Bailiff Regulation

[Guest]

HI
Thought I would start this thread with a quote from Rev Paul Nicolson,I think it summaries the current position and outlines some of the issues.
"The Ministry of Justice has indefinitely put on ice a promise in the coalition agreement to introduce more protection against aggressive bailiffs. Detailed discussions with bailiff companies, creditors and the advice sector were expected to lead to a public consultation about bailiff regulation in July. These discussions have now ground to a halt because the Ministry of Justice says bailiff regulation will clash with another coalition promise not to introduce more regulation on small businesses. Ministers know from the reputable bailiffs companies themselves, who are all small, that they have been calling on governments for regulation for over 12 years. They have not changed their minds. They are sick of being seen in the same light as cowboy outfits and want to put a stop to bad practice.
Debts and the use of bailiffs against the poorest households are being increased by the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions capping housing and council tax benefits while the prices of fuel, food, clothing and transport escalate. It will result in families choosing between paying their rent or council tax, or paying to eat and then falling into the clutches of the local authorities who add the court and unregulated bailiffs costs to council tax arrears; and whose bailiffs the Ministry of Justice refuses to properly regulate. Legal and illegal door to door lenders will thrive on extortionate interest rates as the banks refuse to led to the poorest citizens. The consequence is an inescapable misery of debt, even mental illness which costs billions in the Health Service.
It is vital that bailiff regulation is introduced with proper safeguards for vulnerable debtors before the Universal Credit hits impoverished households from 2013 when the DWP will be paying housing benefit direct into the claimants bank accounts with council tax benefit paid by the local authorities, all with caps. The DWP and the Treasury are creating a flood of unmanageable debts for the bailiffs to enforce.
Rev Paul Nicolson"
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI
I noticed that tea boy raised the same question regarding the greater efficiancy of alternative none fee earning collection methods that I did on my other thread, on the Rossendale blog.
Their reply was
Teaboy2, thanks for your comments, I worked. In local government for nearly 20 years and you are absolutely right, attachment to earnings and benefits are more proportionate and very effective methods to recover the money owed. But can only be implemented when you have that information. Regrettably many people in debt bury their heads and do not respond to information requests. Data protection laws then make it difficult to establish the information necessary to undertake attachments. Furthermore there are a lot of people who fall outside of those two enforcement options, such as the self-employed, those on non-attachable benefits and pensioners. Unfortunately members of those entire groups do, for whatever reason, fail to pay their bills and ignore correspondence, leaving bailiff activity the only available solution. The bailiff then being the very first person to be in a position to establish the true facts. At that point, professional bailiffs would report issues of vulnerability, which as has been agreed by many is very difficult to identify and not always obvious.
I have jusst posted this reply.
Isn’t it true that the new regulations contained in part 4 of the TCE bill will give increased powers regarding tracing debtors details that will more easily enable these collection methods .
Also there is a reason that these benefits re none attachable it is because these people are living on the statutory minimum income. So where are they going to get the money from to pay the bailiff.
Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Part 4 Enforcement of Judgements and Orders
Introduction
206. Part 4 of the Bill makes a number of changes to existing court-based methods of enforcing debts in the civil courts. Part 4 also contains new provisions, including powers to obtain information about debtors.
Background
207. Responsible creditors who are owed money and have gained judgment in court should have the right to enforce that judgment. Equally, debtors should be protected from the oppressive pursuit of their debts. Part 4 of the Bill makes a number of changes to existing court-based methods of enforcing debts in the civil courts.
208. Part 4 also enables the High Court and county courts to request information about a debtor from among others the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in order to assist in the enforcement of a judgment debt.

Clarification of my last post

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI
I hae been thinking about posting this for a while, it is very informative although it orriginated OTR i am sure someone will tell me if it should not be here, iam kind of mentioned in the text.

Reform of the bailiff industry

The bailiff industry is desperately in need of reforming. Over 10 years ago in March 2000, Professor Jack Beatson QC issued a Consultation Paper, the primary aim of which was to consider the extent to which bailiff law could be reformed and therefore simplified and made more transparent. He noted that the law is of “considerable antiquity” and that there are 17 different forms of seizure of goods, governed by 59 separate items of legislation.

Following the responses, Professor Beatson published a 107 page report for the Lord Chancellor entitled: Independent Review of Bailiff Law. This report took into consideration the recent Human Rights Act and he provided many recommendations for change.

