How bad does something have to be before someone should lose their job ?

[Victoria J]

Not sure this is the right place - but it does contain a witnessed sucky employee - kind of. Mostly I just want some opinions on this, and any examples where people here actually saw employees behave so badly they thought they shouldn't be employed.

It may be partly that hanging out on this site makes you particularly conscious of these issues, or that I've read too many SC stories about customer's throwing tantrums and saying they'd like workers fired over minor things. I kind of need a reasonable reality check here.

My job is a bit odd in that I deal with Sucky Customers, but also get to be on the side of people as they deal with Sucky businesses, and I get to be assertive but hopefully polite as I call into various companies. So I can sympathise with both sides sometimes. (I deal with the yelling people who think being loud makes up for being in the wrong, but also a major company with a call centre that routinely lies, refuses authorisation, misquotes the data protection act and once claimed the entire multi-billion company had no fax machine).

Today I saw something that made me mad - and I'm about to go into bat for my customer. I think there's a possibility someone will lose their job over this, and I think I actually believe that is right.

My least favourite people are bailiffs. Any other legal job (and some illegal !) I won't judge someone from doing if they need the money. I would literally rather have bailiffs on my door than be one. It's partly just that the law doesn't work well - they really only get money from people they trick or scare. It's partly the kind of person the work attracts.

Today the son of an old customer came in with a letter the bailiffs had posted. The bailiffs are collecting money for local tax - customer had financial difficulties, made arrangements with the council, kept to arrangements but had her account transferred to the bailiffs for a non-existent "default" in the arrangement. We're trying to sort this out.

The bailiff put a standard letter through her door. It's the wrong letter, it's aimed at people with court fines or a distress warrant and claims powers to break in the bailiff doesn't have in this case. But what took my breath away was the handwritten note the bailiff had added :

"We will call to enter your property any time of the night or day."

The family were terrified, with visions of someone breaking into their home in the middle of the night.

To make it absolutely clear - the bailiff can't break in, they would anyway not be able to do so at unreasonable hours, I have confirmed that the firm in no way would allow the bailiffs to operate at night, and this would be considered "harassment" under debt collecting rules...I've seen hundreds of bailiffs letters - but nothing like this.

I think this person is not suitable to do the job they're doing. Am I being too harsh ?

Victoria J

[Boozy]

I think this person is not suitable to do the job they're doing.

It doesn't seem so, although I wonder if its an issue with a lack of training. I'd like to think its common sense not to write threatening things on notices stuck to people's doors, but some people are idiots. Maybe he just needs a strict talking to by the boss.

Either way, your customer is lucky to have you. Your primary concern should be protecting her rights, regardless of what happens with this bailiff's job.

[JustADude]

To make it absolutely clear - the bailiff can't break in, they would anyway not be able to do so at unreasonable hours, I have confirmed that the firm in no way would allow the bailiffs to operate at night, and this would be considered "harassment" under debt collecting rules...I've seen hundreds of bailiffs letters - but nothing like this.

I think this person is not suitable to do the job they're doing. Am I being too harsh ?

Nope. I wouldn't think criminal charges would be out of line either.

[Titi]

I am on the fence with this one. Because you also mentioned that they got the wrong letter. That as you said was meant for SEVERE delinquents whom are basically squatting at that point.

If the mistake of form of the letter had not been made, then in all likelihood the handwritten threat either. The bailiff may have used this form on the others and it was successful. Just because this was in a different situation (unknown to him, due to the screw up and wrong letter being sent.) He is in the wrong career or should be prosecuted?

[Soulstealer]

I am on the fence with this one. Because you also mentioned that they got the wrong letter. That as you said was meant for SEVERE delinquents whom are basically squatting at that point.

Even if the letter had reached the people it was meant for the threat is illegal and unethical.

[kibbles]

I think you are in the right to go to bat for your customer. And as was already said, the customer is lucky to have you to go to bat for them.

[Victoria J]

I am on the fence with this one. Because you also mentioned that they got the wrong letter. That as you said was meant for SEVERE delinquents whom are basically squatting at that point.

These are bailiffs collecting debts - not bailiffs used for evictions. As I mentioned in my original post the law is such that it means that they pretty much can only intimidate or trick people. They have to get "peaceful entry" on the first occasion, and after that can make a list of goods which they will then technically own, and if the debt isn't paid they can return on another occasion and break in to take the goods. This means that mostly they only get in when people are scared of them, then there are the naive people who ask them in for a cup of tea to try and come to an arrangement (), and then there are the cases where they just pretend to have the powers. People who know their rights, or people who are just assertive, just ignore them until they go away.

So you end up with a method of debt collection which terrifies little old ladies and vulnerable people - but has no powers whatsoever to collect from those who deliberately set out to ignore the bailiffs.

