Curb HMRC Powers (and the way they use them)

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

Why is this idea important?

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

Baliffs and Business

At present YOU are at danger (if you own a company and can be proved to have at ANY point operated your business affairs from you're own home… most start ups do so for cost benefits) – from having all you're household possessions seized and taken away in a lorry from a high court enforcement officer.

From personal experience (and shown all over the internet if you care to read thousands of other accounts of bad behaviour from these so called "Sherriff's"), these bullies bend the rules and use every trick in the book.

They will turn up to you're own house and say that unless you can not show receipts for every single item in the house, he has the right to take the view that the company could have bought everything in it, so he has the right to put all goods in a lorry – you can claim them back later through application (in reality they 'shift them on' at light speed and use stall tactics so you have no chance of getting them back).

What's more, I was only in my twenties and living at home, it was my parents house they attacked/threatened (my Mother was forced to run into town to pawn her rings to pay enough of the debt off to make him go away).  She was not even involved in the business.

This is immoral, but through sneaky use of loopholes in the law (in particular, the showing of receipts, and apparently the fact that if it is a Limited Liability company, high court enforcement officers are allowed  to cease even 'essential tools of the trade' -ie. your computers)…. these thugs are running riot – I must be one of thousands this kind of thing has happened to.

I proposed that any baliff or enforcement officer of the law must give 30 days to the defendant to allow someone working from home to put all of their company's possessions in storage for their seizure…  and if a high court enforcement officer is to enter someone's home, they must be allowed time to employ on the day of their entry into a property, someone such as a lawyer to act on behalf of the defendant to ensure that good practice goes on… this will also allow the person time to gather receipts for their house to prove what is theirs.  I propose also that an exact time should be given that any baliff is to attempt to enter any property so the same preparations can be made in any circumstance regarding baliff or enforcement action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

At present YOU are at danger (if you own a company and can be proved to have at ANY point operated your business affairs from you're own home… most start ups do so for cost benefits) – from having all you're household possessions seized and taken away in a lorry from a high court enforcement officer.

From personal experience (and shown all over the internet if you care to read thousands of other accounts of bad behaviour from these so called "Sherriff's"), these bullies bend the rules and use every trick in the book.

They will turn up to you're own house and say that unless you can not show receipts for every single item in the house, he has the right to take the view that the company could have bought everything in it, so he has the right to put all goods in a lorry – you can claim them back later through application (in reality they 'shift them on' at light speed and use stall tactics so you have no chance of getting them back).

What's more, I was only in my twenties and living at home, it was my parents house they attacked/threatened (my Mother was forced to run into town to pawn her rings to pay enough of the debt off to make him go away).  She was not even involved in the business.

This is immoral, but through sneaky use of loopholes in the law (in particular, the showing of receipts, and apparently the fact that if it is a Limited Liability company, high court enforcement officers are allowed  to cease even 'essential tools of the trade' -ie. your computers)…. these thugs are running riot – I must be one of thousands this kind of thing has happened to.

I proposed that any baliff or enforcement officer of the law must give 30 days to the defendant to allow someone working from home to put all of their company's possessions in storage for their seizure…  and if a high court enforcement officer is to enter someone's home, they must be allowed time to employ on the day of their entry into a property, someone such as a lawyer to act on behalf of the defendant to ensure that good practice goes on… this will also allow the person time to gather receipts for their house to prove what is theirs.  I propose also that an exact time should be given that any baliff is to attempt to enter any property so the same preparations can be made in any circumstance regarding baliff or enforcement action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pay Back the Bailout Money

Major cuts are being proposed to keep the markets happy and reduce the interest payments we have to make. If we don't pay a substantial amount of the debt back quickly (hence the cuts) the banks will increase our interest rates and we risk further rate raises based on our credit rating with the banks.

Ok. If I'm not mistaken the banks and market system effectively went bankrupt themselves last year (hence the global bailout). Market forces where allowed to run themselves and pure capitalism virtutally consumed itself. Private greed turned into public debt.

