The fees have never been a problem within the bailiff industry as for 1 or 2 crooks.

In fact the fees have now increased at an earlier stage. Which will only benefit the bailiff companies.

Not the bailiff/agent doing the job or the debtor who is struggling to pay the bill.

The whole payment structure for agents has been completely compromised to the benefit of the bailiff companies and to the disadvantage of the debtors.

The whole idea surrounding the new regs was to make the fees and action of enforcement more transparent and help prevent rogue agents.

When the agents are simply acting against instruction.

Now clients (local authorities) in general are requesting further periods of compliance this now puts debtors at a higher risk. But also puts the agent in a terrible financial position themselves.

Only in this industry would this be deemed as ok and I've no doubt the bailiff/agent will be held responsible in enforcing debt amounts, sometimes harshly, due to his own financial position. Caused by local authorities and the drawn out period before any enforcement action.

Thus preventing the agent from being able to pay their own bills. While living away from their families.

An absolute disgrace.

Yet, who fights for the bailiff???

Bailiffs are forced to clear debts in full before they're paid!!

Which obviously adds pressure to both them and the debtor.

If the bailiff companies moved the goal posts and councils gave a damn then the fees added would never be an issue.

Generally debtors complain of extra fees because the debt has been enforced there and then. Because of the pre mentioned.

It's not rocket science to create a payment structure which allows the agent to go and do the job and get paid.

Without having to put people under unnecessary pressure before so that agent can be paid.

It's an industry lead by greed.

And it's the agent and the debtor who lose out.

•Remove the need to have people pay in full.

•pay the agent for the job he/she does

•pay fairly

•which then takes away the further need of compliance.

As the debtor gets treated more fairly.

•securing the goods.

Am I missing something here???

Or has all common sense been lost??

Because of the NEED for money.

Own thread created.

One thing springs to mind, If someone wants to be a bailiff, then they must accept the T & Cs that go with the job, as it looks to be a commission driven sack yourself job like selling double glazing. Both can inflict misery on salesman and customer alike.

When you put it as you have Talk Sense it makes me wonder why anyone would actually want to be a bailiff.

An interesting post and thank you for taking the time to outline the position.

There are a number of facts that may assist. Firstly, the fees scale and the entire new regulations surrounding the position as to how debts are to be enforced has taken 13 years starting with Professor Beatsons's report and finishing with a Public Consultation process. With regards to the fees to be charged, the actual figure came from a firm of Economists who spent over a year visiting enforcement companies and other stakeholder groups. The bottom line is that we are where we are and the fees will not be reduced. In reality, in most cases the fees are actually less than was previously charged given that before 6th April it was commonplace to be charged an attending to remove fee ranging from £175 to £250.

So, are individual bailiffs happy.

I would so no. Firstly there are now far less accounts being sent for enforcement visits given that more people are setting up a payment proposal at Compliance stage. With parking the individual bailiff also cannot charge to clamp a car and neither can he charge 'multiple fees' for enforcing more that once accounts on the same debtor.

It is a myth that bailiffs do not get paid unless the entire debt is paid. The new regulations provide that from any payment made (either to the council, court or bailiff) that the money is split on a pro rata basis between the creditor and the enforcement company. The bailiff still get his commission.

The new regs have been in place for 3 months and there is no doubt at all that there are far less complaints and complaints made to the court have almost dried up. What is also clear is that many local authorities are demanding a longer period of time between the letter being sent and a visit taking place and a lot of them are insisting on more flexibility with payment arrangements.

If is for this reason that this forum will alway encourage debtors to engage with the bailiff companies at an early stage.

An interesting post and thank you for taking the time to outline the position.

 

There are a number of facts that may assist. Firstly, the fees scale and the entire new regulations surrounding the position as to how debts are to be enforced has taken 13 years starting with Professor Beatsons's report and finishing with a Public Consultation process. With regards to the fees to be charged, the actual figure came from a firm of Economists who spent over a year visiting enforcement companies and other stakeholder groups. The bottom line is that we are where we are and the fees will not be reduced. In reality, in most cases the fees are actually less than was previously charged given that before 6th April it was commonplace to be charged an attending to remove fee ranging from £175 to £250.

 

So, are individual bailiffs happy.

 

I would so no. Firstly there are now far less accounts being sent for enforcement visits given that moiyuure people are setting up a payment proposal at Compliance stage. With parking the individual bailiff also cannot charge to clamp a car and neither can he charge 'multiple fees' for enforcing more that once accounts on the same debtor.

