Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

[EXC]

Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice


Changes to laws governing bailiffs in England and Wales, such as the creation of a code of conduct, are being proposed by the Ministry of Justice.

The government has said it fears people do not have enough protection from the rogue practices of aggressive bailiffs.

Proposals to be published later would ban the use of force, make clear when bailiffs can enter properties and state what items they cannot take from homes.

Companies, councils and courts use bailiffs to collect money owed to them.

However, there have been many complaints and concerns about the practices of a minority within the industry.

The proposals expected to be unveiled later include a new regulatory body to oversee the industry, a new complaints process for debtors and clear fees so that people know what bailiffs can charge.

Many firms have welcomed the attempt to deal with rogue practices and say the suggestion of a regulatory body with a clear complaints process will help build the reputation of the industry.

Bailiffs in England and Wales currently need a court certificate to operate.

The law is different In Northern Ireland and Scotland. There are no bailiffs as such, although individuals are appointed by courts to recover debts.


BBC News - Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Its old news recycled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7303455.stm

[berniel]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Hmm

Ban "the use of force"

Does this mean force against the person (restraint)or forceable entry i wonder.

Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

This government and previous governments promised to reform civil enforcment. They havnt. Its unlikely the next government will, nor will any successive government will be inclined. They make repeated press releases to the BBC who naively presents it as news. Its gives the lobbyists something to talk about. The solution is not tackling the nuances of civil enforcment, but tackling reasons debt happens in the first place. Other countries dont have bailiffs.

[EXC]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Its old news recycled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7303455.stm

Well no it's not. Labour merely announced a few rule changes. This will go much further.

Government announces legal regulation of bailiffs


https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

...and if you read it, it fails to address the most common complaint made against bailiffs, fee fraud.

The paper talks about structuring fees - for which legislation already does, and its persistently abused, and abuse of regulations is a crucial question missing from the consultation.

[berniel]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

"prohibit the use of force against a person with safeguards to protect children"

"Re structure how goods are siezed"

I heard that they had dropped implementing the former sections of the TCE 2007, but i wonder if the "restructuring" will implement the rest of the provisions currently on hold.

Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

This was news a month ago. http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=32513

I contributed to the previous consultation in 2008 in great detail. The points I raised were making bailiffs criminally liable for violence and fraud. All we get is another consultation paper.

I dont mind re-submitting my previous contribution, but I'm doubtful anything will be done. Its an appeasement excersise and the governments priorities are to call in debts. This is why we saw a knee-jerk reaction from a newly appointed official in HMCTS whose first action was issue a practice direction to court staff to issue Section 76 Warrants on all unpiad court fines without a notice being sent to the defendant.

[Mrs James]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I've just had a quick scan through it and note that they would be able to make visits 7 days a week, however the good news is they would no longer be able to gain access through a window!!

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

There's just been a news item on BBC News Channel, involving bailiffs threatening locksmiths. I think the best way of curbing bailiffs' blatant law-breaking is to force ACPO to drop its "It's a civil matter," mantra and replace it with "Nick 'em". Arrest a few bailiffs and put them through the court system and it will act as a deterrent. Only the foolhardy ignore the law.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

My take on this is as sceptical as anyone else's with an interest in bailiff regulation.

However I think we should welcome anything which moves even partially in the right direction, and this would do so if it ever makes it through to statute.

Thanks EXC for raising this - you will understand, I have little doubt, that after lots of empty promises many of us are very sceptical. As said above though, we have to welcome any attempt to bring tighter regulation of this industry - this would definitely do that. One can but hope that this one is the one that actually really makes a difference.

[berniel]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Wonder who they have in mind for regulator?

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

It must be totally independent of anyone with an interest. It also needs teeth which can and do bite.

[EXC]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I dont mind re-submitting my previous contribution

I'd warmly encourage you to.

If you've done the donkey work already it shouldn't be too much work and you could make it a Legal Beagles response if you so wish. It's not my area so I wouldn't be any help.

I used to be very skeptical of getting involved in consultations but having done a few I'm less so now. To get things changed we have to be prepared to play the game if we've got a meaningful chance of winning it. It's our individual and collective responsibility as citizens to do everything we can to ensure we get our views heard if we value what we have to say.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I'd warmly encourage you to..

Fair enough, Ive read the consultation paper in its entirety, and these are my answers to the questions. If anyone wants to add to them and present the as a LB combined response to the paper, I'm good.


1. Yes

2. Existing law needs to be amended to disable enforcement companies from abusing regulations that provide for "miscellaneous" disbursements or to invent fictitious costs on the basis of "reasonable" costs. The regulations must require the company to recover only actual disbursements based on genuine sales receipts proving whom the costs were paid excluding a company that is owned by or linked to the enforcement company such a van rental business and any business where a commission (kickback) is paid.

3. No

4. Disagree. There is no place in the 21st century Britain for anyone to be subjected to violence or threatened with violence by another to obtain money.

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. a) no b) no. See answer to question 4, and there are plenty of non-confrontational options open to creditors, e.g. charging order, bank arrestment, and deduction of earnings or benefits. If a debtor has none of these then it is probable he does not have the means to pay.