Why now make further cuts into our public spending to support the bankrupt banks over charging us and using poor credit rating to force cuts. Our credit rating seemed ok to borrow £1trillion + last year from UK alone!!

So its time to turn the tables and request full repayment of the that bailout money so the debts and public deficit can be repaid in full. No public spending cuts required. If the money is not immediately repaid then interest payments should be significantly increased in line with credit rating defaults.

I also note when the banks bankrupt a company or person they seize assets to pay down as much of the debt as they can. Given the banks are promoting a human face and fair play then why can't we asset strip banks and bankers. Sending in bailiffs to sieze assets like banks accunts, investments, property and pocessions. We should raise a fortune. Whats good for the goose.

Why is this idea important?

Major cuts are being proposed to keep the markets happy and reduce the interest payments we have to make. If we don't pay a substantial amount of the debt back quickly (hence the cuts) the banks will increase our interest rates and we risk further rate raises based on our credit rating with the banks.

Ok. If I'm not mistaken the banks and market system effectively went bankrupt themselves last year (hence the global bailout). Market forces where allowed to run themselves and pure capitalism virtutally consumed itself. Private greed turned into public debt.

Why now make further cuts into our public spending to support the bankrupt banks over charging us and using poor credit rating to force cuts. Our credit rating seemed ok to borrow £1trillion + last year from UK alone!!

So its time to turn the tables and request full repayment of the that bailout money so the debts and public deficit can be repaid in full. No public spending cuts required. If the money is not immediately repaid then interest payments should be significantly increased in line with credit rating defaults.

I also note when the banks bankrupt a company or person they seize assets to pay down as much of the debt as they can. Given the banks are promoting a human face and fair play then why can't we asset strip banks and bankers. Sending in bailiffs to sieze assets like banks accunts, investments, property and pocessions. We should raise a fortune. Whats good for the goose.

where have all the suggestions regarding bailiffs gone?

I posted a heartfelt plea to have bailiffs brought under control, earlier today.  There were many similar postings.  They've all been removed.  Bailiff companies are able to  have websites removed, which offer advice to people being threatened by these legalised thugs,  so this doesn't surprise, but does disappoint me. 

Why is this idea important?

I posted a heartfelt plea to have bailiffs brought under control, earlier today.  There were many similar postings.  They've all been removed.  Bailiff companies are able to  have websites removed, which offer advice to people being threatened by these legalised thugs,  so this doesn't surprise, but does disappoint me. 

bailiffs should have powers to add extortionate”costs” removed and should be subject to strict regulation.

Bailiffs are currently allowed powers which turn them into legalised extortionists and blackmailers.  My own experience nearly broke up my family as I could no longer cope with the fear they caused and was going to remove my children and go abroad.  Luckily a sympathetic council worker eventually arrange for a full refund from the bailiffs and stopped the harrassment, but it seems that they are a law unto themselves.  As briefly as possible, the story is this:

My susband unwittingly entered a bus lane in the wrong time slot because the clocks had changed and we hadn't altered our car clock.  He planned to sort this out without telling me, but put it off.

I knew nothing of this until a letter from a bailif company arrived, charging us an increased fine plus some huge costs of their own for having visited while we were out.

My husband tried to pay this – we got the letter on Friday evening after work – but they were shut over the weekend.  He paid on Monday morning. 

The folowing day we received another letter with additional costs because we had not paid within 24 hrs ( note, they'd been shut)  and further costs for yet another apparent visit while we were out.  He also paid this.

We received yet another letter with the same ploy.  And another.  And another.  By now we had stopped paying.  We discovered there is a rate they are supposed to charge per visit and per letter – something like £12. 00, per letter and maybe £30.00 per visit.  We were being charged about £180.00 per letter and visit on top of the original fine – long since paid.  By now our bill was nearly £1000.

We had discovered an online Bailiff Watch advice forum, which advised us regarding these costs – but the Bailiff companies keep getting this closed down.  That is sinister in itself.

