Bailiff Regulation

[Gorang]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI

You know i am ashamed to say that know nothing about the way this works in Scotland, it is the second time this has come up, and i would really appreciate any info about how the system works over there. I am informed that the Sheriffs officers cannot levy goods for repayment of debtsor fines is that correct.

Peter

Sorry I missed your post peter

In short the courts have to issue an arrestment warrent for money or goods but usually this is a last resort

The claimant gets a decree awarded (same as a CCJ)
but if the defendat does not pay then it has to go back to court for the sheriff to decide the next move
sheriff will exaust every avenue BEFORE any arrestment of money or goods warrent is granted

If everything fails that the sheriff trys and the money is still not paid then

Sheriffs go down the root of arresting bank accounts before they arrest goods but it is only the sheriff that can make the arrestment order in which only the sheriff officers will/can make the arrestments

There is not a lot of stuff on the net about sheriff officers arresting goods from an individual as it is the very very last resort that the sheriff's go for, and it is very rare for a sheriff to grant such a warrent

Below is a copy of one of the amendments of the Act of Sederunt which scottish courts have to abide by

go to section 6 as that should give you an idea

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Hi

Thanks for this G appretiate your efforts. Looks like i have my reading for the weekend

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article...f-bad-practice

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Absolutely appalling as usual. As long as the public authorities are putting pressure on biliffs to drive up their charges, what hope is there for the rest of us?

The Ministry of Justice really does have an awful lot to answer for over the farcical situation we are now in.

So, the Government cut council budget in real terms. Aforementioned council has council tax capped so is limited to how it can raise revenue. Mr Bloggs is late paying for a couple of months. Under law the council can take the debt back as Mr Bloggs is willing to pay, or they can farm it out to bailiffs so they can make a few quid on the side through the bailiffs charges.

Mr Bloggs pleads with the council to take the debt back due to the stress of the bailiffs, but sadly, the longer it goes on, the better it is for the council.

To cap it all the councillors are elected to serve us.

What a wonderful situation!

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

To cap it all the councillors are elected to serve us.

Think you may find the Councillors know very little about it - mostly decision made between Cabinet & Officers. All the more reason to point out that in particular with Council Tax Parking Tickets that if the Fee doesn't appear in the Schedule then it cannot be charged. However we see the minority here which probably means the majority will pay. I have already seen instances from R&R claiming dubious excuses for multiple fees.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

It is certainly right that councils are vicariously liable as much of the time the debtors situation is exacerbated purely by the acts of the councils. As you say, the majority just pay and don't question. I did, then claimed it all back and more a few years later. However, when I say the majority "just pay," I don't think, unless you've actually been through it, or something similar yourself, you can have any idea how incredibly stressful it is dealing with these people who appear to have control over your debt, and lie through their teeth to stop you ever paying it off in full. It really is a nightmare.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Think you may find the Councillors know very little about it - mostly decision made between Cabinet & Officers. All the more reason to point out that in particular with Council Tax Parking Tickets that if the Fee doesn't appear in the Schedule then it cannot be charged. However we see the minority here which probably means the majority will pay. I have already seen instances from R&R claiming dubious excuses for multiple fees.

HI this is from the LADER report (white paper

I said that Local Authorities are not responsible for everything that’s wrong with the bailiff industry, but they are ‘the accelerator in the compost bin’.
That might have been that, had not a later speaker told the conference of his Authority’s requirement for its contracted bailiffs to pay over a percentage of its enforcement fees, in addition to the debt itself. He prefaced the revelation by saying that I wouldn’t like it. His
comment provoked criticism from the audience and he defended the practice on the basis that it was a form of profit sharing that Authorities couldn’t overlook in the current economic climate.

Certainly seems from this that the local authorities are complicit in this.

Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

he defended the practice on the basis that it was a form of profit sharing that Authorities couldn’t overlook in the current economic climate.

Peter

This would imply then that LA's cease this practice when the econmic climate is better. I wonder if that is actually the case?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

This would imply then that LA's cease this practice when the econmic climate is better. I wonder if that is actually the case?

