Looking at this report have Bailiffs, oops EA's reverted to stereotype fee hungry bullies?

https://www.bailiffreform.org/storage/app/media/Taking%20Control%20report%20March%202017.pdf

I still can't get my head around how increasing a debt with charges can help someone in genuine financial difficulty as in a council like NELC gaining a LO for a debt of £1, and increasing it 400% to around £400 with all the fees once a bailiff has knocked on the door to repay the debt with say no real spare income once living expenses are accounted for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39257398

Yes the questions will need to be asked whether the 2014 changes are effective. Already on some threads here it looks like Equita amongst others have started being obstructive to engineer a visit by being evasive with debtors at Compliance Stage to make sure they can visit and apply the £235 Enforcement Fee, and even add the Sales Fee of £110 without any controlled Goods Agreement to default and come to take goods and apply the Fee legitimately.

Now I am bouncing, a case from the Report highlights that burger all has improved, Mr Boast is alive and well:

A bailiff was collecting outstanding council tax from

National Debtline client Derek, who is a pensioner in his late

seventies, severely disabled and housebound. Following a

notice being left at the house, Derek’s carer contacted the

bailiff firm and was told that a locksmith was due to attend

to force entry to Derek’s property in the evening, despite

no previous entry or any controlled goods agreement being

in place. The bailiff firm also suggested that there could be

police attendance to the premises to arrest Derek if payment

was not made in full. Derek’s carer, being terrified, paid the

bailiff firm using her own money when they later visited, to

stop any further action."

The above is obnoxious behaviour in the extreme and bordering on criminal, as is this below

"StepChange Debt Charity client Ayesha reported that in June

2016 a bailiff called at her home for the first time. When

she opened the door the agent stuck his foot in the way and

forced his way past her, despite not having the legal right

to enter. The bailiff told her that she should repay her debt

to him by not paying her rent and borrowing money from

her employer or landlord. The bailiff then sat Ayesha at her

computer and tried to make her apply for a payday loan to

repay the debt."

This is indicative of the experiences of many who don't find their way to CAG for help.

Personally i think it is time they dismantled the whole system and started again

And i think Scotland has the best system, We should do the same

Personally i think it is time they dismantled the whole system and started again

 

And i think Scotland has the best system, We should do the same

Lord Denning tried to get rid of enforcement in the 1980's but the bailiffs are still with us.

The system is wrong when Vulnerable people are charged huge fees when they get behind on things, Yet well off self employed can pretty much act with impunity

At least the Scottish way is fair to everyone

I agree with you guys,

Unfortunately the can not pay's and the will not pay's are lumped in the same group.

I understand that an EA has a job to do, but it is easier to knock on a can't pay than the other.

It does need looking into, but I fear all that will happen is the fee will be increased and not protection for those that need it.

What needs to happen is, it needs to be made easier for an EA to lose his licence, if they do not follow the regs .

Then they will think twice before crossing the line

In general it has moved to far in favour to the enforcers.

I have asked the question why does a warrant not need to be shown

if it is then I think it would ease situations.

for some reason the thread was close quickly Why?

a valid question.

more people are going to other sites, because we do not help them, when they are desperate.

lets hope things change soon before it is too late.

leakie

The system is wrong when Vulnerable people are charged huge fees when they get behind on things, Yet well off self employed can pretty much act with impunity

 

At least the Scottish way is fair to everyone

That may well be so, but we can only discuss and suggest, hopefully we can look at the Report and analyse the effectiveness of the proposed controls.

@ leakie I concur, the can't pays should be identified, as in bailiffs and creditors, before it actually is passed to the thugs, should assess the sutuation and be bound to consider an I & E and a really affordable payment, even a quid a week open to review say quarterly, before it goes to bailiffs and the debt is doubled or trebled with unpayable fees.

I talk from experience

I was knocked for £10.000

I could not pay my debts

It turned into a viscous circle which is still going on 8 years later.

The person who knocked me is a millionaire.

I have now learnt a lot from CAG and can fight my corner

what I find disturbing is from here and seieng u tube clips.

if your innocent do not owe etc you still have to let the EA take what they want, if you do not have the proof of ownership.

