Anglia councils plan own bailiff service

Seven councils are planning to launch a revenues enforcement service, allowing them to bypass commercial bailiff firms.

Breckland, East Cambs, Fenland, Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney Councils.

The Cabinet report (Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) - Internal Enforcement Agency Proposals) at paragraph 4.6 shows there's a financial benefit of doing away with their contractors.

4.6 It will be self-financing so that all running costs are covered by fee income and the surplus fees collected are distributed amongst ARP partner authorities.

This particular proposal has been on the cards for nearly a year and in fact, there are quite a few other local authorities that are looking at bringing their bailiff enforcement in house. I have actually seen an awful lots of documents on similar proposals in the past few months and worryingly, the reason for bringing bailiff work in house is purely to enable the local authorities to generate a lot of money from bailiff fees.

As you will see from the report that you have posted, the Joint Committee estimate that they will be able to generate approx £150,000 per year from bailiff fees but most importantly, they state that they have been "deliberately cautious" in their estimates and that:

"the potential income could be significantly greater than forecast.

As many on here know, in the past few months I have come under a huge amount of critisism from 'trolls' ( mainly two individuals) whenever I have suggested that a debtor should contact the bailiff company at the very earliest opportunity (during the Compliance Stage) in order to set up an affordable payment plan. In that way the debtor would be able to limit the bailiff fees to just £75 and thereby avoid the £235 fee.

My 'critics' (for want of a better word) insist that debtors should refuse to pay the bailiff company and instead, make payments to the local authority.

As is clear from this report from Anglia, a debtor will NOT be able to avoid bailiff fees by paying the council direct.

In fact, the councils seeking to take bailiff enforcement in house are looking at the substantial income stream that in house bailiffs will generate.

Just take a look at Merton Bailiff Services !!!

It really does not matter where or what EA's do the enforcement, but if they keep this in house I foresee a massive amount of LO's being issued so the Councils can then use this as a stelath tax, why farm out when you can easily take all of the profits?

Again this will be open to SERIOUS abuse by the LA's, if the figures on the net are correct this will generate a massive income for them as the Government has yet again cut money they give to the LA's.

As I stated in a post many months ago the new regulations were just the tip of the iceberg, now we are seeing this happen, how quick will the "PROFITS" that are raised for the La's make their way to higher saleries for the staff/EA's of the Council's?

How long will it be before the La's then start to issue even more PCN's? this will gererate even more funds for them. If the Government are making CUTS then the LA's should make cuts too, to their crazy payscales and return the much needed money to the public purse.

A personal message to the enforcement community, "If you are going to shaft me/us at every turn have the decency to at least wine and dine me/us first, I/we are not free ATM's, I/we are human beings with feelings please treat me/us as such"

I am so glad I am debt free and actually in credit wilth all of my creditors, as I could not have a decent life style if I was in debt

I read this today as well and maybe of use from here https://www.gov.uk/council-tax-arrears an intersting quote from that page is

"The court may decide to postpone imprisonment on certain conditions, like you agreeing to repay the debt over time. The court can also cancel all or part of the debt."

Now this a very useful tool/information, for this this to happen it would take someone in the know to post up how this could help the debtor, any takers?

Also your link Anglia councils plan own bailiff service wants to charge 54p a day to access not a good choice there.

It really does not matter where or what EA's do the enforcement, but if they keep this in house I foresee a massive amount of LO's being issued so the Councils can then use this as a stelath tax, why farm out when you can easily take all of the profits?

 

Again this will be open to SERIOUS abuse by the LA's, if the figures on the net are correct this will generate a massive income for them as the Government has yet again cut money they give to the LA's.

 

As I stated in a post many months ago the new regulations were just the tip of the iceberg, now we are seeing this happen, how quick will the "PROFITS" that are raised for the La's make their way to higher saleries for the staff/EA's of the Council's?

As soon as the Consultation paper on bailiff reform was issued in 2012 there were rumors that some local authorities were looking to bring bailiff enforcement in house and initially, many were looking at sending the Notice of Enforcement and thereby pocketing a simple fee of £75 for each account and if payment was not forthcoming, to use their bailiff provider to 'enforce' the debt by making a 'doorstep' visit. These proposals were quickly thrown aside but since the new year quite a few LA's are instead looking to take all the bailiff enforcement in house (compliance stage and enforcement stage).

Clearly such proposals are motivated by the fees that can be raised and my fear is that local authorities would be looking to issue Liability Orders very quickly. Financially, the local authority would gain by charging the following:

Summons cost

Cost of obtaining the Liability Order

£75 Compliance Fee

£235 Enforcement Fee

My sentiments exactly we will be a huge cash cow as a bill payer/defaulter this way they will have a double win they cannot lose you also forgot the original debt as well so all in all the LA will want to take this road for greed and simplicity as well as backhanders to the LA

Would this be the white paper? or very similar?