HI
No I don’t think it will if the current system continues. At the end of the day the enforcement agencies are business there prime concerned is profit. There is nothing wrong with that.
Usually competition stops businesses from overcharging; this should be the case in the bailiff industry. The bailiffs should offer their services to the local authorities and the authorities acting as our representative and broker should chose the firm that offers the best service at the best price.
Unfortunately what is currently happening is that the councils are taking a percentage of the profit, this means that the priority when granting a tender moves away from what is in the public’s best interests into one that will give the highest return to the council.
Some will say that maximising the return to the council is in our best interests, but this is at the cost of the quality of service. It incentivises bailiffs to inflate fees (sometimes unlawfully) and places an extra burden on the very people that the council are supposed to present.
This practice goes against national guidelines but as usual guidelines are ignored when profit comes into the equation
Peter

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

I hate the term 'reasonable.'

I also hate the term which governs negotiations in public sector work places over things like this, and others I've been personally involved in hundreds of times - that term being 'Best Value.'

Best value for whom exactly?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI
Phillip Evans promised he would give me a precis on what went on at the Lader conference ,since i want able to go, as usual true to is word here it is. He is OK about me sharing this with those who are intersted
Dear Peter,I’m sorry to be so long getting back to you but the rush towards Christmas has had its distractions.

I remain as pessimistic about the Conference as I was on the day. During the Q&A discussion, it was clear that people were more comfortable discussing how to deal with vulnerable people than the main issues of the day, such as illegal and unethical actions more generally and LA’s wanting an ever bigger slice of the pie. I had the impression that the LA staff simply didn’t care about the issues, although the other speakers were more optimistic and thought that some of them did see the need for things to improve. That said, one of the money advisers in the audience told me that he sensed the attitude that because LAs were having a hard time they didn’t care if they gave others a hard time as well.

For me, the most telling thing to emerge from the Conference was Jamie Waller’s calculation that an LA wanting 10% of the gross bailiff fees (exc VAT) is in fact wanting about 50% of the net profit from the contract! I didn’t close with my prepared presentation because I let the Q&A session run on, trying to get it on to the key issues. I understand that the PowerPoint slides used by the speakers will be posted on the LADER website but I don’t know when that might happen.

It is clear to me that the whole system is in a rut and nobody has any interest in lifting it out. For example, I have often heard it said that motorists who fail to notify DVLA of their change of address get all they deserve when they don’t receive the documentation and end up facing huge bailiff fees but recently I heard from someone I respect that even senior MoJ officials now share that view. (While I believe that motorists who fail to notify DVLA should have to go to some trouble to put things right, the fact remains that the legal documentation was not correctly served and the registration and warrant have to be cancelled - and one of the consequences of their failure should not be hundreds of pounds of fees.) As I’ve often said, ‘money talks’ and Government has now become so dependent on bailiffs that it won’t take any risks with the revenue they bring in. (Of course, at some stage there will be some superficial window dressing to fulfil the commitment to five greater protection against aggressive bailiffs, if the law and the economic environment in which bailiffs operate remain unchanged, things can only continue to deteriorate.)

I‘m sorry that in this season of goodwill I have no good news for you.

I hope you enjoy Christmas and wish you all the best for the New Year.

Philip

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

An excellent summary of a depressing conference. There really is no incentive for Government or LA's to reform things at present, particularly the latter.

I was horrified recently to discover that a bailiff who had not got his own way, lost his temper and taken things into his own hands smashing the driver's window of a woman's car to force her out so they could tow it away is now working for another very well known bailiff company.

This one incident makes a mockery of any assessment of someone being a 'fit and proper person' to hold a license. Furthermore, I suspect this bailiff didn't even lose his bond.

If the bailiffs themselves can get away with this behaviour scott free, what incentive is there for LA's to clean up their act?

The fact the powers that be refuse to face is it would be very easy to clean up the industry. It could be done extremely quickly, albeit with some fairly draconian, but fair measures put into place. However, the knock on effect to revenue would be so severe it will never, ever happen. The only politicians who will fight for the reform at any time are those in the opposition.

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

HI
Appologies for the length of this post. i asked the rev to keep me up to date on what was happening regarding regualtion, this his latest report it is a hard read but worth it i found it very informative.

To Peers considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

]


Brief on the Lister Amendment.

This a probing amendment. The back ground is as follows. For nearly 12 years the bailiff companies, creditors and the advice sector have been united in urging the Ministry of Justice to regulate bailiffs. The coalition agreement states;

We will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs …..

