One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

hi Wombats ... I found these three on the councils own websites after appealing against my own EA action on the grounds of non-notification from my previous LA.

I'm all for fighting against wrongs and kinda got interested in the subject

Who did you appeal to, the enforcement company or the council? Presumably you got a fairly swift resolution for it to be concluded under the new regs by now?

I 'think' you're the first one on this site to have completed the procedure of appealing and getting a resolution under the new regs - quite a few are in the process, so I'm not surprised there's a lot of interest in the thread.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

@ Bluebottle

I'm sorry BB but the level of cases going before the court doesn't necessarily reflect the level of offences - it could reflect the level of freedom to be litigious and incentives to act thus.

I mean no disrespect at all, btw, just that there is a bit of a flaw in logic (an ungrounded assumption) in your above statement

I don't think so MissFM ... If the rules and regs are there, they should be adhered to!

I don't think anyone would disagree with you Kati they should be adhered to. Certainly in the case of a CTax bill, it's going to be a brave, and highly tenacious person who gets the issue to the ECHR.

[ploddertom]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The powers that be say that each LA should have in place a SLA or similar with their contractors - Enforcement Co's are just one of many. With Enforcement however the majority of Councils don't have a clue and when the new Regulations came into force in April this year there were a good few LA's who got their training from the Enforcement Co.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Who did you appeal to, the enforcement company or the council? Presumably you got a fairly swift resolution for it to be concluded under the new regs by now?

I 'think' you're the first one on this site to have completed the procedure of appealing and getting a resolution under the new regs - quite a few are in the process, so I'm not surprised there's a lot of interest in the thread.

As the first I knew of any 'debt' was a visit from the EA (no bills no reminders no summons from my previous LA) I appealed straight to the council. They admitted sending letters to the wrong address and put the enforcement on hold while I appealed. I decided to find out what I could about the regulations and found that I didn't have to deal with the EAs (nasty man he was) - I am still appealing the original LO as I was on full CTB at the time they say I owe for, but no EA hassle now (and no £235 fee). If I actually win my appeal against the LO too, I'm going to try andget the £75 waived too

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I don't think anyone would disagree with you Kati they should be adhered to. Certainly in the case of a CTax bill, it's going to be a brave, and highly tenacious person who gets the issue to the ECHR.

If I had the money Wombats ... I would have done just that

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The powers that be say that each LA should have in place a SLA or similar with their contractors - Enforcement Co's are just one of many. With Enforcement however the majority of Councils don't have a clue and when the new Regulations came into force in April this year there were a good few LA's who got their training from the Enforcement Co.

Yes, whichever genius dreamed up the notion of Enforcement Companies training councils should be tarred and feathered. Thankfully CAB and others got training from John Kruse. I fear it is the result of rushing the legislation through and everything happening way, way too fast in the weeks immediately prior to April 6th.

My understanding is that many councils didn't have new SLA's in place on April 6th, and I daren't ask if they have now or not as I think I could guess the answer.

It must put those councils who have not got things properly in place in a very precarious position. I find it VERY telling that on my own website, by far the most common visitor to the bailiff section is Councils - inevitably one spots a pattern of which ones keep returning over and over again, presumably to find out what they should be doing.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

If I had the money Wombats ... I would have done just that

Therein lies part of the problem in doing so, especially over an issue like this. It is viewed by many as comparatively 'minor' when it should arguably be the exact opposite as this affects everyone in the country. I won't be holding my breath for such an issue to go all the way, but would LOVE to be proved wrong.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

My feeling is that there should be a lot more thought, guidance and categorising of vulnerability. As it stands, it is no use to the enforcement sector and no use to the debtor. The 3 immediate categories that I feel should be considered are as follows:

1. The vulnerable debtor. This is the person whom cannot be mistaken as vulnerable. Someone who perhaps cannot control his/her own finances, has mental health problems, has recently lost a loved one, someone who cannot speak English. etc, etc.

2. The potentially vulnerable debtor. This person could have health problems, have recently had health problems, be pregnant, etc, etc

3. The genuinely impoverished debtor. This person could be a single mother of 4 or 5 children, including some at very young ages, the family who have been sanctioned by the Governments relentless & ruthless policy on jobseekers, etc, etc

The list is endless.

You cannot simply decide that someone is vulnerable for the purpose of enforcement. There are categories and EA's should have procedures on when to continue, when not to continue, when to continue with caution and when to continue less harshly. It beggars belief that in the year 2014, our Government can just state that a debtor is either vulnerable or not.

Another major, major issue in all of this is that EA's are paid on results/performance. There is no financial incentive to do the right thing and protect a vulnerable or potentially vulnerable debtor but there is every financial incentive in papering over the cracks showing vulnerability, in order to continue enforcement. This is my issue with the whole thing.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I did however manage to make the EA squirm ... He thought I was going to sit on the doorstep to breastfeed my baby :lol: and beat a quick retreat

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Yes, whichever genius dreamed up the notion of Enforcement Companies training councils should be tarred and feathered. Thankfully CAB and others got training from John Kruse. I fear it is the result of rushing the legislation through and everything happening way, way too fast in the weeks immediately prior to April 6th.

