Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

[EXC]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Nice one HC.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I'm reading the consultation document at the moment. I'll post my thoughts and views when I've had a chance to consider the proposals.

[Streety]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

It is my belief Happy Contrails has tried his best in answering this consultation. However, the response would have suggested Legal Beagles was somewhat sloppy and hurried in giving full consideration to the consultation.

I have corrected most of his/her incorrect English, and highlighted parts which are indicative of someone unused to completing such things comprehensively.

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 to 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. There should also be stronger sanctions against individual bailiffs and bailiff companies who abuse the system.

3. No

4. Disagree. I think you mean agree. The remainder of this answer is then superfluous. It is important to read the questions correctly in responses, a brief scan of them is unacceptable.

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. a) no Yes, they should have to apply to the court to use reasonable force. b) No. There are plenty of non-confrontational options open to creditors, e.g. charging order, bank arrestment, and attachment of earnings or benefits. If none of these remedies are available, it is probable the debtor does not have the means to pay. (One does need the Queen's English).

8. Yes to both parts of the question.

9. No. The word, "reasonable" in the term, "reasonable force," is not defined and is thus subjective. The entitlement must be (delete this word) 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 words, "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.) This is waffle. Replace with, 'There are many examples where unreasonable force has been used and the police have been ineffective in preventing a criminal offence taking place.'

10. a) Yes but again the term, "reasonable" needs defining clearly. b) No, any use of force should always follow an application to the court, and ideally there should aways be a police officer in attendance, not only to stop a breach of the peace, but to ensure the bailiffs comply with the law.

11. Reduce it to 40 days because goods and vehicles are wasting assets. 40 days seems somewhat short if the debtor is to be given a fair opportunity to repay any debt owing.

12. –Yes.

13. Yes, agree with regulation 21 By specifying Regulation 21, you are effectively reversing your existing answers to questions 11 and your non-answer to question 12. It is best just to say yes.

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 neighbourhoods. Again one needs to ensure spelling is correct. I appreciate some people have difficulty spelling accurately.

16. Not on public holidays. If this is to be the answer, the question asks for your reasons, again a simple matter of reading the question properly. I would agree with your answer, and would state that the intrusion into an individual's private life would be severely compromised should 'Control of Goods' be permitted to take place on public holidays. It is contrary to The Human Rights Act.

17. Same as Q15

18. No, see answer to Q15. I disagree. If the Enforcement Process is nearly complete, it would cause less disruption to continue, than to stop and return. I do feel that enforcement should not commence within a specified period of the end of day.

19. Exempt goods need to include a) non-movable items, fixtures including
wall-mounted TVs, radiators etc... These are already exempt. b) 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 There are many small charities which do not compulsorily need to register, including many 'not for profit organisations.' I do not think this site should be seen to discriminate against these charities. f) Vehicles having no MOT or significant value (Vexatious levy) The term 'Vexatious Levy' is superfluous and comes across as somewhat arrogant. I think this should be deleted.

20. No, it is 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. Again I disagree. I feel someone who is very nervous of these issues should be able to nominate a more competent person to represent them.

21. Please define, "Apparent authority."

22. Yes. I have evidence of premises being secured by enforcement agents when the property inside did not belong to them. The length of time it took the businessman to attain adequate proof of this drove him out of business.

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. There is also the question of damage to a vehicle, so detailed footage of the vehicle should be obtained before removal. Also of concern is insurance liability and finally the issue of any internal contents of the vehicle. The debtor should be given ample opportunity to remove all of these before their vehicle is removed.

24. Yes.

25. Sale must be through a PUBLIC auction or ebay etc (E Bay is a public auction), and not a private deal between other bailiffs moonlighting as car traders. This comment is potentially libellous and should be removed. Comments of this sort have no place in a response from a reputable consumer website.

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 (I am sorry, but this is not comprehensible. It is important for the site that we should show some basic command of the English language). 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. Yes.

30. I feel this should be increased to 21 days to give the debtor time to repay the debt. 7 days is far too short, especially when a bond under any type of tenancy agreement usually covers a full month.

31. Yes.

32. Yes.

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. The MALG medical form would act as sufficient evidence. If a qualified medical professional, GP or hospital doctor states a patient's mental health has caused the lack of engagement, their professional opinion should be respected.

