Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)

    Arrow New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    This post is not intended to be critical of any of the superb helpers on this site who spend their valuable time providing advice to debtors.

    Over the past few weeks I have noticed that many vulnerable debtors are advised to make complaints to their MP's, local Councillor, HMCTS Area Enforcement Managers (for court fines) or Local Government Ombudsman. With respect, in most cases, neither of these options is the right one.

    Fortunately, one of the 'good points' of the new Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 is the PROTECTION that is now given to "vulnerable" debtors (more on this in a moment).

    As most people on here will now know, the fee scale is much clearer in that debtors will be charged a 'Compliance Fee' of £75 and this is charged to the account when the local authority transfer the case to the enforcement agent. If the debtor has more than one Liability Order/court fine/or parking charge notice a fee of £75 is payable for EACH debt.

    The debtor is given "7 clear days" in which to make payment OR to contact the enforcement company to agree a payment proposal (a STICKY that I have written explains more on how the number of days is to be calculated). The 'period' of repayment depends entirely upon the agreement that the local authority has with their enforcement agent but 3-6 months (max) appears to be a 'common' timeframe.

    If the debtor fails to pay the debt as shown on the Notice of Enforcement or to 'engage' with the enforcement company then the case will be referred to an enforcement agent for the purpose of 'Taking Control of Goods" (previously levying upon goods). This visit will incur an "Enforcement Fee" of £235. An excellent inclusion in the new regulations is that where there is more than one Liability Order/court fine/parking charge notice etc the enforcement agent cannot charge 'multiple fees'

    Vulnerable debtors:

    At the time of the visit if evidence of 'vulnerability' is given to the enforcement agent then he is supposed to 'rewind' the account back to the Compliance Stage and the 'Enforcement fee' of £235 should be removed.

    If the debtor was not present at the time of the visit it is vitally important that they write to the enforcement company straight away to outline their 'vulnerability' and to provide 'evidence'. If the enforcement company are satisfied that 'vulnerability' has been demonstrated then the position is that the 'Enforcement fee' of £235 is removed and the case 'rewound' to the Compliance Stage.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the 'Compliance Fee' of £75 will not be removed.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    I could not agree more Milo. Some of these issues predate the new regulations and have long been an issue with advice given by a small number of people. The vulnerability issue is critical and only serves to demonstrate people MUST engage at the earliest opportunity directly with the enforcement company.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Wombats View Post
    I could not agree more Milo. Some of these issues predate the new regulations and have long been an issue. The vulnerability issue is critical and only serves to demonstrate people MUST engage at the earliest opportunity directly with the enforcement company.
    The problem that we have is that so many people now rely solely upon mobile phones for communication and sending letters is something that appears 'alien' to them. Letters (or emails) are so vitally important and provide a 'paper trail' which is once again important if there is a need to make a complaint at a later point.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,640
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Evidence of vulnerability must be provided at the first opportunity in future, and complaints only when and if the evidence provided is ignored then.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Indeed - we must not lose sight of this part as well, "debtors are advised to make complaints to their MP's, local Councillor, HMCTS Area Enforcement Managers (for court fines) or Local Government Ombudsman. With respect, in most cases, neither of these options is the right one."

    The problem here is following this advice can actually delay getting 'proper' help to debtors and thus exacerbate their position. We must stay grounded and realistic in terms of what help we can give.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,385
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Totally agree with the above. When Bailiffs become involved its getting serious the Debtor MUST communicate with them to avoid extra fees £75 is despite seeming to be high is reasonable any further fees can be avoided.
    Biggest problem arise when a stupid Bailiff tries to get a debtor to pay more than the can afford this must be addressed somehow. Anyone in debt must realise that when Courts or Balilffs become involved they must act quickly to either pay or appeal if its not their debt.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    The problem is that certain civil enforcement companies - and we know who they are - set instalment amounts at levels they know very well the debtor cannot realistically afford and there needs to be checks and stops to nip this practice in the bud before it gets out of hand. The new regulations are nowhere near perfect and, in my honest opinion, the MoJ need their backsides kicked from one end of Petty France to the other, then back again for an encore for coming up with what I can only describe as a train crash waiting to happen. Also, some enforcement teams at magistrates courts either need retraining or better training or whoever is telling them to ignore debtors needs pointing in the direction of the nearest Jobcentre Plus office.

    The current Criminal Justice System needs reforming in that profit-driven civil enforcement companies need taking out of the equation altogether and directly-employed and publicly-accountable Civilian Enforcement Officers (aka Warrant Officers) entrusted with the collection of court fines. There also needs to be a massive crackdown on the issue of Liability Orders for alleged Council Tax arrears and collection of unpaid PCNs. CT arrears is an area that is too open to fraud and the use of distress seems to be a default option and not the last resort as it should be. We have all come across examples of the malpractice involved in the collection of unpaid PCNS.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,319
    Mentioned
    1228 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    I do agree cases need to be complained about where things are going wrong, but the absolute priority has to be ensuring the person with the bailiffs after them doesn't have them coming into their home and taking their possessions to pay their fees and help protect people from having needless fees added by delaying communication with the bailiff. Get things on a level so the immediate threat has passed, THEN worry about complaining. Anyone in a vulnerable position should communicate with the bailiffs as soon as they know bailiffs are involved and should do so in writing.
    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Find Solicitors and Legal Services Providers offering fixed fees on our sister site - LBcompare.co.uk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    so something still not right if it is realised the defendant is venerable the 75 pounds sticks
    Jokes
    Best keep building them prisons