Baliiff Advice, i have read some of the things that have been said about you

But i would like to say that i have read a lot of your posts, and to me you advice has always been spot on, Keep up the good work

Colin11

Have you seen this thread? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435546-A-Show-of-Support

Just going to look now

As I stated in a post many months ago the new regulations were just the tip of the iceberg, now we are seeing this happen, how quick will the "PROFITS" that are raised for the La's make their way to higher saleries for the staff/EA's of the Council's?

Why do you think it is after repeatedly having high court judgments rule against councils profiteering – with the Communities and Local Government secretary criticising councils (albeit phoney criticism) – they continue making obviously challengeable decisions to thieve from the council taxpaying public to bridge the gap created by Tory cuts?

Those CEOs earning six figure salaries who are responsible, obviously know that they are well protected and even in failure will walk away with huge amounts of taxpayer's money because to have them brought to justice is likely to cost even more in legal fees to hold them to account.

With the seven Anglian authorities (Anglia Revenues Partnership) clearly demonstrating their intention to profiteer from enforcement, you wonder if the next legal challenge will be (in light of the commercial direction councils are increasingly heading) against local authorities, failing to market Council Tax as a security; an option to buy as an investment similarly to how fund managers would promote their latest product along with responsible advice as to the risk of investing in "Council Tax" with of course a share certificate, detailing the foreseeable profits and anticipated dividend payout.

Featuring prominently in the reports that I am aware of, the local authorities that are considering taking bailiff enforcement in-house are almost certainly looking at the additional fee income that could be generated and this situation is being very closely monitored and in particular given; that there are serious questions as to whether a local authority having a 'in house' bailiff operation can legally charge a Compliance Fee of £75. I doubt whether they can.

There is a huge amount going on 'behind the scenes' at present including a brand new organisation similar to that of CIVEA. The new group is specifically for individual enforcement agents and the yearly membership fee is a lot cheaper at just £50 per annum.

It was always going to be the case when the fee structure was announced that councils would see it as a revenue generator give their bulk issuing.

£75 for a letter, £235 for a visit by a certificated 'postman'. Then wait for the fees to roll in and only send out a small team of experienced enforcement agents on the one's that don't pay within 7 days (you've now got another £110 to boot).

I don't now how many liability orders are issued by a big London council or what percentage are recovered but of those that are I bet a business model based on stage collections rates of 15%, 65% and 20% must be pretty desirable.

I

 

I don't now how many liability orders are issued by a big London council or what percentage are recovered but of those that are I bet a business model based on stage collections rates of 15%, 65% and 20% must be pretty desirable.

Each year approx 3.3 million Liability Orders are issued and of these approx 600,000 are through London Magistrate Courts. The recovery rates are actually very high indeed.

A further difficulty arises with in house bailiffs due to changes in business rates.

This now means that it is in the interest of local authorities to collect as large a proportion of non domestic rates as posssible.

Each year approx 3.3 million Liability Orders are issued and of these approx 600,000 are through London Magistrate Courts. The recovery rates are actually very high indeed.

OK, this is all a bit hypothetical but if we said 95% of all cases are recovered by the in-house bailiff that would make 570,000 liability orders to be enforced.

Using the percentages I quoted (which I believe are reasonable) that equates to:

85,500 cases at Compliance Stage = £6,412,500

370,500 cases at Enforcement Stage = £87,067,500

114,000 cases at Sale Stage = £12,540,000.

That's a whopping £106,020,000 in fees alone. That is without any 7.5% fee at enforcement stage, storage or locksmith fees or the summons costs which is a hot topic already.

If the council's did this right and employed the right people with the right experience they could make a killing.

This is not what the MoJ intended.

OK, this is all a bit hypothetical but if we said 95% of all cases are recovered by the in-house bailiff that would make 570,000 liability orders to be enforced.

 

Using the percentages I quoted (which I believe are reasonable) that equates to:

 

85,500 cases at Compliance Stage = £6,412,500

370,500 cases at Enforcement Stage = £87,067,500

114,000 cases at Sale Stage = £12,540,000.

 

That's a whopping £106,020,000 in fees alone. That is without any 7.5% fee at enforcement stage, storage or locksmith fees or the summons costs which is a hot topic already.

 

If the council's did this right and employed the right people with the right experience they could make a killing.

 

This is not what the MoJ intended.

There is something else.

Up until 6th April there had been a legal requirement that the local authority had to send a '14 day letter' to the debtor advising that a Liability Order had been obtained and that if not paid or an agreement made with the council, that the debt would be sent to a firm of bailiffs.

The result of the '14 day' letter was that approx 50% of cases were retained at the local authority and the remaining 1.6 million were referred to bailiffs. This changed on 6th April when an amendment was introduced into the new regs removing the 14 day letter thereby allowing all 3.3 miilion Liability Orders to be referred straight to bailiffs !!!

Personally, I am not in agreement with the removal of the '14 day' letter and there are good legal grounds for me saying so and I have put my case forward to DCLG and MOJ.

Another 5 councils previously had it on the cards to bring enforcement in-house and ditch their bailiff contractors.

