Ray Darcy emotive and unbalanced in his handling of Majella Vs Revenue.

Heard a story on a radio station this morning about the Sheriff taking property from a persons home even though agreements were in place. Heartbreaking story but the root of it was that the Sheriff had powers beyond almost all other enforcement agents.

The offices and powers of ther Sheriff should also come under any review that takes place.

Re: Should debt collection agencies be regulated?

Colndas said:

Heard a story on a radio station this morning about the Sheriff taking property from a persons home even though agreements were in place. Heartbreaking story but the root of it was that the Sheriff had powers beyond almost all other enforcement agents.

The offices and powers of ther Sheriff should also come under any review that takes place.

Click to expand...

I have been listening to this story this morning (I assume?) and quite frankly I am less than happy with the way Ray is handling it. He is extremely emotional and was very rude with Gerry Harrahill. Of course the CG is not familiar with every single case and frankly, how could he.

Besides, the story is not consistent with my experience with Revenue or with any Sheriff I have ever dealt with.

I rang around several colleagues this morning and several of them, like me had contacted the show to defend Revenue and the CG and yet Ray read out only one message defending the CG. Not any of the several I sent or any of those of my colleagues trying to explain the procedures we are used to seeing employed by Revenue.

Frankly, I am very disappointed with Ray's one-sided handling of this story.

Re: Should debt collection agencies be regulated?

It is the same story, however I only heard the email and not the aftermath and I must say it was only one side to the story and the piece I heard was heartbreaking.

Just to confirm I don't have an issue with the Sheriff or the work that they do. I do believe that they should be involved in any review that takes place, particularly given their powers.

Ray Darcy read a letter on his show today from a girl called Majella describing atrocious behaviour by bailiffs sent to her home by the Sheriff to collect outstanding debts to Revenue.

The letter was in general very distressing as her father was ill with lymphoma at the time.

She informed Ray that the bailiffs would not negotiate and insisted on taking away items, such as her mother’s mobile phone, her Dad’s scooter, a birthday gift intended for their eight year old grand-daughter. Her father passed away three weeks later from a heart attack, which the family believe was caused by the events.

However, I was incredibly annoyed by the way Ray spoke to Gerry Harahill, the Collector-General.

Ray was over-emotional and very much on the attack. He seemed to be of the opinion that Mr. Harahill should be intimately familiar with every case Revenue handle or refer to the Sheriff.

Ray did not seem to know or take the time to ascertain who or what a Sheriff is or how the procedure works.

What I really want to know is did anyone contact the show? I sent an email and two texts, none of which were read out. I have since spoken to several accountants who all inform me that they contacted the show but to no avail. Ray only read one email in defence of Revenue.

I thought Ray handled the story in a very one sided manner and didn’t seek independent verification of how the system works from an accountant.

Also, the girl’s story is extremely unusual and the first time I have heard of a case of forced collection in all my years in this business. We usually negotiate a deal.

Anyone got any opinions? Sorry for the long post, but I am pretty annoyed!!

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

I heard the email being read out this morning but didn't hear the rest of the show.

I worked in the CG in the late 90s and something similar happened to a taxpayer that I was dealing with. I forget the extent of the debt but I was contacted by the taxpayer when they had received a letter from the Sheriff. I arranged a repayment plan that was acceptable to both parties (the taxpayer and the CG), placed a 'stop' on any further enforcement procedures and rang the Sheriff's office to inform them that the warrant would be withdrawn. I then sent the official withdrawal notice to the Sheriff.
About a week later I received a call from the taxpayer screaming at me that the Sheriff was at the door and basically that they'd have my head over this cock-up.
It turned out that the Sheriff had acted on a withdrawn warrant and had no right to seize any property of the taxpayer. I contacted the Sheriff directly and told him to leave them alone.
Sheriffs never accept excuses/tears/etc. as they are probably well used to getting this behaviour from people chancing their arm. In this case, the mistake the taxpayer made was not contacting the person in the CG who had arranged the repayment plan. They would have quickly explained the situation to the Sheriff and put it to bed.
However, if the Sheriff arrived to seize goods on foot of a warrant which was issued for a debt which had been taken care of in the meantime, then the person in the CG is ultimately at fault and they will be bricking it after hearing that show.

I was saddened by the whole story tbh, and it instantly reminded me of my own experience in the CG.

Apologies for the rambling but I though it was relevant.

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

Not surprised by this, Darcy isn't interested in balance, fairness or even common sense, all he's interested in is being the people's champion, in short he's full of his own importance.

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

headache said:

I thought Ray handled the story in a very one sided manner

Click to expand...

Must admit, thought so myself when I heard the show. Felt like I was listening to something deliberately designed to stir it up, rather than a balanced report.

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

Ceist Beag said:

Not surprised by this, Darcy isn't interested in balance, fairness or even common sense, ...in short he's full of his own importance.

Click to expand...

+1. I didnt hear the show, I absolutely agree he is full of his own importance and does not appear to be able to handle stories in a balanced way.

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

I'm actually so disgusted by this I'm considering making a complaint. I feel Ray should have investigated further into both the case and into the standard procedures employed by Revenue and the Sheriff.
Where do I go to make a complaint? Direct to the radio station or straight to the BAI?
I've never lodged an official complaint on anything before, but I am extremely irritated at the heavy handed, one-sided approach on this story.

Re: Ray Darcy and The Collector-General

headache said:

Ray Darcy read a letter on his show today

Click to expand...

Did he do it in that quirky style he uses when reading out things?

You know, the one who makes him sound like the slow kid in class who can't string a sentence together and who seems to read ... each ... word ... individually ... and ... can't ... seem ... to stick .... them ... together to form a fluid sentence. And then stop for 2secs when he has to move from the end of one line to the start of the next?

Can't listen to his show because of this - I find it incredibly .... annoying.

Re: Should debt collection agencies be regulated?

Colndas said:

Heard a story on a radio station this morning about the Sheriff taking property from a persons home even though agreements were in place. Heartbreaking story but the root of it was that the Sheriff had powers beyond almost all other enforcement agents.

The offices and powers of ther Sheriff should also come under any review that takes place.

Click to expand...

the story may have been heartbreaking but did they mention the circumstances leading up to this? actually getting the sheriff out takes months of legal wrangling and there are very few sheriffs out there to do ever increasing amounts of work, i have never heard of a sheriff arriving out willy-nilly on the back of a claim for payment when arrangements were in place. did the person include the details of what lead up to that point?