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst View Post
    I do agree cases need to be complained about where things are going wrong, but the absolute priority has to be ensuring the person with the bailiffs after them doesn't have them coming into their home and taking their possessions to pay their fees and help protect people from having needless fees added by delaying communication with the bailiff. Get things on a level so the immediate threat has passed, THEN worry about complaining. Anyone in a vulnerable position should communicate with the bailiffs as soon as they know bailiffs are involved and should do so in writing.
    Realistically, when you have a civil enforcement company that is known for trying to force debtors to pay unrealistically affordable instalments and the debtor is on JSA, plus court staff are being as unco-operative as possible, escalating to a higher level asap is sometimes the only way of resolving the matter.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebottle View Post
    Realistically, when you have a civil enforcement company that is known for trying to force debtors to pay unrealistically affordable instalments and the debtor is on JSA, plus court staff are being as unco-operative as possible, escalating to a higher level asap is sometimes the only way of resolving the matter.
    That is undoubtedly true BB, but the 'sometimes' to which you refer are very rare. Even then it is important to approach higher authorities with a comprehensive knowledge of the debtors position and prior actions. I think Amethyst has summed it up extremely well in saying the priority is to deal with the immediate issue in the best and fastest way possible, then address other issues once the immediate stress has been relieved.

    The stickies covering the introduction of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations stated in March that we would usually be advising people to engage with the enforcement companies at the earliest possible opportunity - that statement remains as true now as it was when written three months ago.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    is that right Wombats I prefer to get to the point The bailiff's have no right of first time entry full stop so its a con law As far as common law concerned or people talking crap about big words of section part 5 of bullshit section 5 of the persons act

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Wombats View Post
    That is undoubtedly true BB, but the 'sometimes' to which you refer are very rare. Even then it is important to approach higher authorities with a comprehensive knowledge of the debtors position and prior actions. I think Amethyst has summed it up extremely well in saying the priority is to deal with the immediate issue in the best and fastest way possible, then address other issues once the immediate stress has been relieved.

    The stickies covering the introduction of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations stated in March that we would usually be advising people to engage with the enforcement companies at the earliest possible opportunity - that statement remains as true now as it was when written three months ago.
    Whilst that may be true, Wombats, there are EAs who clearly seem to be under the impression they can carry on as they were before 6 April 2014. Collectica is one of the worst offenders. The behaviour displayed in the thread I believe Milo is hinting at is something they did last year and it took the intervention of an HMCTS Area Enforcement Team to stop a seriously-ill person and partner on JSA from being bullied into paying money Collectica knew they could not afford. Notwithstanding that Collectica lied to HMCTS the couple had agreed to the figure Collectica demanded. Only this evening, I have responded to a thread where it is glaringly obvious that a Further Steps Notice has been issued in error.

    If a case is straightforward, then I agree with you 100%, Wombats, but if there are inconsistencies, errors and/or abuse of the legal process, the alleged debtor has a legal right to defend themselves against those inconsistencies, errors and abuses, not meekly hand over money they may not even owe to a hired thug who is a hangover from the 12th Century and has no place in 21st Century Great Britain.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebottle View Post
    Only this evening, I have responded to a thread where it is glaringly obvious that a Further Steps Notice has been issued in error.
    I've missed that one, which was it? Sorry to go off topic for one post.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by russelldash View Post
    is that right Wombats I prefer to get to the point The bailiff's have no right of first time entry full stop so its a con law As far as common law concerned or people talking crap about big words of section part 5 of bullshit section 5 of the persons act
    Very eloquent. In answer to your question, yes, it is right. The FMOTL approach will only lead one way, and it is not a discussion I'm prepared to get involved in, there's plenty of sites where people who wish to follow that approach can go.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    There is one involving Greater Manchester Accounts & Enforcement Unit who have issued an FSN when the case was withdrawn by CPS and the OP has an email from HMCTS confirming this. Talk about a cock-up. I'll see if I can locate the thread.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Look at the thread "Without Further Notice", Wombats. I thought Capita was bad for mistakes, but it looks as if Greater Manchester Accounts and Enforcement Unit is vying with them for the title of "Cock-Up Kings".
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,272
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    I am dealing with Newlyn PLC Enforcement on a case that, quite frankly, if it wasn't true, would make a good book.
    Newlyn have claimed that my daughter's car was clamped and the clamp was subsequently removed by force.
    They said that they were going to issue criminal proceedings against her.
    Despite several emails and a registered signed for letter to Newlyn CEO, no evidence what so ever, has been given to her.
    A notice of enforcement agent visit to your premises letter, shoved through her letterbox, has the name MR Jay Oharro, and shows the amount of £766.00 claimed.
    This is definitely an overcharge, by over £144.00 and I must ask the question........
    If my daughter had given him £766.00, what would the bailiff had done with the excess money?
    As the car definitely wasn't clamped, no enforcement has been achieved by Newlyn PLC.
    So the charges need to be reduced back to the Compliance Stage.
    Can we sue for damages over the false allegation, which amounts to a libelous statement.
    Maybe someone here can put me on the right path.
    Try finding Mr Jay Oharro on the registered Bailiff list... You will not find him.
    Jay is not his registered name.
    Was his visit lawful? No way...
    John