Flintshire Council

CABINET Tuesday 15th JULY 2014

ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF COUNCIL TAX AND NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC RATES

The council will benefit from the substantial surplus generated by fees providing the council with an income stream from fees charged by the EA service.....

 

5.02 An internal EA service would provide an income surplus over costs of a minimum £97K per year.

The other 4 (Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset and Poole councils) make up the Stour Valley and Poole Partnership.

Very interesting documents indeed but I cannot see how they have worked their figures out? I will look more closely and post back later.

Also interested to see that one of the councils states that they could reduce the bailiff fee. This is interesting given that the fees are fixed by law.

Very interesting documents indeed but I cannot see how they have worked their figures out? I will look more closely and post back later.

 

Also interested to see that one of the councils states that they could reduce the bailiff fee. This is interesting given that the fees are fixed by law.

There might be more documents under Agenda 10 of this link.

OK, this is all a bit hypothetical but if we said 95% of all cases are recovered by the in-house bailiff that would make 570,000 liability orders to be enforced.

 

Using the percentages I quoted (which I believe are reasonable) that equates to:

 

85,500 cases at Compliance Stage = £6,412,500

370,500 cases at Enforcement Stage = £87,067,500

114,000 cases at Sale Stage = £12,540,000.

 

That's a whopping £106,020,000 in fees alone. That is without any 7.5% fee at enforcement stage, storage or locksmith fees or the summons costs which is a hot topic already.

 

If the council's did this right and employed the right people with the right experience they could make a killing.

 

This is not what the MoJ intended.

I'm not sure what your point is here HCEO. Are you saying that is too much to charge or are you complaining that the

Councils will be doing bailiff companies out of their living [that is what the EAs would be getting were the Councils not doing it].

It is a disgusting amount of money and it is mostly the poorest in the Community who will bear the brunt of the costs

and of course all that money has to be paid before Councils receive their C/Tax. If those Councils do go through with

doing it themselves, the bailiff industry would only have themselves to blame for pushing for such high fees in the first place.

The easiest way to nail this is to make a council pay a fee of £600 per liability order, and as part of that fee a special service be employed to ensure that the person listed to receive an LO has a full and complete history of their contact with the council read properly - I bet loads will fall foul of the 'we cannot make any arrangement other than payment by direct debit without a liability order' edict. A full benefits check should also be included in that £600, and should the council be found at fault that £600 be turned int0 £1200 with a block being placed on said council to apply for further liability orders during that current financial year.

The £600 fee is NOT to be reclaimed as costs, disbursements etc IF the constituent member is found not to have breached any CT law.

The £600 fee is NOT to be reclaimed as costs, disbursements etc if the council are found to have correctly issued the liability, a sliding fee of £10 per £100 of council tax owed will be charged instead.

Its part of my 'keep it short and simple' campaign I am pushing at local politicians in the run up to the election...Any legislation produced by themselves in power be kept to four pages long and a common list of legal definitions be used, including case law, which can be appended to the original legislation.

 

It is a disgusting amount of money and it is mostly the poorest in the Community who will bear the brunt of the costs and of course all that money has to be paid before Councils receive their C/Tax.

 

If those Councils do go through with doing it themselves, the bailiff industry would only have themselves to blame for pushing for such high fees in the first place.

This subject (of local authorities seeking to bring bailiff enforcement in house) is one that is very important and one also that I would love to be able to debate properly on the forum. I fear however that our trio of cyberstalkers would find the posts amusing.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is mainly the poorest in the community who are subject to a Liability Order but on the point of the actual 'bailiffs fees' the reality, is that the bailiff industry did not push for such high fees. What actually happened is that in 2008 the Ministry of Justice employed an Economist (Vemos) to undertake the task of introducing a fee structure that was compatible with the recommendations outlined in the Lord Chancellor's Department White Paper from March 2003.

Over the space of many months that company consulted with various stakeholders groups to gather opinions on the fee scale (as it was then )and views concerning a new fee structure. It is fair to say that the first draft of the fee structure in March 2009 was not well received by the enforcement industry at all !!

Further work was undertaken and the Ministry of Justice took on board the revised Fee Structure and this was taken forward into the new fees scale in 2014.

Thank you for clarifying that BA. It would have been understandable had the bailiff companies pushed for that kind of fee structure. I suppose it indicates how

out of touch the peope are who approved those amounts.

 

The other 4 (Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset and Poole councils) make up the Stour Valley and Poole Partnership.

These documents are very worrying indeed as it is clear that the reason for seeking to bring bailiff enforcement in-house is for financial gain and is being dressed up as being to assist debtors.

My personal opinion is that local authorities can see the 'writing on the wall' early in the new year with the Reverend Paul Nicolson's Judicial Review and know that the days of charging huge summons (and Liability Order costs) is coming to an end and they need an alternative revenue stream. They believe that bringing bailiff enforcement in-house might just plug the gap. If they really wanted to assist the debtor then this can be achieved immediately by reducing the summons costs to the same as that being charged in Wales....£75.