 

It is a myth that bailiffs do not get paid unless the entire debt is paid. The new regulations provide that from any payment made (either to the council, court or bailiff) that the money is split on a pro rata basis between the creditor and the enforcement company. The bailiff still get his commission.

 

The new regs have been in place for 3 months and there is no doubt at all that there are far less complaints and complaints made to the court have almost dried up. What is also clear is that many local authorities are demanding a longer period of time between the letter being sent and a visit taking place and a lot of them are insisting on more flexibility with payment arrangements.

 

If is for this reason that this forum will alway encourage debtors to engage with the bailiff companies at an early stage.

Thank you for your response.

I would maybe suggest that you are not a bailiff in today's climate but maybe hold a certificate?

The fees are NOT the issue.

And no bailiff company, from what I know pay the bailiff fairly or practically on money collection, unless paid in full.

So let's have this right. The agent:/

•hires a vehicle

•pays his fuel

•pays hotels

•works and lives away(which is not uncommon)

The majority of the above relates to a large proportion of agents.

If an agent collects £400 from a debtor who claims JSA

But the debtor actually owes £1000, the agent gets nothing, fact.

So why would the agent take £400.

Straight away the agent is needing to apply massive pressure just so they can earn a living.

£400 from a debtor on benefits is a great result.

Also meet with an arrangement and a controlled goods agreement signed. Deflates the need for the complaints also.

As debtors alike are being treated fairly.

Agents get a bad press because of the rediculous requirements made by bailiff companies. Squeezing the agent more and more until theirs nothing left.

The agent who also has overheads is not paid accordingly.

Bailiff companies are doing nothing to bridge the gap and therefore agents are struggling to live.

Maybe a bailiff union is the answer?

And a walkout by all self employed agents is needed?

Civea????

Bailiff company owners!!

Who are interested in the turnover of there own pockets.

The only people to have lost out is the agents.

If companies have had a business model based on excessive fees, that's there issue and fault for being corrupt.

Don't then try to maintain your turnover which is now unrealistic, by reducing what the agent earns that significantly where they're struggling to make a living.

It's disgusting. If this was British rail they'd be a major strike action taken.

If an agent doesn't get sufficient enough to cover cost how is this fair? The money is in the fees, £310.

I'm sure the MOJ didn't increase the fees so the bailiff company could line there own pockets while the agents go bankrupt. This is now causing good guys to leave the industry.

When the issue remains.

Why be a bailiff??

I've been a bailiff for over 10yrs and I have no other qualification. And it isn't just me.

My overheads to do this job have always been high but now my wage is low.

I have a £800 mortgage, 2 children and a wife to provide for.

I have a lease vehicle which costs £500 per month.

What is going on is a crime in itself.

Some bailiff companies won't pay a % of the compliance fee if the balance is paid in full on their visit.

Straight away theirs £75 lost from the £310 fees.

I'm sure the MOJ would be really pleased to see how the bailiff companies mismanage the distribution of fees.

Pay the agents for what they do.

This isn't selling windows, as previously written.

I've never known of a window salesman to be shot,stabbed verbally abused, physically abused.

If the money was that easy to collect let the enforcement companies open a call centre. Or send a compliance letter????

I will make a difference trust me.

As I will not allow this any longer.

I will write to local authorities, mp's and all agents.

I will raise a petition against what is happening and get it stopped.

What do I lose?

I currently can't live and am going into debt to help service bailiff companies. No more.

If the companies won't play fair or fight my corner and that of the nations agents, I will.

Greed will put an end to this industry.

Thanks Talk sense, you have clearly explained the issues facing Ea's, my analgy with double glazing was to highlight the similarity regarding the commission based income that is detrimental in both cases, also DG salesmen often get the dog set on them and abused by householders. in my case the cat would attack a DG salesman a TVL goon, or a bailiff (he had a bailiff who had got the wrong address as in right number wrong street, ripped his legs as he clawed him from behind. Police were called and bailiff was upset when told no I couldn't be done for the cat attacking him, and yes he was at the wrong house) before they were halfway down the path; strangely he is OK with the postman, but I digress

If it is so bad, why be a bailiff?

Perhaps it is time to put the Enforcement Industry out of it's misery as Lord Denning wanted to do back in the 1980's and abolish Distress, as in Taking control of Goods to sell them for a pittance.