But that seems to be running into the sand because we have all been told by the MOJ that there is conflict between that and another part of the agreement which states;

We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.
]The MOJ is pointing to this commitment to cut red tape as a reason for not regulating the bailiffs; but the best bailiff companies are saying they want to be regulated to rid the industry of rogue bailiffs[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Nevertheless officials at the MOJ told the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and CAB at a meeting before Christmas that they are looking for a Bill to insert an amendment to clear up the confusion between the Lord Justice Brown’s judgment in R. v.Hereford and Worcester Magistrates' Court ex parte MacRae[1999] 163 JP 433 1999 that once the court has passed a fine to the bailiffs for enforcement it cannot be withdrawn whilst the MOJ cites section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Acts 1980 to state that a fine can be withdrawn from the bailiffs for reconsideration by a magistrate; a case history illustrates the problem. [/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']In December 2006 a collection order was issued by Wycombe Magistrates against Jean Jones (name changed), a lone mother with three young children, threatening arrest, bailiffs, referral back to court with fine increased by 50% etc. She had failed to pay for her TV license and then failed to pay the fine of £210 plus £60 costs levied in her absence by the Magistrates. At the bottom of the collection order is written in capital letters:[/font]
ONCE ISSUED A DISTRESS WARRANT CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN AND YOUR MONEY OR YOUR GOODS MAY BE SIEZED BY BAILIFFS AT YOUR EXPENSE. [/font]
In a panic she borrows £400 plus £260 interest from Provident. She then goes to the court and pays the £270 she owes in an envelope into a machine, which does not give her a receipt. Later the court tells her that she only paid £170 and they want the remaining £100. She genuinely believes she has paid and thinks there must be a mistake by the court. Threatened with the bailiffs again she reluctantly agrees to pay of the £100 at £5 a week but no payments are received by the court.[/font]
In March 2007 the bailiff sends two letters and calls twice adding £150 to her fine. She describes the conversation as follows. [/font]
I tried to explain that I had already paid the fine he had to collect and that I shouldn’t be paying it again, let alone another £150 fee for a bailiff. He said no way I could pay weekly, he would give me two more weeks to pay it. I tried to explain that I am on Income Support and that there was no way I could pay him £250 in two weeks. He said that was not his problem and he would be at my house at 1.00pm on the 15th June. He phoned on the 14th . I explained again to him that I didn’t have £250 and that I am on Income Support with three young children. He said pay me the money on Friday or I will get a locksmith and break into your house and take your possessions, he said it with quite an aggressive tone, which made me feel intimidated and quite scared. I then tried to contact Drakes, however all you get is a machine with options none of which are to talk to someone.” [/font]
Since March 2006 bailiffs have had the power of forcible entry; a threat which is used by bailiffs on the doorstep without proper consideration of the circumstances of defaulters. [/font]
At this stage Z2K hears of the case. Z2K immediately wrote to the court asking for a rehearing of her case and citing page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents called “Vulnerable situations” which says issued by the then Lord Chancellor’s Department in April 2002. Page 9 states that: The agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is potential cause for concern. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriateall of which was ignored by the bailiffThe court replies. [/font]
Once a warrant is issued the court cannot recall this from the bailiffs”. [/font]
]Z2K then writes to the Ministry of Justice pointing to the discrepancy between the national standards and the actions of the court and the bailiff. The MOJ replies;[/font]
nforcement officers can be prevented from continuing with the execution of a distress warrant – this can be done by a single Magistrate”.]CAB sent this advice from the ministry to Z2K around to its local offices and the picture which emerged is one of confusion. In the even the court did rehear the case on receipt of a written request. A Zacchaeus 2000 McKenzie Friend presented a statement of her income, expenditure, and debts and related the circumstances of the case to the magistrates . Her benefit income after rent and council tax benefit was £203 a week which was already paying off debts of over £2000. Magistrates reduced the fine from £210 + £60 costs to £70 + £60 costs, arranged for it to be paid by deduction from benefit at £5 a week, accepted that she has already paid £170 and ordered that she be repaid £40. The bailiffs were withdrawn without their fees. The key points of this amendment are as follows.

