make the lower earners want to keep up with the joneses ( status symbols aren't what they used to be ) and now everybody seems to think there existance should include big flat screen tellys with sattelite TV, holidays, a car, and designer clothes whether they can afford it or not. there's far too much interest in material goods these days.

[thebees]

Don't forget these are the types that add 'costs' onto £20 parking tickets and then go round and take £2000 worth of goods from peoples homes. It is very wrong. I dont like Naomi Kline but she does cover this kind of thing in her book (if you can read past her drawling pain in the arse of an accent). I supposedly owe RBS Advanta £185, this dates back to 1996 when I was charged twice for some Oasis tickets, which I queried & which was ignored, charges got added etc etc etc, I wrote and told them I was not going to pay it......ten years later someone from some legal firm in Scotland calls me, tells me I need to identify myself before he will tell me why he wants to talk to me, curiosity got the better of me, I would be pleased to know the debt had not accrued any interest, what debt? I do not actually owe anything, the debt was never real...but you see how it could have gone, if I had lived in the UK those people would now have the power to come and take my stuff, disputed debt or not.

 

This is a massive subject which covers many aspects of the debt society we live in (currently being hugely encouraged by that stupid twat in charge of England). The selling of debt is wrong, there should be laws governing interest and costs (Solid laws, not like the lilly livered pile of shite they have atm...where you can be charged 'discount' which is in fact interest but they cannot call it that.) If banks etc had not been so slap happy about selling debt (to the point that noone truly knows who owes who what, see credit crunch threads for further details) the world might not be in the financial muddle it is now.

 

Private security companies (see Naomi Kline book) wtf is that all about? no, really. I go to the airport and have to show my holey odd socks to some fat whaller in a security uniform, Im not allowed to bring my crochet onto the plane and they cannot even tell you why, "You know why", "NO! I dont fucking know, how about you tell me?" I goto the Strand shopping centre and see kids being told to move along...why? what are they doing that is so different to the old person who was sat on the bench but not moved along?

 

We havent got fancy cars, or a big telly (its quite big though) but we are very very happy ....I have to say though, when I was dead poor (and I mean dead poor) everything cost loads more because I had to borrow (credit cards, BNPL, bank loans) just to survive, and I never had a fancy car nor a big telly. I'm a bit sad now thanks for this thread.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

As much as the issue of having someone breaking into your home is bad enough, for such people to given power to 'pin down householders' and remove people blocking entry that is what is scary. How many other organisations or people have the power to use violence and force other than the police?

In a liberal democratic society it is really only the police who hold the monopoly of violence, nobody else has that power so what are the implications if private companies can employ people to use force?

 

It seems to place the interests of the profit-making company/companies far above the welfare and civil liberties of those who are in financial difficulty.

 

In my view I find this even more unsavoury than having for example a random burglar come in and swipe your stuff. They differ very little.

The company who offered the loan has already been exploiting the borrower with high levels of interest and offered the loan on terms which clearly show who will benefit most from even having part of the loan repaid.

[Cronky]

Have a look at this:

 

Police break in to elderly couple's home in wrong raid

 

But a month on, no action has been taken and police are still refusing to pay for the damage they caused.

 

"The police asked me if I had insurance that would cover the cost of the door, but why should I lose my no-claims?" said Mr Martin. "I have done absolutely nothing wrong."

 

Again, absolutely disgusting. Not so much a police state as a thug state.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They smash the door in, cause damage in the house AND obviously terrify the elderly couple and they won't pay because they are not LEGALLY OBLIGED. Now I don't know whether they police department is ABLE to compensate the old couple but given that it is nobody elses fault but their own they should pay, damn right they should. A bunch of flowers is just taking the piss. The only reason why such behaviour is condoned - because it is - is that the police are 'doing their job'. Anybody else and they would be hauled up in caught for trespassing and criminal damage. The police should not get away with it.

[WTF]

They smash the door in, cause damage in the house AND obviously terrify the elderly couple and they won't pay because they are not LEGALLY OBLIGED. Now I don't know whether they police department is ABLE to compensate the old couple but given that it is nobody elses fault but their own they should pay, damn right they should. A bunch of flowers is just taking the piss. The only reason why such behaviour is condoned - because it is - is that the police are 'doing their job'. Anybody else and they would be hauled up in caught for trespassing and criminal damage. The police should not get away with it.

 

 

it may not be as simple as the reporting shows?? the person they were actually after may have been the old couples offspring, and the actual address would seem to be the one on the warrant? so it could just be that some twat wasn't home and the folks are crying foul.... maybe not, but it's a plausible option.

[manxy]

Have a look at this:

 

Police break in to elderly couple's home in wrong raid

 

But a month on, no action has been taken and police are still refusing to pay for the damage they caused.

 

"The police asked me if I had insurance that would cover the cost of the door, but why should I lose my no-claims?" said Mr Martin. "I have done absolutely nothing wrong."

 

Again, absolutely disgusting. Not so much a police state as a thug state.

I've always been there to support Police and other authorities in their stance against wrongdoers, but for once, I'm feeling a little edgy this time.

The lack of facts or those presented could sway me one way or another, but what was stated was a little disconcerting to me.

With regards the elderly couple, there is no evidence to prove that they have done anything wrong and have had their door broken for no apparent reason. If there is, there has been nothing stated to prove otherwise and therefore the Police for whatever intelligence they've been given, has in this case, been proven wrong. They should therefore pay for damages unless the information proves otherwise.

 

With regards the debtors using force, this very much seems wrong to me, as the Police themselves are accountable for using force, so why aren't the bailiffs?

What force is acceptable by the bailiffs and when does force become assault? It's been mentioned before of people taking the law into their own hands and this set up, could find the aggressive bullying lender, 'legally' (within whats seen) to pressurize the debtor for their goods, regardless if they could pay next week etc.

 

I understand that there's different perspectives in all of this and very much dependent on which view you wish to take (there's lots and apologize for the simplicity of my answer), but for someone to barge into my own home, using force against me and to take what I've got without due recourse (simplistic view), then this seems wrong to me.

There's many different answers and questions that I haven't put before you as to the why's, when's or even how this happened, but I still feel uneasy about all of this and feel very unsure as to Bailiffs using Force to get what they want.

(Maybe I'm missing something here and would appreciate a different viewpoint so I can understand this more?)

Thanks,

[La_Dolce_Vita]

it may not be as simple as the reporting shows?? the person they were actually after may have been the old couples offspring, and the actual address would seem to be the one on the warrant? so it could just be that some twat wasn't home and the folks are crying foul.... maybe not, but it's a plausible option.

 

I think it very well is that simple. It did say they got the wrong address.

[Klimp]

Jesus Christ!! Bad decision if it is made law