Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I agree Peter. Sadly, the bailiffs fighting back for costs was caused by the overuse of Form 4 complaints where they were simply not appropriate.

IMO, formal compaint should always be a last resort.

I take on board what you say about commercial premises. I remember reading a fairly substantial article somewhere about the definition of entrance doors. I think this may be relevant here. It was to do with blocks of flats which shared a communal entrance and whether that was the entrance door, or the flat door was. It was decided the falt door was.

IMO again, I think there would be a very strong argument for stating that the entrance to a house is an entrance door to a domestic premises. If they want to force entry to commercial premises, this would not cover the right to first force entry to domestic premises.

Does that make sense?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HI Labman
My understanding Ia that this will be a new complaint procedure, the guidelines point out that a complaint to the court must be a last resort.
However the point of this reform is to increase the accountability of bailiffs, this cannot be done if debtors hands are tied by the prospect of incurring costs when their case has not even had a proper hearing.
People are just not going to use the provisions and more importantly the threat of the sanction will be inafective.
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I totally agree Peter. I do think though that a complaint to the court should be a last resort. The knock on effect of this, of course, is that precursors to court action must be effective. Therefore any measures to increase the bailiffs' accountability MUST be hard hitting, clear and used!

There are powers there now, but how often, in reality, is a bailiff's certificate revoked and his bond forfeited?

My feeling is they should be hit hard. Possibly one warning, then gone, along with their bond. They would soon come to heel. This will never happen, but the sanctions have to be sufficient to deter bailiffs from fabrication, lies, deceit, fraud etc.... which many currently commit.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

HI Labman
I think we have the start of an idea for one of the replies, (question 5)
I think it is worth mentioning that the consultation is about the recommended changes to the current system as shown in the consultation document, the draft regulations and the TCE bill.
So all replies should relate to that rather than the situation under the old system.
The consultation document presents a global view of the regulations and I think that we should look at the detail presented in the later before commenting, I am not at all convinced that the consultation paper 100% represents what the regulations propose and the devil is in the detail.
The forced access to commercial properties is an example; this represents a shift, from the bailiff not being able to force entry, to one where bailiffs are able to force entry if the property contains a room that is used for commercial purposes.
This introduces the prospect of the bailiff making a judgment as to which scenario is the case. I think that this is a bad idea, far better just to say that bailiff can only force entry to none domestic premises , this clarifies the position in my view.
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Anything which prohibits bailiffs making judgments has to be good. If they have a choice, it is somewhat predictable which way they will go.

I think you've put your finger on it when you say the devil is in the detail (as it nearly always is). The document does not provide this detail. It's fine to say bailiffs should be able to break into commercial premises. As we have said here, what if those are part of a domestic dwelling, and they have to force entry to the latter to gain access to the former? This is clerly wrong. It needs the detail.

The frustrating thing is rather than take time to get it right, they will rush it through IF they do anything at all. Everything then will be a mess with no legal precedents initially to set the boundaries.

It would be good to have a consultatioin on here along the lines of the one on CAG. They have broken it down, invited response, and then I suspect someone will collate it as a site response.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Anything which prohibits bailiffs making judgments has to be good. If they have a choice, it is somewhat predictable which way they will go.

I think you've put your finger on it when you say the devil is in the detail (as it nearly always is). The document does not provide this detail. It's fine to say bailiffs should be able to break into commercial premises. As we have said here, what if those are part of a domestic dwelling, and they have to force entry to the latter to gain access to the former? This is clerly wrong. It needs the detail.

The frustrating thing is rather than take time to get it right, they will rush it through IF they do anything at all. Everything then will be a mess with no legal precedents initially to set the boundaries.

It would be good to have a consultatioin on here along the lines of the one on CAG. They have broken it down, invited response, and then I suspect someone will collate it as a site response.

Yes I havnt seen the CAG one, its unusual they don't usually go in for this kind of constructive activity(meow) but it does seem like a good idea.

Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

See if this works:

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

This is a screen print from OTR.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Hate to say it but i like it.

Would there be enough interest to jusify something simillar here. Strikes me that as well as being a device for completing the questionaire it is a good way for us all to learn exactly what the proposed legislation will mean.

Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Ditto!

Need someone from Site Team to make a decision re interest levels now.

[Cally]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

I'm interested. I don't like the thought of the bailiffs having any more powers than they do now, especially powers that are so clearly undefined and provide a way for bailiffs to be even more unscrupulous than they already are!

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

The consultation has removed many of the harsher elements of the regulation proposed in 2007. The ability to use force against a person for instance and it restricts the use of forced entry to commercial premises only, but there is still much in the new proposed regulation that needs close scrutiny.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Hi
I have been mulling over the document for some weeks now, in regards to completing a questionnaire for, my local CU. I have arrived t a number of conclusions, but am not sure about the best way to present them. For instance, the proposals seem to retain the amazing complexity of the current law and practice with the seven categories of debt and the ways they are enforced.
Not only have easy rationalisations been attempted but I think the complexity is increased. For example, the way the TCEA provisions on entry are worded is beyond most people’s comprehension and the draft Regulations just seem to compounds the riddle. Almost from the day the TCEA was published as a draft Bill, back in 2006, bailiffs used copies to bewilder people; once it really is law, implemented with the Regulations, it’ll be a licence to bamboozle and bully.
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Agree - I don't think many bailiff companies will be complaining.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff industry changes proposed by Ministry of Justice

Also been looking at the idea of dividing the fee structure into three stages with the only outward action of the admin stage being the sending of a letter, coupled with the draft Regulation that says if a debtor enters a payment agreement the timescale for later action is suspended. This seems like a clear enticement for local authorities to keep this stage in house.
I believe that the proposed fees are much lower than will actually be implemented but, even on the basis of the prosed fees; local authorities would make over £70 profit from the £75 fee on each debt paid at that stage. Philip Evans says that some local authorities have reportedly already said they will keep this stage in-house and the potential for easy profit will be much too good for many more to resist.

You can be sure the local authorities that keep this stage in-house will do no more than they need and will certainly keep on using the same poorly formatted, inaccurate or wrong addresses as they do now. This means that debtors who didn’t get the documentation that led to the liability order or warrant won’t get the notice of bailiff action either.

And worse of all, when unpaid cases are finally outsourced to bailiffs, they will have to upload them, data cleanse and so on without being able to claim the admin fee. This means they will start work at a loss and have to visit and take control of goods to start earning a fee. (The only good thing about this is that the increased malpractice that will result, together with the resultant consumer complaints may be the fatal blow to this archaic way of enforcing debt!)
Peter