Thank you for your response.

I would maybe suggest that you are not a bailiff in today's climate but maybe hold a certificate?

.

NO, I am certainly NOT a bailiff. Not in a million years.

You have an equivalent to a 'union' in that you have CIVEA. It is not 'owned' by the bailiff companies and instead, relies upon subscriptions from individual bailiffs and companies. They also provide the vast majority of your 'Bailiff Bonds'.

If your employer is not distributing the fees in the right way then I feel sure that the new Director General of CIVEA would be interested to know what is happening.

My suggestion would be to close all the private bailiff companies and just have in house bailiffs working for the courts and councils, pay them a set wage and allow commision for each job. At least you would have a wage at the end of the week.

Unfortunately a lot of councils have outsourced so much of the 'back office' work that very few now have "in house" bailiff depts.

It would seem a sensible solution though to have their own bailiffs. It would certainly be more beneficial to them.

It would seem a sensible solution though to have their own bailiffs. It would certainly be more beneficial to them.

They used to, as alluded to by tomtubby then came outsourcing, so in comes Capita, they say oh by the way we have an inhouse bailiff company Equita, we can handle collection from bill to debt collection, as long as you award the bailiff contract to Equita.......

Time to abolish the concept of distress seizure and sale of goods for a pittance.

aahh yes Capita, the company that has more fingers in pies then pies themselves. I often think this company is worse than bailiff companies.

They used to, as alluded to by tomtubby then came outsourcing, so in comes Capita, they say oh by the way we have an inhouse bailiff company Equita, we can handle collection from bill to debt collection, as long as you award the bailiff contract to Equita.......

 

Time to abolish the concept of distress seizure and sale of goods for a pittance.

It's not an issue of their not being a role for the bailif.

Their clearly is. However what government want and require is a contradiction when it reaches the agent.

The bailiff companies are happy for the bailiff to run around in vehicles paid and supplied for by the bailiff.

Incur immediate costs but wait until debts are cleared in full before paying for the services????

How can this be right???

How can the bailiff/agent afford that??

He or she can't.

It's not about earning mega money it's about earning a living.

The fees are reduced, SO WHAT! I'll reduce my costs and tell the kids to eat less. I've done it before I'll do it again.

It's simply a matter of having a facility in place for work carried out lawfully legally by qualified guys. Treating people with a decency they deserve.

Which has been the purpose of the new regs.

And in fairness could have been dealt with in house if directors of companies weren't so bloody greedy.

The whole concept of giving people fairness is compromised by bailiff company pay structure.

You honestly believe if I leave the industry I'll be missed, or more importantly those debtors won't be visited.

Of course not, the problem remains.

Bailiff companies have acknowledged the need for change.

But they pay the bailiff in the same way??

There's the problem!

It's not rocket science.

Pay the bailiff doing the job as it should be done or is now required by clients.

Not how we were paid 10 yrs ago.

The law has changed.

But the payment structure has not, crazy.

Because of this it might as well not have been changed.

Bailiffs are being used as tools to again add fees to cases.

I've no doubt in my mind that if the full £310 could be applied through a letter they'd be bailiff companies utilising call centres not bailiffs.

Bailiffs are generally good lads and lasses.

Caught between a rock and a hard place by other people's greed.

Even employed bailiffs (salaried) are paid in accordance with these same targets(paid in full), absolute madness.

Be fair! Pay fair!

P.s

You show me a senior member of civea who doesn't have a director role within a bailiff company.

Why would they fight to put more money in my pocket and make the industry a fairer more enjoyable environment to work. Thus giving debtors a fair more approachable bailiff to deal with.

A. They wouldn't. Because it costs them money!

aahh yes Capita, the company that has more fingers in pies then pies themselves. I often think this company is worse than bailiff companies.

It all boils down to earnings.

Capita like any other outsourcer only pass on the work.

Fairness only comes from equality.

If the bailiff is being treated unfairly what happens to the debtor.

Why should I care about a debtor I've never dealt with before? When I myself am struggling to take care of my family. If they don't pay I don't eat! Reality

But it should never ever be like that.

If I was able to be fair because I was treated fair, we'd all have a working equality.

If I was able to collect £200-£300 and be paid instead of threaten removal and sit in people's property for 3hrs while they lost all self respect speaking to friends,family and neighbours looking to borrow money, I would love to do that.