My understanding is that many councils didn't have new SLA's in place on April 6th, and I daren't ask if they have now or not as I think I could guess the answer.

It must put those councils who have not got things properly in place in a very precarious position. I find it VERY telling that on my own website, by far the most common visitor to the bailiff section is Councils - inevitably one spots a pattern of which ones keep returning over and over again, presumably to find out what they should be doing.

Whats new? Councils never deal with complaints about bailiffs in any case-They merely pass them onto their respective agency.

For example, Chris Farman is the mouthpiece for B&S, Stephen Crooks is the mouthpiece for Rossendales. They deal with the day to day issues & complaints. Recovery managers simply pass all correspondence onto people like that pair to answer & the result is that we get a totally one sided investigation into complaints because the bailiff companies are investigating them on behalf of the councils.

If you want a bit of fun & have a bit of time, send a FOI to a few councils, ask them;

1. How many complaints were received about bailiffs last year/

2. How many complaints were received about taxi drivers last year?

Then ask how many complaints were upheld on each count. Don't hold your breath on the answers though. BEWARE-The new enemy within, your local cabbie. (well according to our councils anyway)

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I don't think anyone would disagree with you Kati they should be adhered to. Certainly in the case of a CTax bill, it's going to be a brave, and highly tenacious person who gets the issue to the ECHR.

The vast majority of HRA issues are dealt with at County Court level. The cases that go to Strasbourg will have been to the County Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court before going to Strasbourg. If you look on an N16A Injunction Application Form, there is provision for HRA issues to be considered.

The issues that would most likely raise HRA issues would be the LO process and use of civil enforcement. Since only the most pig-headed councils choose to fight, a well-written letter, setting out the case fully is normally sufficient to show a council they are non-compliant. Councils know that if a Human Rights issue was found against them by a court, it would impact on other councils and, not surprisingly, they tend to back down rather than risk an adverse judgement.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

My feeling is that there should be a lot more thought, guidance and categorising of vulnerability. As it stands, it is no use to the enforcement sector and no use to the debtor. The 3 immediate categories that I feel should be considered are as follows:

1. The vulnerable debtor. This is the person whom cannot be mistaken as vulnerable. Someone who perhaps cannot control his/her own finances, has mental health problems, has recently lost a loved one, someone who cannot speak English. etc, etc.

2. The potentially vulnerable debtor. This person could have health problems, have recently had health problems, be pregnant, etc, etc

3. The genuinely impoverished debtor. This person could be a single mother of 4 or 5 children, including some at very young ages, the family who have been sanctioned by the Governments relentless & ruthless policy on jobseekers, etc, etc

The list is endless.

You cannot simply decide that someone is vulnerable for the purpose of enforcement. There are categories and EA's should have procedures on when to continue, when not to continue, when to continue with caution and when to continue less harshly. It beggars belief that in the year 2014, our Government can just state that a debtor is either vulnerable or not.

Another major, major issue in all of this is that EA's are paid on results/performance. There is no financial incentive to do the right thing and protect a vulnerable or potentially vulnerable debtor but there is every financial incentive in papering over the cracks showing vulnerability, in order to continue enforcement. This is my issue with the whole thing.

You've hit the nail right on the head, ST. Performance-related pay is the biggest incentive to cut corners, even if it means breaking the law.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I don't understand why the ability for so many with clinically diagnosed severe mental impairments to claim a discount (effectively putting them into the role of a child in their own home) is not more widely advertised by websites and advice agencies.

The effects of an EA visiting someone with such an impairment could, quite literally, put their life at risk. Somewhat bizarrely, the medics (at consultant psychiatrist level) are best placed to inform their patients of this entitlement given they have to sign the forms certifying them to have such a severe degree of illness, though one could never reasonably argue it should be part of their role (or could we?)

Serious mental health issues of this nature are not always immediately apparent to people, so it would logically follow that milder forms of mental impairment could easily be missed by an EA.

I agree with you ST about the broad categories, but I disagree that many of the people about whom you refer (can't manage own money etc....) "cannot be mistaken as vulnerable." I know as fact that many can and are frequently thought to be medically fit, when in fact they have very severe mental impairments.

It is a very tricky area.

Having said all that, possibly bizarrely, I'm actually very much in favour of people having to prove their mental impairment. For 95% or more that would not be difficult.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

You've hit the nail right on the head, ST. Performance-related pay is the biggest incentive to cut corners, even if it means breaking the law.

This is my feeling entirely-You see it all the time on cowboy builders, we all know to be wary of time share salesmen etc. Bailiffs are just another species who will take whatever they can.

I understand there are many good, fair and decent bailiffs out there and I am not attempting to tar all with the same brush (you get bad ones in every industry) but when a person is driven by commission, standards drop. I've been guilty of doing so myself. When representing Government agencies, I don't believe it is right to place people on commission.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Indeed, I argued that very point some weeks ago - someone may have a link (Amethyst? Remember you posted a job advert)

There should be no, or very little incentive to bend rules in order to boost pay. The system as it stands actively encourages corruption as the honest EA will earn considerably less than the dishonest one.