8. Yes and yes (to including in the prescribed regulations)

9. No. The word "reasonable" in the term "reasonable force" is not defined and open to individual interpretation or abuse. The entitlement must be set out clearly whether or not an enforcement officer can break open an aperture into a building. It should be included in the prescribed conditions. In 2006, a Police Superintendent of Surrey police used the word "enter by force" in a letter to a complainant debtor to describe a parking ticket bailiff’s right to break open a fire exit to the debtor’s common-law partner’s apartment at 6.11am causing £1200 in damage, and while the bailiff’s certificate had expired.

10. a) Yes but see answer to Q9 about the interpretation of the word "reasonable" force. b) No, see answer to questions 7 and 9.

11. Reduce it to 40 days because goods and vehicles are wasting assets.

12. –

13. Yes, agree with regulation 21

14. Visits on Sundays and public holidays only when other days have resulted in a no show by the debtor.

15. Change 6am to 7am, 6am is an unreasonable time for most people and causes disturbances in neighborhoods.

16. Not on public holidays.

17. Same as Q15

18. No, see answer to Q15.

19. Exempt goods need to include a) non-movable items, fixtures including
wall-mounted TVs, radiators etc. a) Computers and other equipment capable of storing electronic data, intellectual property and personal information. c) Vehicles normally used for taking children to school or hospital. d) Vehicles on finance e) trade vehicles and minibuses currently in service. e) Vehicles used for medical or registered charity work. f) Vehicles having no MOT or significant value (Vexatious levy).

20. No. Its open to abuse, unless the authorised person is acting as an attorney with the same duty of care in the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

21. No. Control of the assets of another should have the same safeguards for property as those prescribed in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

22. None, but debtors liability for to pay business rates and rent must cease when the property is secured by an enforcement agent.

23. 21 days, or shorter if the VED expires while immobilised. The regulations need to address liability for SORN, parking and traffic penalties so it passes from the debtor to the immobiliser while immobilised or stored.

24. –

25. Sale must be a PUBLIC auction or ebay etc, and not a private deal between other bailiffs moonlighting as car traders.

26. Only the actual costs of auction are recoverable from the sale of goods and copy invoices given to the debtor whose goods have been sold must be given to the debtor. No estimated costs and this will dispense with detailed assessment hearings before a court Master. Redress on authenticity of costs and invoices can be in the county court under the Civil Procedure Rules.

27. None

28. Yes, adopt the definition in the 2012 guidelines and make them statutory.

29. –

30. –

31. –

32. –

33. Yes.

34. Yes

35. Yes

36. Yes, debtors must be means tested for ability to pay the proposed fees. Adopt the HMCTS rules for form EX160 court fee remission applications. Mandate enforcement officers to disclose the fee remission application procedure to debtors every time they charged a statutory fee. This protects debtor’s incomes being reduced below the government’s poverty threshold.

37. The proposed costs are too high. It will encourage non-payers to become cant-payers and start claiming prescribed benefits.

38. –

39. No, because it will be abused a-la Regulation 12 of Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004.

40. No. They should be same. The value of the debt and costs of recovery is the same regardless what type of court pronounced it.

41. No

42. The debt or liability pronounced by a court should be paid first. Follow the rules bankruptcy practitioners follow – Statutory debts are paid first. Otherwise creditors may only receive part recovery when the enforcement officer gets tired of the case.

43. No because there is too much margin for error and interpretation on what inflation actually is. The government constantly changes the rules on how inflation is officially calculated. For example, consumer prices index, retail prices index, excluding mortgage interest, excluding mortgage interest etc, etc. The list is endless. Revise and publish precise fee changes in subsequent annual Finance Acts.

44. No

45. Revise from time to time in a Finance Act as to what the fees should be according to current circumstances of that time.

46. No.

47. Yes, let the enforcement agent choose which court to apply for his certificate. The rules are sill the same regardless which court grants the certificate and holds the bond or security.

48. No, the criteria in dealing with applications are prescribed and can be followed by anyone qualified to sit a District Judge.

49. Any regulator in civil enforcement needs to be a statutory body and not a company. A more appropriate name for such an organisation would be, for example, – The Enforcement Services Authority. This is keeping with other statutory regulators such as the Civil Aviation Authority and the Financial Services Authority. The proposed term proposed by the British Parking Association uses the word council in its name, and is not authority in the Business Names Act 1985.

50. Yes


51. Yes

52. Yes, to maintain ongoing CPD as with solicitors, doctors and pilots.

53. No. Change complaints procedure to mirror the one currently operated by the Financial Service Authority for handling complaints against financial advisers and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for solicitors. CIVEA is a private company and not suitable for handling complaints and has no statutory power of sanction and has a history of being dismissive against complainants.

54. Yes. Increase the threshold a debt can be transferred to the high court to £15,000 and only for debts that cannot otherwise be enforced by the county court regulations. Arguments: High Court Enforcement Officers are selling transfer up services to unsuspecting creditors to avail themselves to abuse Regulation 12 of Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcements Officers Regulations 2004 by charging high fees under the pretence it is the miscellaneous costs of the enforcement officer. There are cases an HCEO has charged thousands of pounds in bogus costs to a debtor using Regulation 12.

55. Yes

56. Yes

57. No