37. The proposed costs are too high. They run the risk of making people who would pay become unable to pay.

38. £75.00 per £1000 of debt seems high in addition to the statutory fee already payable.

39. No. It does not ask for reasons.

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

41. No.

42. Yes. The debt or liability pronounced by a court should be paid first. The rules bankruptcy practitioners follow should be followed, whereby statutory debts are paid first, otherwise creditors may only receive part recovery when the enforcement officer gets tired of the case. I feel this part is somewhat demeaning for a reuptable consumer website.

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. Yes. The answer previously provided was far too vague.

46. No.

47. Yes, let the enforcement agent choose which court to apply for his certificate. I do so apologise, but once again you contradict yourself in this response. You state yes, the application for a certificate should be made at a local court. You then state one should let the agent choose any court. I think the agent should apply to a local court, as complaints are made to the certificating court. 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. You are making too many grammatical errors, giving the site response less plausibility. I disagree. I think applications should be processed by people specifically trained to do so, and with sufficiently detailed knowledge to do so.

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 in keeping with other statutory regulators such as The Civil Aviation Authority and The Financial Services Authority. The proposed (Oh my goodness, tautology is creeping in now! Please remove this word) term proposed by the British Parking Association uses the word council in its name, and has no authority in the Business Names Act 1985.

50. Yes


51. Yes

52. Yes, to maintain ongoing CPD as with solicitors, doctors and pilots. Replace with, "in line with nearly all jobs." Personally I would hesitate to group enforcement officers together with professional people such as solicitors, doctors and teachers. I would imagine this to be a view held widely on the site.

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. All complaints should be handled by an independent body.

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. If the site is going to suggest this is happening, in order to maintain credibility it needs definitive proof. If we have that, then we simply need to correct the poor English used in the response.

55. Yes

56. Yes

57. No

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Thanks for your input, I have added my comments but I have disregarded your criticism of my grammar and spelling because this is not what the consultation exercise is about.

4 Disagree (with the use of force)

7. No (to executing warrants and entering business premises)

8. Stet

9. Not consistent with your comments about my answer to Q24

10. Stet, your comments is not what he question asked.

13. I think you misunderstood what Regulation 21 means, Its nothing to do with questions 11 and 12 which are questions about taking control of goods.

16 Stet

18 You disagree, that’s fine, you can submit your set of answers if they are different to mine.

19. a) incorrect, mounted Flat TVs are not exempt goods. e) I suggest you read Section 9 of the Charities Act 2006. f) A vexatious levy is a levy on goods of little or no value, only to cause a nuisance to the debtor or to raise a fee. Nothing "arrogant" about that.

21. A person who is appears to hold authority over anothers property and affairs.

23. Damage to vehicles and liability insurance is not what the question as asking.

24 Nothing libelous, see BBC Whistleblower 2006 featuring a seized Porsche 911 and a manager of Drakes Bailiffs offices in Sun Street, was caught driving it with his girlfriend as a passenger, he admitted to police at a traffic stop he was taking it home for his own private use.

36. What does a MALG assessment form has to do with a debtor being mean tested for fee remission (??) For those less informed, a MALG form is a medical assessment and evidence questionnaire on the mental health of a debtor.

42 Stet

47 Stet

48. Detailed Knowledge? its evident you speak for yourself.

52. Nearly "all other jobs" to borrow your parlance, do not have a CPD programme. Enforcement officers don’t have any academic requirements but they are expected to know the regulations they are required to follow, and that changes with new precedents and enactments, so CPD is necessary and should for part of the proposed regulations, and they should accumulate CPD points to maintain a qualification to trade in civil enforcement.

53 Stet

54 There is plenty of proof. Under regulation 12, HCEOs can only claim COSTS and this example confirms they are fees. That also confirms the HCEO is seeking to defraud a debtor by claiming to have incurred costs of nearly £1770 when he has not. The regulations do not provide for bogus costs nor can any fees be charged for gain. This example is evidence HCEOs abuse Regulation 12 by pretending to have paid disbursements by inventing an alternative fee schedule and applying it to a debtor while no contract exists that makes the debtor liable for them.

[berniel]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I was hoping that we could all contribute to this , i know there are a cople of points i would like to make.