The general advise is fight it afterwards

it is all wrong it should be for the EA to do the homework first.

This is why I said there should be ways of controlling the EA without extortionate fees to be paid.

to get back to where you should be.

I know some will not agree, but it should be discussed and hopefully it can be influenced if and when a review takes place.

I talk from experience

 

I was knocked for £10.000

 

I could not pay my debts

It turned into a viscous circle which is still going on 8 years later.

 

The person who knocked me is a millionaire.

 

I have now learnt a lot from CAG and can fight my corner

 

what I find disturbing is from here and seieng u tube clips.

 

if your innocent do not owe etc you still have to let the EA take what they want, if you do not have the proof of ownership.

 

The general advise is fight it afterwards

 

it is all wrong it should be for the EA to do the homework first.

This is why I said there should be ways of controlling the EA without extortionate fees to be paid.

to get back to where you should be.

I know some will not agree, but it should be discussed and hopefully it can be influenced if and when a review takes place.

I Definitely agree Leakie, that Report highlights systemic abuse of Third parties by nasty money grubbing bailiffs who deserve the full rigour of the old Form 4 and removal of Certificates..

There should be a clear, common fee structure that covers both High Court and other forms of enforcement.

• This should encourage early resolution of the debt problem with as little cost to the person in debt,creditor and bailiff as possible.

Not sure how they are going to square this circle-they want a common free structure to encourage an early resolution with as little as cost as possible for the debtor, creditor and bailiff.

However in other statements they are on the right track -a bailiff ombudsman type: a facility to suspend bailiff action and creditors to look at alternatives to bailiffs.

How does Scotland do it then ?

Perhaps the answer lies in larger penalties to the firms that employ the 'bad eggs' whether they are employed directly or sub contracted?

Identify the 'cant pays' and the 'wont pays' at an earlier stage.

I agree with you citizen B

there is probably more money in it for the EA/EC to go after the can not's as the are probably a greater number.

and more money to be made.

The EC's are not charities but when you are at rock botom adding more debt with the fee's is not going to solve the problem.

All it does is creates more problems further down the line and a spiral into more debt,

On the other hand there are people who also play the system.

I have come to the view, that the problem is there is no flexibility one size fits all.

you tend to find this with most public services I have heard quoted many times we are following policy and Regs

unfortunately no common sense is allowed to be used,

There should be a clear, common fee structure that covers both High Court and other forms of enforcement.

• This should encourage early resolution of the debt problem with as little cost to the person in debt,creditor and bailiff as possible.

 

Not sure how they are going to square this circle-they want a common free structure to encourage an early resolution with as little as cost as possible for the debtor, creditor and bailiff.

 

However in other statements they are on the right track -a bailiff ombudsman type: a facility to suspend bailiff action and creditors to look at alternatives to bailiffs.

Definitely needs a Bailiff Regulator with teeth to kick them for actions like "Derek" in my post#4 along with Ayesha who was hounded in her home to try to take out a payday loan to pay the bailiff.

I am disappointed that the Committee did not raise the question of the enforcement fee. It was intended to reflect the time spent by bailiffs when taking control of goods as each item listed had to have listed the manufacturers name, model number, serial number or registration number as well as the material , colour and usage of the item and then the correct debtor's name and address included -all of which should be dated and signed by the debtor and the bailiff.

It would appear that understandably bailiffs would rather post a notice through the debtor's door in order to collect their fee of £235 instead. In these circumstances [ie just a letter] the enforcement fee should be considerably reduced.

I am also concerned that there has been no clarification on the taking of tools over £1350 . Nor why that figure was chosen. It would be more equitable also to raise that figure from time to time to take into consideration changes in prices.

Why has nothing been said about the thorny question of removing or clamping cars on HP or lease where a deposit has been paid by the debtor.

As it stands, there is no facility to make a formal complaint about irregular distress by an HCEO mo doubt this will be rectified with the introduction of an Ombudsman w-which cannot come quickly enough as some bailiffs are getting away with too much.

One reform I would like to see is once contact has been made, it can be taken back to the EC

Rather than the EA trying to get as much out of the debtor, as in a payment agreement which is not realistic.

It would help if it could be transferred back to the EC.