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy007 View Post
    I am dealing with Newlyn PLC Enforcement on a case that, quite frankly, if it wasn't true, would make a good book.
    Newlyn have claimed that my daughter's car was clamped and the clamp was subsequently removed by force. And what evidence do they have to substantiate this allegation?
    They said that they were going to issue criminal proceedings against her.
    Despite several emails and a registered signed for letter to Newlyn CEO, no evidence what so ever, has been given to her. If they had any evidence, they would be required to disclose it. If they won't, it would tend to indicate they haven't got any.
    A notice of enforcement agent visit to your premises letter, shoved through her letterbox, has the name MR Jay Oharro, and shows the amount of £766.00 claimed.
    This is definitely an overcharge, by over £144.00 and I must ask the question........
    If my daughter had given him £766.00, what would the bailiff had done with the excess money? Spend it on beer?
    As the car definitely wasn't clamped, no enforcement has been achieved by Newlyn PLC.
    So the charges need to be reduced back to the Compliance Stage.
    Can we sue for damages over the false allegation, which amounts to a libelous statement. Not unless this Mr Jay Oharro or Newlyns are stupid enough to make allegations to the police.
    Maybe someone here can put me on the right path.
    Try finding Mr Jay Oharro on the registered Bailiff list... You will not find him.
    Jay is not his registered name.
    Was his visit lawful? No way...
    John
    Making a report of a crime to the police, knowing it is false, is a criminal offence (Wasteful Employment of Police). However, if the police act upon the false report, then this can escalate the matter into the sphere of Indictable Offences, namely, Perverting the Course of Justice. Wasteful Employment of Police is a summary offence.

    Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebottle View Post

    Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.
    ......... like DCA's fabricating solictors' firms! Oops.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,640
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    There are some discussions on use of vulnerability on this thread

    http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ommenced/page1

    which may be better on here

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Wombats View Post
    ......... like DCA's fabricating solictors' firms! Oops.
    I came across a residential lettings agency impersonating a firm of solicitors some years go. They weren't too happy when the local constabulary paid them a visit and started asking them awkward questions about their business activities.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,272
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebottle View Post
    Making a report of a crime to the police, knowing it is false, is a criminal offence (Wasteful Employment of Police). However, if the police act upon the false report, then this can escalate the matter into the sphere of Indictable Offences, namely, Perverting the Course of Justice. Wasteful Employment of Police is a summary offence.

    Regardless of whoever makes a false report, such reports waste a lot of time, resources and money and divert police officers away from dealing with genuine crimes.
    Thanks for the reply....
    Your comments were really amusing...
    Newlyn actually put it in writing Quote: It is therefore our intention to file a criminal damage claim against you.
    They are a bloody joke........
    The amounts claimed vary each time they send a letter.
    12/06/2014 it was £512.00
    17/06/2014 it was £766.00
    01/07/2014 it was £622.00

    Just who does their accounts?
    Carol Vorderman

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,640
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Screwlyn are seriously out of control, and in need of a tolchock from plod.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,824
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default Re: New bailiff regulations and the position regarding "vulnerability"

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy007 View Post
    Thanks for the reply....
    Your comments were really amusing...
    Newlyn actually put it in writing Quote: It is therefore our intention to file a criminal damage claim against you.
    They are a bloody joke........
    The amounts claimed vary each time they send a letter.
    12/06/2014 it was £512.00
    17/06/2014 it was £766.00
    01/07/2014 it was £622.00

    Just who does their accounts?
    Carol Vorderman
    And what evidence do they have of Criminal Damage? What evidence do they have that the person they are alleging committed the said alleged damage (if any) actually committed the alleged damage? By the sound of it, bugger all.

    Far from being amusing, what Newlyns are doing is, actually, very serious. It has the potential to backfire on them and the creditor, whoever that may be, in a way they, probably, will not have anticipated or foreseen.

    And, no, Carol Vooderman does not do their accounts; rumour has it that it is the ghosts of the Brothers Grimm.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "6" and "D" markers - wrong dates
    By ncf355 in forum Wrongful Defaults
    Replies: 4
    : 21st August 2013, 07:40:AM
  2. Equita Bailiff "omitted to bank the money"
    By Amy in forum Latest News and Information
    Replies: 5
    : 22nd June 2011, 17:11:PM
  3. Poorest people being hit hardest as banks "reverse Robin Hood"
    By natweststaffmember in forum Latest News and Information
    Replies: 14
    : 19th June 2010, 14:53:PM
  4. Replies: 0
    : 2nd March 2008, 20:50:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2016
Hosted by Lodge Information Services Ltd
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
TOP