And that's how bailiffs should be used.

Disgusting and needs addressing NOW.

Because if I go bankrupt through other people's greed I'll make sure there's no bailiff industry.

If people want to play that game.

Just be bloody fair!

Stop the greed!

And help the industry!

This will only ruin it even further if it's not changed now.

Interesting! The enforcement industry surely has a broken business model. Very simple to collect debt from people with money. Impossible to collect debt from people without enough money to feed themselves, pay their rent, utilities, etc. The high volumes of debts being passed to enforcement agencies means they need to take on more people to cope with the numbers. I presume from the OP that the norm is now pay commission only, just like double glazing salesmen! No offence to the OP, but who would take such a job?

Talk sense welcome to the real world and I mean no disrespect when I say that. We are all suffering.

Perhaps you need to pass some of the blame to your fellow bailiffs who abused the system in the first place.

NO, I am certainly NOT a bailiff. Not in a million years.

 

You have an equivalent to a 'union' in that you have CIVEA. It is not 'owned' by the bailiff companies and instead, relies upon subscriptions from individual bailiffs and companies. They also provide the vast majority of your 'Bailiff Bonds'.

 

If your employer is not distributing the fees in the right way then I feel sure that the new Director General of CIVEA would be interested to know what is happening.

I'm sure Stephen knows exactly how the companies choose to pay there bailiffs.

And if he felt it was a big enough issue he'd resolve it.

However he's not a bailiff like yourself.

The paying of a £150 a year bond doesn't constitute a working union.

A union is meant for the, most common purpose of these associations or unions is "maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment".[1] This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies.

Civea have never negotiated anything for the benefit of the individual bailiff.

It's a facility lead to facilitate the same people who are making a nonsense of the new regs and the bailiff, who's left in this some what atrocious position.

Talk sense welcome to the real world and I mean no disrespect when I say that. We are all suffering.

 

Perhaps you need to pass some of the blame to your fellow bailiffs who abused the system in the first place.

None taken.

There's a simple solution. Pay people for the work they do.

You lay a brick your paid.

You post a letter your paid

You taxi your paid

I work 15hr days away from my family and struggle to cover costs.

That ain't struggling that's a liberty.

I pass no blame.

This is the new situation that's being abused.

I've never abused any system but yet a new system is in force, yet I suffer??

The working man trying to provide for his family.

Seriously........

The real world??

It's people and their greed that causes these situations.

And the average person we visit suffer because of these scenarios.

Interesting! The enforcement industry surely has a broken business model. Very simple to collect debt from people with money. Impossible to collect debt from people without enough money to feed themselves, pay their rent, utilities, etc. The high volumes of debts being passed to enforcement agencies means they need to take on more people to cope with the numbers. I presume from the OP that the norm is now pay commission only, just like double glazing salesmen! No offence to the OP, but who would take such a job?

The job hasnt always been this way.

What's changed is companies can no longer charge 2nd attendance charges.

Companies, mostly have allowed for a part collection and some sort of payment to the agent to accommodate their time,risk and effort.

The job does not need to change.

They now refuse to pay this way because of no further fees being later applied. I'm still doing the same job?

My role is more now one of fairness and arrangement but now they give me nothing?????

When you have bills, family and commitments

And have worked within an industry for over 10 yrs.

What other job do you do????

Retrain?????

College ?????

Talksense I am trying to make sense of some things you have said and would be grateful if you would kindly enlighten me.

1] The fees have never been a problem within the bailiff industry as for 1 or 2 crooks.

Are you saying that the £24.50 and £18 for the first two visits were not a problem, or was it the ability to charge £150+ to call out a van etc which made it not a problem

2] as for 1 or 2 crooks

are you seriously saying that the rogues are that few-have you read some of the threads on the bailiff section

3] The whole idea surrounding the new regs was to make the fees and action of enforcement more transparent and help prevent rogue agents.

When the agents are simply acting against instruction.

Is it the rogue agents that are acting against instruction -and whose instructions -the Law or their bailiff companies

4] Now clients (local authorities) in general are requesting further periods of compliance this now puts debtors at a higher risk.

I would have thought that allowing debtors more time would be of benefit to the debtor since it may mean that they do not have to pay the high bailiff charges. I understand

from your point of view that it would not be good for you but perhaps Councils are concerned that the bailiff charges are now so legitimately high [whether the EA gets a slice of it or not] that they feel it unfair not to give a debtor every chance to sort out the problem before handing them over to a bailiff company

Talk sense:

In post number 17 above you have copied my earlier post number 7 where I have stated very clearly that I am NOT a bailiff.