Since the publication of the Independent Review of Bailiff Law in June 2000, none of the recommendations have yet been implemented although, in July 2007 the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was introduced and Part 3 of this Act, which relates to bailiffs and enforcement, contains some of the recommendations made by Professor Beatson. However, Part 3 is yet to be implemented.

A further Consultation paper entitled “Regulation of Enforcement Agents” was issued in 2007 seeking views on the options for the future regulation of enforcement agents. The responses were published in March 2008 and these recommended that bailiffs should be regulated by one body; the Security Industry Authority (SIA). However, the report confirmed that the SIA would not take on the role of dealing with complaints against bailiffs.

In 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw asked for a comprehensive review of the enforcement provisions contained in Part 4 of the TCE Act. Specifically, the Secretary of State wanted a reassessment of whether the new law provided for in the Act in relation to enforcement remained appropriate in the current economic climate. Following this review, in March 2009, the Government confirmed that they would not be extending bailiffs powers of entry and the use of force by enforcement agents. Regular viewers to the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum will be aware that in 2007, a thread was started entitled: Bailiff Petition; Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry. This thread attracted nearly 1,000 responses and received 97,000 viewers!!

In 2009, some measures were implemented to “prepare the ground for long-term reform of the enforcement industry” and this included an on-line certificated bailiff register allowing debtors to check bailiffs’ certification status and an extension to the certification process to ensure that all bailiffs provide a Criminal Records Bureau check with their application to become a bailiff. The bailiff register can be accessed in the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum and has proved very useful indeed in that it has been viewed approximately 36,000 times.

Last year we had a change of Government and, in March 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the new Coalition Government were committed to “providing more protection against aggressive bailiffs” and that they were looking at options for public consultation on this commitment to include the better regulation of bailiffs, the powers of bailiffs, their costs and how complaints should be dealt with. They confirmed that they intended publishing the Consultation paper in Spring 2011.

Also, last year, the government announced that the SIA is to be abolished and this has naturally led to much confusion as to the future regulation of bailiffs.

This month, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the public Consultation is due to begin in July 2011 and will end in October 2011. This consultation will focus on regulation of the bailiff industry and of implementing Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. This part of the Act should refine the current law and bring in a comprehensive code on issues of enforcement. It aims to abolish complex and archaic legislation to ensure that bailiffs carry out their work in a transparent, fair and honest way and provide clarity for debtors. In particular, subject to consultation, regulations under the Act should address the matter of:



•when and how a bailiff can enter premises

•what goods they are able to seize and sell; and

•what fees they are able to charge

The government has also confirmed that Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act will not be introduced until a regulator has been appointed.


According to a House of Commons briefing paper dated January 2011, it states that it is the Governments view that independent regulation of the enforcement industry will not only improve efficiency and effectiveness of both civil and criminal enforcement but it will also offer protection to vulnerable debtors and reduce the scope for abuse of the system. Furthermore, in 2009, Lord Bach confirmed that it was the Governments “long-term intention for all enforcement agents who are not Crown employees to be overseen by an independent regulatory body”. He also confirmed that (at that time) the Governments preferred option was the Security Industry Authority.

With the uncertainty over the future of the SIA and mindful that the Government are looking to cut costs, recent alternative draft proposals have been submitted to all members of the Enforcement Law Reform Group and to the Ministry of Justice for consideration. In my opinion, one such proposal deserves very serious consideration. This was submitted by the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council (BEAC) and had been originally proposed by Mr Keith Banbury in 2007 when he was Chief Executive of the British Parking Association.


Recently, the proposal was revised by members of the working paper who include Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall and now provides for an independent regulatory body that will also manage complaints from the public and can be funded by the industry.
To confuse matters, the British Parking Association has also recently issued their own proposal to regulate bailiffs and wheel clampers. Personally, I do not consider that this proposal has much merit.

The bailiff industry itself is of course very keen to seek the agreement of the Ministry of Justice for self regulation. Frankly, in my opinion the bailiff industry should not be allowed to regulate itself and some form of independent external regulation is essential for the future credibility of the industry.


The public consultation on the implementation of Part 3 of the TCE Act will begin in July 2011 and end in October 2011. It is anticipated that Part 3 will then be implemented in early 2013. The timing of this consultation is very disappointing indeed as such an important consultation should not be conducted during the summer holiday period when it is difficult for organisations to collate opinions and for cross industry sources to meet.