BA and Dodgeball are correct in saying the first call should be to the EC,

but sometimes it is not always possible for what ever reason.

I also think that there should be a way of lowering the costs to the vulnerable,

The biggest problem is the new regs like most is for a one size fits all, no common sense used

nearly every case is different,

Yes you should pay what is owed, but with the regs you are still paying approximately, the same as before.

but just in the 2 steps rather than a complicated list of fees as before.

Even the councils do not help as they insist on getting a LO before they will reach an agreement,

just to increase the cost.

This will not solve the problem, adding over £400 to the debt if it gets to the EA stage.

An example of this,

I contacted the council about what was owed.

I had 2 LO's

they kindly re-adjusted one of the bills as I had become a single parent.

A new bill was produced, which I did not receive.

By the time I had found out about it they had got a LO.

So from £95 owed it increased to £260.00 (£95 for LO charge £75 EA letter fee added to the £95)

and unfortunately for me, I let it get to the EA stage as an agreement could not be made on an older LO's

They wanted payments for all 3 at the same time, which was impossible.

How can this be morally correct

The reform needs to from the council upwards

Good points by lookedinforinfo and Leakie, and two current Marstons threads highlight the issues with Third Parties and "apparent" threats to make a third party pay or lose goods. A bailiff Regulator is needed to look at issues.

I remember the same debate in 2007.

One of the reasons the act was not brought into use in 2007 was to give time to find an appropriate regulator and to determine the powers of such body.(only one of the reasons)

If a regulator is employed just to regulate the act, then that is all he can do. He will just take a complaint and analyze it as the act prescribes. The other option is to provide the regulator with some statutory power. This he could use to create a legally binding code of conduct.

A friend had the job of commenting on the act as it passed through parliament, for the benifit of MPs and stakeholders.

He sent this, in an email to me and others just after the act had gone through committee.

"Code of conduct

Unless a Code of Conduct is enshrined in legislation, it can have no real force. A regulator without statutory powers to create a Code will find itself in a very difficult position and risking enormous liability if it hinders an enforcement company getting the maximum return for its clients.

This is exactly the problem the bailiff associations have now. They have no power to impose standards other than what the law demands. If they seek to impose a higher standard and creditors lose money as a consequence, the association may be liable for the loss. If an association expels a member for falling below a voluntary standard, and so damages that member’s ability to trade, again the association may be liable for the loss. This has always tied the hands of associations and I think it is why DCA doesn’t want the regulator to be allowed to handle complaints or create a binding Code of Conduct."

Notice also the reference to guidence, which would equate to the National Standards we know today and particularly the drawbacks to that document.

Note the DCA mentioned is the department of constitutional affairs, now part of the MOJ.

Thank you DB for an informative post,

Regardless of what the DCA or the MOJ want we still need a regulator with teeth.

It has been made clear with the remedies on offer for victims of 3rd party claims

that this is the case.

Why should they have too have the inconvenience, of having to go through the process.

and the cost of making a complaint if the EA steps over the mark.

This will give the EA, a free hand to do what they want,

as they know they are almost 99% protected because the cost is prohibited

too most debtors, after all this why the have the EA knocking at the door.

I really do need to sit down and read the report properly, I have not had time to do so as yet.

It is all well and good to give examples of responses received from surveys but without actually knowing the questions on the relevant surveys, its very hard indeed to comment.

For example:

The report states that:

One in five StepChange Debt Charity clients surveyed (19%) said they had been charged VAT on top of bailiff fees,

A separate StepChange Debt Charity survey found that over half of clients who had been visited by bailiffs had felt that they had added excessive fees to their debts

The above percentage figures are simply astonishing and perhaps the question in the survey was not properly phrased. As an example; the questions in the survey should have said something like this?

If anyone can find a link to any of the surveys that would really help.

Had a copy of the CAB one somewhere, a little one sided IMO. I will see if i can find it.

Don't know anyone has said that a regulator is a bad idea TBH, It is just a matter of deciding who would be best to do the job.

There were a number of candidates last time, none of which were really suitable.

Many reached the conclusion that the people best qualified for such a role were also the ones least likely to want it.

Something of a poisened chalice.