I don't believe that the letter was a mistake either. The council employ the bailiffs and agree the set letters - the letter used was for people where the bailiff had already entered the house or where the debt was a court fine, in these cases the bailiff can break in. I believe that the letter was deliberately misused to exaggerate the powers and intimidate the client.

I can't prove it but it would be quite a mistake to have made (whether they have previously gained entry is key to the whole process), and they have a history of being sneaky bastards.

They have :

• Outright lied and claimed to have entered when they obviously haven't (claim things that aren't there, claim only those things viewable through the letterbox...)
• A history of attempting to "levy" (claim as theirs) random cars near houses just so they can charge higher fees
• Claimed to have seized goods by, er, viewing it through a window
• Claimed a plant pot as justification for adding over £100 worth of fees
• Claimed a £5 wrist watch when they couldn't get in to add £100+ fees
  (Law says they can't claim goods if they aren't proportional to the debt, so they absolutely can't do this)
• And of course the odd one who thinks they can push their way in.

My favourite was the one who turned down £500 cash towards the debt in favour of claiming a second hand sofa through the window. A great situation where both the creditor and debtor lost out - but the bailiffs miraculously got £100+ extra fees ! We'd complained a lot about bailiffs around that time, but the firm where I complained about that incident and copied the complaint to the council (creditor in this case) just so happened to be the one who lost the contract next time round...

On the other hand the first person I ever advised regarding bailiffs came back a week later - he'd assaulted the bailiff. (Client was an ex-prison guard and when the bailiff tried to illegally force entry he held him in some kind of lock until the police came)

Victoria J

[Geek King]

On the other hand the first person I ever advised regarding bailiffs came back a week later - he'd assaulted the bailiff. (Client was an ex-prison guard and when the bailiff tried to illegally force entry he held him in some kind of lock until the police came)

Well then, that's not assault, it would be self defense if the bailiff was illegally forcing his way onto his property. The definitions are all in the circumstances.

[Victoria J]

Well then, that's not assault, it would be self defense if the bailiff was illegally forcing his way onto his property. The definitions are all in the circumstances.

That's certainly what the guy claimed. He'd held the bailiff in place while each of them called the police on their mobile phones.

The bailiff claimed assault. The guy claimed the bailiff had forced his way into the home and it was self-defence.

He had a child asleep upstairs and was somewhat protective. The police came round and made the bailiff leave and give them an immediate statement, and let the home owner go into the police station in his own time which shows some level of sympathy for him (and for the childcare aspect). Never got to find out what happened in the end - probably means it was good news. In my job people only come back to tell you when things get worse.

Victoria J

[crazylegs]

The bailiff claimed assault. The guy claimed the bailiff had forced his way into the home and it was self-defence.

Seeing as two offences were alleged (one apiece) I'd imagine both would have been arrested (if a power of arrest exists for whatever offence was alleged by the homeowner against the bailiff)

The police have to remain impartial at all times and seeing as both parties have made criminal allegations against the other then a full and prompt investigation would have to take place. To do this most effectivly you arrest the 'suspect'. It sucks I know, but thats probably what happened.

[The cat whisperer]

Just a quick question(s)

When you say they can/do claim things as "theirs" does this mean the items then belong to the creditor and they can auction or sell them off? Do the baliffs get paid by the item and that's why they will claim cheap watches and pots? Sorry, I'm a little confused since I'm not fully awake yet.

[Victoria J]

When you say they can/do claim things as "theirs" does this mean the items then belong to the creditor and they can auction or sell them off? Do the baliffs get paid by the item and that's why they will claim cheap watches and pots? Sorry, I'm a little confused since I'm not fully awake yet.

The bailiffs make a list which is called "levying" or "taking walking possession" and means the person now isn't allowed to dispose of those goods, and the bailiffs can come back and seize them. However they give the person another chance to either pay in full or make a payment arrangement that makes the bailiffs happy.

The bailiffs acting for local government tax debts (Council tax) only get to charge set fees. They get a small amount for 1 visit or letter, then a small amount for a second visit or letter and that's it.

Unless they levy - when they get to add on a much greater fee, and sometimes a percentage as well.

Any money collected or goods seized (and sold at a huge loss at auction) is for the debt but the bailiffs get to take their fees out first.

So yeah - that's why they levy on pot plants even though it's not legal.

If they can't get in, or there aren't goods worth levying, they're meant to return the debt. The council then get to take alternative action - which for tax debt can include prison. The bailiffs themselves can't do a thing.

I know far to much about bailiffs - so sorry for boring everyone. They do annoy me though. Bailiffs with more serious powers (acting for courts, evicitons etc.) are actually normally nicer. These people tend to be thugs.

I haven't put in the formal complaint yet (though I will !) but so far the bailiffs firm is not happy with the individual, and the council immediately requested a copy of the letter. I think this guy's going to be in big trouble - and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the firm sacks him just to distance themselves from this kind of tactic. (Though secretly they do encourage a bit of intimidation I suspect).

Victoria J