One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

For all anyone knows, the OPs complaints COULD be valid ... As I have said from the start, I do not think that using vulnerability as a reason to get a debt recalled to the LA should be allowed without proof. The LA regs DO, however, state the council is able to stop EA action if they feel a need.

I can tell you now 100% that a girl on the phone desk at B&S will not have told the debtor that they be "repossessing everything & changing the locks". Debtors also over exaggerate or misunderstand conversations.

I have known the council take debts back in the past, usually because of malpractice by the agent but also, occasionally because of vulnerability. As I said previously, there is no harm in notifying of vulnerability, indeed, a debtor should do so at the earliest opportunity. It may not mean that the debt is returned but it will be logged in the case files and should ensure sensitive handling.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Actually ST, with me, the phone operatives were often worse than the bailiffs themselves in terms of what they said and the lies they told.

That point aside, the National Standards say this, which IMO is spot on:

"The bailiff should be sensitive to your situation and potential vulnerabilities. In some cases, they shouldn't carry on with the bailiff action and should refer the debt back to the creditor."

ie - not all, not most, not a majority - SOME. So we're really saying that while they say the EA should inform the creditor they're dealing with a vulnerable person, only in a small number would those cases be referred back. The key is that first sentence, and this is where EA's let themselves down:

"The bailiff should be sensitive to your situation and potential vulnerabilities. "

Where the EA is not sensitive, a complaint should be made and then, but only then, might the debt be taken back in many cases to avoid further distress to the debtor.

The advice given in the stickies, before the TCGR's were enacted, still remains spot on. Engage early, tell the EA and LA of your vulnerability so they have no excuse. There is a real onus on the debtor, vulnerable or not, to take more responsibility for the debt.

Extreme vulnerabilities should be picked up before anything CT related starts and support or measures put in place. I believe in most cases this happens and companies are excellent at working with you to discharge debts when vulnerabilities are highlighted to them. The debt does not go away though and still has to be discharged. There is always going to be the odd one that slips through the net.

The thing we need to be most aware of is highlighting potential vulnerability and encouraging debtors to tell the EA about this. We shouldn't, in the vast majority of cases, being stating it means the debt should be taken back by the council - this should only be done where the process has clearly broken down, and the sensible resolution to discharge the debt sensitively is for the council to take it back.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I don't take much notice of hearsay & accusations. To claim "threats", "fraud" etc, etc without proof or corroboration just devalues any complaint. I stick with facts and issues that can be reasonably challenged. As I said, if B&S had said what is claimed it will be recorded and stored so why isn't a complaint being made? That in itself could well be enough to get the debt taken back.

So it seems we are all in agreement then?

1. Notify the creditor and/or the EA at the earliest opportunity if there is an issue of vulnerability.
2. Don't expect the debt to be taken back (it rarely is) but expect sensitive handling.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

You commented on one this morning ... Bristow & Sutor ... Post 5 shows the threats and non agreement to an affordable payment plan :tinysmile_grin_t:

You can add Collectica to the list as well, Kati. I and good people at HMCTS Criminal Enforcement have helped LB members deal with Collectica's malpractice which includes threats, attempting to force debtors to enter into payment plans they cannot afford, continuing with enforcement after a warrant has been suspended or recalled, and lying to debtors and HMCTS.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I don't take much notice of hearsay & accusations. To claim "threats", "fraud" etc, etc without proof or corroboration just devalues any complaint. I stick with facts and issues that can be reasonably challenged. As I said, if B&S had said what is claimed it will be recorded and stored so why isn't a complaint being made? That in itself could well be enough to get the debt taken back.

So it seems we are all in agreement then?

1. Notify the creditor and/or the EA at the earliest opportunity if there is an issue of vulnerability.
2. Don't expect the debt to be taken back (it rarely is) but expect sensitive handling.

Yes, but I'd add (3) If the EA cocks up, then complain immediately to the EA's company and the CEO of the council. I feel a template letter coming on, though people should always write in their own language where capable of putting a good letter together. It won't be today possibly, but I'll add it and the results of this thread to the stickies.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Should also have said ST, I am with you on sticking to FACT. Too often people state things which are simply untrue or inaccurate. Ascertain facts - it was these facts that won my out of court settlement over the way my four LO's were handled with no vulnerability issues involved at all.