The police said it was a civil matter.  By now I was hiding in the house with the lights off, and had warned the neighbours that I might need sanctuary if bailiffs tried to enter my house with me if I was walking from my car to the house, on the odd occasion I had to leave the house.  The breaking point was when my eight year old son refused to leave the house to celebrate his birthday, in case the bailiffs came round and took his presents.  At this point even the lady from Barnet Council saw red and arranged the full refund for us,  and told us she was going to move to work in another department as she couldn't do this job against her conscience any more.

These Bailiff Companies are legalised thugs and blackmailers.  Councils should not be allowed to employ them.  They are allowed act with apparent impunity.

Why is this idea important?

Bailiffs are currently allowed powers which turn them into legalised extortionists and blackmailers.  My own experience nearly broke up my family as I could no longer cope with the fear they caused and was going to remove my children and go abroad.  Luckily a sympathetic council worker eventually arrange for a full refund from the bailiffs and stopped the harrassment, but it seems that they are a law unto themselves.  As briefly as possible, the story is this:

My susband unwittingly entered a bus lane in the wrong time slot because the clocks had changed and we hadn't altered our car clock.  He planned to sort this out without telling me, but put it off.

I knew nothing of this until a letter from a bailif company arrived, charging us an increased fine plus some huge costs of their own for having visited while we were out.

My husband tried to pay this – we got the letter on Friday evening after work – but they were shut over the weekend.  He paid on Monday morning. 

The folowing day we received another letter with additional costs because we had not paid within 24 hrs ( note, they'd been shut)  and further costs for yet another apparent visit while we were out.  He also paid this.

We received yet another letter with the same ploy.  And another.  And another.  By now we had stopped paying.  We discovered there is a rate they are supposed to charge per visit and per letter – something like £12. 00, per letter and maybe £30.00 per visit.  We were being charged about £180.00 per letter and visit on top of the original fine – long since paid.  By now our bill was nearly £1000.

We had discovered an online Bailiff Watch advice forum, which advised us regarding these costs – but the Bailiff companies keep getting this closed down.  That is sinister in itself.

The police said it was a civil matter.  By now I was hiding in the house with the lights off, and had warned the neighbours that I might need sanctuary if bailiffs tried to enter my house with me if I was walking from my car to the house, on the odd occasion I had to leave the house.  The breaking point was when my eight year old son refused to leave the house to celebrate his birthday, in case the bailiffs came round and took his presents.  At this point even the lady from Barnet Council saw red and arranged the full refund for us,  and told us she was going to move to work in another department as she couldn't do this job against her conscience any more.

These Bailiff Companies are legalised thugs and blackmailers.  Councils should not be allowed to employ them.  They are allowed act with apparent impunity.

Law of Distraint should be amended.

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Repeal the Crime and Domestic Violence Act 2004 section 125(a) and 125(b)

Mentioned sections of this act allow private individuals or civil enforment agencies namely "Bailiffs" to try and enter your home or seize any domestic vehicles property or goods etc. It's wrong and should be Repealed it is bad enough the Police have certian powers now to seize vehicles and allsorts of items but to allow Bullies,Cowboys, to have simular powers is so open to corruption,abuse, these parasites will try and enter your home take your vehicles lie cheat just to get their result and what they pary on more than anything else is peoples naivety or lack of their rights. This needs to be Repealed because most people will just abide but their are some of us who will use our own force these scum turn up at your door with demands reasonble or not and one day it will get very messy?   

Why is this idea important?

Mentioned sections of this act allow private individuals or civil enforment agencies namely "Bailiffs" to try and enter your home or seize any domestic vehicles property or goods etc. It's wrong and should be Repealed it is bad enough the Police have certian powers now to seize vehicles and allsorts of items but to allow Bullies,Cowboys, to have simular powers is so open to corruption,abuse, these parasites will try and enter your home take your vehicles lie cheat just to get their result and what they pary on more than anything else is peoples naivety or lack of their rights. This needs to be Repealed because most people will just abide but their are some of us who will use our own force these scum turn up at your door with demands reasonble or not and one day it will get very messy?   