There are many items within Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act that are of very serious concern indeed to the advice sector and it is most important that this sector respond to the consultation document with their concerns and recommendations. I intend posting a copy of the consultation paper in the “Sticky” section of the Bailiff and High Court Officers area of the Consumer Action Group forum as soon as it is made available and I will naturally try to answer as many questions as possible that may arise.

As a member of the Enforcement Law Reform Group I will of course be responding to the consultation paper as a representative of the advice sector and in doing so, I will be taking into consideration the concerns that may be raised by members of the public in the Bailiff and High Court Officers section of CAG.

This public consultation will be the last opportunity to stop Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 from being implemented as it currently stands. There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.


By tomtubby.

Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

I was somewhat perturbed when I read your earlier post about the coalition and conflict of interest. This provides much more positive reading.

It is a shame they are not also reviewing the penalties against the rogue bailiff companies who think they are above the law. To a large extent, the areas they intend looking at are already quite clear - the problem is the bailiffs ignore them. My immediate thought is whatever is written down, as it is now, what is going to happen if the bailiffs continue to ignore the law and do their own thing? This issue really needs to be addressed in my opinion.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Yes
As TT points out one of the big worries imo is that if theis matter is not resolved it will eventually end up with the bailiff companies regulating themselves,

Is this what they mean when they say they want regulation? I have asked them this on the blog, it has been modderated and not appeared so far, the answer may be interesting.
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Heaven help us all if that ever happens!

I get so frustrated by what must be the politics of these things. The powers that be must know the real problem is that despite the law being pretty clear already, the bailiffs flaunt it. Why are they not addressing this?

[charitynjw]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

http://www.creditman.co.uk/uk/member...wsviewID=14624

"Following the publication of this report these three industry leaders are arranging an important one-day conference at the House of Lords on the 24th November 2011. At this event MP’s and Local Authority Officers will hear the experts discuss the impact of local authority mismanagement on the industry’s credibility. Topics for discussion are:

- What is the impact of profit sharing on debtor vulnerability?
- Do Local Authority staff know enough to be entrusted with overseeing enforcement?
- Should the responsibility be returned to the courts or transferred to a new, centralised national body?"

(Also posted on another thread http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=31649 )

[charitynjw]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

http://lordlucas.blogspot.com/ (he is hosting the above conference)

Friday, May 14, 2010 Bailiff powers of forced entry

Before the General Election, David Cameron vowed to repeal a range of 'Big Brother' laws, including the controversial use of force by bailiffs. The repeal should include not just the power of forced entry to premises and to restrain people, contained in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, but also the forced entry provisions for fine enforcement slipped into the final stages of the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004.

Although statistics imply that this power is used only about once every two months, it is a power that rarely has to be used. As a matter of 'good' practice, bailiffs daily explain to people that unless they let them in, forced entry will be undertaken with police support. Who could fail to cooperate in the face of such persuasion? It is a stain on our civil liberties.

As the forced entry provision was going through Parliament, Labour Ministers were clear that it would be used only against people convicted of a crime. They didn't mention that they included crimes like truancy and failing to buy a TV licence; they didn't mention that they would be used against the families of those who committed these 'crimes'.

The new Government should turn back the clock so that fines are once again civil debts owed to the State, and restore the principle that all bailiffs must act peacefully against property and people.

posted by Ralph Lucas at 7:32 PM 3 comments links to this post

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI
I have just received a copy of the White paper mentioned earlier in this thread. I will post it as soon as I am sure that I can.
It examines the problem of reform more holistically and tries to steer clear of the emotive issues raised in the TV series
It instead concentrates on how councils manage (or mismanage) their tendering arrangements when employing bailiffs. Must admit this was a bit of an eye opener for me.
It seems that council’s auction tenders, and give them to the bailiff companies that give the best, “cut of the action”. In fact bailiffs give a percentage of their fees back to the council, perhaps you all knew this, I did not. This of course means that these back-handers are added to the costs the debtor has to pay.
This result in some pretty shady (some totally unlawful) practices when councils issue instructions regarding the taking and levying of goods, as it is in the authorities interest to maximise the fees that are charged.
This does nothing in my opinion for the credibility of the councils or the Bailiff Service, although it does perhaps explain why councils chose to use bailiffs as opposed to other none fee earning methods of enforcement.
It also further illustrates in my opinion the need for a fully independent regulation.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

I think we should be able to discus ths folowing, i am sure that Mr Evans would not have sent me the document knowing my history without realising that i would throw it open to debate.
I will upload the whole document. But in the meantime this is an interesting section.

