Bailiffs binned after 'cherry-picking' cases

[Mrs James]

Bailiffs employed by Sutton Council concentrated on collecting their own fees rather than chasing debts, it has emerged.
Sutton Council is to change its debt collection service after the four bailiff companies used by the Council earned £405,000 in fees last year, but reclaimed just 28.4 per cent of unpaid council tax, and 12 per cent of unpaid parking fine from the cases they were assigned.



A report into the service stated bailiffs were generally paid a minimal salary with incentives to incentivise productivity, but this could act as deterrent to full collection of the debt, as bailiffs earned continual fees from broken arrangements and the need to re-visit properties.
The report stated: "Not all cases referred by the authority are worked on as the bailiffs have a tendency to select the cases that will attract the highest fees or will have the most likelihood of some successful collection."
Councillor Tim Crowley, deputy leader of the Conservative opposition, said it meant some residents would have been "disproportionately disadvantaged", and ended up paying more than was fair, while others with debts had not been targeted by bailiffs at all.
He said: "This system has been going against the council's equalities policy, as not everyone has been treated the same. I am pleased a more proportionate system has been put in place."
Sutton Council will now be entering into a shared service with Merton Council, using the neighbouring borough's in house bailiff service, which has been twice as effective at recouping debt.
It is hoped the deal will help save the council £140,000 a year, on top of increased collection of debt.
In the last year Sutton Council referred 3,600 cases of non-council tax payment, 360 business rates cases and 1,900 parking fine evasion cases to bailiffs, recouping about £1.5m.

Councillor John Drage, executive member for finance and efficiency at Sutton Council, said: "Merton Council’s inhouse team has a good track record, and by joining forces with them we hope we’ll be able to recover more money for the public
Bailiffs binned after 'cherry-picking' cases From Your Local Guardian)

[wales01man]

Re: Bailiffs binned after 'cherry-picking' cases

Just proves what has been stated on here in many posts where bailiffs try it on all the time it should be debt paid first fees after and full accountability with the council not buck passing by them

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiffs binned after 'cherry-picking' cases

Wish more Councils would see the light!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiffs binned after 'cherry-picking' cases

Wish more Councils would see the light!

So do I, as Merton Borough Council's record may be better than abysmal but it still falls short of "good".

Some of the uncollected monies may be due to the debtor having died with an insolvent estate, whilst others might not really have been owed at all but were the result of clerical or administrative errors. Other people may have left the area or emigrated, but there would still be some debts owed by live people who had continued to live in the Merton area.

A much better way to collect those debts would be to obtain attachment orders, whereby the money is quietly and efficiently siphoned off before the debtor receives it.