1. Currently the bailiffs have no power to return vulnerable or mistaken cases to the courts, the creditors or local authorities for reconsideration as is outlined on Page 9 of the toothless National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

2. They should be required to follow the national standards otherwise the pressure of creditors, courts, local authorities and bailiff managements to collects debts, council tax, fines and the bailiffs’ fees produces serial injustices against the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The legitimate threat from a bailiff to break in to the home of a single woman with small children is terrifying, it is often to enforce a disproportionate fine for not paying a TV license. It forces desperate measures including borrowing from loan sharks.

3. For many years the MOJ has been considering an administration fee to enable the bailiffs to make enquiries before they start racking up their fees, and costs, with visits threatening to seize goods. They could then return vulnerable or mistaken cases to the courts, creditors and local authorities and get paid for the work; at the moment they lose their fees if they return vulnerable or impoverished cases for reconsideration.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Clause 23[/font]


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']BARONESS LISTER OF BURTERSETT[/font]

Page 19, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) Where a magistrates’ court has proceeded in the absence of an offender and the court has imposed a fine following conviction any warrant to enforce a fine or other financial penalty, the court may at any time suspend or withdraw the warrant and the matter returned to the court which convicted the offender or such other responsible court within jurisdiction for the area in which the offender resides (“the responsible court”).
(7) Regulations shall be made enabling a court, Her Majesty’s Court Service or any person employed to enforce a warrant against a convicted person, to suspend or withdraw the warrant and return the matter to the court which convicted the offender or the responsible court as in subsection (6).
(8) Any person enforcing a warrant for a levy of distress or an execution against goods on behalf of a magistrates’ court shall be paid a single fee in respect of the work undertaken on the warrant to recover the fine or debt.
(9) Where any person enforcing a warrant for a levy of distress or an execution against goods on following a fine or other order imposed by a magistrates’ court fails to recover the payment of the fine or discovers no or insufficient goods exist that person shall return the matter to the court which imposed the fine or the responsible court in subsection (6) in order that another enforcement method for the recovery of the money owed may be undertaken.
(10) Regulations made under subsection (7) shall include the steps to be taken in a case where following conviction it is discovered that the convicted person falls into a “vulnerable category” for the purposes of page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents or as may be prescribed.
(11) Where on enforcing a warrant for a levy of distress or an execution against goods the person enforcing the warrant discovers that the convicted person falls into a vulnerable category for the purposes of page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents or under regulations made in subsection (10), it shall be the duty of the person enforcing the warrant to return the matter to the magistrates’ court or the responsible court as the case may be for further consideration of the enforcement steps to be taken.”


ZACCHAEUS 2000 EXPLANTORY NOTE AND BACKGROUND
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'](1)‘[/font][FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Criminals owe nearly £2 billion in unpaid court fees and confiscation orders, a report has found’.[/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']The Ministry of Justice had £1.26 billion outstanding in confiscation orders and a further £610 million in unpaid court fees at the end of March, a National Audit Office (NAO) survey showed. The amount of money missing is more than £400 million higher than the previous year. Source: Virgin Media News, 23 November 2011[/font]
This is at a time when bailiffs have had more legal power in the last five years to enforce fines than at any time in the previous 220 years. The problem has been exacerbated by the processes created under the Courts Act 2003 and the Fines Collection Regulations 2006 which moved responsibility for collecting the fine from the court to the fines officers who then instruct private bailiffs to recover the fine. Whereas in the past the court had an array of enforcement options under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 which could be tried to recover fines (notably attachment of benefits) these measures are not being implemented as private bailiffs are holding on to the warrants in the hope that their fees will be paid rather than return them to court so that another method can be attempted. Currently the bailiff has no incentive to bring an unpaid fine back, since no fees will be recoverable.
At the same time a number of magistrates’ courts have closed down, so the court which imposed the fine may no longer exist. As a result the amendment includes the concept of ‘responsible court’ i.e. that with jurisdiction for the area in which the convicted person resides. This would also cover the problem where the convicted person has moved in the normal course of things or as a result of housing benefit cuts.
In a recent case referred to Z2K by Kids Company, demands for payment of an alleged fine and costs of £457.00 were sent by a bailiff firm in Darlington acting on behalf of HMRC. Computerised demands were sent to a vulnerable young woman in London, threatening serious enforcement action. Kids Company tried to discover the details and size of the alleged fine, including the court which imposed it as these were unclear but could not get details from the bailiff firm. Z2K took up the case and wrote to the bailiffs on November 21st 2011. On December 7th 2011 the bailiffs wrote saying that the young woman owed nothing and giving a court administrative centre for the identity of the fine. This is hardly satisfactory position for any point of view with respect to an alleged criminal conviction and fine

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Regulation is only as good as the organisation that regulates it.