I see no reason why the grammar canonot be corrected, i know i could use the assistance.

Is there going to be no room for debate on these points.

What i am asking is, is this going to be a joint effort or HCs report endorsed by LB.

i wouldnt want to put my two penneth in where it is not wanted.

I took the initial post to be an excellant first draft, was i incorrect.

Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

It was never intended I be the sole contributor of an LB response to the paper.

It was hoped others would submit their answers, and later on, they would be collated into a combined LB response.

Instead, we see an individual, who did not appear to fully understand some of the questions, just making criticism of my answers with impertinent comments.

[berniel]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HI

Yes thats what i thought, i will feel free to put my opinions into the pot hopefully with many others.

Bernie



Bernie

[Streety]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Again I have pointed out your tendency to rush responses, a dangerous trait. I have also placed your comments in context for the benefit of readers.

Thanks for your input, I have added my comments but I have disregarded your criticism of my grammar and spelling because this is not what the consultation exercise is about.

4 Do you agree enforcement agents should not be able to use force against a person?
Disagree (with the use of force)Answer should be you agree they should not!

7. Do you consider an enforcement agent executing a High Court or county court debt should: a) have to apply to the court to use reasonable force if necessary on entry to any business premises
No (to executing warrants and entering business premises) A plain difference of opinion then. I think they should have to apply to the court.

8. Do you agree there is a need for the court to be satisfied of certain conditions before they authorise the use of reasonable force to gain re-entry to premises and that the conditions should be prescribed in regulations?
Stet Again I think the court should have to be satisfied of certain conditions before authorising reasonable force (a much abused phrase in any case).

9. Not consistent with your comments about my answer to Q24 There is no place for waffling in consultations.Q24 contains no waffling. You did not even answer it at all on your initial response.

10. Do you consider an enforcement agent should: a) have to apply to the court to use reasonable force, if necessary, on re-entry in certain circumstances; or b) should they have a general power?
Stet, your comments is not what he question asked. You are wrong.

13. I think you misunderstood what Regulation 21 means, Its nothing to do with questions 11 and 12 which are questions about taking control of goods. I stand by my original comment.

16 Do you agree that the enforcement agent should be able to take control of goods any day? If not, please propose limits with accompanying argument.
Stet Sorry Mr Contrails, but once again this is a rushed response. I did not disagree with you, I merely pointed out the question asked for a reason. You failed to supply one.

18 Do you agree with allowing the enforcement agent to proceed outside the hours limit where the process has already commenced?
You disagree, that’s fine, you can submit your set of answers if they are different to mine. I merely stated if things are nearly complete, it is less disruptive to complete there and then, than return another time.

19. a) incorrect, mounted Flat TVs are not exempt goods. Why should they be? e) I suggest you read Section 9 of the Charities Act 2006.Many people starting a charity assume they need to register with us, or think that a registered charity number is necessary to carry out voluntary work. However, in the UK today there are probably over 500,000 voluntary organisations but fewer than 180,000 of these are registered charities. (Source Charity Commission website)
f)Do you agree that the debtor should be able to authorise another person to enter into a controlled goods agreement?
A vexatious levy is a levy on goods of little or no value, only to cause a nuisance to the debtor or to raise a fee. Nothing "arrogant" about that. I am aware what constitutes a vexatious levy, there is simply no need to mention it in this context.

21. A person who is appears to hold authority over anothers property and affairs. This is another typical case of you rushing and making mistakes. What is this supposed to mean?

23. Damage to vehicles and liability insurance is not what the question as asking. You expanded on the question, I merely completed your argument.

24 Nothing libelous, see BBC Whistleblower 2006 featuring a seized Porsche 911 and a manager of Drakes Bailiffs offices in Sun Street, was caught driving it with his girlfriend as a passenger, he admitted to police at a traffic stop he was taking it home for his own private use. Your original had no answer to this, I gave one. This is yet another case of you rushing, as per your original response. I believe you refer to question 25 here, but it is becoming evident to everyone that your responses are hurried and ill considered.

36. Do you consider there is a need for remission? If so, please offer proposals as to the level of evidence required to prove that mental health has contributed to the lack of engagement.
What does a MALG assessment form has to do with a debtor being mean tested for fee remission (??) For those less informed, a MALG form is a medical assessment and evidence questionnaire on the mental health of a debtor. Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the question.

