One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

It as me who made the controversial post & I knew it was contentious.

My reasons are as follows:

1. If a debtor is vulnerable enough to need enforcement "bypassed" then they need to address the issue before it reaches the crisis point of going to enforcement.

2. To ignore the issue until the point of enforcement action & then demand to be excused enforcement is taking the P. What incentive is there to pay on time like the rest of us have to?

3. If it reaches the point of enforcement, the vulnerable debtor still has the opportunity to address the issue by entering into a repayment plan which can be done over the telephone and does not need an EA to visit-Nothing distressing about this.

4. Being vulnerable is not an excuse to not pay your debts and it is only after several other options/requests have failed that a visit takes place. This visit is by someone who is certified by the courts, it is not by some thug from the pub and the reason for the visit is to organise/arrange a way for this debt to be paid.

Vulnerability in terms of enforcement has to be aimed at those who cannot manage their own affairs, NOT those who can but choose not to.

There is a potential flashpoint at the stage that re-payment plans are agreed/negotiated and it is obviously in the debtors interests to state any case of vulnerability. In this day and age, I don't accept that anything like a very small minority of bailiffs will over step the mark or take advantage of the vulnerable.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The whole reason I started this thread was to show where councils stand on EA action (in regards to recalling the debt if needed) and what they could view as vulnerability. Debt-avoidance is not something I agree with either!! If you have a genuine debt, you need to arrange repayment, and sometimes EA action is the kick-start someone needs.



THIS is a good point though ... CT discounts after proof of a mental impairment is shown is something I would have never known about if you hadn't mentioned it. Thanks for the info @Wombats :tinysmile_grin_t:

We know where councils stand-They require their agents to adhere to the National Standards. This was the case pre April 6th & it is the case since. The lists that you have posted are more or less what is listed in the National Standards. The lists are all POTENTIAL cases and are not set in stone as reasons to return the debt. In the vast majority of cases, people are wasting their time trying to stop enforcement by claiming vulnerability-Theres probably a higher success rate with the NOROIROA.

This is not to say that debtors shouldn't advise of vulnerability because they should. A debtor who has recently suffered a heart attack for instance should be treated very carefully by an EA visiting, most visits are recorded these days for the bailiffs own protection in any case.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

and the tories want us to leave the echr as apparently it interferes worsens the human rights situation . Mostly due to the Abu Hanza case I think

The Abu Hanza case could come back and smack the British government in the face. The Abu Katada case, one case Crazy May used to justify her opposition to and determination to withdraw from ECHR, backfired spectacularly when the ******ian courts found the allegations against Katada had no substance whatsoever and threw out the case against him.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I agree with you almost entirely. I've only quoted the post as it's easier to add comments that way.

It as me who made the controversial post & I knew it was contentious.

My reasons are as follows:

1. If a debtor is vulnerable enough to need enforcement "bypassed" then they need to address the issue before it reaches the crisis point of going to enforcement.

They need to address it as soon as they realise they are vulnerable and put things in place - ie - I'd go back a stage further still to the, "I've got a vulnerability now in my life. What changes do I need to make to ensure I can lead as smooth as complete a life as possible?" Advice agencies are out there, as is help from within the medical arena.

2. To ignore the issue until the point of enforcement action & then demand to be excused enforcement is taking the P. What incentive is there to pay on time like the rest of us have to? None - they should have acted earlier.

3. If it reaches the point of enforcement, the vulnerable debtor still has the opportunity to address the issue by entering into a repayment plan which can be done over the telephone and does not need an EA to visit-Nothing distressing about this.

Actually there can be. There are vulnerable people who can be terrified of the phone, or indeed almost anything, but these should (they aren't always) have been picked up and weeded out of the system earlier. There will be odd cases of these, but not many.

4. Being vulnerable is not an excuse to not pay your debts and it is only after several other options/requests have failed that a visit takes place. This visit is by someone who is certified by the courts, it is not by some thug from the pub and the reason for the visit is to organise/arrange a way for this debt to be paid.

I agree here. However, I've been at the stage where I wouldn't have considered myself vulnerable and wouldn't have expected different treatment, BUT I was terrified as I was heavily in debt and didn't know where to turn. Everything was too much and even facing CAB or some similar advice agency was too much. I was bankrupt, in jail, etc.... in my head.

I repeat, I actually don't think I should have classed as vulnerable at this time, BUT I do think people in that sort of situation need very sensitive handling, preferably by someone who realises there may be more to what they are dealing with than meets the eye. This is why repayment plans should be permitted up to the end of the financial year (and in exceptional cases beyond). I know they are currently, but only after a monumental fight normally. This fight shouldn't be necessary.

Vulnerability in terms of enforcement has to be aimed at those who cannot manage their own affairs, NOT those who can but choose not to.

Yep!