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Council Tax

Disallow all councils from issuing summons against residents for non payment of council tax until at least one full month of non payment is recorded. It is beyond belief that Mole Valley Council in particular, issues a summons in the same month when the account is not in arrears but they feel that because it was not recorded as paid on the 1st of the month – it was considered "late" No reminder issued.

 

This is just a simple ploy to force people to pay by direct debit instead of (in my case) Bacs payment and an unscrupulous method of increasing revenue.

 

Freezing council tax next year will see many councils employing the same underhanded tactics to increase revenues because it costs not a snippet of the surcharge they levy to issue a summons. Payment received does not cancel out the costs (even when the payment has been received before the date of the summons) they are supposed to have incurred.

 

It is the poor and the struggling who suffer from this outrageous policy. It should be outlawed and councils forced to make allowances for the fact that people are often not paid when the council tax is due but have insufficient resource to build a backlog of funds to cover such intransigence.

Why is this idea important?

Disallow all councils from issuing summons against residents for non payment of council tax until at least one full month of non payment is recorded. It is beyond belief that Mole Valley Council in particular, issues a summons in the same month when the account is not in arrears but they feel that because it was not recorded as paid on the 1st of the month – it was considered "late" No reminder issued.

 

This is just a simple ploy to force people to pay by direct debit instead of (in my case) Bacs payment and an unscrupulous method of increasing revenue.

 

Freezing council tax next year will see many councils employing the same underhanded tactics to increase revenues because it costs not a snippet of the surcharge they levy to issue a summons. Payment received does not cancel out the costs (even when the payment has been received before the date of the summons) they are supposed to have incurred.

 

It is the poor and the struggling who suffer from this outrageous policy. It should be outlawed and councils forced to make allowances for the fact that people are often not paid when the council tax is due but have insufficient resource to build a backlog of funds to cover such intransigence.

Restricting and /or banning private bailiffs

I am constantly hearing stories of  bailiffs1) entering homes (apparently if you leave a window  open you are deemed to have invited them in then2)taking the kids computer games etc then3)selling the items at auction for  a pittance and then4)leaving the debtor in even more debt because bailiffs and auction fees are more than the amount realised at auction.

We urgently need a complete overhaul of bailiffs powers and ,in my view,consider banning a lot of their activity and certainly banning the private sector bailiffs.It is 2010,we should not have  a society tolerating private bailiffs and car clampers etc.In so many instances they have been called licensed threateners and thugs.

I would gladly sit on any panel to champion such changes. 

Why is this idea important?

I am constantly hearing stories of  bailiffs1) entering homes (apparently if you leave a window  open you are deemed to have invited them in then2)taking the kids computer games etc then3)selling the items at auction for  a pittance and then4)leaving the debtor in even more debt because bailiffs and auction fees are more than the amount realised at auction.

We urgently need a complete overhaul of bailiffs powers and ,in my view,consider banning a lot of their activity and certainly banning the private sector bailiffs.It is 2010,we should not have  a society tolerating private bailiffs and car clampers etc.In so many instances they have been called licensed threateners and thugs.

I would gladly sit on any panel to champion such changes. 

Bailiff legislation

Bailiffs are allowed to enter a house through the door or window if it is open – this is disgraceful, they should only be allowed to enter the house if the owner / occupier has signed a document confirming this and they should also have to leave the property / garden area if requested to do so.

Why is this idea important?

Bailiffs are allowed to enter a house through the door or window if it is open – this is disgraceful, they should only be allowed to enter the house if the owner / occupier has signed a document confirming this and they should also have to leave the property / garden area if requested to do so.

Bailiff law and practice

To repeal the present law which permits bailiffs (both private and court-appointed) to enter private homes.

The present law is as outdated as the thankfully long-discarded laws in respect of debtors' prisons and direct imprisonment of citizens for debt.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the present law which permits bailiffs (both private and court-appointed) to enter private homes.

The present law is as outdated as the thankfully long-discarded laws in respect of debtors' prisons and direct imprisonment of citizens for debt.

Council Tax Collection

Councils have been given far too many powers over the collection of Council Tax. Council Tax is an unfair tax because of the amount that is required by councils when families are already struggling throughout the UK. Far too often people fall behind and end up with council tax bailiffs knocking at the door or get threatening letters from the council. 