Unlawful activities
This second class of clauses is not new, having been around for at least the last decade, but it is worth highlighting here as it is likely to interact in an adverse manner with the demands for a share of profits.

It is not uncommon for local authority tender documents and contracts to include clauses requiring or encouraging certain policies and procedures.
Often these aim to protect debtors and to maintain high standards of practice and, as such, are not to be criticised.
Sometimes, however, stipulations about the manner of levying or about the application of fees are deliberately or unwittingly unlawful.

Examples of directions on the conduct of seizures (sometimes referred to as the ‘initial levy’) follow:

·

A couple of years ago, a large central government department in a tender document seemed deeply confused about the terminology of enforcement. The result appeared (at least) to endorse seizing goods without the necessity for any prior entry to premises. More worrying still was the suggestion that removals could take place when entry to premises was forced to levy on goods.

Both of these practices are wholly unlawful.1

·

A large London Authority in a recent tender for parking enforcement gave a clear

indication that it would condone the seizure of goods that were not owned by the

debtor. The document stipulated that vehicles on Motability leases should only be
removed with council permission; later in the same document, the authority again
explicitly endorsed the seizure of vehicles owned by Motability Finance. Moreover,
the Authority appeared to indirectly condone the use of wheel clamps, a practice of
very uncertain legality.

2While the Authority was clearly concerned with the treatment

of disabled persons, especially where only one or two penalties might be due, the

fact that the vehicle would not belong to the debtor (but to the lesser) meant that it
could not be seized (‘levied on’), clamped or removed

under any circumstances.

Some local authorities stipulate how fees may be applied. This may be understandable, and even commendable, as the charging of fees is a regular source of contention between debtors and bailiffs. It must, however, be done in a way that complies with statutory fee scales.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

White Paper hopefuly

[charitynjw]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Thanks, Peter, I have downloaded ok!

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

This was the ketter from From Mr Evens , i post5 it because he makes some imteesting points.

Hi Peter,

It’s been a while since we’ve been in touch and I’m grateful that you’re willing to publicise the LADER report. Your e-mail gave me pause but, yes, please do post the report on Legal Beagles. I think the only troubling downside is if someone turns up at the Conference on the 24th to protest, as I’m told happened at the recent CCR credit industry conference.

Could you also add a link to the note of my talk at the Parking Summit I mention in the Foreword that I posted on LADER at the time, please? http://lader.org.uk/groups/how-to-get-the-best-from-bailiffs Although non-members can’t comment, it may prove an interesting read.

You may recall me saying in the past that the biggest hindrance to Government reforming bailiffs is their own self-interest, as most bailiff action is on behalf of central and local Government. That’s why the new bailiff law in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 is an attempt to modernise the status quo, rather than create something better, because innovation poses too great a risk to Government revenue. That said, however, the modernisation is botched and if the new law is implemented it will almost certainly box bailiffs into having to take more goods, sooner.

Thank you for your support promoting this report. Let me know if you would like further information.

Best wishes,

Philip

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Hi

I suppose i better post the Letter i sent that prompted the above rep[ly, then you will know what he is on about

HI Philip
I have just read the paper. As I continued to read it I found I was becoming increasingly uneasy.
I realise that these matters are probably common knowledge to some, but I had no idea what was going on. I am just a foot soldier.
I have worked for the local council on many occasions both paid and unpaid, always with the goal of trying to alleviate debt in our local regeneration areas.
I have opened several Credit Union outlets and spent many hours working on grant application to the ERDF, Lottery Fund and others in order to finance others.
In my naiveté, it comes as a bit of a shock to find that the rescue loans granted to debtorsgor coucil tax arrears were providing a kick back to the council via the bailiff.
I have only just read the paper and I probably should read it again but can’t help the feeling of disappointment. I just feels a little dishonest to me.
I take the point that the blame lies in the way personal finances are handled, and that fundamental reform is required; that government pressures local authorities, who pressure collection agents but unfortunately the poor old debtor is at the end of the line picking up the tab.
It is a very illuminating document and I thank you for sending it to me.
I am happy to post this on the web site and invite comment, I am sure there will be much, I just want to make sure that this is what you want prior to your meeting on the 24th.
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

I keep reading the report - it contains some truly shocking information, and a lot of truths revealed which I would guess many would have preferred not to have been.

I'd love to go to the conference in the House of Lords on Nov 24th where this is disucssed with Lord Lucas and Philip Evans. It could be an extremely interesting day.