There is a potential flashpoint at the stage that re-payment plans are agreed/negotiated and it is obviously in the debtors interests to state any case of vulnerability. In this day and age, I don't accept that anything like a very small minority of bailiffs will over step the mark or take advantage of the vulnerable.

I hope you're right with that last point. I'm glad to see the courts taking a harder view of vulnerability (and you know my position, so may be surprised to hear me say that!) However, the comments we read repeatedly on here of, "If you don't pay by 4pm on Monday I'm coming with a locksmith to break in and take your goods" is not the best start for an EA to introduce themselves. Of course we only see (a) the cases which have already often gone too far and (b) one side of any argument.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

There are still cases of EAs NOT adhering to the National Standards tho', and councils that will not deal with the debtor even when they have made a valid complaint against an EA (threats of locksmiths or not accepting payment plans seem to be a recurring theme as to why people ask their council to step in).

I do agree that vulnerability is a tricky issue, and I do not think that people should be able to abuse the regulations to get rid of the EAs - however I do believe that there are still mitigating circumstances in some cases.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I think you're right Kati, and I think those people have a duty to inform the EA of those circumstances. If they don't, they can only expect to be treated like everyone else.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

So if a debtor is terrified of a phone and can provide medical evidence to back this up, then enforcement may be placed on hold. It needn't stop and other forms of communication may be considered (obviously letters will have also failed so what do you do with the debtor who is terrified of the phone & terrified of letters?)

Sensitive handling is a good point-that was the description that I was looking for. "Vulnerability" does not exclusively mean that a debt should be returned to the council & making bailiffs aware of vulnerability will go a long way to ensure sensitive handling.

With regards my last point, I hope that I'm right as well. I am always prepared to give someone the benefit of the doubt. I am stereotyped in a similar way in my industry which I take great offence at & find extremely insulting. I believe that the majority of bailiffs would not take advantage of the vulnerable. I believe the poor, especially single mothers have been taken advantage of in the past but with new fees in place, it doesn't seem to be happening on the scale as before. Training will help in this area and I'm convinced that responsibility placed on these agents will also help move things in the right direction.

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

There are still cases of EAs NOT adhering to the National Standards tho', and councils that will not deal with the debtor even when they have made a valid complaint against an EA (threats of locksmiths or not accepting payment plans seem to be a recurring theme as to why people ask their council to step in).

I do agree that vulnerability is a tricky issue, and I do not think that people should be able to abuse the regulations to get rid of the EAs - however I do believe that there are still mitigating circumstances in some cases.

I'm not aware of any cases where councils have refused to intervene when a debtor has complained that a punitive repayment plan is being insisted on. Likewise, I'm not aware of any "threats" of locksmiths when no goods have been taken control of.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I'm not aware of any cases where councils have refused to intervene when a debtor has complained that a punitive repayment plan is being insisted on. Likewise, I'm not aware of any "threats" of locksmiths when no goods have been taken control of.

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

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

So if a debtor is terrified of a phone and can provide medical evidence to back this up, then enforcement may be placed on hold. It needn't stop and other forms of communication may be considered (obviously letters will have also failed so what do you do with the debtor who is terrified of the phone & terrified of letters?)

I think there's little option really is there? If they haven't made you aware of the situation, the EA's go in. That's what happened with me.

My issue then was how I was handled by Andrew James Enforcement of Swansea who were thuggish, unreasonable, lying, unprofessional, incompetent money grabbers. Apart from that they were great to deal with!

The issue really boils down to the way in which people are handled. If the EA's stick to the rules, there should be no really major issues (sure, there's an exception to every rule, so I'm assuming we're accepting generalisations). When they don't, then the EA's should be brought to heel big time, but that doesn't often happen. Little is in writing (always regarded as good practice with handling debts), and you can't prove what the bailiff said over the phone.

I think many issues will be ironed out over coming months via SI's, and in the meantime we do the best we can. The single best advice still remains, engage early in the Compliance Stage, get something sorted and make damn sure you stick to it.

[Guest]

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:

I don't see any references to locksmiths?

Also, the correspondence is from B&S-Your claim appears to be that councils are refusing to intervene.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

First paragraph post 5: "He told me that they would not be able to take the debt back and to speak to Bristow"

2nd paragraph: "They refused my offer of £50 a month and saidthat she was sending out Enforcement Agents this week to repossess everything and change the locks"

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

A tea boy on the end of the telephone cannot bring a debt back to the council-If it was that simple, everyone would be asking for their debt to be taken back. You spoke about "valid complaints", not telephone calls.

The girl will not have told the debtor that they were returning next week to change the locks. Every call made to B&S is recorded and stored. She won't have said they're going to "repossess everything" either.

[Kati]

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.

[bizzybob]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

There is one street near me where the EA would be vulnerable if they dared knock on certain doors. In essence, it boils down to training, EAs should be taught to look out for the signs at the door, after all, if they knock on a door, where someone is psychotic, a substance abuser and is jangling as their giro is late, and they owe their dealer, the EA would be the one in danger.