42 Stet Again I did not disagree. The last sentence is inappropriate for a website response though.

47 Do you agree that the application for a certificate should be made by the enforcement agent at the court local to the area where they will be carrying out the main part of their business?
Stet Do you really want this to stand?
"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."
As you can see, your answer contradicts itself.

Read more at: Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - Reply to Topic

48. Detailed Knowledge? its evident you speak for yourself. No, I just happen to have an extensive range of contacts with people who have been affected by bailiff issues. This was one example providing detailed knowledge of one case.

52. Nearly "all other jobs" to borrow your parlance, do not have a CPD programme. Enforcement officers don’t have any academic requirements but they are expected to know the regulations they are required to follow, and that changes with new precedents and enactments, so CPD is necessary and should for part of the proposed regulations, and they should accumulate CPD points to maintain a qualification to trade in civil enforcement. Shop assistants and many cleaners have CPD, all professions do, builders, gas fitters, plumbers, electricians do. The list is very extensive.

53 Do you agree with our proposals on the complaints handling strategy? If not, please provide alternatives with supporting argument.
Stet I agreed with you, but with the proviso of an independent body. Do you disagree the complaints body should be independent?

54 There is plenty of proof. Under regulation 12, HCEOs can only claim COSTS and this example confirms they are fees. That also confirms the HCEO is seeking to defraud a debtor by claiming to have incurred costs of nearly £1770 when he has not. The regulations do not provide for bogus costs nor can any fees be charged for gain. This example is evidence HCEOs abuse Regulation 12 by pretending to have paid disbursements by inventing an alternative fee schedule and applying it to a debtor while no contract exists that makes the debtor liable for them. Excellent, I merely said if this was to be the site's answer it would need extensive evidence of proof.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Rather than spending your energy critisising me, prepare your own answers and submit them on the thread.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Is anyone going to submit their answers? err, streety? you've gone rarvver quiet.

I will amend the answers to questions about enforcement officers conduct, and to extend liability for conduct to enforcment company directors as well as enforcement agents.

Currently it is the enforcement companies that are responsible for sending threats of locksmiths through the post, fee fraud and threats of breaking and entering. I think a recommendation should be made to provide joint liability with the directors and enforcement agent assigned to the case.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HiStill wading through the information but have made some notes that i would like to contribute, in the mean time i came accross this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...?newsfeed=true

Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Peter - if you find the bit that refers to the fees increasing to £305 for collection of normal debts, please could you post it up as I missed it (not hard given the volume of reading material).

I wonder if the paper are being a bit sensationalist?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HI Labman
Yes does seem a bit extreme doesn’t it. He draft regulations propose a single fee structure for all seven types of debt and divide the enforcement process into three parts (four in the case of HCEO), each part with a set fee.
They rationalise this by saying that it will avoid the disagreement that are currently raised over bailiffs charging repeat fees for additional,(and phantom) visits and so forth, these new fees will be one offs for each stage
The description of the rationale is in part 5 of the consolation paper and the table of charges on page 137.
It must also be remembered that these fees were calculated from a consultation that took place in 2007 so they are probably a lot less than the figures that would apply if and when the regulations are actually brought into force.
This is something that needs commenting on in any reply to the questionnaire IMO.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HI
Considering question five regarding the the changes in forced entry provisions in the proposed regulations.
Bailiffs can currently force entry to non-domestic premises but under the proposals they will be able to force entry to “commercial premises”. These commercial premises may, of course, have living accommodation and be used for domestic purposes. This change makes a huge, huge difference! Bailiffs would, therefore, would have been able to force entry to my home, where I worked from a small office that used to be a bedroom: they couldn’t do that under the current provisions.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice



The complaints procedure linked to the new certification process (para 184ff) must be mandatory, so that it cannot be disregarded by judges. As we know, currently judges can and do decide to deal with Form 4 complaints under the Civil Procedure Rules, treating the Form 4 as a de facto claim - and not even a ‘small claim’, at that! This can and does result in costs threats from the bailiffs and a number of controversial costs orders actually made, all of which proactively dissuades complaints. Therefore in my opinion whatever the complaints procedure is, it must be mandatory and judges’ discretion restricted if people are to use it.

Peter