We recently saw clamping companies regulated by the SIA, and look what that has achieved? Nothing.

Anyone with a few hundred quid can get licensed, buy a white van and lots of yellow wheelclamps at £75 a go, then ply their trade to pubs and other small plots near railway stations.

The minicab trade was regulated in 2001. The result? Higher fares.

Who will regulate bailiffs? The ACEA and Credit Services Association? They are private companies who exist for profit, and, whose rent is paid by bailiff companies.

Anyone can get a bailiffs certificate and work for one of the bailiff companies. It's a deadbeats job with no prospects. You are dealing with people who don't want you, chasing unenforceable debts, and paid largely on results.The only time I see a bailiff drive a nice car is after they have seized it, and driving it for their own private use.

Regulation will not see any protection for vulnerable households. The cost of compliance will be paid from debtors that do pay.

The UK needs to explore the root causes of debts being passed to bailiffs. Very little bailiff activity is recovering money the debtor has actually borrowed, its nearly all statutory debt – money they owe by virtue of taxation or legislative liability. Its not like the have run up £4000 on credit cards and refusing to pay it.

Court fines. I appreciate Magistrates are puppets following the guidelines set by the Sentencing Council, but its pointless fining a druggie on benefits, or a city banker £80 for a u-turn. The solution: unpaid work.

Parking. I dont give a monkeys over a £60 ticket. I can go out on the bender and sink ten times that in one night! A single mum with 4 kids is going to become unstuck finding £60. The solution: penalty points. (I, for one, would be a lot more careful where I park).

Council tax. £2000 makes no difference to me. Us middle-income earners don't even notice a £200 month direct debit. If someone asked me what my current account balance was, I wouldnt have a clue. It's a different story for someone earning £250 a week, living hand-to-mouth and working on the checkout at Sainsbury's. The solution: Introduce a local income tax.

Those few measures would eliminate bailiffs in the UK for the most part. Preventing the problem, not trying the cure the problem with yet-more regulation.

My 2p.

[Monzter]

Re: Bailiff Regulation

Hi Happy Contrails

Just a quick question (please be gentle I'm not as versed as I'd like to be in these matters!)

Council tax. £2000 makes no difference to me. Us middle-income earners don't even notice a £200 month direct debit. If someone asked me what my current account balance was, I wouldnt have a clue. It's a different story for someone earning £250 a week, living hand-to-mouth and working on the checkout at Sainsbury's. The solution: Introduce a local income tax.

What exactly is this and how would it work? I am one of the people that struggles to pay my council tax (even with some knocked off for being on a low income) but these days after going a few rounds with bailiffs I do it, somehow. That's all well and good when I work the hours I usually do and receive the pay I usually do.

The problems start when I need to take time off for illness or when my daughter is sick. I don't receive sick pay except SSP, which is no where near my weekly wage, and I only get that after a week. I can of course apply for housing benefit and CT benefit but it takes around 8 weeks to sort it out. Meanwhile I still have all the usual expenses. So for say, a month off after a semi serious illness/accident I will get 3 weeks SSP instead of 4 weeks wages, which will be about half what I usually get. If I take time off for any reason other than certified sick, I get nothing at all. Therefore I lose however many days/weeks pay until I can claim something like income support, and again all this takes around 8 weeks. Still though the council will demand their monthly payment saying that if you are entitled to benefits then you can claim it back or it will be credited to your account.

To this end I am taking 3 weeks of my holiday entitlement to recover from an operation next week - I simply cannot afford to be off 'on the sick'.

So how would or could this work to everyone's advantage? Ensuring the council get taxes they are due and people like me don't get into debt by being ill (or whatever) and not being able to afford it! I think it's a good idea (unfortunately the powers that decide these things will probably disagree lol) to get rid of bailiffs, they prey on people who they know can't afford it all in one go to squeeze extra money out of them. The best way forward, as you say would be to eliminate the need for them rather than try and regulate them further.

Monz X