Council Tax bailiffs are known to be some of the most threatening and agressive in the country. 

I would like to see an end to councils being able to sub contract collection of council tax debt out to companies that already have a bad name as bailiffs. It is rediculous to expect someone to have money to pay council tax debt when they simply do not have any money to pay in the first place. And it is totally wrong that a council tax bailiff is allowed to take away possessions for sale – even though they probably dump them anyway. 

I would like to see Councils have the power taken away from them to use sub contracted bailiffs. Where people owe Council Tax, then a more formal arrangement and realistic figure should be agreed to pay. I understand this happens already, but councils often ask for unrealistic figures to be paid which push families further into a black hole. In some cases pushing families into poverty and neglect.

Half of the problem why people end up in council tax debt black holes is because they are simply frightened of what might happen to them if they don't catch up on payments. If councils started to communicate better, get officers that are friendly and understanding on the ground collecting arrears then they may find it far easier to agree realistic figures.

At the moment council officers are allowed to hide behind a smokescreen and use staff to collect payments which are often inexperienced and make mistakes. The staff can also be very aggressive and demand rediculous payment schedules while threatening bailiffs. And worst of all there is no face to these people so no-one really knows who they're paying.

Council Officers should do they're own collections on foot, not from an office where they use staff. 

Why is this idea important?

Councils have been given far too many powers over the collection of Council Tax. Council Tax is an unfair tax because of the amount that is required by councils when families are already struggling throughout the UK. Far too often people fall behind and end up with council tax bailiffs knocking at the door or get threatening letters from the council. 

Council Tax bailiffs are known to be some of the most threatening and agressive in the country. 

I would like to see an end to councils being able to sub contract collection of council tax debt out to companies that already have a bad name as bailiffs. It is rediculous to expect someone to have money to pay council tax debt when they simply do not have any money to pay in the first place. And it is totally wrong that a council tax bailiff is allowed to take away possessions for sale – even though they probably dump them anyway. 

I would like to see Councils have the power taken away from them to use sub contracted bailiffs. Where people owe Council Tax, then a more formal arrangement and realistic figure should be agreed to pay. I understand this happens already, but councils often ask for unrealistic figures to be paid which push families further into a black hole. In some cases pushing families into poverty and neglect.

Half of the problem why people end up in council tax debt black holes is because they are simply frightened of what might happen to them if they don't catch up on payments. If councils started to communicate better, get officers that are friendly and understanding on the ground collecting arrears then they may find it far easier to agree realistic figures.

At the moment council officers are allowed to hide behind a smokescreen and use staff to collect payments which are often inexperienced and make mistakes. The staff can also be very aggressive and demand rediculous payment schedules while threatening bailiffs. And worst of all there is no face to these people so no-one really knows who they're paying.

Council Officers should do they're own collections on foot, not from an office where they use staff. 

Moratorium on Bailiffs and Collectors

Place a moratorium on the practices of Bailiffs being permitted to come into one’s home and take belongings, and on the practices and tactics of overly-aggresive collectors.

Why is this idea important?

Place a moratorium on the practices of Bailiffs being permitted to come into one’s home and take belongings, and on the practices and tactics of overly-aggresive collectors.

Make our home our castle again

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.

Bailiffs

One of the laws that made me angriest under the last government was the change to allow bailiffs to break into a property to seize possession.  After hundreds of years, it was hard to see why this was suddenly necessary.  I think the law should be restored so that bailiffs can no longer break in.

Why is this idea important?

One of the laws that made me angriest under the last government was the change to allow bailiffs to break into a property to seize possession.  After hundreds of years, it was hard to see why this was suddenly necessary.  I think the law should be restored so that bailiffs can no longer break in.

Powers of public authorities to enter private homes

There are very many powers which allow public bodies to enter private dwellings without the consent of the owners. such powers need to be examined and curtailed

Why is this idea important?

There are very many powers which allow public bodies to enter private dwellings without the consent of the owners. such powers need to be examined and curtailed