Despite this I am surprised to see from your above post that you have once again made the following comment:

"However, he is not a bailiff like yourself"

Is there a reason for this?

None taken.

There's a simple solution. Pay people for the work they do.

You lay a brick your paid. Not always, often people dont pay for the work

You post a letter your paid

You taxi your paid again this is not always so

 

I work 15hr days away from my family and struggle to cover costs.

That ain't struggling that's a liberty.

 

I pass no blame.

This is the new situation that's being abused.

 

I've never abused any system but yet a new system is in force, yet I suffer??

The working man trying to provide for his family.

Seriously........

The real world??

It's people and their greed that causes these situations. Exactly my point

 

And the average person we visit suffer because of these scenarios.

If many bailiffs didnt thwart the law in the first place there would be less complaints, but many did and the debtor was being made to pay more than what they should of been, they bullied and lied to debtors. Im not speaking with regards to the wont payers but the vulnerable that were hounded and bullied and often assaulted through thuggish unwarranted behaviour. Im not putting you in that group.

The system changed to help those in more need. Unfortunately there are those who will still suffer on both sides and are not going to be happy about it. This will stop the abuse, I hope. I know I have seen a lot less complaints since it was changed.

The conundrum is the EA is trying to collect the uncollectable, as in if they haven't the money to pay off the principal debt, adding £400 or so in fees isn't going to make someone with zilch disposable income more able to pay it off as per rippedoffagain at post#15

"nteresting! The enforcement industry surely has a broken business model. Very simple to collect debt from people with money. Impossible to collect debt from people without enough money to feed themselves, pay their rent, utilities, etc."

Let's consider Council tax, a family on low income live in a council house, they have in work benefits, and a small proportion of Housing Benefit, which has been stopped due to having 3 bedrooms and only assessed as needing 2 due to the children being too young to not have to share. council tax is Band D, and is almost as much as the rent, and they have nothing left after paying bills. the council decide to reduce council tax relief, and they cannot afford the shortfall, and have arrears of £1. The council is like NELC who have successfully had Liability orders for a penny (extreme I know but bear with me for the example ) they gat the LO and the debtor now owes £400.01 due to the LO fee, the Compliance fee and the Enforcement fee. How the hell is that going to help them pay the arrears whether they are a penny, a pound or £500 plus the fees?

If you are correct Talk sense, there may well be a mass exodus of bailiffs from the industry sooner or later.

Bailiffs belong in the 13th Century with King John and the legendary Sheriff of Nottingham.

Talk sense:

 

 

 

In post number 17 above you have copied my earlier post number 7 where I have stated very clearly that I am NOT a bailiff.

 

Despite this I am surprised to see from your above post that you have once again made the following comment:

 

"However, he is not a bailiff like yourself"

 

Is there a reason for this?

If I were to insinuate that you where a bailiff.

Queens English would have suggested the use of "unlike" yourself.

I was stating the fact, your opinion was not one of a bailiff, also.

The job hasnt always been this way.

What's changed is companies can no longer charge 2nd attendance charges.

Companies, mostly have allowed for a part collection and some sort of payment to the agent to accommodate their time,risk and effort.

The job does not need to change.

They now refuse to pay this way because of no further fees being later applied. I'm still doing the same job?

My role is more now one of fairness and arrangement but now they give me nothing?????

 

When you have bills, family and commitments

And have worked within an industry for over 10 yrs.

What other job do you do????

Retrain?????

College ?????

I am really struggling to understand why you, as a bailiff, have come to this forum to express your sorrows regarding the impact the new regulations are having on your earnings

That you blatantly state the old rules, which did indeed allow you “sit in people's property for 3hrs while they lost all self respect speaking to friends,family and neighbours looking to borrow money” gave the job appeal, then surely even you can see why the new regulation were needed.

Perhaps when you cannot afford the £800 mortgage, the utility bills etc and you fall behind

with the Council Tax you will come to appreciate the fact there will be no one sitting in your living room for 3 hrs watching you lose respect while you phone around friends and family to beg help?

If you don't like the heat then get out of the kitchen, what is stopping you getting back to college and getting qualification or retraining to a better job? do you really think you are a special case?