This article is very interesting - I feel this judgement may well be abused, lets see what the outcome is. IT has already caused some debate on the potential for abuse of those vulnerable and how it can be potentially used for when enforcement action has run its course, therefore enabling them to start the process again albeit it entering your home virtually.
Virtual enforcement visits
The full case is here if interested: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/15.html
'Virtual' Enforcement visits
-
monkeynuts
- Site Admin
- Posts: 146
- Joined: 07 Nov 2012 13:46
- Location: Macclesfield
'Virtual' Enforcement visits
On the path to become an 'activist lawyer'
Welfare advisor at national charity
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare
Welfare advisor at national charity
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare
Re: 'Virtual' Enforcement visits
This looks like Chris Badgers pet project. Controlled Goods Agreements can be made without the bailiff entering premises.
Schedule 12 has never required bailiffs to enter premises to make a controlled goods agreements, because goods can be taken into control on a highway.
Controlled Goods Agreements are seldom used. I can't see that changing unless the bailiff stands to gain financially by adding the enforcement stage fees by creating a virtually signed agreement. I can see this being open to fraud by creating virtual agreements without the debtor knowing.
In any case, if the debtor is not a business, they apply to stay the writ and vary the judgment. That puts the bailiff and all the fees to bed in one fell swoop - regardless whether a controlled goods agreement is in place.
If the debtor is a business, then it's probably closed anyway making any virtual attendance impossible.
We already know that in the absence of a vehicle, the humble WiFi video doorbell has become the bailiff's worst enemy. Bailiffs are made to hold their photo ID up to the camera, and are left standing outside until the bailiff gets bored and moves on. I cant see bailiffs writing out a CGA and holding it up to the camera to consider it virtually made.
Schedule 12 has never required bailiffs to enter premises to make a controlled goods agreements, because goods can be taken into control on a highway.
Controlled Goods Agreements are seldom used. I can't see that changing unless the bailiff stands to gain financially by adding the enforcement stage fees by creating a virtually signed agreement. I can see this being open to fraud by creating virtual agreements without the debtor knowing.
In any case, if the debtor is not a business, they apply to stay the writ and vary the judgment. That puts the bailiff and all the fees to bed in one fell swoop - regardless whether a controlled goods agreement is in place.
If the debtor is a business, then it's probably closed anyway making any virtual attendance impossible.
We already know that in the absence of a vehicle, the humble WiFi video doorbell has become the bailiff's worst enemy. Bailiffs are made to hold their photo ID up to the camera, and are left standing outside until the bailiff gets bored and moves on. I cant see bailiffs writing out a CGA and holding it up to the camera to consider it virtually made.
-
monkeynuts
- Site Admin
- Posts: 146
- Joined: 07 Nov 2012 13:46
- Location: Macclesfield
Re: 'Virtual' Enforcement visits
Whilst that may be the case, but the abuse this can have is that there is the potential for EA's to 'advise' debtors to speak with them over a video call with the debtor thinking its the safer option and then the EA making a CGA based on what they see and it thus being a 'non entry agreement' but having all the clout of a CGA if the debtor doesn't stick to it. After all we know that EA's wont explain to the debtor the exact nature of the call will they. I am hoping this gets appealed personally, it really is an opportunity for them to abuse.
On the path to become an 'activist lawyer'
Welfare advisor at national charity
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare
Welfare advisor at national charity
An awake populous is a bailiffs worst nightmare
Re: 'Virtual' Enforcement visits
Things are rather quiet for Mr Badger at the moment, this could be his way to drum up business by introducing virtual enforcement.
Even DCBL is falling on hard times, and with one of its TV bailiffs awaiting his crown court date for tampering with body cam recordings.
The latest trend is the bailiff companies are entering the already crowded market of private parking ticket collection. A market dominated by common debt collectors.
Our free template generator which buries private ticket claims, is now churning out about 60 examples a day after it went viral on social media.
This is spurred on by new companies being set up and assigning ticket liabilities away from the debtor to the company, and when the parking company ignores the deed of assignment and gets default judgment, the assigned company defends it and get costs, abuse of process for suing the wrong person.
I think it's wait and see if Mr Badger's idea comes to fruition, and a case shows up on the helpline. I did notice that the judgment does not make debtors liable for virtual enforcement.
I agree, it is open to abuse, and the interests of debtors and victims were not represented before Master McCloud.
Debtors can refuse a virtual agreement, knowing there is little a bailiff can do about it.
I will still stay the writ and set aside, or vary the judgment. It's the only way to be sure.
In the pragmatic scale of things, it is not clear how the bailiff will itemise the goods. They need serial numbers, make, model, descriptions etc, and nobody with a straight head is going to do that just because there is an angry bailiff on their phone screen shouting abuse at them.
I don't think the court, or Mr Badger, considered how a CPR 85.6 third party claim would play out when making a claim to virtually controlled goods. These are commonplace, and usually very expensive for bailiffs.
Only recently Mr Badger told a non-debtor, in a letter posted online, whom money was taken, to make a third party claim, and he even quoted the wrong CPR's. It's almost as stupid as his Huntress Search, and Bridlington Chip-shop screwups.
Even DCBL is falling on hard times, and with one of its TV bailiffs awaiting his crown court date for tampering with body cam recordings.
The latest trend is the bailiff companies are entering the already crowded market of private parking ticket collection. A market dominated by common debt collectors.
Our free template generator which buries private ticket claims, is now churning out about 60 examples a day after it went viral on social media.
This is spurred on by new companies being set up and assigning ticket liabilities away from the debtor to the company, and when the parking company ignores the deed of assignment and gets default judgment, the assigned company defends it and get costs, abuse of process for suing the wrong person.
I think it's wait and see if Mr Badger's idea comes to fruition, and a case shows up on the helpline. I did notice that the judgment does not make debtors liable for virtual enforcement.
I agree, it is open to abuse, and the interests of debtors and victims were not represented before Master McCloud.
Debtors can refuse a virtual agreement, knowing there is little a bailiff can do about it.
I will still stay the writ and set aside, or vary the judgment. It's the only way to be sure.
In the pragmatic scale of things, it is not clear how the bailiff will itemise the goods. They need serial numbers, make, model, descriptions etc, and nobody with a straight head is going to do that just because there is an angry bailiff on their phone screen shouting abuse at them.
I don't think the court, or Mr Badger, considered how a CPR 85.6 third party claim would play out when making a claim to virtually controlled goods. These are commonplace, and usually very expensive for bailiffs.
Only recently Mr Badger told a non-debtor, in a letter posted online, whom money was taken, to make a third party claim, and he even quoted the wrong CPR's. It's almost as stupid as his Huntress Search, and Bridlington Chip-shop screwups.